HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0013.245 2002-2004 Testimony in Support of Bill 260, including stand-alone bars ~ ~ , Yz,`-r ~~1-z ~ l~~)
Hannah L. Hedrick, PhD
National Emphysema/COPD Association r,'rt `'1" `
National Lung Health Education Progam
Legislate and Educate: Lung Health More Important than Unfounded Economic
Fears
I respect the commitment and concern of all who have written letters to newspaper editors and provided
testimony at hearings on Bi11260. Due to overwhelming evidence and testimony, Drafts 5 and 6 of Bill
260, on the agenda for consideration today, both include bars, nightclubs, and bowling alleys. I
understand, however, that Mayor Kim may provide testimony in support of an amendment to exempt
stand-alone bars and other work places. I urge the Council members to wnsider Mr. Kim's testimony in
the context of overwhelming testimony and evidence that the lung health of empbyees in all work
places should be considered above uufounded ecouomic fears.
The testimony of people opposing Bill 260 in general or smokafree stand-alone bars in particu~a focus
primarily on five arguments, all of which have been countered in testimony and docurr~tation~ovided
to Council members. On c
ZQ r ~
1. "Harm caused by secondhand smoke has not been proven": The results of numero~ ~ide~gc -ba~
research studies are available, and full documentation has been provided to Council members. ,
~i~ 'v
2. "Requiring bars to be smoke-free would force the bars to close": Council membeY9f(~e d~ilec}~=
financial reports from states with comprehensive smoko-free workplace legislation inc~8-fing fR,?t d~
in revenue, if any, were usually temporary. D' ~
u-i
3. "Council members and those supporting smoke-free bars should `have compassion for bar owners"':
Numerous written and verbal testimonials have reminded Council members that the lung health and job
security of bar workers (an occupation in which women frequently outnumber men) should take
precedence over the profits of bar owuers.
4. "The Big Island should wait until smokesfree workplace legislation is imposed `from above": Flow can
Council members hide behind this argument when it is a major part of their responsibility to protect the
health of the public and to listen to community opinion?
5. "Smoke-free workplace legislation is an unjustified infringement of personal liberties/rights that might
lead to restrictions on eating, drinking, do": 1 personally believe that any "personal liberty" that has a
direct, measurable, adverse health impact on those in the immediate vicinity of the person exercising
that right should be regulated to avoid harm to others.
With the rates of women suffering from emphysema and other forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD) now higher than those for men and the alarming increase in Big Island children with
asthma, I urge Council members, smokers, bar owners, and Mayor Kim to put aside their unfounded
fears. Second hand smoke costs society more in suffering and economic loss than any potential loss of
income to stand-alone bar owners.
I urge Hawaii leaders and residents not to lose this opportunity to work togckher to reduce the harm
caused by secondhand smoke in the workplace, especially to vulnerable populations. I hope we can then
unite to counteract the glamorous, exciting media images that are luring the Big Island's most precious
recourse, our children and youth, to be exposed to severe adverse health consequences, including death.
Comm. N
Ref. To: , ~ I~ t'
Ref. Date