Idaho’s largest insurer and the biggest co-ed gym chain in the world are the latest supporters of an effort to ban smoking from Boise bars.
Blue Cross of Idaho, which has 550,000 members, and Gold’s Gym, with more than 600 facilities in 42 states and 30 countries, have endorsed Smokefree Boise, adding to a growing list of high profile healthcare, fitness and business leaders backing the group.
“It always adds a lot of credibility to our campaign to bring on big names like Blue Cross and Gold’s Gym,” said Smokefree Boise community organizer Katie Whittier. “They’ll give us a lot of momentum to move forward.”
The local anti-smoking effort boasts more than 20 endorsements, including the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Idaho Medical Association, Primary Health and the Ada County Medical Society. Whittier hopes bringing Blue Cross and Gold’s Gym on board will prompt other big players to get involved.
“It will create a sense of competition,” she said.
Whittier also hopes it will translate into funding, help with the legislature and media attention – all needed as the group goes forward with the sometimes contentious goal of telling smokers to take it outside. While some bar owners say chasing smokers off their barstools will chase their business away as well, Whittier said there’s support for the ban and it’s growing.
“We have quite a few supporters downtown, but there are some people we haven’t even talked to yet,” she said.
Chief among those downtown supporters is prominent Boise publican Ted Challenger, whose establishments (which admittedly are not smoke-free) include China Blue, Dirty Lil' Roddy's, and Main Street Bistro – all anchor night-spots in Boise’s bar scene. Chad Johnson, owner of The Reef and Legends; Jason Kovac, owner of Tom Grainey's and The Lift; and Dave Krick, owner of Bittercreek and Red Feather, are also vocal fans of Smokefree Boise, and combined, their businesses (several of which allow smoking in some areas after certain times) represent a substantial number of downtown’s most popular watering holes. Smokefree Boise organizers say that kind of support from bar owners, of all people, goes to show that the dangers and impacts of secondhand smoke are becoming major concerns. According to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare 1,500 Idaho adults die each year from smoking, and the habit costs the state $319 million in annual health care costs. According to the World Health Organization, 200,000 people are killed each year by exposure to secondhand smoke at work – accounting for about one in every seven work-related deaths and illnesses. “As a health insurer we understand the dangers of tobacco use,” said Blue Cross spokesman Stewart Johnson. “It makes sense for us to endorse a worthwhile project like Smokefree Boise.”
|
5 Comments
|
Should be called “Propertyrightsfree Boise”: Hey Ted, you want to be smoke free, keep your rules applicable to those locations that YOU own. Apparently you and many others, including some individuals at IBR, forgot what one of the basics principles that made this country great, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. You and all your supporters have rights too, don’t come inside. Should I bust my -s-, purchase property and build a business, keep your restricting thoughts and ideas off my property and on your own. Comment By Propertyrightsfree Boise
Monday, August 18, 2008 @ 4:08 PM
Businesses already have to abide by many public health rules. They have to store and prepare foods properly, and employees must wash their hands when handling food. They have to have a liquor license, and can't serve liquor to minors, despite the fact that they may want to make the extra money. How hard is it for smokers to take their polluton outdoors to spare the health of the non-smoking majority. Anyone who travels much knows that smoking outdoors is the only way in most areas of the country. Comment By Pete
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 @ 12:29 PM
Let's ban drinking in bars and get it over with quickly. Comment By Guy_Noir
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 @ 1:00 PM
Pete; Why do you want to inconvenience others for your own convenience? With the same effort you can go to a nonsmoking establishment. They're so popular that our capitalist system is providing these places for you. Why don't you go there and stay off of my property and not trample on my rights? "Most areas of the county" . . . not a great argument. Comment By Propertyrightsfree Boise
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 @ 11:45 AM
First let me say that I am a non-smoker who frequently goes to smoker-friendly bars, as well as smoke-free bars. I go for the atmosphere, the conversations, sometimes the food, but always because I am able to think freely and make individual choices. I can appreciate the perspective of Blue Cross and Gold’s. However, their roles should be one of education and training, not a special interest. Unfortunately their lobbying and more importantly campaign dollars will have a direct affect on the decision our legislators will make. As a non-smoker I agree with the previous comments. If you don't want the affects of second-hand smoke, go to another bar; you have a choice of whether you walk in the door or not. As a worker you have a choice of working in the bar or find another line of work or employer. As a business you have a decision of what clientele you wish to cater to, smokers or non-smokers. If "everyone" wants smoke-free bars then market forces would determine the business' success or failure. If being a smoker-friendly bar kept all clientele way and thus be unprofitable the business owner would have two choices; become smoke-free or go out of business. So far I have not seen the smoker-friendly bars, at least the ones I frequent, go out of business; just the opposite they have a very loyal clientele base. Ted Challenger, Chad Johnson, Jason Kovac and Dave Krick have the ability to turn their bars smoke-free at any point in time, including immediately (and some have). They want this legislation because they know that if they turn their bars smoke-free a certain portion of their smoker clients will move on to another establishment, i.e., loss of revenue. For those bars that are already smoke-free I suspect they are looking for a level playing field, i.e., gaining clientele. Trust me no business supports more government legislation and regulation because of moral standards; it’s about the bottom line. As a major red state this is one of the most hypocritical piece of legislation that could be made into law. How can a republican control state force more government intervention and at the same time say they are the party of less government control? Rep. Brent Hill thought and continues to think that as individuals we are too stupid to stay out of smoker-friendly establishments, or find alternative employment in a smoke-free environment. Republicans have and will continue to speak out both sides of their mouths. Comment By Kent
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 @ 12:31 PM
|
|
|
CONTACT US at 208.336.3768
WANT THREE FREE ISSUES?
