FROM THE EDITOR: For workers' sake, Hutchinson needs a smoke-free law

By Doug Hanneman,
Editor

Most Hutchinson residents want the city to toughen its stance on workplace smoking. I hope the City Council gives them what they want.

But I also hope the council doesn’t rush its decision. The key players need to be heard or they’ll resent the decision. I hope the council sits down with the owners of the seven bar/ restaurants that would be affected. And I think the council should to talk to other cities with smoking ordinances to learn their experiences. Everyone will feel better about the final version of a smoking ordinance if the council is thorough in its process.

I am biased, but I think the facts will show the need for a comprehensive ordinance. The most convincing arguments for a stronger ordinance are the health risks of working in a smoky workplace: A nonsmoking worker is, on average, 40 percent more likely to get lung cancer, and 30 percent more likely to have heart problems than someone who doesn’t work in a smoky workplace. Why would any business owner want to subject an employee to those risks?

Some business owners make great claims about building partitions, smoke-free hours and air exchangers designed to eliminate smoke. The truth is those things do little good. The Centers for Disease Control says an air exchanger will eliminate the sight and odor of smoke, but it won’t take out the carcinogens. Carcinogens kill workers.

Five years ago, the City Council voted not to adopt a smoking ordinance. That seemed OK at the time because business owners said they would come up with their own ways to protect their workers and customers. One downtown restaurant voluntarily went smoke-free. One restaurant that served 3.2 beer also went smoke-free. So did a family restaurant that serves no alcohol. A couple more experimented with air exchangers and barriers, but the majority of bars and restaurants did nothing. They didn’t keep their promise. That’s why the city needs to step in.
I’ve argued before that if a business owned a machine that spewed out the same kinds of poisonous gases contained in secondhand smoke, OSHA would step in and close down that business before you can say Pall Mall. But because smoking is a human behavior and not a mechanical one, our society treats it differently. That’s wrong. The threat to workers is no less serious, regardless of the source.

I’m not saying a stronger smoking ordinance would be easy for businesses. But it might not be as bad as some might fear. Appleton, Wis., enacted a workplace ordinance in July 2005. Some bar owners protested, and the issue was dragged back to the voters twice. Both times voters said they want the ordinance to continue. Bar owners themselves admit fewer complaints of respiratory illnesses from their employees. Moreover, 11 new businesses have requested liquor licenses in the city since the ordinance was enacted. Apparently, they view the ordinance quite differently than the owners who oppose it.

In an editorial earlier this year, we endorsed the McLeod County’s new smoking ordinance because it was a step in the right direction. Most citizens are now telling the city to take the next step. I hope the City Council takes its time, listens and acts.