SHALL THE BOULDER CITY CODE BE AMENDED BY EXTENSION OF THE PRESENT RESTRICTIONS ON SMOKING TO INCLUDE A BAN ON SMOKING IN ALL BUILDINGS, EXCEPT FOR DWELLINGS, PRIVATE SOCIAL FUNCTIONS, TOBACCO STORES, AND DESIGNATED SMOKING AREAS IN RESTAURANTS AND TAVERNS?
Major Provisions: Boulder Issue 2C bans smoking in almost all public places. It specifically bans smoking in all buildings except for private dwellings, private social functions, tobacco stores, and designated smoking areas in restaurants and taverns. It defines a designated smoking area as structurally separated from the rest of the establishment by walls and self-closing doors. A designated smoking area also must have a ventilation system that is separate from the ventilation system of the non-smoking areas of the establishment. This measure allows smoking in outdoor public places, including on patios and in other outdoor areas connected to a restaurant or tavern.
If Boulder Issue 2C passes, smoking will be allowed only in physically separate and separately ventilated smoking areas within public establishments, or in outdoor areas adjacent to the establishment. If Boulder Issue 2C does not pass, the present smoking ordinance will remain in effect.
Background: On August 1, 1995, the City Council passed and adopted a new, stricter smoking ordinance (No. 5734). Some Boulder citizens objected to the new ordinance and began to circulate a referendum petition to repeal it, or (if the City Council would not repeal it) to submit the ordinance to the voters on the November 7, 1995 ballot. On September 12, 1995, the city clerk certified that the referendum petitioners had collected enough signatures. The City Council responded by repealing its new ordinance (No. 5734) and re-enacting the old smoking regulations (Chapter 6-4, B.R.C. 1981). The City Council then agreed to submit a revised smoking ordinance (No. 5754) as Boulder Issue 2C to the voters on November 7, 1995.
Those in FAVOR say: -- Government must intervene to protect people from a known health hazard: second-hand smoke. Such protection is particularly important for workers who now have to work in a smoke filled environment and for children.
-- Citizens' freedom from exposure to second-hand smoke is more important than business owners' freedom to decide whether or not to allow smoking in private businesses.
-- Freedom from second-hand smoke is more important than freedom to smoke. As some people say, "your freedom to smoke ends where my nose begins."
-- Further restrictions on smoking make good economic sense. Health care costs from exposure to second-hand smoke may increase if we fail to tighten restrictions on smoking in public places.
-- The stricter smoking ordinance will not hurt business in Boulder. Several California cities have laws requiring completely smoke-free restaurants. Follow-up studies show that such restrictive smoking ordinances do not have a negative effect on restaurant sales.
Those OPPOSED say:
-- Measure 2C involves too much government intervention in private business. Business owners should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking in their businesses. As well, customers should have the freedom to choose whether or not to patronize a business that allows smoking.
-- Government does not need to intervene to protect citizens from health hazards that are not proven.
-- Further restrictions on smoking will unfavorably affect businesses. Bar owners say they will lose customers if smoking is banned in bars.
-- The requirement for physically separate and separately ventilated smoking areas is a hardship. If a separate room is required, the owner of a one person business could not smoke in his or her one room office. As well, some bar and restaurant owners may not have the space or money to construct (for smokers) a separate room that is separately ventilated.
-- The wording of Boulder Issue 2C is misleading. In the new ordinance, the term "designated smoking area" means a physically separate and separately ventilated smoking area. The identical term has a less restrictive meaning in the old ordinance.
This analysis was prepared as a public service by the League of Women Voters of Boulder Valley, P.O. Box 1534, Boulder, CO 80306. The League takes no responsibility for the accuracy or fairness of the arguments of either side.