[C-U Smokefree] Re: CU-Smokefree Digest, Vol 5, Issue 17

Tue Jun 29 15:24:29 CDT 2004

Hi all--

the Evanston City Council simply wanted to reaffirm its position as a gift 
giver to the tobacco industry, not as a body of public service. This is such a 
typical story in which the advocates lost ownership of the frame and the 
problem, lost momentum of their energy to stop a bad ordinance from going into 
effect and now they hope for some type of a good luck spirit to come in to fix the 
ordinance. That is not how to do things.  THe eEvanston ordinacne should be 
fought to be deleted from the books and then to start all over again.  This 
reminds me of the Duluth Minnesota clean indoor air legisaltion which started as a 
bad very bad ordinance (because the advocates wanted to appear reasonable). 
After  much much painful re-grouping and pretty substantial help from national 
and regional tobacco control advocacy organizations, and over a period of 
three years or so,  the Duluth Twin Ports Youth and Tobacco Coalition was able to 
turn things around the hard way.  The research Stan Glantz and I did on the Dul
uth ordinance was published in the American Journal of Public Health--and it 
seems that the Evanston Citizens for Clean Indoor Air either have no knowledge 
of the use of available scientific evidence on such ordinances or they 
decided outright to do it "their way" and see what would happen.  

The tragic outcome of such posture should not be repeated and yet here we are 
once again.  And the repeating of such tragic outcome will compromise the 
credibility of the Evanston Citizens' campaign as well as their position as 
protectors of and representatives of the public health movement out there in 
Evanston.

The Evanston ordinance is a gift to the tobacco industry and its allies and 
the Evanston Citizens for Clean Indoor Air should re-group and demand that this 
ordinance be removed from the books becasue it has no scientific merit, it 
has no economic merits, and it has no public helath merit whatsoever. Only 
turfism, will allow such a disgaceful act on the part of the Evanston City Council 
to continue to exist.  So the Evanston Citizens for Clean Indoor Air have 
their work cut out for them and now is the time for all the health advocacy 
organizations to rally behind the Evanston Citizens to kill this very bad ordinance 
and start anew.

Theo Tsoukalas, Ph.D.

In a message dated 6/29/04 10:04:05 AM, cu-smokefree-request at cu-smokefree.org 
writes:

<< Send CU-Smokefree mailing list submissions to
    cu-smokefree at cu-smokefree.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-smokefree
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    cu-smokefree-request at cu-smokefree.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    cu-smokefree-owner at cu-smokefree.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CU-Smokefree digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Evanston passes smoking ban (Kathy Drea)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:33:00 -0500
From: "Kathy Drea" <kdrea at lungil.org>
Subject: [C-U Smokefree] Evanston passes smoking ban
To: <cu-smokefree at cu-smokefree.org>
Message-ID: <4FF3CB998EC02A458D0E8C45365E9CAD01AFCF at main2k3.alail.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"

 Evanston passes smoking ban

 Law exempts bars and restaurants

 By Lisa Black

 Tribune staff reporter

 Published June 29, 2004

 Despite complaints that Evanston's new anti-smoking ordinance doesn't
go far enough, the City   
 Council approved a smoking ban Monday night in most workplaces, but
exempted restaurants, bars  
 and long-term care facilities.

 The council voted 6-0 in favor of the partial ban, with three aldermen
and Mayor Lorraine       
 Morton absent from the meeting.

 Ald. Ann Rainey (8th) pointed out an "ethical issue" for the council,
whereby the city accepts  
 about $300,000 a year in cigarette-tax revenue while "we're legislating
against [smoking]."     

 "I just wonder at what point we can continue to argue the evils of
smoking and continue to      
 enjoy those [tax] benefits," Rainey said.

 Dr. Catherine Counard, co-leader of Evanston Citizens for Clean Indoor
Air, told the council    
 before the vote that although the ordinance falls short of "protecting
all workers from the     
 health risks of secondhand smoke, it is a real step forward."

 The measure also prohibits smoking within 25 feet of entrances to
smoke-free buildings and bans 
 it in lobbies, foyers, hallways and laundry rooms of apartments and
condominiums.               

 "We're going to use it as a community education tool as much as an
enforcement tool," Jay       
 Terry, director of the city's Health and Human Services Department,
said before the meeting.    

 The new smoking restrictions will take effect immediately, he said.

 "We will do a public information campaign to be sure people are aware
of it," Terry said.       

 The penalty for violating the law is a $100 fine, which increases with
repeated offenses.       

 Evanston's Community Health Advisory Board had recommended banning
smoking in all workplaces    
 and is expected to continue pushing for stronger legislation.

 The law is less restrictive than ordinances in Wilmette and Skokie,
which toughened their       
 smoking rules over the last year.

 Wilmette has the state's strictest anti-smoking law, with a ban in
restaurants, as well as      
 bowling alleys, country clubs and nearly all public places.

 In Skokie, smoking is prohibited in shopping malls, workplaces, sports
stadiums and most        
 restaurants, but the ordinance does not apply to bars or tobacco shops.
Restaurants must        
 separate bars where smoking is allowed by installing floor-to-ceiling
barriers and ventilation  
 systems.

 Evanston aldermen declined to include restaurants and bars in the
measure after hearing         
 concerns that it would put the businesses at a competitive
disadvantage.                        

 But critics said health risks should take priority over economic
concerns.                      

 "If local business owners believe that they must place their employees'
health at risk and      
 their own, as well, in order to earn a living, that is a very sad
commentary on the state of    
 our community," Counard said Monday night.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
CU-Smokefree mailing list
CU-Smokefree at cu-smokefree.org
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-smokefree

End of CU-Smokefree Digest, Vol 5, Issue 17
*******************************************

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <cu-smokefree-bounces at cu-smokefree.org>
Received: from  rly-xi04.mx.aol.com (rly-xi04.mail.aol.com [172.20.116.9]) by 
air-xi02.mail.aol.com (v100.23) with ESMTP id MAILINXI22-4db40e1a0ff4a; Tue, 
29 Jun 2004 13:04:05 -0400
Received: from  imsahp.cu.groogroo.com (imsahp.cu.groogroo.com [64.5.70.195]) 
by rly-xi04.mx.aol.com (v99_r4.3) with ESMTP id 
MAILRELAYINXI43-4db40e1a0ff4a; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:03:59 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by imsahp.cu.groogroo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
    id 0C30A1702C; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:03:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from imsahp.cu.groogroo.com ([127.0.0.1])
    by localhost (imsahp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
    with ESMTP id 11503-06; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:03:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from imsahp.cu.groogroo.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by imsahp.cu.groogroo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
    id 2F445170CD; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:00:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: cu-smokefree-request at cu-smokefree.org
Subject: CU-Smokefree Digest, Vol 5, Issue 17
To: cu-smokefree at cu-smokefree.org
Reply-To: cu-smokefree at cu-smokefree.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: cu-smokefree at cu-smokefree.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: C-U Smokefree Alliance discussion <cu-smokefree.cu-smokefree.org>
List-Unsubscribe: 
<http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-smokefree>, 
    <mailto:cu-smokefree-request at cu-smokefree.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/cu-smokefree>
List-Post: <mailto:cu-smokefree at cu-smokefree.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cu-smokefree-request at cu-smokefree.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-smokefree>, 
    <mailto:cu-smokefree-request at cu-smokefree.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: cu-smokefree-bounces at cu-smokefree.org
Errors-To: cu-smokefree-bounces at cu-smokefree.org
Message-Id: <20040629170057.2F445170CD at imsahp.cu.groogroo.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:00:57 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at chambana.net
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 tagged_above=-999.0 required=4.5
    tests=COMBINED_FROM, MAILMAN_DIGEST, MSGID_FROM_MTA_SHORT,
    NO_REAL_NAME
X-Spam-Level: 
X-AOL-IP: 64.5.70.195
X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:XXX:XX
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0

 >>