Tobacco Documents Online

QLIEgT I Cih1S';NCi ;;~NSWERS 014 FROF'Q: EC) NOWIg!°1Ok:Ug'` F:I GHTSLEGI aliATI OFJ t~!. Wh = t klill the proposed laL:, do^• A:. The la::i t..tl,l'1 Te'gul'elCe :riiwF:lrrQ Ln encloc'ed p,utllc p,1!a.CeS ear:d'r p1 a:_r_. of errrp:lo'yrr,en t . Qi. Wf'iat 1 5 the p:uYF Qice' of the law? a,. The la,<o .is intendied to protect't the health and comfort of' nc~in- Srriok 'e,rQ: bp' Yeducilng' their eyppoc.Ulre to thE to7i1'c chemicals in e.econnd-firand cobacco smok,e.. Qi. What evidence ic- tr,ere that secc,nd-har,& smoke i~s: hbrmful?' A. . There are more than' 6'00 4-tudies, conducted'1 by med3'cal expeYtss thT ougholut the world, shokling that secorrd-hand srr,oVe pose_ severe ddn'qe'rs to both health;- nor,slr,olkeTs a'nd nonsrnc,~;er5 1+J1 t'h heart and lu'n'q di sorde'rs. Seco'nd-harnd smoke car, cause many different health hazards to nonanokers ranging f'rorr, '. mi nor eve i r r i LaT'i ofi to luin g ' carncer. ~'J' econd'-hanid SrrMoke has al=_-a beerr, foun'dI to be the' leading cause of indoor air pallu- tion. ' Q. Ho", cc,-Lai rr is the medi ca1 ew,'i dience,';P i=. The: U.S. Surgeon Gerreral, The National Academy of Scie'nces an~d ev elry ma:ior health organization t'hot has s tudied the effects, of sec'ond-r,b'rrd' smoke, have concluded~ that lt is a health hazard. The kn1IL org,ani'zation that disputes that fact i'S tfie' Tobacco I'n9.titute:, which still doe'S: not a'drfil't' the d,drr•gere of primary: sm'o'F ing. Q!. Whc< =_upF+'or ts the 1aw? A broad ceali'tion of Ameritans for Nonsmokers' Fights,, the Cayrrce'r,, Hleart and Lu!ng r=i55,G,c,idtlo'n81„ eriWlYol,lrrental g7'ciuip£, other civic orglBnizations: and nurrrerous civ'ic and polit:cal leaders. Q. lA1i 1'1 the 1'ak.+ be accep ted b,y the F•ub1'' i c^' F+. Evrr,,; i1ndepe'rid'e,nt, public opinior: poll conducted in the Un:itEd n~~_l'Ctt': t'•. _>taite5- since the late ly7lt`s has 5'howrr that the vast of t,C, t',rr srn., k:ers and nlo:nsrr,cL.ers, S uq<;•ort res;tricti'o ns ar, =.m_kirra in public places and places of empieyment. Z -1'

~'. Wlh}' not let, tnuslnes_es take care of the p,r=^blerii on a's'Glun- t:ary ba_i _•l T'here is n!a more reason to solve the problem of second'-!+.,r:d sn?i0'F', E bv Vol!ulrrtary action than th@re' G.l:o,ul'd be, to, soi~,f'e' r'tie pr_cblerii_ of ou'tdh~or alr' pollultycir. or Uo+:Lc waste d1sF~o5al t.,~ k~' OiU rit'ary a=tlo'n. The go^Jernn'nent har. a.r'' obl!1gaiLlo',ri to ^r•:- r tect the public health andl should take pr__iti,,,o_ acti,7,ri, r:. e1icilnatE health hazards. Waiting for busirre_,ses to ac*t orn tiie'i'r own' is tantam'o,un:t to making guiinea! Fi9s of no nrsniers' J ua_.t, to pYoit:ect', the' prof i ts of the tobacco i ndu~=_ Lro. 0. How wi i1 the la,.r work? Wherever i t is feasibl'e, th!e law prov'idEs for separate srr.oE:'ing and n!o smoking section_: i'n public places. Hot•.lever', in plaices such as elevators, retail stores and glo'vernment meeting roolms_,, where separate' sect'ioru5: eithe:r are no*.' practi!cal or would not sufficiently protect nonsmokers, smy4:ing wil11 be p'ro'hibitedl altogether. In' places c,f' ennploymient~„ nonsmo'tii!n'g employees mui_t be afforded a sma,F:e- free work area.. Q. What about public enniio'yees?' E;. Government aae:ncies as- well as private err:Plo;,'ers must Frovide- s'moM:e-free work ar.e'as for the'ir empl'o'yee's. C!. Isn`t thi s kimd of law j'.ust araother example of' government res.tricti'on o~r, personal fre'edorrr=" F;. Th!e law does- not ban srnokiing', or force smoker-= to q,ui t sanoki'nig. I't: merely requires that they smoke in areas . where th!ey carr exercise their free choice witho:ut harming others. Any personal freedom is su!bje'ct' to restriction, to the exterrtt that it infri'nges oin the ri''qh!ts of others. To t'he e:ten't that Jmoiki!n'g harms nonsmokers, it must be restricted. C. Won`t the law be costly to business=~ hi. The minor costs to bus'in!essies to p',os't: signs will be mor'e' t'hann off set bv lorsg-t'erm sav ingr-- . Enip loy'ers w!i'11 er.per i'enct IIic'reaeed prod!ut.t:i W 1 t'y" among norrsmo'r,:-r= as well as rF+du'c ed ab'_Iwntee7srrtarid health care corsts' for srnokers' WhG are encki ra,_;eld to qu!1G or cut: dc.k.Jn on t'he lr smoi'.ina. Rct',alll, s*.ores will reali'ze savir•a_s frsnr, the elimiination of burn and _rcrok.e dhrrrmg~= to rnerchandisc andl fixtures;. z-2

t;. Wnn• t' the law be costly to tdr,pa','erc% r~. The initial expense to governrnen*t will be ma'narnal, and 1e:_ thdn l t costs to l,mplemerut most hedl th re-gUlat:i ons. ('4c(rec""e,r ~ 1n the 1Cng, run, go!:!ernrnen,L agCric'ies l•.siil,l realiZe the, cariie ca':']'ngs exp,c.rienced b?" pril"ate' errip lr',0 er'S , anid the:re 1,411 bE' a net Sa"1nqs for t'dio<pd!.'=-rs.. Slimllar latds. have t'eeri enacted ]in se''eral states and dk'zen,s , of cicies and, counties' throu qhc.u t the crnuntr~,. In e'.,er;, instanre, the lak.3s have been enfc+r_Fd by eyietlng £.t'aff: there w'1ll be rno' n!eed for the governmentt to hire extra people to adrtnirrilster or enforce the lak..a. Q!. Don't the police ruave better things to do than arrest people f o r s,rr, c' ~, i n q=• iAt,=_.crlu tely'! That is why the law prc'vides for e'nfoYcernent b,' thie Dep artment of Health, and Human Servlce=_, whlch allc.,a enforces othe'r healthi regulations.. Since the.e lawsI are alma,st ent1rely self-enfor'ciing, we do rr't even e:apect thart departrnenrt to have ver'y much to do. Irr a'rry event, the police willl r,ot be iinvolved at alL. C!. I'sn't common cowrtesy s.uff i'cient to solve the problem? A. Non'smokers have a right to work and conduct theiir dai'1v busilnes.s in a healthy environme'nt and shouldn't have to spend much of theiir time asking other peoplF -- most often total strangers. -- to stop smoking. Common courtesy only works .. when everyone knows, the rules. Etut without signs to indicate where smoki,ng is or is not allowed', conf'ro~ntati.ons between smokers and nonsmokers w'ill, conti'nue. The law provildes for the posti'nig of signs to establish the rules and the vast majioriUy of smokers will obey the signs. In that conte?:t, common courtesy will work, arrd confrontations will cease.. Q. Wion't t'his, law create confrointations between, smoking . and'nonsmoking employees, thereby disrupting the work.place?' A. Wherever there is a! nonsmok.i~ng employee now bc+thered by a felllow+-employee's smoke, a confrointation already eMists. The whole purpose of the law is to end such confr'onrtarions and! prevent fuCure ones by requiring empiloyers to provide smoDF- free work areas for non_.mrrkers, while at the same time providi'ng, places for emplo;,ees to smoke where they will niot bother nonsmokers. In n•rost ernplc. yme',nt situations, the problems exiist now, not because they can't, be amicabl~l solved, buit because the employer won't make the effort to effect a solution. J N N ~ GO ~ ~ ~ GO Z'-3

U. Wi11 nc,rusmokln!g emplo;Relcs who tr,h to enforce their rrght te nonsmokilnq work, araass risk berng fired%, t;. Ho . The lal.-ai pr¢'hibi ts, an employer frorn retaliating rn ar,') wm~.' agsinis t a no rA srn,rk.ing employee who seek:. to enfarce hiS, c'r her ri9!hts. G!!. Ha+.,i ' well has th,is t'y'pe' _•f ldr.,,, worked elsewherell Similar law_s have been p„s=_.ed in places ranging in size fraim small towns to the State of t1i1ninesota, and i'n every instarrr_e the laws have worked well, with little or no enforcernent problprns. The dire cone.e•awences ali:.lays predicted by thet tobacco iindustry have never materialized. A public e,pinior'pa'11 in M'i~nnesotd, conducted in 1980, arriong both srnc,kers and nonsmokers, showed that 92'': of the peopl'e s'upported that state's cornprehensi~ve law regulatingi smokinq. 0. Doesn't the law infringe on people's pri4+acyl? A. The law is specificallyy not applicable to private, homes, pri'lvate offices, and private hospital rooms. It is only when smokini% infringes on other, people's rights that it is subJec*t to regulation. Q. What abou t vexy unusual, si'twationss where it dvesni't mak.e sense to apply the liaw,';' A. The law gives businesses the right to apply for an exemption in such a si!tuat,ion. Q. Will the law affect existi1ng laws that already prohib.it smoking in, certain places?' A. No. Those laws willl remaini in force. Q. Wii ll most people obey the law? A. Seventy-fi've percenit of people are nonsmokers. Most smok.ers obey the law generally and there is no reason to believe they won't obey this law. Where similar lawte have been enacted, there has been a very, highi level of compliance and' very feu, enforcement problems. 4 Z-4

C!. IJhat ie. the pernalt5n fn,I•, v iolstlna the 11 aul? Violations of 'the law are irrfractions, like parkiinqi ticVers. There is a rcraxrmurrr f'ine of' $100 for a filrs.t vilelatidn and a ma :iriiurn, fiine of *500 for the thirdi violationi. I'n pr$ctlce, hoi:#eve1-, whr-- re 5U!ch 1a1Js ' have beefi enacted, "ery fe3„v f]rf es have er.+erv been, levied because enrforci'nq a3enci'es have sowgrrt to obtalri cCH',mp li~ance by edlU•_ation arud t'hF L°_.SUiaTice of war n i n q= u p o rn a f i' r s- t v i c• l a t i o rr . G!. If aWproved. when will the law take effect? It tak:es effect 2c Q da',,es after the d'yte it is adc.p ted1. Emp jrI t!er5 fia':'e an add'iltlionFall 90 da511e., to implC+ment Edrio kirig poliries im pldces of eraployment. z-s

2U25684611