Commission delays smoking ban decision

After more than two hours of heated argument at a Borough Hall public hearing last night, the Princeton Regional Health Commission voted to postpone its decision on whether to institute a proposed ban on smoking in most public places and workplaces in Princeton.

Commission chairman Robert Hendry said he believes that, because of the overwhelming response by concerned residents and the legal issues raised by such an ordinance, the commission will not make a decision at its next meeting April 18, but will wait until its May meeting to do so.

"We are really under the gun to be sued," Hendry said. "The legal ramifications may dictate that we need some further discussion, but in my opinion we should have a decision by May."

The proposed ordinance — which applies to bars, restaurants and taverns but exempts retail tobacco shops, homes and private clubs in Princeton Borough and Township — has come under criticism since it was first put forth at the commission's Feb. 17 meeting.

Proponents of the ordinance base their argument on the health hazards ambient smoke presents to employees and patrons of the establishments. Citing medical studies linking secondhand smoke to heart disease and cancer, advocates claimed that the ordinance is necessary to protect the rights of non-smoking workers who might otherwise be forced into a smoking environment in the workplace.

"Smoking is indisputably the cause of the preventable deaths of 400,000 Americans every year. That's almost as many Americans that died in all the wars of the 20th century combined," said Neil Weisfeld of New Jersey Breathes, a coalition of several medical organizations.

Restaurant owners and residents opposing the ordinance claimed the restriction would hurt business by eliminating the right of proprietors to choose whether to permit an otherwise legal activity on their premises.

"I am not denying the adverse effects of smoking, but defending the right of a business owner to decide to permit a legal activity in my business environment," Alchemist and Barrister owner Tom Schmierer said. Citing verbal complaints from his customers who claim they will no longer patronize the restaurant if the ban is put in place, he added, "The fact is this ordinance will affect business, though no one really knows how yet."

Advocates of the ordinance maintained, however, that business would not be adversely affected by a ban. "Businesses seem to think that the only reason for success is smoking, but people patronize restaurants for the atmosphere, ambiance, drink and food — and not for the smoking privileges," Eileen Fisher from the American Lung Association said.

On both sides of the argument, speakers at last night's hearing used colorful extremes and examples to demonstrate their points. Some said they believed the ban constitute an invasion of liberty that would open the floodgates to future draconian restrictions, while others compared the ordinance to a similar debate 150 years ago over a Dodge City, Kan., law outlawing guns in saloons.

One resident said, "In my 41 years here, I have never seen so much excitement since dog leash laws."