People Ban: AZ State Update Page 2

Navajo Nation backs off casino smoking ban
August 6, 2011
Phoenix Business Journal – Angela Gonzales
Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly, who had hoped to rid the Navajo Nation casinos of tobacco smoke, has vetoed the Navajo Nation Smoking Regulation Act of 2011 because it lacked the teeth to protect casino employees.
In April, Shelly had signed an executive order to protect employees and the public from exposure to all commercial tobacco products in the workplaces and public places. His executive order caused a flurry of controversy within the Navajo Nation.
The CEO of the Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise said that if smoking were to be banned in casinos, the Twin Arrows casino and resort planned near Flagstaff would not be built. Bob Winter, CEO of the Gaming Enterprise, said casino revenue historically has dropped by as much as 25 percent whenever smoking bans were instituted in other parts of the nation.
That didn’t stop Shelly in his quest to ban smoking in the casinos and other Navajo Nation work sites.
By May 31, Shelly directed the Division of Health to develop legislation that would support his executive order. The legislation that was created wasn’t strong enough, he said.
“The passage of this legislation does not adequately address any given employees who are subjected to a smoking workplace environment,” Shelley said as he overturned the Navajo Nation Council’s smoking regulation act.
Angela Gonzales covers health, biotech and education.

---

Glendale considers requiring smoking areas for businesses
Jun. 6, 2011
Glendale wants businesses to provide designated smoking areas for their employees who light up.
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 Thursday to recommend that the City Council approve the zoning ordinance amendment.
New development larger than 7,500 square feet – roughly half the size of a pharmacy – or buildings undergoing extensive remodeling would need to show the location of a smoking area during the design review process.
Senior planner Thomas Ritz said the amendment was spurred by Mayor Elaine Scruggs and City Council members who voiced concerns last year. Residents had complained of cigarette butts and ashes left in their neighborhoods by employees at two business campuses that did not have designated smoking areas.
Voters in 2006 approved the Smoke-Free Arizona Act, which banned smoking in most enclosed public places, including restaurants, bars, office buildings and health-care facilities. The state law doesn’t require employers to provide smoking areas.
“This will keep smokers on the property and out of neighborhoods,” Ritz said.
Vice Mayor Steve Frate told The Republic the recommended requirement is a “step in the right direction.”
“The next step is for owners of buildings already built to adequately address concerns of both smokers and non-smokers,” Frate said.
Two major businesses in Frate’s council district generated the neighborhood complaints of employee litter and cigarette smoke wafting through open windows or doors. AAA Regional Center has since created a smoking area for its employees at the edge of its property.
Banner Thunderbird Medical Center, however, has remained steadfast in its commitment to ban smoking throughout its campus, including parking areas. The ban includes any Banner-owned medical office building and clinic.
“We feel strongly that smoking is not conducive to good health and it would be hypocritical for us to allow that,” hospital spokesman Jeff Nelson said.
Nelson said the hospital used to have designated smoking areas near its entrances but in January 2010 opted for a campuswide ban.
Nelson said Banner has addressed neighborhood complaints by hiring a motorized street sweeper to clean both sides of Eugie Avenue once a week and sending hospital janitors every weekday to the street to pick up cigarette butts.
He said the hospital also has instructed employees, patients and visitors not to stand on Eugie Avenue to smoke and has stepped up surveillance to identify employees who do smoke on that roadway.
“It does seem to be a trend for many organizations to go totally smoke-free, no designated smoking area,” said Laurie Thomas of the Arizona Department of Health Services’ Bureau of Tobacco and Chronic Disease.
Banner is the only facility Thomas has heard of that had an issue with employees wandering off into neighborhoods to smoke.
The most common complaints the state receives include fumes from a smoke shop seeping into a neighboring business because of a shared ventilation system, businesses not posting “no smoking” signs at their entrances and employees who smoke inside the workplace, Thomas said.
Thomas said a couple of apartment complexes in Glendale have opted to go smoke-free despite being exempt from the state law.
The 75-unit Manistee Manor Apartment Homes last year banned smoking from its property, she said. And, the 150-unit Waymark Gardens this month began allowing smoking only in a designated outside area. Both are senior-only residences and subsidized by HUD.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a recommendation two years ago that all HUD-funded properties go smoke-free or partially smoke-free.
Thomas said multihousing complexes are responding for several reasons, including complaints from tenants and savings. It’s much less expensive to repair and clean a smoke-free apartment than one where smoking is allowed.

---

?

We have been inundated with stories about the statewide smoking ban that went into effect last week. Reports indicated that patrons cheered at some establishments when the ban became effective on May 1st. The Arizona Republic noted, “The air in the Valley just got a little bit clearer, at least inside.”

But the law was never really about breathing healthy air. It was about a majority imposing its will on an unpopular minority. And it’s not the smokers I’m talking about.

Bar and restaurant owners invest time, money and energy determining how they will operate their business. I wonder if those cheering would be willing to prohibit other things in drinking and eating establishments that bother them or may impact one’s health.? What about loud music? Dim lighting? Of course, banning certain foods is just around the corner.

When a majority decides that it can infringe on the property rights and business decisions of another person, we set a dangerous precedent. It’s the kind of thinking that leads to private property being taken for another person’s private use, as was allowed in the Kelo v. City of New London U.S. Supreme Court case. And that’s nothing to cheer about.??

---

Smoking ban – no ifs, ands or ‘butts’
April 25, 2007
By REYNA PISA?O
Beginning next month, cigars and cigarettes all over the state will be stubbed out in public for the last time. The Smoke-Free Arizona legislation, passed by voters during the fall election, will ban smoking in restaurants, bars, clubs, indoor public places and places of employment, effective May 1.

---

County Health District Is Enlisted To Enforce State Ban On Smoking
March 16, 2007
Tammy Gray-Searles

The Navajo County Health District will be responsible for enforcing the ban on smoking in public places that will take effect May 1.

The ban is a result of the passage of Proposition 201 in the November 2006 election. Under the new law, smoking will be prohibited in nearly all public places, including restaurants, bars and all places of employment. The law does make a few exceptions for places such as tobacco shops and hotel rooms that are designated as smoking rooms.

The county health department will receive $18,125 for the remainder of fiscal year 2006-07, and $108,750 for fiscal year 2007-08 in order to enforce the law, educate businesses about the new law and provide education to the general public about the dangers of smoking. On Tuesday, the county Board of Supervisors approved an agreement with the State of Arizona to accept the funding and provide the associated services through the county health department.

Health Department Director Dr. Wade Kartchner told the board that he hopes to hire an additional sanitarian, or health inspector, to help enforce the new law. He noted that it has not been decided whether the new position would focus solely on enforcing the smoking ban, or whether that duty would be divided between all the inspectors. Kartchner explained that the department currently has only two inspectors and they are already at the limit of the number of duties they can handle. He told the board that there are more than 500 eating establishments in Navajo County, and he hopes that the addition of one inspector would help ease the burden on the existing inspectors, as well as provide the manpower to educate people about and enforce the new no-smoking law.

Supervisor Jerry Brownlow asked how the new law would be enforced. Kartchner noted that he expects the majority of the enforcement action to take originate from complaints filed either with his office or with a state hotline that is being created specifically for that purpose. Once a complaint is received, an inspector will visit the establishment to investigate the complaint. If appropriate, the business owner would then be cited.

Supervisor Jesse Thompson asked whether there was a buffer zone around public buildings, or if smoking could take place next to entrances. Kartchner told the board that the final rules were just adopted, and they state that the smoke must not come within 15 feet of the entrance to a building. He noted that the smoker must then be further than 15 feet from the entrance in order to keep the smoke more than 15 feet away.

Kartchner also told the board that his office is preparing to visit as many businesses as possible in order to educate owners about the law, as well as assist them with any preparations they may need to make. He noted that certain businesses will be required to post no-smoking signs in designated areas, and will also need to take special precautions if they are planning to offer smoking areas outdoors, such as on a patio.

The board unanimously approved the agreement through fiscal year 2007-08.

---

State Officials Hammering Out Rules For Smoking Ban

3/8/07
By Jim Becker

Inside the Pima County Supervisors Hearing room, officials from the Arizona Department of Health Services listened to a littiny of concerns from club-owners and members of veterans groups.

At issue is the rules around the smoking ban approved by voters last November.

The law calls for at least a 15 foot distance from the entrance to any building for smokers to light up, but some health advocates call for a 25 foot requirement.

Club owners say they’re afraid they’ll drive away customers, because they won’t be able to construct a patio in time for the law to take effect.

“We cannot supply a smoking area and do all the permits, get approved by the liquor board, get permits from the city or the ocunty.? We’ve got to get bids.? We’ve got to start construction,” said Brian Bouffard, owner of the Oldfather Inn on West Ina Road, adding:? “I couldn’t start today and be done.”

While the measure exempts veterans clubs, the exemption does not apply if the VFW or American Legion holds a public fundraising event.

That raises the question of what happens if a club member brings in a guest.

Health Services must decide the answer by April 28.

---

Tucson man says he was fired because he is a non-smoker

February 13, 2007
By Ryan O’Donnell, Fox 11 News

A Tucson man is claiming he was fired from his job of eight months after complaining about co-workers smoking near him.

Bill Bosler told Fox 11 News that he had worked at a carpet company for eight months. He says he complained to his manager, also a smoker, several times about co-workers smoking around him but nothing was done about it.

Bolser says he believes he lost his job because he complained about the smoke at the workplace.

“It really bothers me. If I breathe it I get choked up,” Bolser said.

A Tucson City Code says that if there is a conflict regarding smoking in the workplace, non-smoking employees prevail. It also states that no employee shall be terminated or subject to disciplinary action as a result of complaining about smoke in the workplace.

Bolser says the second hand smoke causes this throat to tighten up.

The American Lung Association says the danger of second-hand smoke is real. Aamie Benson says, “The proof is out there. The harm that it’s doing to people and their lives and their deaths that are caused every year.”

Bolser is getting ready to look for a new place of employment.

A spokesperson for the Arizona Health Department says there are no statewide laws currently in place involving smoking in the workplace, just local laws like Tucson City Code. But every public establishment in Arizona, including workplaces, will be smoke-free starting May 1 after Arizona voters approved Proposition 201 in the November general election.

Fox 11 News attempted to get a comment from Bolser’s former employer. We entered the building and encountered a heavy smell of smoke, but no one would talk with us about Bolser’s situation.

---

Guest opinion: Jeffrey Singer — It’s a secondhand smoke screen

11.03.2006
Jeffrey Singer

Some public policy activists engage in “advocacy science,” manipulating data to create the appearance of a scientific basis for the policies they advocate. Their allies in the scientific community attempt to make the findings of their research fit a predetermined conclusion.

Many public-policy debates have become immersed in advocacy science. Whether it’s global warming, endangered species or silicone breast implants, either side of the debate has its own cadre of advocacy scientists to bolster its arguments. This makes it difficult for the discerning citizen to separate truth from half-truth. And when a particular viewpoint is politically correct, journalists tend to be less skeptical of the scientific claims supporting it.

A case in point is the argument against secondhand smoke. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency deemed secondhand smoke a cancer risk. But in 1998, a U.S. District Court ruling nullified the EPA report. It turns out the EPA cherry-picked its data and manipulated scientific procedure and scientific norms to rationalize the agency’s predetermined position.

When asked by reporters for a response, an EPA spokesperson said the EPA had acted for a worthy cause. But lying is never acceptable, even for a worthy cause.

To this day we have heard scant mention of this incident in the press. Nor has there been much mention of the May 2003 British Medical Journal report by UCLA School of Public Health researchers Enstrom and Kabat, whose research “did not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality.” It concluded, “The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary artery disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”

Nor has the press mentioned that the latest U.S. Surgeon General’s report, based on a review of existing literature, stated, “Although the data are sparse on specific elements linking secondhand-smoke exposure and tumor induction in humans via exposure to tobacco smoke carcinogens, substantial data from active smokers support this framework of biological steps towards cancer.”

The fact is, either side in this debate can bring out its team of scientists to shoot holes in the other’s data and bolster its own case. I’d like to get away from this and resort to common sense.

It is undisputed that risk of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases is directly related to the amount of cigarettes smoked per year and the amount of years one smokes. The more smoke inhaled into the lungs, and the longer the sustained period of time this continues, the greater the risk. When it comes to lung cancer, there is a roughly 20-year lag time between the onset of smoking and the development of lung cancer.

Therefore, I reason, if high doses of smoke must be inhaled over a sustained period of several years to increase the risk of lung cancer, then occasional, partially inhaled smoke, say from a distant table in a restaurant, cannot possibly be considered a major health risk.

Thankfully, our political system is not a “scientocracy.” Otherwise, we would have no freedom to make any choices other than those scientists deem good for us. When it comes to public policy, our constitutionally guaranteed rights should have final say in any debate.

Restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and offices are all privately owned entities whose owners seek to do business with the public. As such, the owners have the right to decide whether they want to allow or prohibit smoking on their premises. Naturally, the profit motive will make them strongly take their customers’ desires into consideration. And no potential customer is forced to patronize any particular business.

Any law that prohibits smoking in privately owned places is a violation of the property rights of the owner. Regardless of any potential risk associated with secondhand smoke, the only place the public has a right to ban smoking is in a place the public owns.

It is a sad irony that many of the same people who rightly see the abuses of eminent domain laws by state and local governments as an assault on our property rights are happy to see their consistency go up in smoke when the subject turns to secondhand smoke.

As a doctor, I am very concerned about the harmful effects of tobacco. I counsel my patients to stay away from cigarettes. But as much as I care about their health, I respect their rights as adults to make their own personal choices. A statewide ban on smoking in privately owned places would continue the erosion of liberty that threatens the foundations on which our nation is based.

---

Smoking ban like a red flag to older vets

Nov 11, 2006
Carol Ann Alaimo

When Arizonans voted to ban smoking in public places, Tucson bartender Linda Ahrens figured she was safe from pressure to butt out on the job.

She slings suds at a local veterans hall that’s exempt from Proposition 201. But now there’s a new push to clear the air at her workplace.

Ahrens works at Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 549, one of thousands of VFWs around the country that are being urged to do away with smoking and de-emphasize drinking. They’re being asked to focus instead on family-friendly offerings such as day care, fitness classes and cybercafes.

To Ahrens, that sounds like crazy talk — insulting and impractical.

“It’s my right if I choose to smoke,” said the 59-year-old Navy widow, who has been puffing since she was a teenager.

“Most of the people who come in here smoke,” she said, gesturing toward the bar, where about two-thirds of patrons had cigarettes lit. “If they ban smoking, a lot of people will stop coming.”

The push for a ban on butts is coming from VFW’s national headquarters, where officials are looking for ways to attract younger veterans to ensure the group’s survival.

“I know many VFW members and spouses who will not attend post meetings or events because of the smoke,” said Gary Kurpius, the new VFW national commander, in a recent speech announcing his vision for the century-old veterans group.

“The VFW’s future rests with attracting new members who want to believe that the VFW is more than just a bar,” Kurpius declared at the group’s annual convention, in August. “We are a democratic organization that is letting 20 percent of the population tell us that the post will fail if people can’t smoke inside. That’s bunk.”

Local posts can’t be forced to ban smoking. Individual posts are autonomous, so each is free to decide how to answer the national commander’s call.

Kurpius’ comments were met with “thunderous applause” at the Nevada convention, according to a VFW news release.

At Tucson Post 549, the reaction is more like the sound of one hand clapping.

“Over my dead body,” is the most frequent response Eugene “Wendell” Hague hears when the subject comes up.

Hague, 65, a Desert Storm veteran, is commander of Post 549 at South Craycroft Road and East 29th Street. It’s the city’s largest VFW post, with nearly 1,400 members, down slightly from 1,500 a few years ago.

Like many veterans groups, VFWs have been struggling to keep up enrollment.

They face problems on two fronts: the soaring death rate for World War II vets, historically strong supporters of VFWs; and a relative lack of interest among younger veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hague, a former smoker, chooses words carefully when discussing the smoking issue, aware that as a leader he has a duty to hear all sides.

On a personal level, he said, he can see some benefit to a smoking ban. But he also can see the trouble it could cause with members who are opposed.

“If we start moving in that direction, we are going to have some problems with our existing members,” he said. “If we don’t do it, we risk pretty much alienating new members.”

In addition to the controversy a smoking ban would cause, there are practical concerns, Hague said. Many VFW posts don’t have the space, or the money, to make building modifications to create day-care centers and fitness rooms, he said.

Across town at another VFW hall, Loren “Corky” Gripp has been thinking the same thing.

“You can’t make everybody happy on this. It’s impossible,” said Gripp, a past commander of Post 10188 at 345 E. Roger Road.

“A few of the guys who don’t smoke think it’s a good idea,” he said of the anti-smoking proposals. “But this is one of those Catch-22 situations where you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”

Gripp now serves as district commander for 3,500 VFW members at 13 posts in and around Pima County.

A former smoker who quit for health reasons after two heart attacks, Gripp said he’s sometimes bothered by secondhand smoke at VFW events. But he chooses to keep quiet about it, out of a sense of loyalty to fellow members and to the VFW mission to help other vets.

“It’s my decision to sit there because they’re my friends,” Gripp said. “And it’s not all war stories. We do a lot of good that people don’t know about.”

Many members, for example, volunteer for youth activities and at veterans hospitals.

Jerry Newberry, communications director at the VFW’s national headquarters in Kansas City, said Kurpius, the new national commander, realized his pitch for smoking bans would be like kicking over a beehive.

Kurpius went ahead anyway because he sincerely believes the move is necessary to secure the group’s future, Newberry said. Nationwide, VFW membership has dropped from about 2.1 million in the mid-1990s to less than 1.8 million now.

“There are times when a leader has to make unpopular decisions for the greater good,” Newberry said of Kurpius’ anti-smoking push.

“If we want to thrive, we can’t continue to operate like we did in the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s.”

Instead of railing against a smoking ban, Newberry said, VFW members should be asking themselves: “By not smoking, can I help my post survive?”

The nation’s largest veterans organization, the American Legion, hasn’t issued a similar plea for smoking bans, said Joe March, the group’s national spokesman.

But some posts have taken action on their own to restrict smoking, and several larger Legion posts around the country now offer amenities like fitness facilities to members, he said.

In Southern Arizona, most of the 13 American Legion posts offer smoke-free areas, such as dining rooms in walled-off areas with separate exhaust systems, said Carol Stensby, district commander for the region.

Local Legion halls also are making other efforts to appeal to younger veterans, such as darts, video games, modern music on jukeboxes and country-western dances, Stensby said.

Some members have proposed banning smoking completely, she said, and that may happen over time at the posts where few people smoke.

“As nonsmokers become more and more dominant, eventually there will have to be changes made,” she said.
“But I don’t see it happening in the near future.”