Citing the proven dangers of secondhand...

Paul Lawrason, Moorpark mayor

I definitely support the imposition of a more stringent smoking ordinance in the city. I believe it’s time for public officials to act to put legislation in place that is going to protect the public from the serious health hazards caused by secondhand smoke. I think the way that you go about that is to ban smoking in public buildings and in any area where the public congregates where they could be susceptible to secondhand smoke. I think the only locations where it should be allowed are in areas which are completely separated and related to activities where smoking is more accepted and appropriate. In our case, that will probably be bars, possibly cocktail lounges and, in some limited fashion, outdoor eating and drinking areas. I think the overwhelming medical evidence just leads us to a conclusion that something has to be done. People are contracting serious diseases and dying as a result of this situation. It’s time the public became more aware and supported the idea.

*

John Gustafson, Co-owner, The Whistle Stoppe bar and restaurant

I don’t support the ban as it’s written, No. 1, and No. 2, as far as disadvantages are concerned, in my opinion local businesses are going to see a tremendous loss in the bottom line for the simple fact that all the other cities and towns that surround Moorpark do not have a ban and, as far as I know, don’t plan to have one. Therefore it puts the businesses in Moorpark at a disadvantage. I personally feel that you ought to have the free market system take care of itself, in other words, freedom of choice. If a person decides to go to a restaurant because they allow smoking, that should be his choice, not government regulation. The free market system will take care of that, because if it becomes popular not to smoke and a restaurant supports smoking in their establishment, then the restaurant will suffer. You just kind of let the economic forces take care of themselves. It looks like the bar is going to be exempt and that’s where I was really concerned, because in the bar area, smoking just really goes along with drinking.

*

Nan Waltman, Senior health educator, Ventura County Public Health

It’s important for cities to carry through on their responsibilities to protect public health and safety. Business owners who still permit smoking clearly face legal liability as a result of worker injury from secondhand smoke. Employers have already lost workers’ compensation claims on this and now there is the Americans with Disabilities Act. The simple cost-effective solution is cities enacting 100% smoke-free-workplace ordinances, and 40 California cities have already done it. The new generation of ordinances that we’re seeing in these cities address the issue of public health and worker injury. The old ordinances were issues of choice. But it’s not an issue of patron choice or even employer choice. The core issue is public health and worker safety. In January of 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency named environmental tobacco smoke as one of the 15 deadliest Group A carcinogens. It’s held responsible for 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year in nonsmoking Americans. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg for injury and death caused by involuntary smoking.

*

Francis Okyere, President, Moorpark Chamber of Commerce

Personally, I support a ban. Based on the information I received from my chamber members, the ban should be a gradual process. They want to be able to retain their customers so they don’t have customer flight, people going to other areas because the communities around us don’t have a ban. So my opinion is that it should be gradual in the sense that you talk about smoking in designated areas for two years or a year and that way you retain the customers because they have the chance to get used to it. It’s going to happen sooner or later, smoking is going to be banned, and I think if it’s done on a gradual basis the shock won’t be felt so sharply in Moorpark. This is a small community and the restaurants have a very small profit margin and a small amount of customers. So anything that can tilt the scale against them can really hurt quite a few of the restaurants in town. The chamber’s position is that we should try to get the cities around us, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley, to participate in a program like this so that no particular city will lose customers to another city.

*

Vicky Howard, Ventura County supervisor

I personally have never smoked at all, but I am sensitive to the fact that some people do smoke and enjoy it. I would choose to go to places that have either no smoking completely or nonsmoking areas. But I really feel it’s up to the citizens of Moorpark. I certainly prefer to be in a nonsmoking place, but I don’t intend to impose my will on someone else. I think there are tremendous benefits (to the proposed ban). We’ve all seen statistics that secondhand smoke can be more harmful than direct smoke, because the smoker is getting the benefit of the filter. I find it offensive to be next to a smoker and be getting the smoke and I think it would be wonderful if we could eliminate smoking from public places, but I think we’re going to have to wean people off their cigarettes. My frank impression is that nearly 80% to 90% of the public no longer smoke in public places. I think there’s a real trend away from public smoking. So I would really doubt that it would adversely affect businesses. I think it would be more of a benefit.