Community Community News Oceanside

Oceanside OKs smoking ban

OCEANSIDE — The City Council approved the introduction of an ordinance to ban smoking on outdoor restaurant and bar dining patios in a 3-2 vote on March 18.

While the majority of City Council members and speakers said the ordinance that guards against secondhand smoke is the right things to do, a handful of restaurant/bar owners spoke against the smoking ban.

Following the meeting Tom Ratowski, co-owner of The Draft Restaurant & Sports Bar, said he went through hoops to build a patio to city specifications, which is used by patrons who want to smoke.

“We don’t serve food on the patio,” Ratowski said. “We’ve been proactive from the beginning. Now they’re puling it out from under us.”

Ratowski and Derek Mascia have co-owned the restaurant/bar for seven years.

Ratowski said the ban should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

During the meeting, Joe Jeffery, owner of Junkyard Grill & Sports Bar, requested that existing restaurant/bar smoking patios be grandfathered in. He also built a patio specifically for patrons to have a place to step away from diners and light up.

Councilmen Jerry Kern and Jack Feller sided with business owners and voted against the ordinance, saying it should be an owner’s right to run their restaurant or bar as they see fit.

“It’s government overreach,” Kern said. “(People will soon be saying) let’s go after fires on the beach, and people smoking in their own home.”

Mayor Jim Wood pointed out that 90 percent of Californians do not smoke, but are subject to secondhand smoke if it is allowed on restaurant patios.

Speakers in support of the ordinance said restaurant workers, children and elderly are particularly vulnerable to secondhand smoke.

Oceanside resident Jimmy Figueroa said it was frustrating encountering fellow diners who were smoking while his wife was pregnant.

“These regulations are important for the health, safety and welfare of people,” Joe Kellejian, American Lung Association board member and former Solana Beach councilman, said.

Earlier city council discussions in 2013 did not pass restaurant patio smoking restrictions.

Oceanside will now join Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, National City, Chula Vista and El Cajon that have similar bans.

The Oceanside ordinance spells out known health hazards of secondhand smoke, which include lung cancer, heart disease, and birth defects.

The ordinance prohibits smoking within 20 feet of a restaurant patio, and requires owners to post no smoking signs.

Penalties for smokers are a $100 fine for the first offense, $200 fine for the second infraction, and $500 fine for the third.

The ordinance will return to council for final approval at an upcoming meeting.

Related posts

Nursery land to sprout houses instead of trees

Rachel Stine

Bill benefits veteran’s education

staff

Hall park plans get another update

Wehtahnah Tucker

Hit the Trails: Local hikes to keep you moving

Angela McLaughlin

Del Mar hires consultant to help meet affordable housing goal

Bianca Kaplanek

Developer aims to break ground on beach resort

Promise Yee

14 comments

jack March 19, 2015 at 3:54 pm

The Oceanside ordinance spells out known health hazards of secondhand smoke, which include lung cancer, heart disease, and birth defects.

ROFLMAO………….TOTAL B.S.

Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

milbankDOTorg/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealthDOThtml

jack March 19, 2015 at 4:20 pm

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 “The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act”. The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.

jack March 19, 2015 at 3:54 pm

OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13163/reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence-third-edition

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

jack March 19, 2015 at 3:56 pm

They cant even prove direct smoking causes a single disease in anyone to start with much less 94% water vapor and ordinairy air! SG REPORT 1989 PG 80

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
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.

jack March 19, 2015 at 3:56 pm

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

jack March 19, 2015 at 3:57 pm

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke

About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms.

Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). – (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)

jack March 19, 2015 at 4:02 pm

As you can see SHS/ETS or whatever magical name they give tobacco smoke its all been smoke and mirrors and you can blame your own states RWJF ROBERT WOODS JOHNSON FOUNDATION for all the junk Science and claims plus imposing PROHIBITION on you all across the nation and the world!

Dig deep enuf and you will see NEW JERSEYS RWJF Johnson and Johnson big pharma is behind more lifestyle wars on us all than anyone else. They are responsible for rent seeking legislation to sell worthless NRT drugs nicotine replacement therapy drugs with a 98% failure rate…….

The imaginary war on obesity is another of their magical creations as well as the war on alcohol sugar sodas you name it they are in it……..

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Financier of Temperance

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/RWJfoundation.html

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Financier of Temperance … Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign: … The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Neo-Prohibitionist

jack March 19, 2015 at 4:04 pm

When I say created and invented public health epidemics that’s just what I mean.

The Medicalizing of America

Part I: The Numbers Game

Medicalize: “To identify or categorize (a condition or behavior) as being a disorder requiring medical treatment or intervention,” American Heritage Dictionary.

Responses to virtually all questions, medical and otherwise fall into two categories: 1. Those having a finite number of answers, including yes, no, or in-between, for example “are you hungry?” or “are you sick?” and 2. Questions having a range of answers or values. Biologic and other scientific measurements fall into this latter category and include such things as weight, age, height, blood pressure, blood chemical values, such as glucose, cholesterol, PSA, etc. Where we get into trouble is in deciding, particularly in medicine, what is indeed normal and what is not. No matter where we place the dividing line or cutoff point, we are faced with an irresolvable medical dilemma.

If we make the cutoff between normal and abnormal too low, we include too many normal in the abnormal group (called false positives, a Type I error); if the cutoff is too high, we include an excess of abnormal in the normal group (false negatives, Type II error). In the first instance we call too many well people sick, and in the latter, too many sick people well. (We are assuming the spectrum of low to high corresponds to the range of normal to abnormal; sometimes this range is reversed.)

Over the years, various cutoff points for normal values have been based on generally accepted statistical and common sense clinical grounds. For example we have “normal” values for fasting and non-fasting blood sugars, upon which the diagnosis of diabetes is based; the “normal” level for blood pressure, defining the condition, hypertension; cutoff points for weight, defining obesity; and “normal” levels of blood lipids (HDL,LDL and total cholesterol) which for some even define the presence of heart disease (sic!). In what appears as a fatally misguided hope of extending treatment benefits to as many citizens as possible, various professional societies as well as Government Agencies have indeed changed our definitions of disease with unforeseen consequences. Specifically, in the present climate of change driven by a perceived need to keep us healthy and long-lived, these cutoff points have been lowered progressively and so drastically as virtually to create a nation of patients.

In a revealing article in Effective Clinical Practice (March/April 1999) Lisa M. Schwartz and Steven Woloshin conclude that the number of people with at least one of four major medical conditions (actually risk factors) has increased dramatically in the past decade because of changes in the definition of abnormality. Using data abstracted from over 20,700 patients included in this Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, the authors calculated the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and being overweight under the old and the new definitions and calculated the net change (i.e., number of new cases). Here are the results reported in the above article.

Diabetes:

Old Definition: Blood sugar > 140 mg/dl
People under old definition: 11.7 million
New Definition: Blood sugar > 126 mg/dl
People added under new definition: 1.7 million
Percent increase: 15%

The definition was changed in 1997 by the American Diabetes Association and WHO Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.

Hypertension:

High blood pressure is reported as two numbers, systolic or peak pressure and diastolic pressure when heart is at rest) in mm Hg.

Old Definition: cutoff Blood Pressure > 160/100
People under old definition: 38.7 million
New Definition: Blood Pressure > 140/90
People added under new definition: 13.5 million
Percent Increase: 35%

The definition was changed in 1997 by U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

Prehypertension, a new category created in 2003: blood pressure from 120/80 to 138/89 includes 45 million additional people! If one includes this category, we have a grand total of 97.2 million total numbers of hypertensives and prehypertensives (whatever that is).

High (Total) Cholesterol:

Old Definition: Cholesterol > 240 mg/dl total cholesterol
People under old definition: 49.5 million
New Definition: Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl total cholesterol
People added under new definition: 42.6 million
Percent increase: 86%

The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.

Overweight:

Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
People under old definition: 70.6 million
New definition: BMI > 25
People added under new definition: 30.5 million
Percent Increase: 43%

The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

“The new definitions ultimately label 75 percent of the adult U.S. population as diseased,” conclude the two researchers. They add cautiously that “…the extent to which new ‘patients’ would ultimately benefit from early detection and treatment of these conditions is unknown. Whether they would experience important physical or psychological harm is an open question.”

We seem to live in an equal opportunity consumer culture tyrannized by the fear of growing “epidemics” going by the leading risk brand names, High Blood Pressure, Obesity, Diabetes, and High Cholesterol. Just read the papers, peruse the Internet, or turn on your TV to learn what the Government watchdogs, the consensus insurgency, and the other image makers have to say about our disastrous state of health.

Several related questions arise when we consider the implications of these new definitions of disease (actually disease risk-markers). First how did these official and semi-official watchdogs achieve their status of “guideline-makers,”who appoints them and why, and how powerful an influence do they wield in terms of medical practice? Finally, one has to wonder what is the rationale for adding over 86 million new “patients” (not counting 45 million “prehypertensives”) to our already staggering over-the-top healthcare cost.

Coming soon, these and other issues will be examined in our next newsletter.

Martin F. Sturman, MD, FACP

Copyright 2005, Mathemedics, Inc.

jack March 19, 2015 at 4:13 pm

Read the latest DSM-5 book of mental disorders today anything is considered a mental problem as in simply displaying emotion……..I kid you not. Look it up on any web search you will be amazed whats happened to your country while you slept.

jack March 19, 2015 at 4:35 pm

Slippery slope? Nah!
The new Tobacco Atlas, published by the World Lung Foundation and the American Cancer Society, was unveiled at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health this week.

There is a striking image on page 80.
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2015/03/slippery-slope-nah.html#disqus_thread

jack March 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm

A little on the “slippery slope” that apparently – according to the antismoking fanatics – doesn’t exist.

The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.

Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors.

Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of dilute smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, “innocent” nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entranceways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entranceways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses, and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in backyards.

On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) rather than allow them to have a cigarette.

At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s. They have prostituted their medical authority to chase ideology. All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO and that most governments are now signed-up to.

This has all happened in just 20 years. If it was mentioned 20 years ago, or even 10 or 5 years ago, that smokers would be denied employment and housing, and smoking bans in parks and beaches, it would have been laughed at as “crazed thinking”. Yet here we are. Much of it has happened before and it has all been intentional, planned decades ago. We just don’t learn or we’re going to have to learn the very hard way because it has to do with far, far more than just smoking.

Jim James March 19, 2015 at 6:24 pm

As former smoker and current health care worker I am so happy with the smoking ban. I can not recall any time that I looked at any medical charts of any cancer patients who was not a smoker at some point in their lives.Matter of fact even if you quit it still shows in your medical history as “former smoker” may be because you still carry a great risk for getting cancer. I am sure there are some people with cancer who never smoked but I have not seen one. May be people who work in the mines or exposed to strong carcinogens because of their occupation like mine workers or oil refinery workers.
As far as business owners I want to assure you that over the long haul you will get more business because people will come into your establishment and use the outdoor seating if they do not have to inhale second hand smoke or vapor. I know that many times I avoid restaurants outdoor seating because smoking is allowed. You will hear lot of lies and studies!? sponserd by Tobacco companies,merchants of death trying to obfuscate the issue, do not pay attention, smoking is a losing habit I know I did it for 15 years. It was the stupidest thing I ever did. I look forward to the day when the entire city is non smoking and non vaporing of tobacco and other chemicals.As far as what what used to be considered “crazy’ few years ago there was a time in this country when slavery was legal and women could not vote! So There merchants of death, Tobacco companies deal with it!

jack March 19, 2015 at 7:46 pm

Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡

Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/… Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

jack March 19, 2015 at 7:48 pm

They cant even prove direct smoking causes a single disease in anyone to start with much less 94% water vapor and ordinairy air! SG REPORT 1989 PG 80

Comments are closed.