Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0013.202 2002-2004 As anon-smoker I am opposed to Bill 260 for the following reasons: 1. ~ Bill :'.60's definition of "Smoke" and "Smoking",~ violates the First Amendment in that it prohibits the free exercise of religion by controlling substances, Stich as incense, used in many religious ceremonies at various religious institutions. Y~ . 2. The premise'~this Bill is based on faulty data, 'Fhe World Health Organization published a stud}~, covering ?,192 people. and the recenCly released British Journal of Medicine report on a study covering over 1 14,000 people during a 40 year period and following over 35.000 non smokers, found no significant evidence that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer or heart disease. Both these studies came up with a relative risk for cancer and heart disease from second hand smoke of ].16 and 1.3 respectively. Even the EPA study cited in the ordinance came up with a relative risk of 1.19. ~ti As a rule of thumb, a Relative Risk of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and an RR of 3.0 is preferred. PAC"COR RELATIVE, R1SK - Family history of lung cancer ~ 2.7 to 5.3 Personal history of tuberculosis 1.7 to 10.0 Alcohol intake 2.19 Dietary cholesterol /fat 2.2 Dietary fat intake 2.85 to 6.14 Milk intake I 1.73 to 2.1 Cooking methods 1.4 to 8.3 Beer drinking ~ 2.0 Physical inactivity 1.4 to l.fi (From Roger Scho~eitzer) Comm. No.' ~ ' ~ O ~ tA' Ref. To: P~ Ref. Date ,~~,e U~' As a matter of science, there is ~D risk from second hand smoke, it may not be polite and there may be issues of etiquette, but the health risk is low. Unlike the act of smoking itself, which has a relati~~e risk greater than 10 of dying from lung cancer. he New England Journ is a Relativ isk o .3 for tting into an agent w t using your cell phone, both hand he and hands free. [ the ouncil going to mandate rivers pull over prior to using ~ cell phone and remain arked fivc i}~inutes after the call is over, since there w s a RR of getting into an ac~i ent of 4.8 ' hijt fire minutes of r the call was comp ted? In their study, Hahn an T ock "calculat the costs o ellular hone use in vehicles to be $1.2 billion per year. About f of this 1.2 ton is attrib ble to the 78 estimate fatalities associated wi driver use cell phones while tlt other half represents t costs associated with m re minor ac ' is ~ which cell phon s were a contributing factor." ~ The economists, Hah nd Tetlock, calculate at ric cons ers place a value on the benefits of cel ona use while driving at a ut $ 'llion. A a result of their st- benefit analys' ,they conclude that "banning drivers from us g cel phones is a b tdea." The cotmcil's ordinance should be based on science and not belief. ~=eu-shet~be I cis 3. [t is not the job of the Council to set Public Health Policy. The beginning of the Bill states, "...that there is compelling public health and safety reasons to protect nonsmoking employees and the general public..." A false premise. I•he department of health shall have general charge, oversight, and care of the health and lives of the people of the State, not the county council. 4. That this proposed ordinances section concerning smoking in the workplace is in conflict with the State version of smoking in the work place, i~P~, and thatliwt portion of the County Ordinance should be struck out entirely. as it is more restrictive than the state ~ ersion. Chapter 328K, the state smoking law, consists of three parts, Part 1 covers smoking in public places and in it is § 328K-6 County Ordinances, that states, "Nothing shall prohibit a county from enacting ordinances more stringent than the provisions of this Hart: ' As the council also acknowledges in Seetion 1 of Bill 260. This language is missing from Parts 2 and 3, if it was the states intent to allow the county to make their ordinance more stringent, they would have stated so as they did in Part 1. 5. That the proposed ordinance conflicts with the state medical marijuana law, in that the proposed ordinance restricts the use of medical marijuana in places allowed by the state law. It also removes protections afforded by state law to those that use medical marijuana and those that own or control the buildings where these actin ities are going on. Hawaii ranks #6 in the country for low prevalence of smoking, we are #1 in fewest deaths from heart disease, #1 in fewest deaths from cancer, #1 in lowest total mortality and #3 in premature deaths, these are all very good munbers for Hawaii. But we are #27 in motor vehicle deaths, #36 in High School Graduation, #31 for children in poverty, #31 in support for public health care, #30 for infectious disease, #29 for infant mortality and we have an Ice problem that is considered by some as the worst in the nation. With our excellent health statistics and the existence of more serious problems confronting us, why do you pursue an ordinance that is of little, if any, health benefit, and is already covered by state law? phis is maladministration of your duties. An ordinance can have an effect in terms of the tradeoffs. We remove resources from one area and devote them to another, as this ordinance will do. ~a~CP .-.ii« ~caor/P To L~i~~ Ti'++~ d ATYe^~rioN 7° Se.w,r~..~.(4 iSSCf°S„ `T'~ ' Triage, wki~i is the process for sorting injured people into groups based on their need for or likely benefit from immediate treatment. This council is devoting excessi~ e attention to theme tobacco nanny's st~e~-Erie, while more serious problems ~ eo,~i,9 yr~ f-~.oe qrr~.,. r~ orv This ordinance is ° r ; °~a of very little benefit to the community. You need to be concentrating on issues that ar~important to the community, I find it troubling that the Council thinks I am too stupid or unaware about my safety or health, that they feel the need to play "Mommy and Daddy" to me. III don't want to be around a smoker I will leave and I can boycott a restaurant that permits smoking, just as 1 can bo}'cott them if the lood is no good. Also, the council has no business controlling smoking in private clubs such as the VFW, Rotary and other such organizations, the members are more than competent enough to come up with their own rules concerning such matters. Imagine wanting to control smoking in these clubs, while you are considering allowing smoking in homes of day care centers where children are taken are of. This is a poorly conceived and crafted ordinance and needs to be voted down, lefs restore some confidence in our cuunci]'s ability to legislate responsibly. ~ .