Smoking Ban Final Project
Issues Piece: Smoking Ban in Amherst
by Melissa Barret, Nick Powers and Max Bitter
The debate over smoking in public places in the town of Amherst is one which has been hotly contested for decades. Since 1988, when legislation passed banning smoking in Town Hall and designating smoking places for business employees, there have been numerous attempts by the Amherst health board to further regulate second-hand smoke. 1994 brought on legislation banning all smoking within public buildings in the town, as well as businesses. Even more controversially, 1998 brought on a smoking ban in bars, one of the first of its kind in Western Massachusetts. At the time, bar owners were up in arms, concerned about losing business to other local towns. Now, the bars continue to bustle in Amherst, while other parts of the country are just now beginning to join the party. Michigan, for instance, instituted a statewide ban on bar and restaurant smoking this month (for comparison’s sake, Massachusetts has had such a ban since 2006).
Now, in 2010, Amherst’s health board is trying once again to blaze a path, much like they did 12 years ago, by banning smoking outside of restaurants and in public places. This comes less than two years after Amherst voted to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Tony Maroulis, executive director of the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce, recently told the Amherst Bulletin that he sees the smoking ban as a “toothless ordinance” that will be difficult to enforce. The fine of $100 for public smoking will be the same as the civil fine for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, a fine which is being enforced very loosely based on reports from this year’s “Extravaganja” gathering in Amherst Center.
There are some precedents to the outdoor restaurant/bar aspect of the proposed bylaw change. The new legislation in Michigan includes outdoor areas where food and drink are meant to be served, in both restaurants and motels. More locally, the city of Boston instituted a ban on smoking on bar and restaurant patios, but this would be the first such ban elsewhere in the state. While no state actually bans smoking in outdoor areas outright, many local jurisdictions have, in fact, implemented anti-smoking policies throughout the country. Some states have statewide bans on smoking within a certain distance of most buildings. California has all kinds of local bans on outdoor smoking in certain areas, as well; smoking is banned in outdoor restaurants in Beverly Hills, for instance, and in all city parks in Los Angeles.
The city of Calabasas in southern California might have the harshest smoking regulation in the country. Enacted in 2006, the Secondhand Smoke Ordinance prohibits smoking everywhere in the city except for “designated smoking areas.” This ordinance has been called “the strictest in the country” by The New York Times and is certainly an example for Amherst ban supporters to look at when facing criticism that their ban crosses the line.
The debate over bans on outdoor smoking is fueled by many factors, none more heavily-debated than the actual danger posed by second-hand smoke. Health officials have to balance many factors and reports in this debate. In a 2006 report by the U.S. Surgeon General, it was stated that thousands of people die per year as a result of second-hand smoke, but the negative impact of outdoor second-hand smoke is more debatable. In a 2007 study at Stanford University for the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, researchers found that, even in seemingly open air, a non-smoker can take in a great deal of toxins by being just a few feet downwind of a smoldering cigarette. The same report did find, conversely, that standing further away from a smoker outdoors is exponentially more beneficial than moving further away from an indoor smoker. More recently, a report for the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene at the University of Georgia suggests that the outdoor smoking areas created as a result of anti-indoor smoking legislation could even have unintended harmful consequences, exposing people outdoors to carcinogens which might otherwise have been kept to indoor areas.
The debate rages on across America. Slate writer William Saletan, who covered the smoking ban in Central Park in New York City, argued that the science is there to warrant restrictions on “lighting up within a few feet of someone, but nothing more.” There certainly is at least some science to support regulation of outdoor smoking. In the end, at least in most places in America (with such notable exceptions as Connecticut, where the state, not local government, regulates smoking), it is up to the local legislature to decide how best to go about this situation. Amherst has a difficult decision to make, one that is not unprecedented in America, but rather which continues a pattern of being ahead of much of the rest of the state on legislating these controversial issues.
Go here to listen in on a podcast debate between two students at the University of Massachusetts
For the opinions of restauranteurs and students alike, please watch here.
