HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0013.149 2002-2004 J YOSHIMOTO
P. o. sox 226s RE(~~'~ i1~`L v
PAHOA, HI 96778
Ph. 965-0663 (H); 933-0636 (W) ' 03 JUN 13 P~1 4 16
Email: j mx6 ahoacom
June 12, 2003 COUN l;L'u iiti
COUNTY ~ iF HAWAII
TO: All of the Hawaii County Councilmembers
RE: WRITTEN TESTIMONY 1N SUPPORT OF B[LL 260
Relating To Smoking In Certain Places In "the County Of Hawai' i
Hearing Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Aloha! By way of introduction, my name is J Yoshimoto and I am writing this letter in
strong support of Bill 260 without exemptions. I am passionate about this bill for several
reasons.
First, there is no dispute that tobacco smoke and second hand tobacco smoke is
dangerous to your health.
Second, smokers are in the minority and yet they act arrogant as if it is their "right" to
blow poisonous smoke in anon-smokers face. The majority of the public do not smoke.
Children do not smoke. People with respiratory conditions do not smoke. (It would be
different if smokers were courteous and understanding, but by and large, the majority of
the smokers I have met in my life were inconsiderate and rude to non-smokers). Let's
say the tables were turned and a company started selling a product that non-smokers
could spray at smokers that would make smokers feel ill and give them more respiratory
problems or an even higher rate of cancer. Would this product be legal? Of course not!
The point is, knowingly exposing someone to poisonous toxins would never be
condoned. And yet, here we aze, the yeaz 2003, and we aze still considering exemptions
for smoking in public?
Third, second hand smoke to employees that work in the bars are subject to liability
should the employee develop any illnesses related to being exposed to smoke. My
opinion is that the bar owner would be liable and now, because this issue is being raised
with the Hawaii County, l believe the Hawaii County could be liable because it has the
opportunity now to make ALL workplaces tobacco free and if the Hawaii County
Council chooses to allow the exemption, it will knowingly or at least recklessly expose
employees to smoke and therefore extend liability to the County of Hawaii.
The common response 1 hear is "Well, they (non-smokers) don't have to work at bars".
Here again, is another arrogant attitude that rears its ugly head. Some people who work
at bars cannot find another compazable job. It would be patently unfair to just tell people
Comm. No. . '
Ref. To, 0
Ref. Dofe
"Go work somewhere else". This is the United States. This is Hawaii. It is the
responsibility of the Hawaii County Council to pass laws that benefit everyone, not just
some selected group of people that are passionate about an unhealthy habit. No one is
telling the smokers to stop smoking. We are just asking the Council to stop exposing the
rest of us to unwanted smoke. It is not a complicated issue. You want to smoke and
expose yourself to poison toxins`? Fine. Just don't do the same to people who want to be
smoke free.
I have also heazd bar owners say that they have few non-smoking employees. This is
azgumentative but for the sake of analysis, let's say this is true. Even if only 25% of their
employees aze non-smokers, they are knowingly exposing 25% to second hand smoke
that could kill them or subject them to serious illness. If you recall, this is the same type
ofcost-benefit analysis tobacco companies used when they hid their internal studies on
the effects of tobacco smoke on people. Which is more important, money or a life? We
know what the tobacco companies believe money is more important. The question is
what does the Hawaii County Council believe is more important?
Fourth, if the bar owners truly believe their business will fail, why not pass the bill
with NO exemptions and review the bill in six months or a year? At that time, the
Council can receive testimony again from bar owners and the public about how the bazs
are doing. This sounds fair and simple. If we exempt the bazs, we will never know what
effect, if any, having a total ban would have.
Finally, the basic question that you should ask yourself is whether the needs of the
few (smokers) should outweigh the needs of the many (non-smokers, children,
people with asthma or other respiratory conditions and people who just simply
can't stand the smell of tobacco smoke. This isn't even a close call. The evidence is
overwhelmingly clear that tobacco kills. What makes it worse than alcohol is that second
hand smoke also kills. Please make the right decision for all of the people. The other
counties in the State of Hawaii wimped out. Please don't do the same. Do what's right.
If the bar owners truly suffer financially, then revise the law in six months or a yeaz. But
please don't take the easy way out byjust simply passing the exemption because that is
what the other counties did. Take a stand. Follow what you believe is right for everyone.
Tell the smokers they can still smoke, just not azound non-smokers. We are not asking
you to take away the smokers right to smoke, we are asking that you protect us from
second hand smoke.
Please accept this as written testimony in support of this bill. Thank you in advance for
your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
J YOSHIMOTO