Tobacco Documents Online

,a R~gutlation flf Sxh-*61king.-Ini'tiative Statute . Argument in~ Favor of Proposition~ 5 PROPOSITION 5 PROTEC'TS' EVEItYONES RIGH'i15-- SMOIEERS AND NONSMQKERS. The Cleaa Indoor Air Iztiti- ••atiive recognizes the right to sznoke so it ereates smoking as • well as nonxmoking sec;iorta:, _ . -~ -. . Ppm~tion S will protect a tanoker's right to smoke freely out-orof-doors; in private placrs and in designated smoking st=+c- . tions. ' - This is why polls show that most srno:kersfaeror smoking and' nonsmoking sectionsrt : - OTHER PEOPLE'S SMOKE CANi BE HARMFUL TO YOUR HEAd.TH: Smokers risk their own health. A'nd it's their right to do so. But mmnsrnokers' health can also be harmed frorn smoke. In fact„the Arrterican Lung Association and nu• , merous medical ezperts maintain that utsfalte>+~ed ~'secondl hand srnoke" actually has more harmful substances than the fil' tered smoke inhaled by a saoker. Nonsmokers would not have to risk their healtb in indoor. ' public places if!indoor sinoking can be confined to designated sanoking~ s~ectiona. OTH'ER PEOPLE'S SMOKE IS DANICEROUS 'FOR THOSE WITHSART OR LUNO' DISEASE. More than 2'J: million i Californians (12% of the population) have heart or lung,disease. Persons with (Iteartl and lung diseaae are particularly vulnerable to the efl:ecis of involuntary smokutg, which. . may significantly exacerbate rtheir medical conditions." -Luther L Terry, M.D. forrner US: Surgeon Ceneral PROPOSITION S'IS'NOT'CARV'ED'INiSTONE. The Clean Indoor Air Initiative; allows the Legislattue to amend it with a mere majority vota So: if technology improves or conditions change, it can, easily be amended. i PROPOSITION S WILL SAVE TAX DOLLARS Ati _ REDUCEBUSIIVES.S'COSTS: Proposition 5 wiNllower INec Cal and other health tvsts paid for by'taxpayers and, by redi:• ing illnesa, will lower the outlays by both government ar business for sick leave aad'disability payments. Proposition S will also reduce the huge annual losses fra: smokutg.-reiated f~r' es;les5en burn damage to carpets, clot irtg-store merchandiseand other retail goods;,and lower rna-, tenance costs. - Proposition S' WiII: • Recognize the right to smoke and the right to breatl" clean air • Establish nonsmoking and smoking sections izs restYurar: • Provide areas for smokers and nonsmokers at places employment . Create stnokefree hospital!rootus unless a smokntrg roo: is requested ' Proposition 5 Will' NOT . Prohibit or, restrict the sale of tobacco products . Regulate smoking out-of-doors. . Restrict sraokfng in designated smoking sections iuodo-_ • Affect smoking iq private places Share the air. Vote yes otr3f . Rebuttal' to Argument in Favor of Proposition 5 The claim by Proposition S advocates that it woulid!save tax dollarsand business costs is false. - It would COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS'OF DOLLARS. ~ Manufacture and installation of the signs required at evtry, entrance to every governmental facility, plus law enforce- mcnt and court costs••, are estimated at $43 MRi.LlONi for the first year by a national research organization. That does not include construction costs to ereate segregated' smoking and' nonsmoking, lounges or workplaces. Their claim that Ptoposition 5'would save taxpayers money by reducing,illrsess is utterly without evidence to support it. In Minnesota, which has prohibited smoking in most public places for about three yean, state authorities r rd they have no evidence of reduced illness or public healcosts: Construction costs to businesses for smokeproof wallk to segregate smoking and nonsmoking customers and' ern- . plbyecs; plust'Ise productivity losses resulting from segregated smoke-breaks, are estimated, at MORE THANi $250 M12, LIOIV, Clairns that nonsmokers' health is endantteredl by other PETER J: PITCHESS Sheriff, G'ovnry o+f Los Anseler Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been 26checked for accuracy by any, ofiiciaii agency. I people's stnoke are contradicted! by many physicians w NICHOLAS P. =1GES, M.D. Rcsidm; 4ililarni. .1Yed;ri/ Axrpd.Iion CAROL LAWAPi1AM1, P.1$J+11 Pretideel-Fleet; , G!ilorrrir Lung , AlQOa:rion JUbTi14i i j. StEIIiI; M1D. Pheuidea4' AmeYinar+ 1 Cancer Saty, etr, Califontiu Di.asior r for the anti-smoking, organizations. Dr. Jonat^ oads, past president of the American Cancer Society, sz "I do not have any hard evidence (that there is a harr.-m effect from smoke on, the nonsmoker). To my knowledge is not, in fact, actually harrrtflill.. Proponents' clairtu that Proposition 5 could be amendea the Legisiature are MISL.F'.AD1NC: The Legislature coL enact only amendments "consistent with"'the complex Icr lative intent expressed in Section 25931-which contains rn: of the RESTRICTIVE MANDATES. HOUSTON 1. F3AURNOI Dean,'Uni.rrp'1,y olSovthera Calilornu Center !or Rr6Jie .IJTrln KATHERINE IDUtit.AP CoCbahrrun, CG lil'orni.nr tor Common Serue R-b