Supporters and opponents of anti-smoking bills in the Oregon Legislature voiced their concerns before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday in the Knight Law Center.
The hearing concerned Senate Bill 571, which would extend smoking bans statewide to all indoor workplaces, including bars, bingo halls and bowling alleys. The bill would also prevent smoking within 25 feet of a doorway, open window or ventilation. Two other senate bills and one house bill also propose various statewide restrictions on smoking in public places.
Oregon passed a smoke-free bill in 2002 that exempts bars, taverns, bingo halls and certain hotel and motel rooms from the restrictions. Eugene is one of the few cities in Oregon with an ordinance that bans smoking in all public places.
Judiciary Committee chairwoman Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, said she chose to hold the hearing in Eugene because it’s a community that has lived with an anti-smoking law for a long time.
Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy spoke at the hearing in favor of the bill, saying that residents in every town and city in Oregon deserve a healthy place to live. She said the Eugene City Council heard testimony from opponents who said that it would interfere with business. Its supporters, who ranged from medical professionals to restaurant employees, helped with the ultimate decision to pass it with a 7-1 vote.
“In the end, as elected officials we agreed it was our responsibility to provide protection to all our community members,” Piercy said.
Most health officials at the hearing testified in support of the bills because of the health risks from second-hand smoke.
Courtni Dresser of the American Cancer Society said the bill is about protecting the health of workers and the public. She said Oregon is falling behind 16 other states that have passed stronger laws against smoking in bars and public places, including Washington and California.
English major Amelie Rousseau said college students would benefit greatly from the ban because many work in the restaurant and bar industries.
“I personally wouldn’t consider applying for one of those jobs where smoking is allowed just because of my health,” she said.
Opponents of the bill said it was unfair and it went too far, affecting businesses and customers’ rights to smoke a legal product. One Eugene resident lit a cigarette in the room as a protest against the bill, saying that it was discriminatory against smokers.
Tobacconist Steven Rowe said his Portland store has a lounge for customers to smoke, socialize and use lottery machines. He said the ban would force him to close the lounge and lay off the employees who work there.
Jack Elder, chairman of the Oregon Charitable Gaming Association, said the majority of people who attend the gaming halls and play for charity are smokers. A ban on smoking in the halls would probably mean that many of them would stop attending and the charities would lose money, he said.
“If we didn’t have the revenue from gaming, we’d be over,” said Ken Buckles, executive director of the non-profit veteran’s group, Remembering America’s Heroes.
Bill Perry, a spokesman for the Oregon Restaurant Association, said businesses should be free to make their own choice on whether they allow smoking or not. Since the passage of the state compromise, several restaurants and bars have voluntarily become smoke-free, he said.
“You find more and more bars in Oregon are going smoke free,” Perry said. “People making that decision, and their customers and their employees helping them with that decision, has shown that it can happen.”
However, supporters of the bill said short-term revenue loss by restaurants and bars was offset by non-smokers who start going out.
Wendy Watson, a bartender who helped collect signatures for the Eugene ordinance, read testimony from owners and employees who said that the loss in business from smokers going elsewhere was offset by the increase in business from non-smokers. Employees were also happy about not being exposed to secondhand smoke at their jobs, she said.
A forced ban on smoking would still mean a loss in revenue for businesses and it would be unfair to people who want to smoke, Perry said.
“We’re not advocating for smoking,” Perry said. “We’re just saying it’s a legal product and there are customers out there who want it.”
Contact the city, state politics reporter at [email protected]