Tobacco Documents Online

ME M O R' AND U'. M I N. S U' P P O R T LEGISLATYVE' The Smoking,Pollution Control Act of 1986 REFERENCE TITLE' AN ' ACT' to amend the administrative code of the city of',Nsw York in relation to the control of pollution from smoking. SLAMMARY OF This act will (1)' protect the public health and PROVISION'S' welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places except in designated smoking area~s, and by regulating smoking in places of employment; and(2), strike aa rea~sonable balance between the needs of persons who smoke and the need of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, and to recognize that, where these needs conflict, the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority. Specifically, the act prohibits smoking in all enclosed! public places within the City of'New York, including elevators:, buses, taxicabs and other means of public transit, retail stores, and all public areas, at a71l businesses and non-profit organizations. Restaurants and enclosed sports arenas and convention halls may have up to 50'$ of, seating capacity designated as a, smoking, area .4f adequate ventilation is provided. Theaters may designate up to 50% of lobby space for smoking.. ASso,, all empSoyers are required to implement and maintain a written smoking policy which acknowledges and protects the ri!ght of any employee to smoke-free air. Any employee may designate his or her work area as a, nonsmoking area. E~nployers must take stepss such as reassigning employees to a different work area or improving ventilation in order to minimize or eliminate:the effects of smoke on employees. in any dispute, the:health concerns of the nonsmokers will be:given precedence:. The act does not regulate: srnoking in bars, private residences,, hotel and motel rooms, retail tobacco stores,, or, offices occupied exclusively by smokers. Enforcement of the ordinance will be implemented by the New York City Department of Realth, Anyone found guilty of violating this, act can be fined up to: $200 for a first offense, up: to $400 for a second'violation within one year, and up to~$1,000 for each additional violation within one year. A waiver from specific provisions of the act may be granted, if such a waiver, is not contrary to.the.rights of nonsmokers. The act allows any owner or operator of a facility to designate all or any portion of'the facility as anonsmoking area. . ~

REASONS FOR The most direct positive effect of such alTaw SUPPORT would be tolencourage smoking cessation; and reduce the amount of passive smoking., The effects of smoking on the incidence of cancer, heart disease, and other illness is well-established. Besides the immediate discomfort and annoyance associated with exposure to secondhand smoke, epid'emiologica~l studies indicate there is a possible relationship between passive smoking and disease. Reliable studies have shown that breathing second-handl smoke is aa significant healthl hazard for several population groups, including elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with,impaired respiratory function, including, asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease. Respiratory problems, decreased exercise tolerance, d!ecreasedd respiratory function, bronchoconstriction, and bronchospasm halve been related'to long term exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers who suffer fromiallergies and respiratory disea~ses may have their conditions aggravated by secondhand smoke and, as aa result, experience a loss of job: productivity or be forced to takee periodic sick leave because of such adverse reactions. It is clear that a! reduction in, or overall elimination of',, secondhand smoke will benefit many employers through an increase in productivity on the part of' their nonsmoking employees. while this regulation is not d'esigned to directly influence smokers to, quit, it does,afford employers the chance to provide their non-smoki:ng employees &more comfortable, less distracting, smoke-free workplace, as well as put pressure on smokers to quit. Smoking!is a potential cause of fires, and cigarette andcigar burns and ash stains onimerchand!ise and fixtures cause losses to businesses. Experience:from other municipalities and counties.also indicates an additional benefxt derived from,nonsmoking ordinances in the form of alsubstantial increase in the number of people actively seeking informationlon, or enrolling in, smoking cessation, programs. As smoking becomes less socially acceptable, (restrictive ordinances have!the effect of focusing attention on the distastefui aspects of tobaccolconsumption) more and more people will actively attempt quitting. In California, the state with the longest and most extensive experience with nonsmoking regulations, state law regulates smoking inisupermarkets, health faciTities, public meetings and certain parts of publically-owned, buildings. S'eventy-two cities: and counties have significant nonsmoker protection laws supplementing the existing state law. At least 42% of the population of California lives in a place where a, smoking policy is required of private employers., And, new ordinances are being enacted at the rate of several a month.

3'. Among California cities~and counties, at least:. 0 59 regulate smoking in priva~te workplaces 0 61 require nonsmoking sections in restaurants 0 51 restrict smoking in retail stores Over-two thirds of those California ordinances covering smoking,inn the: workplace allow employees to designate their own, area as nonsmoking and give ultimate preference to the rights of nonsmokers.. The experience of other cities indicates that the cost of implementing and maintaining a restrictive non-smoking ordinance is unexpectedly low relative toithe benefits . Ih~June,1983, San, Francisco received national attention when: theBoard!of Supervisors passed!legislation regulating smokingiinithe, workplace., As with the New york City Smoking Pollution Control A~ct,, it requires that employers make known and maintaiina written, smoking policy. If an acceptable compromise cannot be reached between smokers and nonsmokers, smoking is to be prohibited entirely. Also, as with, New York's proposed, law, the ordinance provides for penalties if employers do not comply withithe legislation. W~ithin a short time a groupisupported almost entirely by tobacco company contributions collected enough signatures to bring the ordinance before the voters in the form of a proposition. This g,roup!subsequently spent 1.2 million dollars campaigning, against the ordinance. It claimed that it would be expensive!to administer and would divert attenti'on from other important activities of the health department. In addition,, opponents contended that government intrusion into an arealthat should be a private matter between individuals wouTd cause increased antagonism and would'incite litigation involving employers, employees, and the city. It has become clear that the law is not the leviathan originally envisaged by its opponents. One:year after enactment: o.there had been a total of 1241 complaints related to enforcement in the workplace.., 0 only one~citation had been issued'.: o there were no legal actions either by the city or against the city because of the ordinance. o there had been.no new employees hired for the programr one Oepartment of Health inspector handles all complaints an a, part time basis CZ) o.no additional funds were requested or needed UT to enforce the:law ~, .O~ ~ :.a CD 0~

In San Diego, a city ordinance: regulating smoking in indoor public places has been in effect since January, 1975. Like the proposed New York City law, the ord!inace now covers virtually all retail sales and service establishments, cultural institutions, public conveyances, health care facilities, food marketing esttablishrnents and restaurannts and', it requires the posting, of' ad'visory signs soo the public will be aware where smoking is permitted and' where it is not. San Diego's experience has shown that a high percentage of smokers will comply voluntarily to reasonable regulations and prominentt signingi. Except as allast resort, that city!"s efforts have focused'on promoting public awareness and seeking voluntary compliance and cooperation, rather than prosecuting violation!s. A survey of' San Diego' s business community by the ci',ty' s administration, including comments from the Restaurant Association, uncovered no indication that the restrictive. ordinance,or the,a~dministrationof' it, works an unreasonablehardship on business in San Diego. T.heMinnesfltaiCleanIndoorA~ir Actwasenactedin:19175toprotect the public health by prohibiting smoking inipublic places exceptt in designate ismoking areas. A public place wad specifically definedto include a place of work. In general„ there has been broad acceptance of this law among employers. The Minnesota Department of'Health has been receiving an average of about 137 complaints per year from nonsmoking employees involving alleged workplace violations. Virtually all of these complaints have beenn resolved satisfactorily' through correspondence and discussions between State Department of Health personnel, the employer, and the employee. According toistate officials there have been no, lawsuits involving workplace violations. Also, there have been no grievance proceedings which have arisen under labor contracts because of the application of the lawto the workplace. All in all,, the Minnesota law has resulted in significant progress in protectiing nonsmokers fromiambi:ent tobacco smoke at the workplace, without an undue hardship on employers and smoking, employees. This has been achieved with minimum governmental intervention and at no additional public tax cost. knd, a recent survey indicated this law is approved by 92% of Minnesota residents (smokers and nonsmokers). As these examples indicate, it is possible for ordinances protecting the rights of nonsmokers to be implemented with modest enforcement monies or personnel added in response Those counties and municipalities which have been implementing these ordinances in alcost-effectiv!e spent the greatest amount of time andenergy w.ith, to the law. successful in manner have on media coverage. C!t GD ~. 4t~ ~

il 5. Specifically, The Smoking Pollution~ Control Act of 1986 is an appropriate ordinance for The City of New York in that it respects the! needsof' nonsmokers while, at thesamee time, recognizing the economic realities faced'by employers and businessmen such as restaurant owners. while the act disallows smoking in all enclosed public places, there are provisions for establishment of smoking~areas, in restaurants and places ofemployment., Also included are guidelines for recognizing the needs of'smokers and nonsmokers within the framework of'reasonabTe cost to employers and businesses. Up to now, New York City has relied on public education and voluntary action to promote the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke free air. These efforts~, while helping many people to quit, did not ensure this right. For example, last summer the New York City Department of Health offered to publish and distribute the names of' those restaurants~ which voluntarily set aside 25% of their seating capacity as nonsmoking area. 0'f the 15,0'00~ resttaurants who were contacted by mail, only 4'05' restaurants responded positively. It should be noted'that a U'.S. Government poll has shown that a majority (170'$), of Americans desire tolhave restrictions on smoking in public places and places of employment. It is clear the time, has come for New York City to stand up for nonsmokers inia more assertive andiproactive manner., As you know, less than 3'0% of adult New York City residents smoke. By reinforcing the growing sense that smoking is a socially unacceptable activity carried out by a relatively small group, this initiative can be, in a sense, a self-fulfilling prophecy.