Tobacco Documents Online

~ ~ a URI wa~ t f ~.,Yw.1: _ . .. . .. _ .--'-- ~ w ~ _ ,.. . THE TOBA CO Il~tSTITU 1Ti8 K STREEf. \0RTHWEST/WAS . . . • 2021437-1800 June 21 1979 , ~N 28 1 Messrs: McCarty, Dey, Judge, Goldsmith, Hobbs, ~ Leitao d . A til ' FROM Raymond A. Oliveri.o SUBJECT: District of Columbia Bill 3-109 . ~ BACKGROUND.' On Tuesday, June 19, 1979, the District of Columbia >City Council passed Bill 3-109 by a vote of 10 to 2 to 1. Willie };J. Hardy (D-Ward 7), who called the bill unenforceable, and Wil- ~~.~.helmina J; Rolark (D-Ward 8), who argued that it would'~have the ,,~,-greatest impact on small, minority-owned businesses, voted against " the bill William R. Spaulding (D-Ward 5) abstained from voting. As passed by the Council, the bill extends the existing ban ~A4 -T.~agaiiist smoking in retail stores'•and supermarkets with 20 or more ~., employees to all retail outlets in the city, regardless of size. The proposal also would require taxicab passengers to have per- ~~'~ mission from the driver and''all other riders before lighting up. It would'ban smoking in public areas of health care and educa- ~; tional facilities and at public meetings at buildings owned'or ;; T leased by the city government. be signed by Mayor Marion Barry and be approved ~, J4t.The bill must now r:~t by Congress. The Mayor has 10 working days to sign an act passed ~ r',by the Council. Once a bill is signed, it must then be approved '"'`b C' h 30 da t ditci yongress. Congressasysosapprove an ac commenng ~;on the date it was signed. Since home rule began in 1975, Con- hd i blkf Cil gressas never invokets power tooc passage o aounc- enacted bi1L ' ACTION REQUESTED: We would like to urge company employees located in the District of Columbia Metropolitan area to write or tele-'•' ~phone the Mayor immediately. Their letters should be written as ~'a'private'citizen on plain paper or on their personal stationery. a „;Letters sent to the Mayor should be written to: The Honorable Marion Barry, Jr. Mayor, District of Columbia ' District Building 14th & E Streets, N.W j { J~. Washington, D. C. 20004 < Below you will find listed arguments in opposition to Bill 3-109, r;;which should be included as a part of their letters: „;. RAYMOND A. OCIVERIO Director of Legislative Affairs 2021¢,57a644. , . ; kE~ EIVr" s

® WA _ ', . i. . +. . . .. ..... ,.••: 51' • ......... : . .. . .,. . . . . . Personal habits and "comfort" are not proper subjects afor legislation. The bill is a glowing example of un- ~ '~ warranted governmental intrusion into the lives of District citizens This bill contains no:.definable enforcement mechanism. ,X; ; The proposal would divert the already overburdened i ; ti~; ~~Y`Metropolitan Police Department to apprehending and . ; ~~ ~ ~`' fining otherwise-aaw-abiding citizens who_ light up in ~,~~~,~' ~ an area where smoking :aas once allowed,_ .~.a,. . :. _ .. ; , The bill is costly and wasteful for both the District Government and the private sector in terms of time as ~~ well as money. 'Enactment of this Bill will further drive {; businesses and their customers out of the city. The proposal provides fort yet another law and restric - ;,tion on the exercise of individual free choice• 7 .nt>•''-.:,- r.:....,. •~,.. _ .. ,,.. .., :.,.: -. ~~:. ' ,.i ~ * The cost to local taxpayers in Chicago for apprehera- -rrg ding and prosecuting those caught smoking averaged Fk?over $100 per arrest. This ordinance proved to be „~ ' discriminatory, with minori k ~31 ~ ty and low-income groups 4,A ~)accounyting for 90% of the arrests s 4' r xtig,, ,. ,, '~. r""~~ ~ If you have any.questions relative to the above, please feel free to contact me y ~ ~t sti t~F:, T RAO pb :.r F . y, t.<.. ~ cc. Messrs. Pepples, Stevens, Scott, Tucker, Edwards, Cherry, ~Y `PoLlack, Rogers, Bewley, Robinson, We11s, Kelly, Kerrigan, , : 'Scanlan « F ~ , ~:a ' -. . '-. t _,. i, t ..'. . .'. ~-.'. . .... , . 4'. . . .-...v.. ~ . ... . . -. - , ... , . _ . r . ~ _ ~l. ~ • .. A.. . • . f . ., ' ' ~ .. ~ ~ '.. . -,. . . . ,. .. _ .. . ~ 71, ~ * No hearings. were held on this bill by this Council. ;; Any opportunity for public comment was foreclosed. when amendments were introduced for the first time at the first reading. Thus, the Council has not a followed the fundamentals of fair play and due pro- ~ cess by its failure to provide an opportunity for fair comment, whether it be pro or con. ,}. ~r * The bill creates arbitrary and irrational classifi- ~' - ~` «:cations by singling out certain types of establish- .~ments and certain areas within these facilities. If ;ambient smoke has been found hazardous in retail stores, : surely it must be equally as hazardous in other busi- ness establishments such as restaurants or bars, that ' are not covered by the bill. ; .. ..: . ~ . ,., . S c G ~, ,.., + 1 ~,, -TZ . . ..~ . r~ ~. `.i. ,.. . . . . • . .o es?srs.`t~IcCa~f,it rty, Dey, Judge, Goldsmith..,t.Hobbs, Leitao istrict of Columbia Bill 3-109 ^~ Page Two 4", s. , .. . . ~ ' t'. • ~. ..t 1Q05134898