The Terrell City Council may revisit the city’s smoking ordinance at its Oct. 16 meeting.

Ordinance No. 1992, passed by the council in 1999, mandated the creation of non-smoking areas in public buildings, retail and restaurant establishments. That may be revamped, according to the city’s assistant counsel, Greg Shumpert.

Shumpert told council members Thursday night that he would be presenting them with a new ordnance addressing smoking.

The city of Forney in 2013 passed its own smoking regulations. The new ordinance, which was to become effective March 1, 2013, bans smoking in public buildings or in food establishments such as restaurants, coffee shops, cafeterias, private clubs, lunch rooms and catering establishments.

Smoking also will not be allowed within 25 feet of public buildings and food establishments. However, it will be allowed in parking lots and on sidewalks as long as the smoker is more than 25 feet from a prohibited location.

In 2013, when Terrell was drawing up plans for a new smoking ordinance — but did not present them to the council — Carmona’s Tex-Mex Cantina on Tanger Drive, was smoke-free except for its Matador room, which is the bar area. Applebee’s also had smoking in its bar area.

“Any restaurant is free to ban smoking anywhere they want to,” Terrell Assistant City Manager Mike Sims said in 2013.

Sims said when new restaurants open, it is fairly common to have non-smoking as a rule.

He said there was an effort during the 2011 state legislative session by the American Heart Association to have a statewide smoking ban in all restaurants and bars, but it was not successful.

“Having a 1999 ordinance means we have a fairly old ordinance on the topic,” Sims said.”

Shumpert said under the new proposed ordinance bars and private clubs would still be able to allow smoking.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the council will discuss having a consultant conduct a six-month project evaluating the city’s employee salaries and benefits as compared to selected similar cities

The council will also discuss an ordinance governing new smoke/vape shops.

Gary E. Lindsley may be reached at news@terrelltribune.com.

(5) comments

harleyrider1978

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!

harleyrider1978

Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/

(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.

[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).

harleyrider1978

“All smoking bans imposed in our country, can be regarded only as a social discrimination. Comes to the ridiculous – you can refuse to accept a job just because you are a smoker. In modern civil society, such segregation is unacceptable “ .

harleyrider1978

100-year-old Dorothy Howe has puffed her way through nearly HALF A MILLION cigarettes

Nov 12, 2013 00:00
By Steve Doohan

The former secretary has smoked 15 a day since she was 16 and says the killer habit is the key to her long life

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/smoker-dorothy-howe-reaches-100-2760426#.U1qoP_CCQ1A.facebook

harleyrider1978

'The so-called 'smoking related disease' is one of the antismokers' cleverest inventions. To say that a disease is 'smoking-related' is not the same as saying that it is directly caused by smoking, or that there is any actual proof of anything. It means simply that someone has decided that smoking MAY be a factor in that disease.

Over the last couple of decades, more and more diseases have been added to the list, often with very little evidence. Heart disease was one of the first, even though it has something like 300 risk factors, and some major studies (for instance, that of the citizens of Framingham, Massachusetts, which has been going on since 1948) have shown not only that the link with smoking is weak, but that moderate smokers have LESS heart disease than nonsmokers.

More recently it has become fashionable to blame smoking for just about everything... from 'clogging up' of the arteries (which happens to everyone as they get older) to blindness (well, they can't blame masturbation any more) to AIDS. It has also become fashionable, every time a smoker dies, to try to find a way to blame their death on smoking.
The fact is that many statistics about smoking (and especially 'secondhand' smoke) are simply made up. For instance, until cervical cancer was recently proven to be caused by a virus, a completely random 13% of cases were attributed to smoking!

The great thing about the 'smoking-related disease,' is that it allows you to create the perception of a raging epidemic. The UK government says that 100,000 or 120,000 deaths per year (depending on who is speaking at the time) are caused by 'smoking-related disease'. The impression given is that these are all deaths specifically, and provably, caused by smoking, but it is no such thing.
It includes non-smokers who die of bronchitis or strokes, and smokers who die of heart attacks in their 80s. It includes people who quit smoking decades before. It is not exactly lying, but it is deliberately misleading, it is fearmongering, and in my opinion these people should be ashamed of themselves.'

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.