Health board to vote on smoke-free rule

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

By Ben Cannon

Jackson Hole, Wyo.-Many elected officials across Wyoming have been reluctant to touch it. The Jackson Town Council declined even to vote on a proposal in 2007.

But the local Board of Health next week will decide on a public smoking ban that could make Teton County the first county in the state to go smoke-free.

At a 9 a.m. meeting Tuesday at the County public health building, 460 E. Pearl, the board is expected to vote on the smoke-free rule, marking the end of a 90-day public comment period that has not seen particularly outspoken opposition to the measure.

On the surface, a smoke-free Jackson Hole might not seem dramatically different than the way it is now. The Virginian Saloon is the only public venue that currently allows smoking indoors. However, the smoke-free rule, if adopted, would prohibit smoking not only in the Virginian, but also within 20 feet of public entrances, operable windows and ventilation systems. Smoking would also be banned in outdoor service lines, including ski lifts.

Unlike the Town Council, whic

h let a smoking ban extinguish without a motion, or the County Commission, which lacks the authority to pass such a measure, the Teton District Board of Health – an appointed panel of seven health professionals – is not subject to the community and state politics that can influence elected bodies.

The push for the smoke-free ordinance, spearheaded by board member Dr. Brent Blue, gained new momentum late last year. Even while all but one of the valley’s bars and restaurants are voluntarily smoke-free, Blue said there still remains the potential for those and new bars to allow smoking.

“I have been a pretty ardent anti-smoking advocate for a long time,” Blue said. “One of the single greatest things a physician can do is to help someone stop smoking.”

The Virginian Saloon has in recent months been the subject of air quality tests, the results of which Blue described as “pretty damning.”

Max Anderson, who manages the Virginian Saloon, did not dispute the test but said it was taken during peak weekend hours, when the bar would be at its smokiest.

“Before people even walk in here, they know this is a smoking bar,” Anderson said. “People look at [a smoking ban] like they’re taking their freedoms away.”

Anderson said she thought a smoke-free rule could adversely impact business, particularly during certain annual weekend-long events like the Cutter Races and Hill Climb. Many of the visitors that come into the Virginian during those events are smokers, Anderson said.

In February, the Wyoming Legislature let a watered-down ban die on the House floor.

Seven Wyoming municipalities – including Cheyenne, Laramie, Rock Spring and Evanston – have adopted partial or full public smoking bans. PJH

PERMALINK:
Health board to vote on smoke-free rule | Planet JH News Article: General Environment

Reader Comments
I am a strong anti-smoking advocate. I encourage you all not to smoke. If you need more information about the dangers, please let me know. Smoking and being in places where smoking is allowed is an important decision for each of us to make as individuals. I encourage everyone not to go near the stuff! (Yes, it is a CHOICE FOR EACH OF US TO MAKE AS INDIVIDUALS) I will advocate for individual health (FYI... there is not any such thing as "public health" there is only a bunch of individuals) but I would never dream of asking my government to make rules about YOUR choice! How dare the Board of Health even suggest this!? Milton L.
The Board of Health has no business telling people what to do on private property. It should be up to the private property owners to decide whether they wish to allow smoking or not. Their intentions are irrelevant, the BoH does not own the private properties and should "butt out". Richard Hodges
Hmmm. How can one address such irrationality as the Board of Health faces? People who don't like to know other people smoke on private property or even within their sight want to have smokers arrested, property owners go to jail, people fined, police occupied with enforcement? My my, that takes a lot of self-righteous ego. Makes one wonder who has the problem. Susan Gore
Dr. Blue, you go right ahead being an anti-smoking advocate and help your patients stop smoking - that's your right - but stop trying to force your advocacy by dictating what free individuals do on private property. There are many things that people do that aren't great for their health: too much sun, too much alcohol, too much ice cream, not enough exercise - and persuading people to change is fine - but we don't need you, the board of health, or Big Brother forcing your agendas on free people. Bob Stuart
Dear TC Board of Health, I am writing to ask that you respect the private property rights of our neighbors that own (own) private property that they use for commercial purposes. Boxing gyms, paintball fields and restaurants that allow smoking might have associated health risks, but they are on private property and customers & employees have the right to enter or not as THEY choose. I challenge each of you to search in your own life for activities that you CHOOSE to do that likely have been studied and have been categorized as “dangerous.” Please don’t tell me what these activities are, they are none of my business. I might not like them, but I certainly won’t ask my government to stop you. Sometimes two men like to go into a room and have sex. I might not like this activity, and I might be able to show you many studies that suggest anal intercourse between members of the same gender can be bad for their health. I choose not to engage in this activity. I also choose not to go into the Virginian Bar because it stinks of smoke (and I don’t go to bars). I would not dream of forcing, or asking my government to use their force to stop any of the consensual behavior in the above paragraph. There are thousands of laws that can be passed that would certainly improve the health of individuals. What I love about our society is that I have a right to choose, even when my neighbors don’t like my choice and “know better.” Please don’t take yet another right away from individual property owners and their voluntary employees and clients. Please choose liberty. Respectfully, Shepard Humphries Shepard Humphries
"A man on his owns knows that he is best advised to leave his dumbbell neighbors alone. But let him join a political party or a government committee, and he fantasizes that he has the right and the power to tell everyone on the block what to do." –Bill Bonner SOH
I left my father 40+ years ago. I don't remember ever giving anybody else the job of being my father and telling me to clean my room. Is this America or _______ (read your history books and fill in the blank). You cannot vote private property away, no matter how much of a majority votes. If you vote for this you will only be pretending to be daddy. How dare you do such a treasonous act and undermine what my ancestors died for! Joyce Cox
Here we go again trying to ban a legal activity on private property that is participated in by personal choice with the consent of the private property owner. This is a private property rights issue. Business owners have the right to manage their own property just as much as they have a right to manage their own personal affairs. And, business owners have done just that. Most private enterprises open to the public are smoke-free by choice of the owner. They know that I have a right to avoid doing business there if they allow smoking. It's called a free marketplace, and the government has no business meddling in it, not matter how noble the cause may seem. We keep saying this is a ban on smoking in public places, (or a public smoking ban) but it's not. It's a ban on smoking in private places that are open to the public. That's the big distinction that needs to be made. We're talking about property that isn't owned or managed for or by the public, so government and other do-gooders, butt out! If you want a public smoking ban, then ban smoking in the parks, city hall, government vehicles and on the streets and sidewalks. Those are public places. Leave private property alone. Clair Schwan
Reference the comment: “I have been a pretty ardent anti-smoking advocate for a long time,” Blue said. ...I believe he became ARDENT right after giving up his personal cigar habit... Timothy Mayo
“Places” or “property” are either privately owned or publicly owned. This is not a sliding scale issue. Two of the necessary parts of “ownership” are control and use. The Virginian Bar in Jackson (as an example) paid 100% of the costs of building their building, marketing, payroll and all other expenses. They should have 100% of the control and use of their property, just as the TC Board of Health and other government agencies should have 100% control of sidewalks and other public places. Shepard Humphries
An establishment such as a bar or resturant is private property, owned and managed by a private individual. It is not the government's place to decide what should or should not be on the menu any more than it is the governments place to dictate what other legal activities may go on within that private property. If enough people feel smoking so bad the business will enact it's own no smoking policy to maintain a customer base. Dan Poley
Next election I'm voting the Board out...wait...I can't - they're appointed! What a joke. Does anyone know who appoints the Board? If so, please share so that we can be sure to throw him/her out of office! Peter Weiland
Free smoke or die... Another stupid government regulation by the nanny state. I hate smokers and wish them all ill health and a quick death. Smokers have mental health issues, substance abuse issues, smelly breath, and are easy to seduce; nonetheless, these folks who drain our health care system along with their own wallets have a right to kill themselves in whatever private venue allows such activity. eyeson jackson
Why is this story posted under "environment" not "health and fitness" or politics? eyeson jackson
I do not know which issue involved in this argument is the most troubleling. The fact that some appointed board believes it has a right to meddle with the individuals right to choose to smoke or not is ceartainly disturbing.Each and every one of us in order to be free, must be able to decide for our selves the personal behaviors we will engage in.As long as an individual is causing no harm to another, that individual should be free to engage in whatever behavior,''even if that behavior is unhealthy''he or she chooses. Just as troubling is the fact that so many of the previous bloggers seem to be of the opinion that this is a ''property'' rights issue as opposed to being a ''personal'' rights issue.To many American's are fixated on the issue of so called ''private property rights'',seemingly oblivious to the fact that ceartain behaviors or activities preformed on private property do in fact effect other people.Also the property rights crowd seem to believe that only property owners should enjoy individual rights;the last time I checked,private property ownership in this country was in fact not a natural right, but rather a privalege of wealth reserved for those persons able to purchase deeds to property.It would seem then that the property rights crowd either believes liberty should be a matter of finances''meaning that for those stumble upon severe financial dificulty, liberty will no longer be a right'' or, that commercialism and freedom are one and the same.If commercialism and freedom then are synomynous,then again liberty for the impoverished is not a right,meaning that freedom is not truly a natural right of anyone,as anyone can become impoverished.The cause of human liberty would be advanced if only we would understand these simple facts;each and every one of us must in fact share the same planet,this is in no way a private planet;however,absolutely no one has to share their body with that of another individual;our bodies are in fact privately owned.It is the right of the individual to choose to engage in personaly harmfull behaviors.However,no person ,''regardless of amount of property owned ''has a right to engage in or preform any activity detrimental to the wellbeing of others. James

Environment

Health board to vote on smoke-free rule

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Reader Comments