Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
Anonymous
New Account
Forgot Password
News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Foes of Smoking Ban Snuffed Again
Title:US CA: Foes of Smoking Ban Snuffed Again
Published On:1998-01-17
Source:San Jose Mercury News
Fetched On:2008-09-07 16:55:33
FOES OF SMOKING BAN SNUFFED AGAIN

Undeterred, they vow to keep struggle going

SACRAMENTO (AP) -- Opponents of California's new law prohibiting smoking in
bars lost another round in court Thursday, but said they will continue
their fight both in court and the Legislature.

Superior Court Judge Joe S. Gray refused the request of a coalition of bar
owners to issue an injunction to block the enforcement of the smoking ban
before a suit challenging its constitutionality goes to trial.

Attorney William Thomson, who represented the bar owners, described that as
a setback. But he said they would continue to fight the smoking ban, which
took effect Jan. 1.

`Certainly we're disappointed, but the battle will continue, both legally
and legislatively,'' Thomson said, adding that his options include
appealing the denial of his request for an injunction, seeking a speedy
trial on the suit, or seeking a new law repealing the smoking ban.

Attorney George Waters, representing the American Cancer Society and other
supporters of the smoking ban, also said he expected the legal battle to
continue.

Gray said in his ruling it was the responsibility of the Legislature, not
the courts, to make public policy, and that a court should overrule the
Legislature only if it finds a law in conflict with the state or U.S.
Constitution.

Gray added that he didn't find anything in the bar-smoking ban that was in
conflict with the constitution.

Thomson had argued that the smoking ban violated the equal protection
provisions of the constitution in that it exempts restaurants with five or
fewer employees which sell alcohol but does not exempt bars with five or
fewer employees which do not serve food.

But Gray ruled that ``there is a rational basis for the distinctions made
in the statute,'' and that it therefore doesn't violate the constitution.

In court, Waters and Senior Assistant Attorney General Allen Sumner argued
that the law was designed to protect bar employees who, unlike patrons, are
involuntarily exposed to second-hand smoke. Waters cited scientific studies
which found bar patrons are exposed to two to three times as much smoke as
restaurant employees.
Member Comments
No member comments available...