As part of the approved revisions to Decatur’s alcohol ordinance at tonight’s City Commission meeting, the city will soon require a “sidewalk table plan” as part of the annual application process for an alcoholic beverage license. Part of that ordinance revision includes the addition of Sec. 6.22.g.3…
Smoking is prohibited at tables included in a sidewalk table plan permit area and within five feet of any such area boundary.
The city commission voted in favor of the full ordinance, which means that the sidewalk smoking ban will go in effect for new alcoholic beverage license applicants on January 1, 2012 and renewing applicants on October 1, 2012.
At the commission meeting, Asst. City Manager Lyn Menne assured the commissioners that restaurant owners “know this is coming” and that it was “something we’ve been asked to look at”.
As noted at the meeting, this new ordinance will make it illegal to smoke along rather long stretches of Decatur sidewalks. Based on responses to questions from Mayor Floyd, it sounds like the ordinance will be in effect 24 hours.
Gotta love the nanny state. Job #1, make me safe particularly from myself
Not exactly. They are making the public space that they share with restaurants smoke free. You’re still free to go be unsafe with cigarettes on the back patio or at your house.
Isn’t this more of an argument for drugs that can’t harm random passersby directly? Like heroin or LSD? Or even a nicotine patch.
Isn’t tobacco’s Achilles’s Heal in this case – legally – the fact that it is smoked and therefore puts countless others (including children) at risk?
That’s the idea, yes. But it’s a dumb idea. The notion that a passerby is at risk from a whiff of second hand smoke is borderline ridiculous. Heck my mom and grandparents smoked throughout my childhood and I don’t have lung cancer.
I won’t bore anyone with the full history here but the hysteria over second hand smoke really began with the EPA classifying it as a carcinogen. That decision was actually overturned by a federal judge because the EPA’s science was so shoddy. What we have here is a cultural turn away from smoking and smokers cloaked as public safety.
“Heck my mom and grandparents smoked throughout my childhood and I don’t have lung cancer.”:…..yet. Not being mean, but cancer takes a while. You may have had more respiratory illnesses than children without smoking parents.
I have never had a respiratory illness of any kind and even as I creep up on 40 I still cycle over 100 miles per week, so I think I’m ok.
That would be a good thing. But not all children are so lucky. See Chapter 2 of http://www.aap.org/richmondcenter/pdfs/UICC_english.pdf.
I regularly intimidate cyclists with automobile, but I’ve yet to kill one. So, that makes it OK for every driver to run cyclists off the road.
That was tongue in cheek, BTW.
i.e.- Just because it hasn’t or doesn’t directly affect you doesn’t mean it’s poor of good public policy.
Overturned? I believe second-hand smoke is still (or perhaps it’s again) categorized as a Group 1/”known” human carcinogen. In any case, it’s obviously a wonderful thing that you are cancer-free today. I also grew up in a home with a parent who smoked and do not have cancer. (Whew! And knock on wood…) I’m not sure, however, that our personal examples can be used to refute the scientific studies that have identified second-hand smoke as a carcinogen.
“The notion that a passerby is at risk from a whiff of second hand smoke is borderline ridiculous.”
Come on, the issue isn’t the risk posed to the occasional passerby. It’s the prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke by other restaurant patrons that’s the real concern.
“Heck my mom and grandparents smoked throughout my childhood and I don’t have lung cancer”
That’s nice, but anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove a thing. Long-term, population-based studies are what’s used to inform policy, and the science has clearly demonstrated the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.
Let’s not forget the effect of prolonged exposure to second hand smoke on restaurant employees, too. And how bad they used to smell when they came off work.
Well here’s a summary of the EPA’s “science” on second-hand smoking. This is not the only place I’ve read this sort of analysis, it’s just a handy summary. Of course none of this matters to most people because they don’t like smoking and so they are happy to regulate it on the dubious grounds that it’s harming innocent 3rd parties. I don’t smoke either but I just don’t believe that second hand smoke is a carcinogen and I disagree with the “ban what I don’t like mentality” that is all too prevalent.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
That is not a “summary” but a biased selection of points that support an argument. Regardless of whether it is a carcinogen or not, I think it is reasonable to ban in public what is clearly an irritant to most people, for the same reason there are noise ordinances, restrictions on panhandling, etc.
I think this is fairly objective document: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/index.html
Who to trust: the EPA and lots of peer-reviewed studies, or Random Internet Guy with his own site, plus the assertion that “Hey, I was exposed to lots of second-hand smoke as a child and didn’t get cancer, so it can’t be a carcinogen!”
Until I saw the link I didn’t realize it was tinfoil hat time. My apologies.
Some of these responses are about what I expected. Of course “tinfoil hat” time includes a 93 page opinion by a federal judge making many of the same points as the website (which I included here simply because I did not want to go on westlaw to nab a judicial opinion.) But whatever, believe what you will.
When it comes to health, I tend to trust the surgeon general over a federal judge. And I was exposed to huge amounts of second hand smoke as a child and have suffered throughout my life with severe asthma. So my anecdote cancels out yours.
Here are some of the 69 known carcinogens smokers feel they should have a right to subject employees and patrons to.
Arsenic
Benzene
Beryllium (a toxic metal)
1,3–Butadiene (a hazardous gas)
Cadmium
Chromium (a metallic element)
Ethylene oxide
Nickel (a metallic element)
Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element)
Vinyl chloride
Formaldehyde
Benzo[α]pyrene
Toluene
If you are having trouble looking for information on this subject. I suggest trying the American Cancer Society, Mayo Clinic or National Cancer Institute.
Here is a handy link from the National Cancer Institute.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS#q3
or you could stick with Dave’s little rant page. I’m sure he’s right.
I do not smoke, but where does it end? Just keep pushing the line back I guess….
Let’s let businesses make decisions for themselves. If they don’t want to allow smoking great! If they do, fine…live and let live.
Amen.
GM – I don’t smoke either, but I don’t want to be surrounded by people that do when I eat on a nice, quiet patio in downtown Decatur. There’s nothing worse than getting a nice plate of good-smelling food ruined by cigarette smoke. Half of eating is smelling.
A business can still make that decision on their own outdoor property, like the patio at Twain’s, for instance. This applies to businesses who are using public property.
The place where I see this most often is in front of Starbucks, where there is no table service. So the question is who is going to enforce this ban, Starbucks employees or police?
Good question. As described, it only seems to apply to places that serve alcohol. I don’t think the city is trying to ban smoking on sidewalks. I think they’re trying to mitigate prolonged concentrations of smokers.
In that case, it seems Brick Store and the strip that includes Square Pub and Mac McGees will be most affected.
Again, if we’re talking about some sort of “line”, I’d suggest that outlawing drugs that don’t have direct secondary effects have already pushed the line further than anything a public sidewalk ban on tobacco would do.
Interesting point, DM. It makes no sense to ban the private use of marijuana in one’s home while allowing public smoking of tobacco. If I had to choose between the two, I’b ban the latter (and no, I don’t smoke either one).
I just love sitting at a lovely patio table and having a party of four smokers sit at the next table and light up just as my food is served, especially when one of them has those delightful clove cigarettes or a Cohiba. How dare the City take away my right to enjoy that.
+1
I support this move. Good job Decatur!
Re “nanny state” comments (on this thread and others): The Mom version of Thomas Paine is that if you all didn’t behave like you need a nanny, then we wouldn’t need a nanny state!
Good. Even if second hand smoke were not harmful, it still smells terrible, and that’s reason enough to ban it from places where people go fully expecting to enjoy some pleasant smells and tastes.
In cities that have instituted some sort of public smoking ban, heart attack rates among non-smokers have been dramatically reduced.
I don’t want to ban cigarettes or other tobacco products. If you make the choice to use them, even after knowing all of the risks associated, then that is your choice and it is none of the government’s business. Smoke away. However, when you choose to harm the health of others in public through secondhand smoke then it is the government’s business.
And the winner is… Just wonderin’. This is about the fact that sidewalk dining isn’t happening in a restaurant or on a restaurant’s property. It’s happening in public space that we all own and need to share. When particular groups come to dominate shared space through obnoxious habits, it’s hardly outrageous for the larger community to intervene.
You could take a dump on the sidewalk and argue pretty effectively that there’s little evidence to show a direct health impact on passers-by. To paraphrase ATID’s sentiment, live and let live only works when coupled with respect for others.
Yes but it’s also banned in resaturants. Under current law it would be illegal for me to open two restaurants, identical in every way except that one is smoking and the other is non-smoking. Both have to be non-smoking. So I find it hard to believe that the extension of existing smoking bans to the outdoors is about sharing public space as opposed to the social disapproval of smoking.
Perhaps restaurant owners who want to attract more smokers will be proactive and eliminate their sidewalk service thereby creating a more convenient experience for them.
I would also be in favor of, among other things, a ban on intentional farting in public, and on men with chainsaws intentionally interrupting live musical performances.
Dang! And I was going to ask Santa for a new chainsaw this year for that very purpose! Seriously, a very good analogy. It’s not about taking away someone’s “rights”, it’s about protecting innocent people from dangerous behavior by thoughtless/rude/inconsiderate people.
Maybe you should ask Santa for a case of Bean-o.
Ha!
Been to any jackal concerts lately?
I’d wager nearly all farting in public is unintentional, and ‘twould be very difficult to prove otherwise. Plus, such a ban would, whilst certainly making the air cleaner, deprive everyone of that most hilarious of sound effects (which in turn is the source of much mirth). Hmph!
YES! I’m loving this…for me it’s just one more reason to love Decatur.
Good work Decatur. Now let’s work on getting rid of the strollers.
Don’t tease me!
Glad to hear it. When I go out, with or without the rugrats, I should be able to enjoy the outside without having to breath cigarette smoke.
How come no one ever complains about having to sit next to a table of people who are doused in so much perfume that it ruins a meal? Perfume is full of carcinogens as well but the government doesn’t want to save me from those particular ones. I’d rather someone puff on a cigarette for a few minutes and then put it out than be subjected to a constant headache-incuding perfume stink cloud while i eat.
You’re on the right track, muffin.
Why hasn’t anybody brought up the most obvious issue? I’m just now seeing this post and am having a really hard time understanding why people haven’t considered the most obvious factor, in my mind. CIGARETTE SMOKE STINKS.
Ok, smokers, and those in favor of continuing to allow smoking on patios: How would you feel if, as you sat there at your nice patio table, enjoying a nice meal, in great weather, with good food, company, and a nice glass of wine, somebody were to walk up to you, put their butt directly in your face, and let out a large, loud, repulsively stinky fart?
Can you please explain the difference between that scenario and one that involves catching a whiff of nasty cigarette smoke?
Unarguably either would spoil MY meal; that’s for sure.
Bring, This. Law. ON. Bout time.
You’re supposed to fart in private. Should be the same for smoking.
Was it George Carlin who had the joke that went like this: “Do you mind if I smoke?” “No, do you mind if I fart?”
As to why the two are different, farting has never had billions spent on advertising to make it seem cool.
Hah ! That makes me think of Mad Men with farts instead of smokes. That might complicate Don Draper’s “ladies’ man” persona.
This thread has officially devolved into fart jokes. My 4-yr-old would be proud !
Have you ever talked to a four year old? Fart doesn’t need a lobby or advertising.
I wish the City would do something about all those annoying children in our restaurants. Maybe they could be kept out on the street with the smokers.
As annoying as children can be in restaurants, children exist to continue the human race. Smoking does not.
With that said, parents of slightly disruptive kids should warn/discipline them and parents of highly disruptive kids should remove them. We do much of the former and have even done a little of the latter with our munchkins.
Social etiquette above selfishness.
Children have a larger tenancy to carry and transmit disease. Disease kills.
Children may exist to continue the race, but there’s no requirement they be in restaurants. Ban them immediately.
The bottom line is that if you hand me the $2 billion+ the anti-smoking prohibitionists have been given to them, I can make anything “scary” and have it banned.
Children are only sometimes annoying; smoking is always disgusting, noxious, and irritating–it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever… even farting serves a bodily function.
“The bottom line is that if you hand me the $2 billion+ the anti-smoking prohibitionists have been given to them,”
Just trying to catch up to the billions tobacco companies spent to get people addicted to nicotine, a drug that is proven to be more addictive than almost any other.