City of Stafford to hold public hearing on smoking ban June 27

By Karen Daniels

Showing support to keep the air safe to breathe for everyone in all workplaces are top row L-R: Delbert Niemann, Sofia Valdez, Matthew Davila with baby, Anita Davila, Raquel Martinez, Morgan Shelton and Linda Munoz. Bottom row L-R: Joseph and Sophia Davila, Graciela Martinez.

Next Wednesday, June 27, Stafford will hold a public hearing on the pros and cons of passing a public smoking ban. Whether you are for cleaner air quality or against increased government involvement, residents and business owners are encouraged to attend and give your thoughts and concerns at 7:00 pm at the Stafford Civic Center.

When it comes to the public’s health there are obvious and blatant facts involved with smoking. Smoking causes cancer. Known carcinogens, such as formaldehyde, benzene and arsenic, are floating in the air after being expelled from the smoker’s lungs, possibly traveling to your lungs. Everyone knows this now. Law suits on second-hand smoke have won record amounts. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, only 10% of Fort Bend County residents smoke. “This means that 90% of the population do not smoke,” states Dr. Joel Dunnington. “Vast numbers of citizens do not wish to be exposed to others smoke and restaurant and bar owners flunked math.”

Each member of City Council has openly discussed the economic impact this ordinance might have on Stafford. However, data from American’s for Non-Smoker’s rights, which Dr. Dunnington is a board member of, state that “every legitimate economic study ever done has shown no negative impact, and in a few cases, studies have shown a positive impact. Only studies commissioned or supported by the tobacco industry have shown a negative impact.”

The council has stated that they are aware of a difference between restaurants (places families go to) and bars (places children are not allowed to go to) or licensed establishments that sell over 60% alcohol, indicating that if there is to be a smoking ban, they might stipulate the difference within the ordinance.

Mary Ann Dolezal with Tobacco Free Fort Bend had this to say, “Public health is everyone’s business. Smoke free workplaces save lives, reduce health care and worksite costs and promote a healthier community. Safe air is no more an option than safe water.”

Keep in mind, June 27 is only a hearing. City Council will be listening to your opinions on this night, but no vote will be taken. Mayor Scarcella stressed that there is a lot to consider. “Our job is to make the best decision for the health, safety and welfare, but also keep in mind the various positions of the people and businesses.”

Short URL:

Posted by on Jun 20 2012. Filed under Featured Articles, Stafford. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

6 Comments for “City of Stafford to hold public hearing on smoking ban June 27”

  1. harleyrider1778

    Smoking causes cancer. Known carcinogens, such as formaldehyde, benzene and arsenic, are floating in the air after being expelled from the smoker’s lungs, possibly traveling to your lungs. Everyone knows this now. Law suits on second-hand smoke have won record amounts.

    Actually there are no lawsuits that won,they simply extorted money in out of court settelment and the only one to do that was the airline stewardesses suit years ago and in that case no proof of harm was ever produced!

    As far as second hand smoke well lets break that down by its chemical composition:

    About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

    4 % is carbon monoxide.

    6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
    (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

  2. harleyrider1778

    Now lets see what OSHA has to say about environmental tobacco smoke


    In 1991 NIOSH { OSHA’ research group} Looked into ETS although at the time they recommended reducing ETS exposure they found the studies lacking.

    NIOSH recognizes that these recent epidemiological studies have several shortcomings: lack of objective measures for charachterizing and quantifying exposures,failures to adjust for all confounding variables,potential misclassification of ex-smokers as non-smokers,unavailability of comparison groups that have not been exposed to ETS, and low statistical power.

    Research is needed to investigate the following issues:

    1. More acurate quantification of the increased risk of lung cancer associated with ETS exposure,including determination of other contributing factors[e.g.,occupational exposures]that may accentuate the risk.

    2.Determination of the concentration and distributuion of ETS components in the workplace to help quantify the risk for the U.S. working population.

    a.The association of ETS exposure with cancer other than lung cancer
    b.The relationship between ETS exposure and cardiovascular disease
    c.The relationship between ETS exposure and nonmalignant resporatory diseases such asthma,bronchitis and emphysema, and
    the effects of ETS on lung function and respiratory systems
    c. Possible mechanisms of ETS damage to the cardiovascular system,such as platelet aggravation,increased COHb leading to oxygen depravation,or damage to endothelium
    d.Effects of workplace smoking restrictions on the ETS exposure of nonsmokersand ETS-related health effects in nonsmokers

    After ten years of no conclusive research and lack of studies that didn’t eliminate the bias OSHA decided that the studies did not have substance and here is there present policy.

    Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

    Because the organic material in tobacco doesn’t burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

  3. harleyrider1778

    Smoking causes cancer well does it or doesnt it,Lets see what proof they have of that:

    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.

    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  4. harleyrider1778

    So after the above is read and understood theyve never ever had any proof via any study where the end points meet to prove causation! Heck they dont even know what causes cancer in anything. The only thing ever proven to cause cancer was radioactivity but even then,well read this it can explain it better than anything:

    The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

    Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 15 mrem

    Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) – 300 mrem

    Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 300 mrem

    Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

    Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

    Average Annual Total
    361 mrem/year

    Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

    Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!


    Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

    Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

    18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!

  5. harleyrider1778

    . Only studies commissioned or supported by the tobacco industry have shown a negative impact.”

    Its a funny thing the st louis fed did an economic impact study on smoking bans and I dont believe their connected to big tobacco at all:

    The Economic Impact of a Smoking Ban in Columbia, Missouri: An …
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    by MR Pakko – 2008 – Cited by 6 – Related articles
    evidence on the economic impact of smoking bans, much of … Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regional Economic Development, 2008, 4(1), pp. 30-40. 30 …

  6. harleyrider1778

    Springfield Business Journal: Smoking Ban Taking a Toll

    Lauren Matter


    8:59 p.m. CDT, October 2, 2011
    Four months into Springfield’s city wide smoking ban, some businesses are seeing a decline in revenue.

    The owner of one Springfield bar, Tailgaters Pub and Eatery on South Scenic Avenue, says they have been losing $1,000 a week since the ban went into effect and had no choice but to close the first weekend of October.

    Other pubs and restaurants are seeing a revenue decline as well.

    The numbers range from 25% to a 45% drop in the amount of money they’re bringing in now compared to before the ban.,0,5160335.story

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Search Archive

Search by Date
Search by Category
Search with Google
Log in | Copyright © 2015 by | All rights reserved.