Another Ban Failed: TX State Alert Page 1

Read More:? TX State Alert Page 2

---

IPCPR SAYS TOBACCO BAN EFFORT ENDANGERS TEXAS JOBS
AUSTIN, Texas April 13, 2009 – Texas legislators are considering a statewide smoking ban – again. This time, however, the only thing that has changed is that more jobs and businesses than ever would be at stake, according to the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association. The organization is comprised of more than 2,000 retailers and manufacturers, mostly small, family-owned businesses.
“Exaggerated claims relative to the health aspects of secondhand smoke continue to be flung about carelessly while the Occupational Safety and Health Administration – OSHA – continues to maintain safe levels for secondhand smoke which are well in excess of any air quality standards that would be found in most businesses, including restaurants and bars,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of IPCPR.
“Meanwhile, since last year’s pass at a smoking ban, our economy has tanked, people are out of work, overtaxed and looking for jobs, businesses are hanging on by a thread or closing their doors and laying off yet more people while Texas legislators are wasting their time on non-issues like smoking bans instead of dealing with matters of substance like jobs and the economy.”
McCalla pointed out that the United States Constitution guarantees the rights of business owners to run their businesses as they see fit, and that includes deciding whether or not to permit smoking on the premises.
“The system is working. The marketplace is deciding for itself whether businesses should allow smoking or not. And that’s the way it should be. We don’t need government to tell business owners how to run their businesses,” said McCalla.
Some have suggested that permits might be issued by the State for those businesses where smoking is permitted and that exemptions might be encouraged for businesses that cater to adults like cigar bars and cigar stores.
?“Legislated smoking bans have ruined businesses and employees have been laid off because of them, according to the Federal Reserve Bank. Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Fed concluded that smoking bans, wherever they occur, hurt businesses, especially bars and restaurants,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director for the IPCPR,
McCalla takes the position that public policy like smoking bans puts small businesses in jeopardy of jobs, tax receipts and profits and should not be considered at any time, especially during economically perilous times as now.
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

---

Burleson (TX) council rejects tougher smoking proposal
By ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, liz@star-telegram.com
March 6th 2009
Smokers can still light up at some establishments in Burleson after the City Council narrowly defeated a proposal to toughen Burleson’s smoking ordinance.
The 4-3 vote this week was a disappointment to Mayor Ken Shetter and other council members who wanted to bring Burleson in line with Fort Worth and other cities with tough smoking bans.
Some council members were concerned that Burleson’s ordinance, which was adopted 15 years ago, didn’t reflect the 2006 Surgeon General’s report describing the health risks of second-hand smoke and how exposure to it can lead to lung cancer and other ailments such as bronchitis and asthma.
“I understand those who say you can choose not to go in to a restaurant, but children don’t have a choice,” Shetter said. The mayor said he is also concerned about restaurant workers exposed to the secondhand smoke.
But other council members argued that people deserve freedom of choice and that an all-out ban on smoking would hurt restaurant business in the city.
The Texas Legislature is also considering a statewide smoking ban. The House and Senate versions of the bill have been referred to committees, but no hearings have been scheduled, and Gov. Rick Perry has not indicated whether he will sign the bill.
Mayor Pro Tem Stuart Gillaspie, who voted against changing the ordinance, said 73 percent of Burleson’s restaurants already prohibit smoking.
“We’re eliminating choices,” he said.
Gillaspie, who is not a smoker, added that it is not fair to put extra demands on small businesses, given the current state of the economy.
Gillaspie said restaurants where smoking is allowed are seeing more business.
But Shetter argued that he is not convinced that there is an economic issue.
“I don’t see how we are at a competitive disadvantage,” he said pointing out Fort Worth’s smoking regulations.
According to information from the city, approximately 70 percent of Burleson’s businesses already prohibit smoking. The current ordinance allows establishments to decide whether to allow or prohibit smoking, provided there is signage posted and there are designated areas.
The proposed ordinance would have prohibited smoking in restaurants, including bar areas and outdoor patios. It also would have prohibited smoking in bowling alleys, business offices and buildings, and within 20 feet from entrances and exits of “regulated” buildings.
Gloria McCann, a manager at Gina’s Pizzaria, which has a loyal clientele of smokers, said she was also concerned that the council was taking away people’s right to choose.
“There are 70 restaurants in Burleson where there is no smoking. People only have 14 restaurants where they can smoke,” she said.
McCann, who said she recently quit smoking, said people come from Fort Worth and Arlington to enjoy a cigarette while eating.
Tammy Early, a waitress and cook at Gina’s who is a smoker, said one side of the restaurant is designated nonsmoking.
“You can get sick from anything these days. There are so many things out there to harm our bodies,” Early said.
Council member Dan McClendon, who pushed for the smoking ban, said he will bring the proposal up again if there is a turnover on the council in the upcoming May 9 election and if there is a good indication that a tougher ordinance would pass.
“I don’t think a decision was reached that was in the best interest of the citizens of Burleson,” he said.
Along with the health concerns, McClendon said his right to be in a smoke-free environment is being infringed upon.
McClendon described attending a family gathering in an outdoor area of a restaurant where other diners were smoking.
“It was impossible to sit in there and not inhale smoke,” he said.
“I just got mad. They’re [the restaurants] knocking me out of going to places.”
But Gillaspie counters that there are plenty of choices for nonsmokers, since most of Burleson’s restaurants don’t allow smoking.
I don’t think a decision was reached that was in the best interest of the citizens of Burleson.”
Dan McClendon,
council member who pushed for the smoking ban
ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, 817-390-7696

---

Freedom vs. personal taste
Jan. 19, 2009
By Shane Warner
It was a warm but very windy day when I stopped by the Star-Telegram building in downtown Fort Worth. As I was leaving I noticed a group of social outcasts huddled together battling the wind gusts, protecting themselves from the elements.
They weren’t homeless; they were smokers.
I couldn’t help but think about the harmful and disgusting habit that’s sweeping North Texas: smoking bans.
While these women weren’t relegated outdoors by a government-imposed smoking ban, residents just like them across the Metroplex are being squeezed out by the government.
Flower Mound recently was one of the municipalities to jump on the smoking ban bandwagon. Its statist ordinance went into effect Jan. 1. The Editorial Board of this newspaper has even called for a statewide smoking ban.
I can’t stand smoking. I’ve never even tried a cigarette. My parents, however, have. For many years they smoked: in the house, in the car, on an airplane. I’ve been witness to the negative effects.
The proponents of government-imposed smoking bans cite public health concerns, crying like Chicken Little as if the streets and hospitals of North Texas are going to be littered with dead or sick nonsmokers poisoned by the secondhand smoke from the guy sitting next to them at the bar. But smoking banners either miss or ignore a fundamental part of the equation: freedom.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who claim to support the ideal of freedom our country was founded upon until it conflicts with their lifestyle or inconveniences them in the slightest manner.
Take, for example, Councilman Al Filidoro as quoted in a Nov. 7 article in the Flower Mound Messenger: “Individual rights are not the problem. You can put anything into your body that you want, but you don’t have the right to pass that on to someone else.”
He’s right. Individual rights are not the problem; the tyranny of the majority is. Most people don’t like smoke, so they don’t want to be bothered by it. Their definition of freedom applies only to activities they want to participate in.
Never mind the fact that the Flower Mound Town Council has redefined what it means to be a private business. When was the last time you went into a smoky restaurant or bar and were prevented from leaving? Did they lock the door behind you, pin you down and blow secondhand smoke into your lungs?
Here’s another gem from November’s debate in Flower Mound, this time from resident Carol Kohankie: “I am highly allergic to secondhand smoke; I cannot be around it. I am very much in favor of this.”
Smoking banners feel they should have the power to restrict one group of people’s freedom so that they can avoid some of life’s annoyances and aggravations.
To be clear, I’m not against smoking bans; I’m against government-imposed smoking bans.
The 19th-century economist Frederic Bastiat acutely described the difference in his classic, The Law. Supporters of liberty, he said, “repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association.  . . We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility.”
Let’s put to rest this notion of banning smoking for the good of “the public health,” which tends to be the default, reactionary position of politicians and smoking banners when presented with that pesky freedom argument.
If that were the case, the Flower Mound ordinance would have included all hotel rooms, private residences, automobiles and any part of a public park. If Flower Mound council members were truly concerned about public health, they would have banned smoking outright. Maybe they’re not comfortable cutting off that much personal freedom.
Bastiat said “a citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.”
Politicians and many residents in Flower Mound would disagree.

---

IPCPR Says Texas Legislator Tilts at Tobacco Windmills
AUSTIN, Texas January 16, 2009 – The International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association today suggested that Texas State Representative Myra Crownover (R-Denton) may be misinformed with regard to her third effort to initiate a statewide smoking ban.
“Businesses have been ruined by smoking bans and employees have been laid off because of them, according to the Federal Reserve Bank. Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Fed concluded that smoking bans, wherever they occur, hurt businesses, especially bars and restaurants,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director for the IPCPR, an international association of more than 2,000 manufacturers and retailers of premium cigars, most of whom own mom-and-pop small businesses in their respective communities.
McCalla takes the position that public policy like smoking bans puts small businesses in jeopardy of jobs, tax receipts and profits and should not be considered at any time, especially during economically perilous times as now.
“With all due respect to Representative Crownover and other legislators who also may have been misinformed, I would think the Texas legislature would be looking for ways to help the economy, not hurt it,” he said.
McCalla also said that claims regarding the health aspects of secondhand smoke are easily exaggerated.
“The most recent Surgeon General’s report actually stated that its results were inconclusive regarding secondhand smoke. As a result, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration – which protects employees in the workplace – established secondhand smoke standards well above the range which might be found in any bar or restaurant,” said McCalla. “Even testing by the American Cancer Society and the independent Oak Ridge National Laboratory confirms that results of air quality testing of secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants are ‘considerably below limits established by OSHA.’”
McCalla pointed out that many bars, restaurants and other businesses have already declared themselves to be smoke-free.
“And that’s as it should be,” according to McCalla. “Business owners have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to make their establishments smoke-free and employees and patrons can also make their own decisions about working or patronizing them. We don’t need government to tell us what to do and take away our rights at the same time.”
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

---

August 26, 2008
Today, the Senate Health & Human Services Committee heard invited and public testimony on Charge #7 “relating to the state’s current prevention and wellness efforts and chronic care management efforts, along with examining options for expanding and optimizing the state’s current investment in wellness programs.” This effort includes a possible statewide smoking ban. Mike Hello testified on behalf of the Amusement & Music Operators of Texas. Below is an excerpt from his testimony.
________________________________________

Testimony of Mike Hello
On Behalf of Amusement & Music Operators of Texas
Before the Senate Health & Human Services Committee
On Interim Charge Number 7
August 26, 2008

My name is Mike Hello and I am here today to testify on behalf of the Amusement & Music Operators of Texas (AMOT).? AMOT represents over 200 small business owners across Texas and has served as the responsible voice of the coin-operated business for over 38 years. AMOT members provide various types of entertainment equipment – everything from pool tables and jukeboxes to electronic golf and tabletop games. While our equipment can be found in movie theaters, VFW Posts, bingo halls, bowling centers, and restaurants across the state, the vast majority of our operations are located in bars, nightclubs and taverns.

In the 2007 legislative session, AMOT members took an active and vocal role in opposing efforts to enact a new state law that would ban smoking in all businesses and all public places in Texas. The bill being pushed in 2007 session would have subjected any business that had an employee to new sanctions and new regulations to ban the legal act of smoking. AMOT members opposed this effort, primarily because of the severe and negative economic impact smoking bans have on our core business. But we also spoke out on principle. Limited government and personal liberty are principles that Texans hold dear – and we believe, are the core principles that have allowed small businesses like ours to thrive.

AMOT has formed a coalition organization called My Rights Texas to give a voice to those who oppose continued efforts to enact a statewide law to ban smoking. My Rights Texas is not organized to advocate for smoking, but we are advocating for some balance, and for reasonable limitations on regulations imposed by our government.? We believe our government does not need to protect us from our right to make choices freely in the marketplace.

AMOT has conducted a statewide survey on this issue, and the results of this survey show that the majority of Texans believe that there is a way to find a balance in regulating small businesses and protecting public health.?? Further, Texans consistently indicate support for positions that maintain their right to make certain choices in the marketplace. Click here to download the rest of the testimony.

?? Check out www.myrightstexas.org to learn more about AMOT’s efforts on this important issue.

---

Smoke out
Statewide smoking ban would impede on personal rights and business, says David Morris

By: David Morris
6/20/07

As former President Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”

In this case, the state of Texas wants to help you breathe cleaner air. The solution? Senate Bill 368 (SB 368), proposed by Senator Rodney Ellis, D-Houston) and House Bill 9 (HB 9) proposed by Representative Myra Crownover, R-Lake Dallas. SB 368 and HB 9, identical pieces of legislation, would have banned smoking in all public places and all work places. I say would have, because these bills had the good graces to die in committee and die without final vote at the close of the session, respectively.

Unfortunately, the fact that bills such as this were proposed and got as far as they did indicates that Texas is embarking on the slippery slope of draconian anti-smoking laws that seem to have gained in popularity since the mid-1970s. California, for example, has banned smoking in all public places, all work places, and in some cities, all non-single family residences, cars, and in extreme cases, the entire city. So, you can’t smoke at work, you can’t smoke at the bar or restaurant, you can’t smoke in the car or on the street and, unless you own your own free-standing house, you can’t smoke at home either. And thats only the concerns of the smoker.

Some businesses have argued that such anti-smoking laws could prove harmful, driving away smoking customers, increasing dine-and-dashes when diners claim to be leaving to smoke, etc. On the other hand, officials argue that studies have found an economic boon accompanying anti-smoking laws, showing a higher rate of table turn-overs and that more people dine out following anti-smoking laws. All of these concerns, however, ignore the fact that what the government is doing is dictating how businesses operate beyond the scope of reason.

The purported reason for these anti-smoking laws is that they will prevent the deaths of innocent, non-smoking Americans which, according to the American Lung Association, amounts to 73,000 victims of secondhand smoke every year. However, the problem is really quite simple with regards to restaurants, bars, motels and similar services; you don’t have to worry about second hand smoke if you don’t frequent establishments that allow smoking. And considering that there is no real “right” to frequent any given establishment, there is no sufficient reason for the government to become involved, as you can protect your own health quite sufficiently – by taking your money to businesses that don’t allow smoking.

Of course, this all concedes the “fact” that second hand smoke actually poses a significant danger. Like any number of issues, only one side seems to get much play in the media. In case you hadn’t figured it out, that side is the one that says that smokers are killing non-smokers in record numbers. Unfortunately, as history has demonstrated, or at least hopefully will, anti-smoking “science” isn’t always up to snuff.

Remember those statistics about 400,000 people dying smoking related deaths every year? Complete garbage. According to a paper published by the Cato Institute, thanks to faulty analyses, the various institutions involved grossly overestimated the number of deaths per year, by as much as 65 per cent. How did they do this? They took a sample and, of those people, calculated the death rate of those who did not smoke. They then subtracted this from the actual death rate in the general population and concluded that the remainder was caused by smoking. This might have worked reasonably well if their sample had been representative. Sadly, it wasn’t.

In fact, smokers in the sample used to reach these results had a lower death rate than smokers and non-smokers in the general population. What does that mean? If they had applied the same methods, this time comparing the general death rate to the death rate of smokers in the sample, they would have found that smoking actually saves nearly 300,000 lives per year. Smokers and non-smokers aren’t the victims here, truth is.

Just how far are we as a society willing to go to increase our sense of security and comfort at the cost of liberty?

Unfortunately, certain segments of the population see fit to trample on the rights of businesses and individuals by demanding that all establishments cater to their desires rather than making modest attempts to find those that already do, and are even willing to rely on junk science to do so. Hopefully the next legislative session won’t see the revival of draconian anti-smoking laws based on questionable science. We don’t need help from the government to do what we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves; monitoring our own behavior.

---

5/24/2007

Proponents of a statewide smoking ban in restaurants, bars and work places acknowledged defeat on the issue Thursday, but vowed to pursue it again in the 2009 session.

“Two years from now, more states will be smoke-free, more Texas communities will have passed local smoke-free ordinances and thousands more Texans will be ill or dead from second-hand smoke exposure,” said Kirsten Voinis, spokeswoman for Smoke-Free Texas, a coalition that includes the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and Texas PTA.

The House passed a weakened version of the ban that still would have allowed business property owners to allow smoking on their property. The version never came up for a vote in the Senate.

Seventeen states, including California and New York, have comprehensive smoking bans as well as Texas cities Houston, Austin, El Paso and others.

Second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease, low birth rate and other chronic lung problems and kills 53,000 Americans a year, according to Smoke-Free Texas.

---

Smoking ban is diluted

May 8, 2007
By KAREN BROOKS / The Dallas Morning News

?AUSTIN — The House all but stubbed out a statewide ban on smoking in public buildings Monday, passing severely weakened legislation that allows property owners to exempt themselves — even in cities with bans in place.
?
?The changes render the legislation meaningless and threaten to unravel city bans, though it’s unlikely those changes will survive a conference committee — if it gets that far.
?
?The ban passed 91-48, after a two-day clash between anti-smoking activists and local-control and property-rights supporters. The fight finally ended in an 11th hour agreement by the bill’s author to just get the bill passed, in any form, before a constitutional deadline kills it later this week.
?
?”I don’t want any more cheese, I just want out of the trap,” said Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, the author of the bill. “We’re going to fight and fight to get it back where it was. It’s a work in progress.”
?
?By the time the legislation left the House floor, she had let on so many amendments that it looked almost nothing like the legislation she had filed. It now faces a difficult fight in the Senate.
?
?And it also means almost nothing, since small towns can opt out entirely; large cities can opt out with an election; and property owners can exempt their own buildings.
?
?That includes offices, bars, restaurants and sports arenas, all the places that were banned in the original bill — even if their own cities have already passed smoking bans — under some interpretations of the convoluted legislation.
?
?An identical bill by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, has been sitting in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee since February.
?
?Proponents said the bill leveled the uneven playing field for bars and restaurants that is being created by patchwork local-option smoking bans in cities across Texas. They argued it protects workers from being harmed by second-hand smoke.
?
?Opponents said the ban destroys local control by cities whose ordinances would be superseded by the legislation — including the ban in Dallas that exempts bars — and flies in the face of property rights.
?
?”I am tired of being criticized about the erosion of local control,” said Rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, who helped lead the fight against the bill. Cities “have elected officials that have already made those decisions for their local businesses. I don’t think we [the state] ought to supersede that and shove it down their throats.”

Texas House passes weak smoking ban bill
KRGV – Weslaco,TX,USA
AUSTIN (AP) – The Texas House Wednesday gave final approval to a weakened statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurant.

The bill’s chances of survival appear slim, however, as Senate leadership has suggested it will be dead on arrival in that chamber.

The Domino Effect