BY ANGELA BROOKS Boomerang Staff Writer
The Laramie City Council snuffed out a proposal Tuesday that would have relaxed the city’s smoking ban, allowing smokers to light up in bars and private clubs.
With a 3-5 vote, councilors defeated the ordinance on its first reading. It was the first time the newly assembled council has voted on an issue involving the smoking ban.
“You can have a drink and drive in this state, but we regulate how much you can drink for public health and safety reasons,” Councilman Dave O’Malley said. “I believe we can regulate smoking from the same sense.”
The proposal would have allowed smoking in bars and private clubs, so long as smoking was limited to no more than half of the establishment and there was a working ventilation system.
Smoking is currently banned in all workplaces, including restaurants, bars and private clubs.
Those who voted for the ordinance were Joe Hageman, Jeanne Armintrout and Bryan Shuster. All three agreed the smoking ban has hurt businesses financially.
“This has cost Laramie money, no matter what people say,” Shuster said.
Hageman, who spearheaded the ordinance, faced an uphill battle in convincing other councilors, some of whom voted for the smoking ban, to support his proposal.
For Councilman Seth Carson, the smoking issue hit home. Carson said he battled cancer when he was a child and underwent nine months of chemotherapy. The community held a marathon to help pay his bills.
“Not only no, but absolutely no for me,” Carson said of his voting intention. “… I can’t dishonor the 600 individuals who raised money to pay for my cancer treatment (by voting for the proposal),” Carson said.
Councilman Klaus Hanson said he is also a cancer survivor, and is convinced he did the right thing by supporting the smoking ban last year.
“This was an ordinance originally designed and voted on by the public to protect workers who may be exposed to second-hand smoke,” Hanson said. “This is why I signed on to it originally, and I stand by it now.”
Supporters and opponents of the proposal showed up in droves for the meeting, many of them making similar arguments as they did a year ago when the ban first surfaced. The debate lasted just over an hour.
Smoke-free advocates said the proposal was unacceptable because it would expose employees and customers at bars and private clubs to second-hand smoke.
They said the proposal also tramples upon the will of voters, who upheld the current smoking ban in a special election last year by a difference of 361 votes.
“I cannot think of another ordinance in Laramie where every eligible voter had the opportunity to cast an equal vote on an ordinance,” said Megan Hayes of the Laramie Clean Indoor Air Coalition.
The effectiveness of the ventilation systems also was in question. Jan Drury of the American Heart Association said the systems don’t remove all second-hand smoke. They also cost as much as $10,000.
“This (proposal) asks business owners to incur that cost,” Drury said. “The beauty of the original ordinance is that it didn’t cost the owner anything.”
Representatives of private clubs rallied behind the proposal. Several said customers are opting to stay at home where they can smoke, which has taken a chunk out of their profits.
“Another year of this and we’re going to close our doors,” said Kevin Fuller of Moose Lodge, where revenues dropped by 45 percent in May.
At most private clubs, members vote on policies such as smoking. The proposal would restore that right to club members, said Ray Martinez of Eagles Lodge.
“Taking that away from private clubs is kind of like you coming into my home and saying, ‘Hey, you can’t watch NFL football anymore,’” Martinez said.
Hageman’s ordinance also would have allowed smoking in health care facilities that are treating terminally or mentally ill patients. He said his proposal was more about private rights than health.
“I’m not trying to argue about whether or not second-hand smoke is something that can be harmful,” Hageman said. “It’s about whether or not we can provide a place for those who choose to go where they know it’s harmful.”
Many bars and private clubs have created areas outdoors where people can smoke. But Hageman, an attorney and smoker, said it is an unpleasant and unrealistic option once the weather turns cold.
“Standing outside is a sentence for more than half the year. People won’t do it,” Hageman said.
When asked by a citizen if his law firm represents businesses that oppose the smoking ban, Hageman said that it does. However, he said he also has clients who support the ban.
Earlier in the meeting, Hageman said he had no conflicts of interest and planned to vote on the proposal.
Even before the vote Tuesday, the measure’s prospects were dimming. At least four councilors publicly stated they would not vote for the proposal, even after Hageman made several significant changes.
Hageman planned to introduce the ordinance earlier this month, but withdrew it to make revisions. The original version would have exempted truck stops under the same rules as bars and private clubs.
Truck stop managers were not interested in the exemption, Hageman said.
The original also would have allowed two-year exemptions for businesses that could show their revenues had dropped since the ban went into effect in April. The short nature of the exemption made it impractical, Hageman said.
Shortly before the ban kicked in, Hageman announced he would propose amendments to give businesses more discretion. Now that the measure has failed, he is not sure if he will return with a different proposal.
“I haven’t reached a conclusion if I would try to go about it a different way,” Hageman said Monday. “To me, this current proposal seems the most sensible way.”
Only four members of the original council that adopted the ban are still in office. Councilors Jodi Guerin, Wendy Guerin and Hanson voted for it. Shuster voted against it. Guerin did not attend Tuesday’s meeting.
Well, Joe Hageman, Jeanne Armintrout and Bryan Shuster certainly won't be getting my vote in the future!Let's hear it for the 5 councilors who rejected the proposal and stood up for THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES AND CITIZENS TO HAVE CLEAN AIR!
