Pasadena Smoking Ban to be Considered Tonight

If you're more inclined to accept findings from USEPA or the Surgeon General, then you believe chronic exposure secondhand smoke (not occasional exposure, like being in a bar, but being married to a smoker) increases a nonsmoker's risk of cancer by 20%. But the baseline lifetime risk for nonsmokers getting lung cancer is only 0.4%, and a 20% increase means that a nonsmoker's lifetime risk of getting lung cancer FROM CHRONIC EXPOSURE to SHS is only 0.08% (.4 X .2 = 0.08). That a lifetime risk of less than 1/10th of 1 percent! Does that justify passing a law that will revoke property rights and personal liberties, and put people out of business and out of work?

Let's get real, the health risks, if any, from secondhand smoke are ridiculously low and do not justify a smoking ban.

All bans do is marketing for Smoking Cessation Products.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR. JULY 21, 1993 Mr. Chairman, I am testifying today in order to report to the Subcommittee the results of my extensive investigation of the EPA's handling of the controversy surrounding environmental tobacco smoke or "ETS". As you know, in the past the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of this Committee has conducted hearings on EPA's abuses of government contracting requirements. So pervasive is the level of abuse that Chairman Dingell has characterized EPA's pattern of contract mismanagement as a "cesspool". EPA's Inspector General recently has confirmed that such abuses also have taken place in connection with a number of EPA contracts involving ETS, and the O and I Subcommittee's own investigation is continuing. In addition to various contractual improprieties, however, my own investigation suggests that in its consideration of ETS, the Agency has deliberately abused and manipulated the scientific data in order to reach a predetermined, politically motivated result. EPA's risk assessment on ETS released in January of this year claims that ETS exposure is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer cases per year in the United States. Analysis of the risk assessment reveals, however, that EPA was able to reach that conclusion only by ignoring or discounting major studies, and by deviating from generally accepted scientific standards. EPA's willingness to distort the science in order to justify its classification of ETS as a "Group A" or "known human" carcinogen seems to stem from the Agency's determination early on to advocate smoking bans and restrictions as a socially desirable goal. EPA began promoting such policies in the mid-to late 1980s, ostensibly as part of its efforts to provide information to the public on indoor air quality issues. The Agency then decided to develop the ETS risk assessment to provide a scientific justification for smoking bans. The risk assessment thus was never intended to be a neutral review and analysis of the ETS science. Rather, it was intended from the start to function as a prop for the Agency's predetermined policy.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the process at every turn has been characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. In addition to the contracting violations mentioned at the outset, those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in preparation of the risk assessment and the members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document. I will not itemize each and every one of these improprieties. Instead, I ask consent that a memorandum providing full details of the history of EPA's handling of ETS be included in the record. The memorandum summarizes the results thus far of my investigation into the Agency's handling of ETS and is based on publicly available documents, extensive correspondence between myself and former Administrator Reilly, and interviews conducted by my staff with the responsible EPA officials. there is more... http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html

Will the government reimburse all the businesses that spent thousands of dollars on patios and other retrofits for their smoking customers?

Ok forget the health hazards. How about the fact that most smokers are just plain rude, inconsiderate, and oblivious to their surroundings and to others.

I have seen way too many times where a cigarette butt is discarded out the window, sidewalk and drain thinking it will magically evaporate away.

I personally like to enjoy the outdoor dinning areas,when available, but would have to move inside when a smoker decides to light up, better yet a smoker lights up right outside the door of the establishment thinking some how the smoke won't travel near the outside tables or go in to the restaurant.

When someone comes up with a smokeless cigarette or can control the laws of physics and can keep the smoke from contaminating us non-smokers then as far as I'm concerned I'm all for the smoking ban everywhere.

The RWJF, aka JNJ who funds smoking bans and profits from smoking cessation products really really tahnks you smoking ban pushers, profits will be great while yor community businesses suffer. Again, big pharma thanks you!!

hey a word of advice for any pissed off smokers in the area...the Little Cave still has a pretty big smoking section outside and remains in use because it is not technically in the city limits affected by the ban! cheap drinks, good crowd, and you can SMOKE if you choose.

myspace.com/thelittlecave

Finally to the point!

Since the Little Cave bar is afterall a business and not in public, the choice should be left to the owner of the establishment. If he or she has a client list of smokers, then why limit the list of clients and put themselves out of business.

The property that the smokers are standing on is a privately owned establishment. ... Not owned by the city or municipality. Since Nicotine isn't classified as a narcotic, how can someone not have the right to use something legal?

Of course, in public the rights of the non-smokers are being violated every time a cigarette is introduced, so keep the smoking on the patio of the Little Cave.