By Jessica Robertson
Baytown Sun  

Published April 19, 2007

Both sides of Baytown’s great smoking debate are gearing up for next month’s election that will include a proposed ordinance to repeal the city’s ban on indoor smoking and allow restaurants to have designated sections for smokers.

The SmokeFree Baytown Coalition, which backed the ban that was passed by 57 percent of voters in November, held a press conference on Wednesday at the San Jacinto Methodist Hospital Cancer Center to kick off their campaign to defeat the latest initiative.

If passed, the measure — called Proposition 1 — would essentially nullify the ban and reinstate the city’s previous guidelines that restricted smoking to designated sections in restaurants with separate ventilation systems.

“We know this ordinance has been working,” coalition spokesman Dr. Bruce Kennedy said. “Proposition 1 threatens to take away our right to breathe smokefree air. It would reverse the progress we’ve made and take Baytown back to an unhealthier time.”

The group supporting the proposition, the Baytown Citizens for Property Rights, contends that returning to the less stringent ordinance would be a fair compromise for both sides.

“It gave a little wiggle room to the property owners,” group spokesman James Haarmeyer said. “It was restrictive enough to serve the purposes of the coalition in that it did diminish some degree of smoking, but it didn’t dictate to the property owner exactly what he could and could not do.”

The citizens’ group began its campaign for the proposition last week with a fundraiser at Bayland Island. Proceeds from the all-day concert will be used to fund yard signs and mailings, Haarmeyer said.

The coalition plans to mount similar campaign efforts with signs and mailings, Kennedy said. The group has also enlisted the help of local physicians to support the claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

“I’ve seen plenty of patients suffering from lung conditions related to smoking,” said Dr. Mohammad R. Khoshnevis, a pulmonologist. “I also see a lot of them that have never smoked in their lives but have respiratory failure or are on oxygen because of their exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Even more dangerous, pediatrician Alton Prihoda said, is the potential impact of secondhand smoke on children. Cases of asthma and allergies in children exposed to smoke are worse than those of children in smokefree homes, he said.

“I spend literally hours weekly trying to convince parents to give up the habit,” Prihoda said. “The basic problem here is we can’t control what happens in the home, but we can, to a degree, limit exposure in the public environment.”

Those opposed to the ban have argued that the abundance of refineries and plants in the area release more harmful pollutants than cigarette smokers. Prihoda disagreed.

“I know we live near plants,” he said. “But we’re talking parts per billion in terms of pollution. If you’re in a room with someone smoking, you’re going to be affected immediately.”

Oncologist Pamela Medellin, who has lived in Baytown for 27 years, said she’s seen improvements in local restaurants in the four and a half months that the ordinance has been in effect.

“I have not seen any decline in restaurants having patrons,” she said. “It’s much nicer when you walk into a restaurant and don’t have to be asked ‘smoking or non-smoking?’ You’re immediately seated.”

A report released by the U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona in June reignited the smoking debate when it found that smoking sections don’t adequately protect nonsmoking patrons from secondhand smoke.

“It’s a myth to believe ventilation can remove smoke in restaurants,” Kennedy said. “Proposition 1 would bring back the flawed and dangerous concept of ventilated areas. Secondhand smoke is not just annoying — it’s dangerous and potentially deadly.”

In his defense of the ban, Khoshnevis cited a study released in 2004 by the British Medical Journal on the impact of a six-month smoking ban in Helena, Mont.

The study compared heart attack admission rates at local hospitals and found that the number of admissions decreased by 40 percent under the ban. Similar research hasn’t been done in Baytown, Kennedy said.

Such a report isn’t representative of the impact of smoking bans nationwide, Haaarmeyer said, noting that the coalition hasn’t presented similar studies from Austin, California or New York.

“They tout that, but they had to struggle really hard to find a favorable report on a smoking ban,” he said. “They state the number of cities and states that are smokefree, yet when you hear their report, it’s from some unknown burg that nobody’s ever heard of.”

The citizens’ group has polled nearly all local bar owners to gauge the financial impact of the ordinance, and most have said their business is between 25 to 40 percent down, Haarmeyer said.

“It’s interesting to me that bar owners are saying their business is down, yet several of them readily admit they’re not enforcing the ban,” Kennedy said.

Because the ordinance is “unenforceable,” Haarmeyer said, the bar community is “thumbing its nose” at the ordinance and continuing to smoke in clubs.

“Baytown is not smokefree,” he said. “Just because we have an ordinance doesn’t mean we are. They’re not achieving what they set out to do with the ban.”

In February, Baytown City Council amended the ordinance in a 4-3 vote, clarifying that “no smoking” signs are not allowed on commercial vehicles or at places of worship. Early voting on Proposition 1 runs from April 30 to May 8. Election Day is May 12.