Tobacco Documents Online

{TritteniTestimony of STANTON A. GLANTZ',, PH.D. Associate Professor of' Medicine University of Cali'fornia San Francisco, CA 94143 President Californians for Nonsmokers'' Rights . 2054 University Avenue,, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94'704 Submitted to the Subcommittee on Civil Serv ice, Post Office, and General Services Committee on Governmental Affairs Uniltedl States Senate For Hearing,on S.1440 The Non-Smokers Rights Act of 1'9'B'5 September 30, 19'H5 E G-22

My name is Stanton A Glantz. I hold a PhD in Engineering and Economics from Stanford University and am nov an Associate Professor of Medicine and Chairman of the Bioengineering Gtadwate Program at the University of Celifornia, San Francisco, vhere I conduct research into the mechanicall function of the heart. I am also President of Californians for Nonsmokers' Rights, an organization that has helped'to pass legislation protecting, nonsmokers from the toxic chemicals in second-hand cigarette smoke in 44' California communities, encompassing approximately 9 million people. Before discussing the specifics of our experience vith legislation in California, I vould like to speak briefliy to two important general issues: the need'for such legislation to protect the public health and'the fact that the only organized opposition to such legislation comes from the tobacco industry. First, there is absolutely no question that, as the National Academy of Sciences concluded in 19811, "involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke has adverse health, effects and ought to be minimized or avoided vhere possible." There are over 600 papers in the medical literature on the effects of involuntary smoking supporting this conclusion. As vith primary smoking, the tobacco industry has tried to diffuse this overwheliming,case by taking advantage of honest differences of opinion in the scientific community on the precise magnitude of the problem, ffsrepresenting the views of'reputable scientists, or hiring,professi'onal quibblers to claim that "the case is not in." After every independent scientific body that addressed the question concluded that involuntary smoking represented a health, hazard, the industry took the creative step of convening its own scientific panels -- in such scientifically impressive places as Geneva and Vienna, -- in an effort to cast an, aura of jU respectability on i'ts position. Contrary to whalt the industry had hoped, 2' G-2'3'. 0 05 ~ ~ N !I

scientists at both meetings presented evidence that involuntary smoking was harmful~. As a result the tobacco indiustry was reduced to quoting from press releases issued!after the meetings by individuals. In contrast to statements made by the National Academy of Sciences and Surgeon General, these releases vere not subject to any scientific quality control. As a result the only people that seem, to take them seriously are the cigarette companies and their advertising,agencies.. The simple fact is that one need not hold a, PhD and ovn complex scientific equipment to know that second hand tobacco smoke is a serious form of indoor air pollution. Consider a room where people are smoking. Think about what the air looks like, what it smells like, what it tastes like. Consider the fact that your eyes or throat may burn# or that you may develop nausea, or a headache. If you vent outdoors and1the air was that. polluted, you vould be outragedi. And you.vould be right. That is vhy we have passed legislation cleaning up the outdoor air, and' why this bill is necessary to help clean up the air indoors, vhere most Federal workers spend most of their time. Hy, involvement in this issue dates to 1978 when I'vorked with others in, an unsuccessful attempt to pass, by initiative, the California Clean Indoor Air Act vhich wouldihave created nonsmoking sections in the workplace and public places. Before the campaign started, every poll conducted (including those dbne for the Tobacco Institute) shoved the initiative passing by a 3-1 majority. The cigarette companies spent $6,5©0,0IOO on a massive advertising campaign and defeatedithe law. The tobacco industry represented to only organized opposition we faced. The same thing happened again, in 198'a. _ In 1981, we began working at~the state andllocal 1'evel to pass 3 G-24 C

nonsmoker protection ordinances. We beIievedithat,, since the tobacco industry had!no real support, informed and organized local consituients could overcome the pressure of lobbyists, lawyers and campaign contributions. This strategy has proven successful. As of this date, every California community that has considered a law protecting nonsmoker sin;the workplace has enactedit, despite vigorous, ve1l-financed opposition from the tobacco industry. The industry's failure to stop us~and other like-minded groups around' the countryhas led them to another strategy: they are attempting to shift the fiel&of play back to the ball~ot box where they hope.they cambuy elections with slick ad!vertisingcampaiigns. Fortunately, the Ameri'can public has not been tricked by their efforts. Inladdition to the indiustry's highly-publicized $1.3million effort to get the San Francisco Vorkplace Smoki!ng Ordinance repealed two years ago, their front groups have been rejected!by the voters in Arizona and,Colorado. Thisivillingness oflthe populace to stand up to:the industry attests to the importance and popularity ofprotecting nonsmokers from second hand smoke. In fact, our success is not surprising, given that every poll dbne on the subject (including those done for the Tobacco Institute) have shown a majority -- including a majority ofsmokers - in favor of legislation to protect nonsmokers. This overvhelmingconsensus about the desirability ofprotecting nonsmokers is!vhy legislation such as that before you is easy mimpiiment and enforce. It essentially codifies a change in social attitudes that has already occurred. Given this broadlconsensus,, why do we need laws? Why can't we depend on "commonicourtesy" as the ciagarette companies suggest? Because "common 4 G-25'.

C courtesy" is a recipe for individual confrontation. Under the current situation, individual nonsmokers are forced to confront indi'vidual' smokers to ask that they smoke elsevhere. Most people are simply not that' aggressive. Furthermore, the ubiquity of cigarette advertising and second handd cigarette smoke in the air, nonsmokers feel very i'solatedland are often afradd to speak up. The presence of a simple "No Smoking" sign dramatically changes this situation. With the sign available, nonsmokers feel comfortable in asking people not to smoke. Let me give yowan example. Several years ago I vas sitting in the Minneapolis airport enjoying the benefimof the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act vhich vas passed in 19.87. A man then sat dbwn next mme and began to take out a cigarette. I asked him not to smoke. He initially objected to my intrusi'on, until I pointed out that ve vere in a nonsmoking area:. He then apologized and put the cigarette away. Surprisingly enough, he did not move to the smoking,section. He simply smoked one less.cigarette. That was one less cigarette that a tobacco company soldl. To understand the impact of that simple act consider this: If every smoker in America smokedijust one less cigarette a day due to changing;socialg attitudes or legal restrictions,, there wouldibe 22 billion fewer cigarettes soldieach, year. Given,these stakes, it is not surprising,that the tobacco companies are villling to spend a•fev million dollars initheir unsuccessful attempts to convince Americans that smokers should be~free to pollute the indoor air without restriczi~on. Despite dire predictions of earthquakes iniSan Flranci!sco and ftres~ in N Q Los Angeles, California, every ordinance I'knov of has gone into force ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ G-2'6. ~'

...............y.~..~:.w......._,_...:. smo o t'hly . No city or county that has ever passed an ordilnance has weakened or repealedl it. While it is important that there be strong enforcement provisions in the law to ensure that people take it seriously, Lhere! has never, to, my knowledge,, been the.need to fine anyone. Enforcement has taken, the form of education and negotiation, vith legali sanctions playing a quiet but secondary role to back up the negotiations. Inisum, there are four simple principles that, lead to successful,, trouble-free nonsmokers'' rights legislation: (1) There need to be signs posted in,the nonsmoking areas. (2) There needs to be the capacity for strong enforcement; i!roni'cally,, the presence of sanctions avoids the need for using them. (3) There needs to, be a clear statement that the right to breathe clean air takes precedence over the choice to smoke. The existing,bill meets the first two criteria; to meet the third cri'terfion, I suggest that the followi'ng,language be added at page 3!line 9 after "government buildings": "providedi, however, that in any dispute ari'sing,under such rules and regulations, the needs of'nonsmokers shall ben given precedence;" I have no doubt that passage of the legislation before youivill, qui'ckly, simply and inexpensively clear the ai~r for Federal employees. It will aSso help encourage other public and private employers to follow your lead and produce a safer and healthi'er environment for all of us. Thank you. 6 G-27

Attachments: "San Francisco Anti-Smoking I:av a Success", Wall' Street Journal, August. 15, 1984. Letter from Surgeon General Koop regarding, the health effects of involuntary smoking Letters from eity, county, and state officials regarding ease of enforcement of various ordinances: John Lockvood, Assistant City Manager, San Diego Roger Hedgecock, Mayor, San D!'egp, George Story, Director, Citizens Assistance & Information,, San, Diego James Forde,, Director, Department of Heath Services, San Diego: County Bruce Tsutsi~, Inspector, Department of Publiic Health, San Francisco Rita Hardin,, Director, Neighborhood Preservation, San Jose C. B. Schneider, Chiet, Section of' Environmental Field Services, Minnesota department of'Healtli Letter from Art Pick, Executive Vice President, Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce, endorsing a proposed! ordinance (vhich passed). ~ Q ~ ~ ~. ~ 7 ~ ( ( G-28