While the risk of lung cancer may be "weak," it is still an increased risk and certainly not negligible. However, lung cancer isn't the only risk to someone constantly exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke. Other dangers include an increased risk of chest infections, of otitis media in children and the aggravation of chronic bronchitis, asthma and emphysema.
In fact, the 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report equates the risk of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke to that of exposure to asbestos or radon.
The editorial ignored the testimony of restaurant workers, from chefs to waiters and waitresses, that their eyes and respiratory passages are irritated each day. These facts are no longer denied, even by advocates for the tobacco industry.
What is most disturbing is that the editorial gave no consideration whatsoever to the plight of the employees of these establishments who are exposed to these risks day after day, night after night, month after month, year after year.
Instead the editorial highlighted the argument that restaurant owners can ill afford to make expensive renovations especially if smokers - including Japanese tourists - are discouraged from eating out.
It seems the Star-Bulletin is more worried about the business from foreign visitors than about the health of the people who serve them, employees who are residents of our state and whom the City Council has been elected to represent.
Data from more than 130 cities on the mainland has shown that when smoking is banned in all restaurants in a location, the sales tax from those restaurants increases rather than decreases in the year following the implementation of the smoking restrictions.
The cities that have implemented these bans include every city in the state of California as well as Aspen, Colo., whose industry depends largely on tourism, too.
It appears that smokers simply smoke outside, or use methods of nicotine replacement available to them such as nicotine patches or nicotine gum.
While it may be true that no other city may rely on tourism from Japan as much as Honolulu, and that no study in such a market has been performed, it is our belief that visitors from the Orient are very gracious people, who go out their way not to offend their hosts. It is our contention that Japanese visitors as well as visitors from other countries would not stop patronizing Hawaii's restaurants, if all restaurants banned smoking outright, for the sake of the health of their employees.
After all, Hawaii does hold itself out as the "Health State," doesn't it?
Another criticism is that that the editorial concentrated on the exorbitant expense of renovation of restaurants, as though that were the only option other than closing one's business before the inevitable bankruptcy.
It ignored totally the main thrust of Bill 75, which is to merely prohibit smoking in the restaurant - an objective that could be achieved merely by posting a small sign reminding patrons that smoking is prohibited by law. This signage could be accomplished for less than one dollar, perhaps only a nickel for the paper and ink.
The Department of Health would quite likely be able to provide the signs free of charge, just as it provided signs arising from the ordinance banning sales of tobacco to minors.
Lastly, no one seems to be wary of the fact that Hawaii's workers' compensation laws include a presumption that an employee is correct when the employee claims that he or she has been injured on the job.
All an employee would have to do is claim that his or her medical condition - even if it pre-existed the employment - was aggravated by the employer's failure to protect the employee from second-hand tobacco smoke.
It would be up to the employer to overcome the presumption that the employee was correct. This might prove to be a formidable task to accomplish, particularly if the employee's physician honestly could not say that the employment did not contribute to the employee's ill health.
The physicians of the Hawaii Medical Association contend that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, and that Bill 75 would be in the best interest of all parties: employers as well as employees, and patrons of restaurants throughout the City and County of Honolulu.