Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 08-21-2001 SpecialAgenda City of Plymouth Special City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:00 p.m. Police Training Room 1. Call to Order. 2. Approve site plan amendment to replace existing stadium light towers and light fixtures with four new light towers and new directional light fixtures at Central Middle School, 305 Vicksburg Lane North (2001093 — Res2001-348) 3. South Shore Drive Safety Improvements 4. Effects of Second -Hand Smoke Part I Part II 5. Liquor Issues 6. Set Future Study Sessions 7. Adjournment Agenda Number CITY OF PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager FROM: Rebecca Stoen, Planner (509-5453), through Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Wayzata Public Schools. Site Plan Amendment to replace stadium lights at Central Middle School, 305 Vicksburg Lane N. (2001093) REVIEW PERIOD DEADLINE: December 1, 2001 DATE: August 16, 2001 for the City Council Meeting of August 21, 2001 1. PROPOSED MOTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution approving a site plan amendment to replace stadium lights at Central Middle School, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Approval of a site plan amendment requires a 4/7 vote of the City Council. 2. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The Wayzata School District is requesting approval to replace existing light towers and light fixtures at the Central Middle School Stadium. The proposed improvements include replacing eight existing light towers and light fixtures. Currently there are four 70 -foot towers and four 60 - foot light towers. All eight poles would be replaced with four new 70 -foot light towers with new directional light fixtures. The new lighting fixtures would improve the lighting on the field and would reduce the amount of glare visible from adjacent properties. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING: At their August 15, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the site plan amendment to replace stadium lights at Central Middle School. This item was on the Planning Commission consent agenda. Notice of the public meeting at the Planning Commission was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet. File 2001093 Page 2 4. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan amendment is limited to whether or not the proposal meets the measurable standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these measurable standards, the City must then approve the site plan amendment. 5. CONTEXT: A. Surrounding Land Uses The properties to the north, east, and west are guided LA -1 (Living Area 1), zoned RSF-1 (Single Family Detached 1) and developed with single family homes. The southern edge of the site borders a single family residential district in Minnetonka. B. Previous Actions Affecting Site Central Middle School opened in the Fall of 1997 on the former Wayzata High School site. The stadium lights that would be replaced are the original lights from the 1960's. 6. ANALYSIS OF SITE PLAN AMENDMENT: The site is zoned and guided P -I (Public/Institutional). The Zoning Ordinance contains specific standards for approval of a site plan amendment and for development in the P -I zoning district. Staff used these standards to review this application. There are no proposed changes to any buildings, setbacks, parking, drainage or landscaping. The only change proposed is the replacement of the existing light towers and fixtures. Currently there are four 70 -foot light towers and four 60 -foot light towers. The existing lighting system is the original equipment from the early 1960's. The eight poles would be replaced with four new 70 -foot light towers with new directional light fixtures. Based on information provided by the lighting engineer, the new directional light fixtures would improve lighting on the field by three times and reduce existing glare by five times. The spill and glare control light fixtures would cut 80-85% of the glare and increase the intensity by directing the light more effectively. Section 21105.06 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for both maximum intensity and general performance for exterior lighting. The ordinance states that the maximum intensity of lighting and glare shall not exceed one-half (.5) foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the property line. The applicant has provided information demonstrating a maximum of .15 foot candles at the property line, which exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing lighting has up to .7 foot candles at the same location. File 2001093 Page 3 Because the School District is not replacing more than 50 percent of the lights on the middle school site, the ordinance does not require that the proposed light standards and fixtures comply with the general lighting performance standards in the ordinance. However, the new light fixtures that the School District is proposing to use would meet the cutoff angles required in the ordinance, thereby exceeding ordinance requirements. 7. CONCLUSION: Staff has concluded that the application meets or exceeds all the applicable provisions and general standards of the ordinance. Based on the information provided, staff also finds that the replacement lighting would improve the lighting conditions and reduce glare for neighboring properties. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the site plan amendment for Central Middle School, subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Approving Site Plan Amendment 2. Applicant's Narrative 3. Location Map 4. Site Graphics CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2001 - APPROVING A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE STADIUM LIGHTING AT THE CENTRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL (2001093) WHEREAS, the Wayzata School District has requested a site plan amendment for the replacement of the stadium lighting at the Central Middle School, on property legally described as follows: That part of Section 32, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: The Southeast 1/a of the Southeast 1/ of said Section and the South 535.4 feet of the Northeast 1/a of the Southeast 1/ of said Section and of the East 10 acres of Government Lot 7, except road. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public meeting and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by the Wayzata School District for a site plan amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan amendment is for replacement of the stadium lighting at the Central Middle School, as shown on plans received on August 1, 2001, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. 3. All lighting must comply with Section 21105.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. Resolution 2001- 2001093) Page 2 of 2 4. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has substantially started construction of the project, or unless the landowner or applicant has received prior approval from the City to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under Section 21045.09 of the Zoning Ordinance. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 21, 2001. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on August 21, 2001, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this day of City Clerk August 2, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: The Wayzata Public Schools would like to replace the existing stadium lighting system with a new lighting system at our Central Middle School Stadium Facility. The project would include the demolition of existing light towers and fixtures, and the installation of new towers and fixtures. The existing system is a series of eight light standards, four of which are 70' high and four of which are 60' high. The eight standards have booms attached, which support approximately 20 to 25, 1500 watt incandescent fixtures. This lighting system is early 1960's vintage. The new system is a series of four light standards, which are all 70' high and will accommodate 9 or 10, 1500 watt fixtures per pole. The benefits of this project include a much more efficient lighting system, more consistent light levels on the field, reduced maintenance and repairs, and reduced light spillage at the property lines. The field will be primarily used for community youth sports, soccer and football in the fall season. All activities should be completed before 10:00 PM. Because of the level of youth teams using this facility, we anticipate a minimal number of spectators. Sincerely, f; Joe Matson, Director of Buildings & Grounds Wayzata Public Schools FUN0.20aNr Location Map - 2001093 Land Use Guide Plan Central Middle School Stadium Lighting IM C, Commercial 305 Vicksburg Lane North Imo] CC, City Center IM CO, Commercial OfficeRequestforaSitePlanAmendment. IP, Planned Industrial LA -1, Living Area 1 LA -2, Living Area 2 LA -3, Living Area 3 LA -4, Living Area 4PcityofjLAR, Living Area- Rural Plymouth, Minnesota s = P -I, Public/Semi-Public/Institutional Vs LL - TI k, 11111111 m I ILL LE- Fw-T APR Ll 10 will 11 m I ILL LE- Fw-T APR Ll II - 6l kg 0 Q e5 95 i6 9562 77- eoTGM1Esn LL IRMO r—:T 15. lv-D Mal II - 6l kg 0 Q 1 \K 77- LL IRMO t T&. TIQ T s—TH 7TP 15'111.1 0 Q LL IRMO WETLANDSAREA------------------------- I II I I I I , I. I I I I I I 1: I i P I IIII I II I II I , FOOTBALL i 1 FIELD I W. Ili / yl / mliI. 1. EXIST. PHLOT V S_ aFs aA_L FZ_D 1. L- -- - --- -- -- - — — --- EXIST. SOCCERFIELD EXIS, SOCCERFIELD EXIST. PARKINGLOT I I SITE iesrmn Nwra EXIST. j I TENNIS II COST f l In zwi F: n mRr TUX i Ex Si. TENNISCO, I INXiI I I F. TAH 1. I SOFTBALL/ II FIELDS II IL WAYZATA SENIOR HI SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER CLASSROOM ADDITION & REMODELING WRYZAIR SENIOR HIEN SC -C^_- 305 WCKSBORG LANE PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTF Sz-17 WRY ATA PUBLIC SCHOOL' P.O. BOX 660 210 STATE HIGHWAY IBI NFT, WAYZATA, MINNESOTA SS" EVA./ OL4PORATQJ RRCHITELTS • SPRCE =,NER5 TE""OE S IG 6E. " ss CEgRT IFICRiION: RECORD DRAW IS OECENBEP BS NORTH SCRL E: L = _a `d'j SITE PLAN I HL NAW.JrFRTruvNO' ee fe 2 L V V- _e -,. 7 1,eu L' 1i'_5 Note: Spill scan is run at a distance of 330' from the field edge and 200' from the WAYZATA, MN WAYZATA MIDDLE SCHOOL FOOTBALL z outside radius of the track per the drawing rt1 supplied by Craig Gallop. 2 S rq W CL a 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 F1 io5.o " 1os.o F2 0.14 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I t I I I I i`° F4 105.0' Pole location dimensions are relative to O,O reference point 0. S101 Fixture Type: LV -8 MZ Refer Lamp Type: 1500W MZ Lumens: 155000 Target Points: File S / Date: 64041 fb / 23 -Feb -2001 Maintenance factor = ambient temp. factor Project Engineer: Olson 0.14 X voltage factor X ballast factor X lamp Maximum: 0.15 IC'fJ JrL LLr 0.11 musco. 1 y., GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE p,w P Jo') S0 INITIAL SPILL LIGHT n Refer MAXIMUM FOOTCANDLES to amperage draw for electrical sizing. Target Points: 21 Maintenance factor = ambient temp. factor Average: 0.14 X voltage factor X ballast factor X lamp Maximum: 0.15 depreciation X luminaire dirt Minimum: 0.11 depreciabon(per IES Manual RP -6-88,p.92)2) Avg/Min: 1.191 Max/Min: 1.291 Light Loss Factor(LLF)=average tilt factor Number of Luminaires: 32 KW Consumption: 0.14 51.20 Average Tilt Factor: 0.971 Maintenance Factor: x 1.000 Light Loss Factor. 0.971 I`I` kr`. o Kw 5U 7070 cr rL"MOUTH C04:MUivlii ['EtiELOPMENLDF; R,M1,NT n Refer to amperage draw for electrical sizing. 0.14 Maintenance factor = ambient temp. factor X voltage factor X ballast factor X lamp 0.15lumen depreciation X luminaire dirt 70 depreciabon(per IES Manual RP -6-88,p.92)2) U_ Light Loss Factor(LLF)=average tilt factor 0.15 7 U X maintenance factor. 0.14 NOTE: Light level averages and uniformities are guaranteed by MUSCO. However, 7 p individual location measurements may vary from computer predictions. 0.13 INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS: 0.13 Results assume .-3% nominal voltage at load side of ballast box and poles located within 0 12 3 feet of design locations. 0.11 COPYRIGHT (C) 1987,2001 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING INC. - Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the writ- ten consent of Musco Sports Lighting Inc. Pole Location SCALE IN FEET 0 120 240 I`I` kr`. o Kw 5U 7070 cr rL"MOUTH C04:MUivlii ['EtiELOPMENLDF; R,M1,NT Note: Spill scan is run at a distance of 330' from the field edge and 200' from the Z outside radius of the track per the drawing supplied by Craig Gallop. WAYZATA, MN WAYZATA MIDDLE SCHOOL FOOTBALL Pole location dimensions are relative to 0,0 reference point Q. r 3io 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Fixture Type: LV -8 MZ Lamp Type: 1500W MZ Lumens: 155000 File If / Date: 64041 fb / 23 -Feb -2001 Project Engineer: Olson musco® GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE INITIAL SPILL LIGHT HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES Target Points: 21 Average: 0.02 Maximum: 0.02 Minimum: 0.01 Avg/Min: 1.444 Max/Min: 1.715 Number of Luminaires: 32 KW Consumption: 51.20 Average Tilt Factor: 0.971 Maintenance Factor: x 1.000 Light Loss Factor: 0.971 Refer to amperage draw for electrical sizing Maintenance factor = ambient temp. factor X voltage factor X ballast factor X lamp lumen depreciation luminaire dirt depreciation(per IES Manual RP -6-88,p.92) Light Loss Factor(LLF)=average tilt factor X maintenance factor. NOTE: Light level averages and uniformities are guaranteed by MUSCO. However, individual location measurements may vary from computer predictions. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS: Results assume +-3% nominal voltage at load side of ballast box and poles located within 3 feet of design locations. COPYRIGHT (C) 1987,2001 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING INC. - Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the writ- ten consent of Musco Sports Lighting Inc. Pole Location SCALE IN FEET 0 120 240 r1WGWAYZATA, MN WAYZATA MIDDLE SCHOOL FOOTBALL Elev /unit /unit 0' B 128 0.0 0.l' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 a,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0-1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0-2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0'.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.0' 105.9 I F2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0..3 0.7 1.6 3.5 6.1 F1 6,9 8.3 6.6 4.6 4.6 6.6 8.3 6,9 X16- 1 3.5 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.4 3.9 11.0 23.6 P X29.0 28.4 19.8 11.6 11.6 19.8 28.4 29.0 X23.6 11.0 3.9 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 2.3 7.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.1 3.0 9.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.2 3.2 9.6 0.1 0.1 0-3 0.6 1.2 3.2 9.6 0.1 0..1 0.2 0.5 1.1 3.0 9.3 0.1 0,1 0.2 0.4 0.9 2..3 7.0 23.4 X42.3 I 43.0 41.1 32.9 22.5 '22.5 I 32.9 41.1 43.0 42.3 '23.4 I I 26.6 137.0 1 35.6 34.3 30.6 I 25.7 125.7 I 30.6 34.3 35.6 I 37.0 126.6 I 21.6 127.9 25.9 25.0 25.6 I 22.5 122.5 25.6 25.0 25.9 27.9 121.6 I O I 21.6 127.9 I 25.9 25.0 25.6 22.5 122.5 1 25.6 25.0 25.9 27.9 121.6 I 1 26.6 137.0 1 35.6 34.3 30.6 1 25.7 125.7 1 30.6 34.3 35.6 I 37.0 126.6 1 I 23.4 142.3 43.0 41.1 32.9 1 22.5 X22.5 32.9 41.1 43.0 I 42.3 23.4 7.0 2.3 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.3 3.0 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 3.2 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 9.6 3.2 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 9.3 3.0 1.1 0..5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.0 2.3 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.4 3.9 11.0 23. 29.0 28.4 19.8 11.6 11.6 19.8 28.4 29.0 021. 6 11.0 3.9 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.6 3.5 6.1 6T9 8.3 6.6 4.6 4.6 6.6 8.3 6T9 6.1 3.5 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 F4 105.0' 105.0' F 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 6.5 0.5 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0-1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0..1. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.i 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.a 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 S.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0..0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c I-'.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 is are relative to 0,0 reference point &. Fixture Type: LV -8 MZ Lamp Type: 150OW MZ Lumens: 155000 File # / Date: 64041 fb / 23 -Feb -2001 Project Engineer: Olson C= musco® G U A RAN TE E D PER FOR MANC E MAINTAINED ILLUMINATION FOOTBALL HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES ON PLANE AT Z= 3 Target Points: 720 Average: 4.25 Maximum: 43.03 Minimum: 0.01 Avg/Min: 380.083 Max/Min: 3844.196 Number of Luminaires: 32 KW Consumption: 51.20 Average Tilt Factor: 0.971 Maintenance Factor: x 0.800 Light Loss Factor: 0.777 Refer to amperage draw for electrical sizing. Maintenance factor = ambient temp. factor X voltage factor X ballast factor X lamp lumen depreciation X luminaire dirt depreciation(per IES Manual RP -6-88,p.92) Light Loss Factor(LLF)=average tilt factor X maintenance factor. NOTE: Light level averages and uniformities are guaranteed by MUSCO. However, individual location measurements may vary from computer predictions. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS: Results assume +-3% nominal voltage at load side of ballast box and poles located within 3 feet of design locations. COPYRIGHT (C) 1981,2001 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING INC. - Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the writ- ten consent of Musco Sports Lighting Inc. Pole Location SCALE IN FEET 0 80 160 WAYZATA, MN WAYZATA MIDDLE SCHOOL FOOTBALL NG --- Fi l. Kilow ciev. /unit /unit 0' 8 128 23.4 42.3 I 43.0 41.1 32.9 22.5 122. 5 32.9 41.1 43.0 42.3 ;23.4 1 26.6 137.0 1 35.6 34.3 30.6 1 25.7 125.7 1 30.6 34.3 35.6 I 37.0 126.6 1 21.6 127.9 25.9 25.0 25.6 1 22.5 122.5 25.6 25.0 25.9 1 27.9 12.1.6 1 1 21.6 127.9 1 25.9 25.0 25.6 22.5 122.5 25.6 25.0 25.9 27.9 121.6 1 26.6 137.0 1 35.6 34.3 30.6 1 25.7 125.7 1 30.6 34.3 35.6 I 37.0 126.6 23.4 I 42.3 43.0 41.1 32.9 1 22.5 22.5 32.9 41.1 43.0 1 42.3 23.4 F4 1105.0 is are relative to 0,0 reference point , Fixture Type: LV -8 MZ Lamp Type: 1500W MZ Lumens: 155000 File # / Date: 64041 fb / 23 -Feb -2001 Project Engineer: Olson C(M musco® GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE MAINTAINED ILLUMINATION FOOTBALL HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES ON PLANE AT Z= 3 Target Points: 72 Average: 30.20 Maximum: 43.03 Minimum: 21.61 Avg/Min: 1.397 Max/Min: 1.991 Number of Luminaires: 32 KW Consumption: 51.20 Average Tilt Factor: 0.971 Maintenance Factor: x 0.800 Light Loss Factor: 0.777 Refer to amperage draw for electrical sizing. Maintenance factor = ambient temp. factor X voltage factor X ballast factor X lamp lumen depreciation X luminaire dirt depreciation(per IES Manual RP -6-88,p.92) Light Loss Factor(LLF)=average tilt factor X maintenance factor. NOTE: Light level averages and uniformities are guaranteed by MUSCO. However, individual location measurements may vary from computer predictions. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS: Results assume +-3 % nominal voltage at load side of ballast box and poles located within 3 feet of design locations. COPYRIGHT (C) 1981,2001 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING INC. - Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the writ- ten consent of Musco Sports Lighting Inc. Pole Location SCALE IN FEET 0 80 160 Agenda Number: U DATE: August 14, 2001 for the special City Council Meeting of August 21, 2001 TO: wight D. Johnson, City Manager throughWDanielL. Faulkner, P.E., Director of Public Works FROM: Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E. City Engineer SUBJECT: SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR SOUTH SHORE DRIVE ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss Safety Improvements on South Shore Drive. BACKGROUND: In 1995, two speed humps were installed on South Shore Drive, south of Medicine Lake, on each side of the Bassett Creek bridge. Prior to the installation, the 85th percentile speed on that segment of South Shore Drive was 37 mph and the average daily traffic was 1,100 vehicles per day. In 1996, there was a public hearing, at which time two additional speed humps were installed east of the bridge for a total of four humps on South Shore Drive spanning approximately 1,115 feet, along with another speed hump on the north/south segment of South Shore Drive, approximately 445 feet north of 11th Avenue. Prior to the installation of this hump, the 85h percentile speed on the north/south segment of South Shore Drive was 34 mph and the average daily traffic was 1,688 vehicles per day. This independent speed hump was intended to reduce vehicle speeds on this segment of South Shore Drive where pedestrians walk either in or adjacent to the street. A map of the area has been developed showing the placement of the existing roadway features. DISCUSSION: To determine the effectiveness of these safety improvements, a number of speed/volume counts have recently been completed along South Shore Drive between 11th Avenue North and 13th Avenue North. Roadway tubes were used on South Shore Drive at various locations to collect speed and volume data from July 31 — August 8, 2001. The following table indicates the volumes and speeds that were collected. The 85th percentile speed is shown because that is the speed at which the majority of drivers are most comfortable and likely to travel, meaning 85% of the drivers are traveling slower than this speed. The 85" percentile speed is also used to set speed limits on roadways, since experience has shown that a posted speed limit near this value is the maximum safe and reasonable speed for a roadway. In addition, the table also shows the percentage of drivers traveling at higher speeds, i.e., over 36 mph. N:\pw\Engineering\GENERAL\MEMOS\DANF\200 I \South ShoreDrive_SafetyIm p_mem.doc SUBJECT: SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR SOUTH SHORE DRIVE Page 2 Based on these studies, the 85th percentile speeds along South Shore Drive ranges between 25.9 mph and 32.5 mph. The lowest speeds are found between the series of speed humps on the east/west section of South Shore Drive, at a location just east of the Bassett Creek bridge. In addition, the percentage of vehicles traveling at speeds over 36 mph at this location is less than one-half percent, the lowest of the three locations studied. One concern that has been brought forward includes the future of the existing speed hump near 11th Avenue. There has been some consideration of the possible removal or reconstruction of this speed hump due to scraping of the underside of smaller vehicles traversing the hump. This speed hump is currently signed at 20 mph. From the data collected, it appears that the influence of the speed hump at this location does somewhat slow traffic in the immediate area. The 85th percentile speed is slightly lower than at the railroad crossing, which has no speed hump influence. In addition, the percentage of vehicles exceeding 36 mph is also lower than at the railroad crossing. However, the speeds are not as low as the location near the bridge, most likely due to the series of humps at that location opposed to a single hump north of 11th Avenue. The safety of the railroad crossing near the Luce Line Trail extension is also of concern based on the usage of the tracks and speed of vehicles at the crossing. According to MN/DOT's Office of Freight, Rail and Waterways, there is less than 1 train per day on the Union Pacific Railroad Line, which crosses South Shore Drive. This could actually mean one train per day or one per week, but does indicate minimal use. In addition the 85th percentile speed is near the 30 mph limit for this roadway. Therefore, it does not appear that improvements to make the crossing safer are necessary. ALTERNATIVES: Do nothing. Install stop signs on South Shore Drive at the railroad tracks. This would help slow traffic at the Luce Line Trail extension, but is not expected to have good compliance from motorists since the stop sign would be unwarranted. Install a raised crosswalk on South Shore Drive at the Luce Line Trail extension. A similar device could be considered for the crosswalk at 11th Avenue. A figure showing the typical signing/marking and cross sections from the City of Minneapolis is included in the attachments. N:\pw\Engineering\GENERA \NffiMOS\DANF\2001\SouthShoreDrive_Safetylmp_mem.doc Average Daily Tral c 85thPercentile. peed WTIrfv ling Count LocataQti .. A Direction of"1 i v r rn h North of 1 V5 Avenue 1,600 vehicles per day 31.51 mph 29.79 mph 2.4% NB) SB) Luce Line Trail 1,620 vehicles per day 29.86 mph 32.46 mph 3.5% NB) SB) East of bridge 850 vehicles per day 26.37 mph 25.87 mph 0.3% EB) WB) Based on these studies, the 85th percentile speeds along South Shore Drive ranges between 25.9 mph and 32.5 mph. The lowest speeds are found between the series of speed humps on the east/west section of South Shore Drive, at a location just east of the Bassett Creek bridge. In addition, the percentage of vehicles traveling at speeds over 36 mph at this location is less than one-half percent, the lowest of the three locations studied. One concern that has been brought forward includes the future of the existing speed hump near 11th Avenue. There has been some consideration of the possible removal or reconstruction of this speed hump due to scraping of the underside of smaller vehicles traversing the hump. This speed hump is currently signed at 20 mph. From the data collected, it appears that the influence of the speed hump at this location does somewhat slow traffic in the immediate area. The 85th percentile speed is slightly lower than at the railroad crossing, which has no speed hump influence. In addition, the percentage of vehicles exceeding 36 mph is also lower than at the railroad crossing. However, the speeds are not as low as the location near the bridge, most likely due to the series of humps at that location opposed to a single hump north of 11th Avenue. The safety of the railroad crossing near the Luce Line Trail extension is also of concern based on the usage of the tracks and speed of vehicles at the crossing. According to MN/DOT's Office of Freight, Rail and Waterways, there is less than 1 train per day on the Union Pacific Railroad Line, which crosses South Shore Drive. This could actually mean one train per day or one per week, but does indicate minimal use. In addition the 85th percentile speed is near the 30 mph limit for this roadway. Therefore, it does not appear that improvements to make the crossing safer are necessary. ALTERNATIVES: Do nothing. Install stop signs on South Shore Drive at the railroad tracks. This would help slow traffic at the Luce Line Trail extension, but is not expected to have good compliance from motorists since the stop sign would be unwarranted. Install a raised crosswalk on South Shore Drive at the Luce Line Trail extension. A similar device could be considered for the crosswalk at 11th Avenue. A figure showing the typical signing/marking and cross sections from the City of Minneapolis is included in the attachments. N:\pw\Engineering\GENERA \NffiMOS\DANF\2001\SouthShoreDrive_Safetylmp_mem.doc SUBJECT: SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR SOUTH SHORE DRIVE Page 3 Remove the existing speed hump located approximately 450 feet north of 11 th Avenue. However, this may result in the previous speed problem reoccurring. Reconstruct the roadway to incorporate either an on -street or off-street City trail. Use of an on -street trail would also allow the City to reduce the speed limit along this roadway to 25 mph. Cost estimates for roadway reconstruction are provided as an attachment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data collected, it is concluded that the series of speed humps on the east/west segment of South Shore Drive have significantly reduced traffic speeds. In addition, the single speed hump on the north/south segment of South Shore Drive, north of l lth Avenue, does also appear to reduce vehicle speeds, however, since it's an independent hump, the effect is localized. Generally, a minimum of two speeds humps in a series is recommended, at a spacing of 250 to 500 feet. Currently the speed hump on the north/south segment of South Shore Drive is approximately 400 feet from the crosswalk. Therefore, there is likely to be some slowing effect, but not significantly at that distance. To improve safety at the Luce Line trail extension, a raised crosswalk may be considered. Since this would be located in the City of Medicine Lake, they should be responsible to pay for the installation of the raised crosswalk. This will act as a point speed control and will increase visibility of the crosswalk. Similar treatment could be made to the crosswalk at 11 th Avenue. If raised crosswalks are considered at these locations, we may also consider modification or possible removal of the existing speed hump on this segment of South Shore Drive. The removal may result in increased speeds between crosswalks. The roadway reconstruction would be paid for in accordance with the City's reconstruction policy. The area in Medicine Lake would be paid for by the City of Medicine Lake. The attached estimate includes the segment south of the Luce Line Trail to 11 th Avenue. The estimate includes portions of the roadway located in the City of Medicine Lake which would be the responsibility of Medicine Lake. This would result in safer pedestrian traffic along the length of South Shore Drive but would not increase safety at pedestrian crossings unless other measures are taken. Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E. 1 attachments: Map of Existing Safety Improvements City of Minneapolis Typical Signing & Marking for Mid -Block Raised Crosswalk City of Minneapolis Traffic Calming: Typical Cross Sections Cost Estimate for Roadway Reconstruction N: \pw\Engineering\GENERAL\MEMO S\DANF\2001 \SouthShoreDrive_Safetylmp_mem. doc CITY OF MINNE9POLIS TY"pICAL SIGNiNG & MARKIN%0- 7 FOR \4IDBLOCK RAISED CROSSAIVALi1 4Z Hd9( 01 -r bz Qtl3H' a na 0£ Z-11.0 0£ F1 4Z I 20' BI ars H o£ O vz—I Ill) DE ZBBLOCKS CZ.Lvr :)y) NOJtl3H — C IHSYId HOT13A .a STOP FOR P.1—X1) PEDMT 1`S 30" IN CROSSIIAIS 24' ASPHALT BREAK LINE I 42 XlvissogoDS%h;Y=a3d0£ ( iX—I10B'YELLOW FLASHINC BEACON (ACTUATED) WlI-2A) BUMP is" 24" RAISED CROSSWALK PED. RAMP TYPICAL) 30" W11-2) 30 BUMP AHEAD za' 10 KPH 24' J. : 10-7-P7 w 12' SPEED HUMP RAISED CROSSWALK OR SPEED TABLE NOT 10 SCALE 6' NOT TO SCALE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING: TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS SOUTH SHORE DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION FROM 11TH AVENUE TO RR TRACKS COST ESTIMATE Item Unit Mobilization L.S. Traffic Control L.S. Clearing and Grubbing L.S. F&I Sign Panel Type C S. F. Adjust Casting Each Pond Excavation C.Y. Common Excavation C.Y. Geotextile Fabric S.Y. Select Granular Borrow C.Y. Agg. Base CL. 5, 100% Crushed C.Y. Type 31 B Base Course Mixture (2'/") S.Y. Type 41A Wearing Course Mixture (1'/") S.Y. Tack Coat Gal. 8" DIP Watermain - CL. 52 L.F. 6" DIP Watermain - CL. 52 L.F. 8" Gate Valve w/ Box Each 6" Gate Valve w/ Box Each Hydrant Each Aggregate Bedding Ton 4" PE Street Draintile w/ Sock L.F. 12" RCP Storm Sewer - Class V L.F. CB Type ST -5 (48") L.F. CB Casting Type R -3067 -DL Each Outlet Control Structure Each 12" RCP Pipe Apron Each Riprap Ton 3" Bituminous Trail w/ 6" CL. 5 Agg Base S.F. Concrete Curb and Gutter Design B618 L.F. Pavement Message (RR X-ING) Paint Each 4" Solid Line White - Paint L.F. 4" Broken Line Yellow - Paint L.F. Seeding w/ 6" Topsoil ACRE Sodding Type Lawn & Blvd w/ 6" Topsoil S.Y. Estimated Construction Cost 17,600.00 10% Contingency 1,425.00 ROW and Easement Acquisition w/ 10% Contingency 1,600.00 Subtotal 2,800.00 and Administration t Cost Unit Price 20,000.00 10,000.00 3,000.00 30.00 200.00 6.00 5.00 1.50 9.00 20.00 4.00 3.00 1.50 22.00 19.00 800.00 700.00 2,000.00 15.00 5.00 30.00 250.00 350.00 4,000.00 400.00 50.00 1.20 8.00 200.00 0.25 0.25 1,200.00 5.00 OPTION NO. 1 33' B -B w/ on street trail Quantity Cost 1 20,000.00 1 10,000.00 1 3,000.00 30 900.00 4 800.00 700 4,200.00 4000 20,000.00 4000 6,000.00 2800 25,200.00 900 18,000.00 3300 13,200.00 3300 9,900.00 165 247.50 800 17,600.00 75 1,425.00 2 1,600.00 4 2,800.00 3 6,000.00 250 3,750.00 500 2,500.00 100 3,000.00 8 2,000.00 2 700.00 2 8,000.00 6 2,400.00 20 1,000.00 0 0.00 2000 16,000.00 1 200.00 2000 500.00 1000 250.00 0.5 600.00 1000 5,000.00 206,772.50 20,677.25 9,700.00 237,149.75 47,429.95 284.579.70 02/26/01 OPTION NO. 2 29' B -B w/ 10' off street trail Quantity Cost 1 20,000.00 1 10,000.00 1 3,000.00 30 900.00 4 800.00 700 4,200.00 3900 19,500.00 4700 7,050.00 2400 21,600.00 800 16,000.00 2800 11,200.00 2800 8,400.00 140 210.00 800 17,600.00 75 1,425.00 2 1,600.00 4 2,800.00 3 6,000.00 250 3,750.00 500 2,500.00 100 3,000.00 8 2,000.00 2 700.00 2 8,000.00 6 2,400.00 20 1,000.00 10000 12,000.00 2000 16,000.00 1 200.00 1000 250.00 1000 250.00 0.5 600.00 1000 5,000.00 209,935.00 20,993.501 10,600.00 241,528.50 48.305.70 Railroad Crossing Sign 400' north of the centerline of Railroad Track d 85th Percentile 8-01 s Speed Daily Traffic mph) Volume 31.2 1,620 r All Way Railroad Crossing Sign 620' north of 11th Ave Speed Hump 445'1 Iof11thAve 1TyPC Crosswalk sign 240' north of 11th Ave I 85th Percentile. Speed Daily Traffic mph) Volume -- Before 5-96: 34.4 1,866 8' Crosswalk 37' After 8-01: 30.7 1,600 north of 11th Ave Crosswalk sign 150 south of 11th Ave e New Trail 6 north of the centerline o1 the Railroad Crossing Stop Control on South Shore Drive Speed Hump 920' / Speed Hump 195' from centerline of _ from cen[edine o bodge bridge I -- ---_ - _ - s`'s• ,,,,,,=o-. y Speed Hump 690' from centerline of bridge Speed Hump 410' from centerline ofl q bridge n F AA® L85th Percentile 8-11ffiSpeedDailyTrac 'BpB'B -• 0 (mph) Volume 26.1 850 Agenda Number: 4 - TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Secondhand Smoke DATE: August 16, 2001, for Special Council meeting of August 21, 2001 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the information provided on secondhand smoke and provide direction to staff if any changes in policy or ordinance are desired. 2. BACKGROUND: The Police Department has researched the issue of secondhand smoke and has arranged for a representative of the American Cancer Society to make a brief presentation at the council meeting. The Cancer Society also provided the attached Position on Smoke -Free Restaurant Ordinances. Several other individuals have contacted me about addressing the Council on this topic and plan to attend the meeting. We are aware of three Minnesota cities (Duluth, Little Falls, and Moose Lake) that have adopted smoke-free restaurant ordinances. The City of Little Falls subsequently repealed its ordinance. About one year ago, Moose Lake was the first Minnesota city to enact a smoking ban in restaurants. Duluth was the second city to adopt an ordinance prohibiting smoking in restaurants and in places that serve liquor and have seating for 50 or more. The Duluth ordinance has an exemption for businesses that can show a 15 percent loss of profit for one month, or a 10 percent loss over two months. Several restaurants, bowling alleys, and pool halls have been granted exemptions from the ordinance. Attempts to enact smoking bans in restaurants have recently been rejected or withdrawn in the cities of Grand Rapids, Maple Grove, Shakopee, Faribault, St. Cloud, and New Prague. Rochester is currently considering adoption of an ordinance banning smoking in restaurants. Attached is a copy of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, as well as several articles, which provide a good overview of what is happening in this area. 3. RECOMMENDATION: Review the information presented and direct staff if further meetings, research, or changes in policy or ordinance are desired. 11.1' i`W. 1 / 1'+, aJ 111L1ODUC:CU Legislature Home ( Search I Help i Links to the World Minnesota House of Representatives KEY: men = old language to be removed underscored = new language to be added ragc 1 oI J NOTE: If you cannot see any difference in the key above, you need to change the display of stricken and/or underscored language. Authors and Status List versions HX No. 1714, as introduced: 82nd Legislative Session (2001-2002) Posted on Mar 15, 2001 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to smoking; prohibiting smoking in 1.3 workplaces; providing for smoke-free areas in 1.4 multitenant buildings; providing that the deposit of 1.5 partially burned cigarettes is littering; providing 1.6 criminal penalties; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000, 1.7 sections 85.20, subdivision 6; 169.42, subdivision 1; 1.8 169.421, subdivision 3; 144.413, subdivision 2; 1.9 144.414, subdivision 1, by adding a subdivision; 1.10 144.415; 609.68; proposing coding for new law in 1.11 Minnesota Statutes, chapter 144. 1.12 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.13 ARTICLE 1 1.14 INDOOR SMOKING 1.15 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 144.413, 1.16 subdivision 2, is amended to read: 1.17 Subd. 2. [PUBLIC PLACE.] "Public place" means any 1.18 enclosed, indoor area used by the general public or serving as a 1.19 place of work, including, but not limited to, restaurants, 1.20 retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments, 1.21 public conveyances, educational facilities other than public 1.22 schools, as defined in section 120A.05, subdivisions 9, 11, and 1.23 13, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, arenas, meeting 1.24 rooms, and common areas of rental apartment buildings 1.25 l .7 n fjqr-., l .-..7 efflees eeeajaied eaEeluai:vely by 1.26 even -h ugh sl}eh- e € €=ee s may be lted by 1.27 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 144.414, 1.28 subdivision 1, is amended to read: 2.1 Subdivision 1. [PUBLIC PLACES.] No person shall smoke in a 2.2 public place or at a public meeting except des ^`' e -king 2.3 areas , Th4!8 deer Ret aptly rn ,'" ^, 2.4 earire ra rhall ie geed €er- a-Fri*atF_ ^, F.,ang-A- , ",a 2.5 acc 7 j.,cx rccrsgeiiie 3t 6 awe i3iide the ee t1 mel 6€ the 6 Toz^avv A€ 32 2.6 er-fer-sen: is eharge 9€-th9 2.7 F laee , r t th4 eh bltlea shall 9t .,r..,. tG Plaees 2.8 ef-,rem-*;et-usuail5-€r-equent;ed €y -the a, publ4me, eiEeept_ 2.9 I;a# = ip state eeR*alssiener eg health e ,, et b s , #9 2.10 ,E faeter . war-eheuses, ane these 2.11 giaees-a€-we4=k the eleee ..;...ity of .....r,_..r,. ,.v the 2.12 iaa4e aaey e€jrent=i),at=ien eauses sFagke ^l l"t'^ ' 'trim nt l `e 2.13 t:14pjrcali ; Apa eem€A4=# e€ that persons may 2.14 smoke in the designated smoking areas of bars and restaurants. 2.15 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 144.414, is 2.16 amended by adding a subdivision to read: http://w... /getbill.pl?number=HF1714&session=1s82&version=latest&session number=0&session_year=200 7/24/0 n.r iv U. i i i,+, as introuuceu 2.17 Subd. 4. [SMOKE-FREE DESIGNATION IN MULTITENANT 2.18 BUILDINGS.) (a) In any multitenant building having a common 2.19 heating, ventilating, or air conditioning (HVAC) system serving 2.20 more than one occupant, the building owner or lessor may 2.21 designate the parts of the building served by the common system 2.22 as smoke-free. The area designated smoke-free must include all 2.23 areas served by the common system except that (1) any area 2.24 _subject to exemption pursuant to paragraph (b) need not be 2,25 included; and (2) any area may be excluded from the designation 2.26 with the consent of all occupants. No occupant of a multitenant 2.27 building shall designate a smoking area in a place designated by 2.28 the owner or lessor as smoke-free. 2.29 (b) If an occupant's lease agreement explicitly provides 2:30 that smoking is permitted in the tenant's leasehold, then that 2.31 leasehold is exempt from any smoke-free designation by the 2.32 building owner or lessor. In such a leasehold, the occupant has 2.33 the same rights and obligations with respect to designation of 2.34 smoking areas that the owner would otherwise have under this 2.35 section. 2.36 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 144.415, is 3.1 amended to read: 3.2 144.415 [DESIGNATION OF BAR AND RESTAURANT SMOKING AREAS.] 3.3 (a) Smoking areas may be designated by proprietors or other 3.4 persons in charge. of p••blie r'_a___ bars and restaurants, except 3.5 in places in which smoking is prohibited by the fire marshal or 3.6 by other law, ordinance or rule. 3.7 (b) Where smoking areas are designated, _.__=t'_nq physl_al 3.8 14a--r-iere eatila jeR8- 'Stews -s14;;31 I;P URPL4 #^ MiNimisiA «.,, 3.9 3.10 a g p ab l i e-plaeee eensi$ t ins-ef a -mingle rec+fa, the 94 3.11 _10se aii 81;ali1;p-Qeir^vitieaa2ti m2t; i€- Amp 6iti(ief W;6eiR 8 3.12 eee- ped eeted as a ne smeking area those areas must meet 3.13 the standards for smoke containment established by the 3.14 commissioner according to section 144.4155. No galalie-pla$e 3.15 ethera bar or restaurant shall be designated as a smoking 3.16 area in its entirety. 4 a ham a^ ,~^a fnek4 3.17 - -it-8 enlzir-4:rthis dee!gnat ieii shat be ^~^,a ^,.. 3.18 est all entraeees aei=Fnally kiaed- by the p;alAip-r 3.19 Sec. 5. [144.4151] [EMPLOYEE RIGHTS IN SMOKING AREAS.] 3.20 (a) No employer may assign an employee to enter a 3.21 designated smoking area unless: 3.22 (1) the employer informs the employee that the area is a 3.23 designated smoking area and that the employee is not required to 3.24 enter it; and 3.25 (2) the employee gives the employee's consent after the 3.26 disclosure. 3.27 (b) No employer may terminate the employment of an 3.28 employee, alter the hours worked or wage received by an 3.29 employee, or otherwise retaliate against an employee based on 3.30 the employee's refusal to enter the designated smoking area. 3.31 Sec. 6. [144.4155] [STANDARDS FOR SMOKE CONTAINMENT.] 3.32 (a) The commissioner of health shall, by rule, establish 3.33 standards for the creation of smoking areas that ensure that 3.34 persons outside the designated smoking areas are not exposed to 3.35 tobacco smoke. The standards may include barrier requirements, 3.36 ventilation requirements, limits on the size of a designated 4.1 smoking area requirements related to entrances and exits to and 4.2 from a designated smoking area and any other requirements the 4.3 commissioner deems necessary. 4.4 (b) The standards established under this section must, at a 4.5 minimum require physical barriers separating a designated 4.6 smoking area from the rest of an establishment and must require 4.7 that those physical barriers completely enclose -the smoking area. 4.8 1ARTICLE 2 Page 2 of http://w... /getbill.pl?number=HF1714&session=ls82&version=latest&session number-0&sessionyear=200 7/24/C 4.9 LITTERING 4.10 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 85.20, 4.11 subdivision 6, is amended to read: 4.12 Subd. 6. [LITTERING; PENALTY.] (a) No person shall drain, 4.13 throw, or deposit upon the lands and waters within a state park 4.14 any substance, including partially burned cigarettes, that would 4.15 mar the appearance, create a stench, destroy the cleanliness or 4.16 safety of the land, or would be likely to injure any animal, 4.17 vehicle, or person traveling upon those lands and. waters. The 4.18 operator of a vehicle or watercraft, except a school bus or a 4.19 vehicle transporting passengers for hire and regulated by the 4.20 interstate commerce commission, shall not permit articles to be 4.21 thrown or discarded from the vehicle upon any lands or waters 4.22 within a state park. 4.23 (b) Violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. Any 4.24 person sentenced under this subdivision shall in lieu of the 4.25 sentence imposed be permitted, under terms established by the 4.26 court, to work under the direction of the department of natural 4.27 resources at clearing rubbish, trash, and debris from any state 4.28 park. The court may for any violation of this subdivision order 4.29 the offender to perform such work under terms established by the 4.30 court with the option of a jail sentence being imposed. 4.31 (c) In lieu of enforcement under paragraph (b), this 4.32 subdivision may be enforced by imposition of a civil penalty and 4.33 an action for damages for littering under section 115A.99. 4.34 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 169.42, 4.35 subdivision 1, is amended to read: 4.36 Subdivision 1. [DANGEROUS OBJECT ON HIGHWAY.] No person 5.1 shall throw, deposit, place or dump, or cause to be thrown, 5.2 deposited, placed or dumped upon any street or highway or upon 5.3 any public or privately owned land adjacent thereto without the 5.4 owner's consent any snow, ice, glass bottle, glass, nails, 5.5 tacks, wire, cans, garbage, swill, papers, ashes, partially 5.6 burned cigarettes, refuse, carcass of any dead animal, offal, 5.7 trash or rubbish or any other form of offensive matter or any 5.8 other substance likely to injure any person, animal or vehicle 5.9 upon any such street or highway. 5.10 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 169.421, 5.11 subdivision 3, is amended to read: 5.12 Subd. 3. [CIVIL LIABILITY IMPOSED.] If any solid waste, 5.13 including litter, glass, nails, tacks, wire, cans, bottles, 5.14 garbage, papers, refuse, trash, partially burned cigarettes, or 5.15 any form of offensive matter is thrown, deposited, placed, or 5.16 dumped from a vehicle upon any street or highway, public land, 5.17 or upon private land without the consent of the owner of the 5.18 land, a violation of this subdivision occurs and civil liability 5.19 is imposed upon the owner of the vehicle. The driver and 5.20 passengers riding in a vehicle are constituted as the agents of 5.21 the owner of the vehicle for purposes of this subdivision. It 5.22 is a defense to any action brought pursuant to this section that 5.23 the vehicle was stolen. This section is not applicable to the 5.24 owner of a vehicle transporting persons for hire or transporting 5.25 school children. 5.26 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 609.68, is 5.27 amended to read: 5.28 609.68 [UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE, LITTER, OR LIKE.] 5.29 Whoever unlawfully deposits garbage, rubbish, partially 5.30 burned cigarettes, offal, or the body of a dead animal, or other 5.31 litter in or upon any public highway, public waters or the ice 5.32 thereon, shoreland areas adjacent to rivers or streams as 5.33 defined by section 103F.205, public lands, or, without the 5.34 consent of the owner, private lands or water or ice thereon, is 5.35 guilty of a misdemeanor. http://w... /getbill.pl?number=HF1714&session=1s82&version=latest&session number=0&session_year=200 7/24/0 Smoke Free, Growing up in Smoke is dangerous Page 1 of 2 QRQAANQ a1P1n13M0kE Second-hand Smoke is Dangerous cap Only 15% of smoke from a cigarette is inhaled by the smoker. The other 85% goes directly into the air and is known as 'second-hand smoke'. Second-hand smoke is a combination of: mainstream smoke, which is the smoke inhaled and then breathed out. Smoke Free Singers Sidestream smoke, which is the smoke coming from the cigarette Ready between puffs. Sidestream smoke has more tar, nicotine, carbon Reckoner monoxide and other chemicals that cause cancer than the smoke inhaled through the cigarette itself? All second-hand smoke contains cancer- causing chemicals. Passive smoking is the breathing in of the second-hand smoke produced by The Law and Passive Smoking. Young children who are developing and growing are especially sensitive to second- hand smoke. We know that children of parents who smoke: have more frequent and more severe asthma attacks. Are much more likely to suffer from serious chest infections such as bronchitis or pneumonia. Get more ear infections and have more cases of "glue ear", the main cause of deafness in young children. Have lungs which do not function as well as the lungs of children not exposed to passive smoking. Are more likely to be absent from school due to ill health and are less likely to do well at sport. The risk of cot death in a baby born to a mother who smokes is greatly increased. This risk increases with the number of cigarettes smoked per day. You can protect your children Click ^^^^ r oewnoa ice++ THE OFFICE FOR Health GainsouEnr http-//smoke-free.eire.org/secondhand.htm 8/6/01 Secondhand Smoke . . . FACT SHEET Secondhand smoke comes from two places: smoke breathed out by the person smoking, and the smoke from the end of a burning cigarette. Secondhand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma. Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing 53,000 nonsmokers in the U.S. each year. For every eight smokers the tobacco industry kills, it takes one nonsmoker with them.' Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other health problems. The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 37,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.' Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).' The 1986 Report of the Surgeon General, the 1986 National Research Council report Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health Effects, and the 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders established that ETS exposure causes lung cancer. Scientific knowledge about ETS-related effects has expanded considerably since the release of these reports. In 1997, the California Environmental Protection Agency's (Cal -EPA) review of population -based studies conducted since 1991 confirmed earlier ETS findings and determined that secondhand smoke is causally associated with a number of fatal and non- fatal health effects.4 Specifically, the Cal -EPA report finds that ETS exposure is causally linked to lung and nasal sinus cancer, heart disease, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Serious impacts of ETS on children include asthma induction and exacerbation, bronchitis and pneumonia, middle ear infection, chronic respiratory symptoms, and low birth weight.' Just as the science regarding the health risks of ETS has increased, so has public concern about secondhand smoke. According to a 1997 Gallup poll, 55% of American adults feel exposure to secondhand smoke is "very harmful," compared with just 36% in 1994.6 continued on back Effects on Children Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.' Secondhand smoke is harmful to children with asthma. The EPA estimates that for between 200,000 and one million asthmatic children, exposure to secondhand smoke worsens their condition.' Secondhand smoke can make healthy children less than 18 months of age sick; it can cause pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, coughing, wheezing and increased mucus production. According to the EPA, secondhand smoke can lead to the buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation.' I Glantz, S.A. & Parmley, W., "Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Epidemiology, Physiology, and Biochemistry," Circulation, 1991; 83(1):1-12; and, Taylor, A., Johnson, D. & Kazemi, H., "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Cardiovascular Disease," Circulation, 1992; (86): 699-702. 2 Adapted from the American Lung Association Fact Sheet. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer & Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, December 1992 3 Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer & Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, December 1992; Headden, S. Secondhand Smokescreen: Tobacco Firms Worried for Years About Risks of Passive Smoking," U.S. News, August 3, 1998. 4 Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Final Report, Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, September 1997. Ibid. 6 Saad, L., "A Half -Century of Polling on Tobacco", The Public Perspective, August/September 1998. Adapted from the American Lung Association Fact Sheet. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer & Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, December 1992 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. World No -tobacco Day zom Second -Hand Smoke: let's Clear the Air FflEQUEHiIY AKED QUBT10% ABOUT W(OND-HAND SMOKE What is second-hand smoking? 11 Second-hand smoking, passive smoking, involuntary smoking or exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) all refer to the phenomena of breathing other people's smoke. Second-hand smoke is .; produced during the burning and smoking of tobacco products. It results from the "sidestream" smoke' - which is emitted from the burning tip of a cigarette and the "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and:_ then exhaled by the smoker. What is found in second-hand smoke? n^ Second-hand smoke is a complex combination of over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. It includes irritants and systemic toxicants such as hydrogen cyanide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide; _; ammonia, and formaldehyde. It also contains carcinogens and mutagens such as arsenic, chromium;;' nitrosamines, and benzo(a)pyrene. Many of the chemicals are reproductive toxicants such as nicotine', cadmium and carbon monoxide. Second-hand smoke is also an important indoor air pollutant. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has classified second-hand smoke as a "class A!,' 1 carcinogen for which them is no safe level of exposure. Does second-hand smoke affect the health of non-smokers? Yes. There is substantial scientific evidence that second-hand smoke is a serious health threat. Non= smokers who breathe second-hand smoke suffer many of the diseases of active smoking. Heart disease mortality as well as lung and nasal sinus cancers have been causally associated with second-hand smoke exposure. Second-hand smoke also causes a wide variety of adverse health effects in children including bronchitis and pneumonia, exacerbatiddof asthma, middle ear infections, and "glue ears', which is the" most common cause of deafness in children. Exposure of non-smoking women to second-hand smoke during pregnancy causes reductions in fetal growth, and there is also evidence that postnatal exposure of infants to second-hand smoke contributes to the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Tobacco smoke is also an important source of indoor air pollution, causing such immediate effects as eye and nasal irritation, headache, sore throat, dizziness, nausea, cough, and respiratory problems. Now big a problem is second-hand smoke? It is a ubiquitous problem because people from all cultures and countries are exposed to second-hand smoke. This exposure occurs under daily -life conditions:. in homes,.at work,..onpublic -transport, in restaurants, in bars ---literally everywhere people go. Surveys conducted in countries around the world confirm widespread exposure. One survey estimated that 79 percent of Europeans over age 15 were exposed to second-hand smoke. Recent data from South Africa shows -that 64 percent of children below age five in Soweto live with at least one smoker in the house. The Cancer Society of New Zealand reports that that second-hand smoke is the third largest killer in the country, after active smoking and alcohol use. What is the tobacco industry doing about second-hand smoke? The tobacco industry is spending millions of dollars spreading a misinformation campaign on second-hand smoke. Scientists and consultants have been hired -to not only confuse the public about the validity of scientific data, but to also create doubt about the researchers who produce the data and about the science itself. In addition to attacking legitimate studies, bogus research projects that downplay the seriousness of second-hand smoke have been produced. Powerful lobbyists and lawyers have been hired to deflect government regulation of second-hand smoke, and this has been supplemented by -huge contributions to political campaigns. When money and misinformation haven't worked, the industry has promoted false solutions to control second-hand'smoke. Although evidence shows that ventilation is not an effective solution to the problem of second-hand smoke, the industry continues to push for this option, even forming indoor air consulting "front groups" who downplay the risks of second-hand smoke. A campaign to promote "courtesy of choice" as an alternative to banning smoking in public places has also been launched worldwide. This implies that the serious problem of second-hand smoke can be solved merely by smokers asking for permission before they light up, or by having separate smoking and non- smoking sections. Second-hand smoke is thus portrayed as a mere annoyance for non-smokers, rather than as a health issue. The industry also funds smokers rights' movements to make it look like there is independent opposition to smoking bans. People concerned about second-hand smoke are then branded as zealots. What an be done about second-hand smoke? Governments --Can regulate and legislate smoking bans in public places, educate people about the dangers of second-hand smoke, and provide support for those who wish to quit smoking. Employers—Can initiate and enforce smoking bans in workplaces. Parents —Can stop smoking in the house and car, particularly around children, and ask others to do the same. They can also ensure that their children's day-care, school and after-school programs are smoke- free. Spouses can help their partners to quit smoking. Individuals—Let family, friends and co-workers know that you do mind if they smoke around you. Work with your local organizations to initiate actions on second-hand smoke. Make your voice heard! Everyone has the right to breathe clean air unpolluted by second-hand Smoke! Printable Version The risk of death from heart attack is 91 percent higher for non-smoking women who are regularly. exposed -to secondhanci_smoke, and 58 percent higher for women occasionallyexposedtosecondhandsmoke (American Heart Association Journal 1997). Nonsmoking women who live with a spouse who smokes have a 30 percent greater risk of developing lung cancer (Source: Brownson R., Alavanja M., and Hock E. (1993). "ReliabilityofPassiveSmokeExposureHistoriesinaCaseControlHistoryofLungCancer," InternationalJournalofEpidemiology; 22(5):804-808.) Employees are at risk. Employees exposed to secondhand smoke on the job are 34 percent more likely to get lungcancer (U.S.CDC 1996). At least 4.5 million Americans experience great discomfort from secondhand smoke at work U.S. CDC 1996). Restaurant and bar workers have three to six times more exposure to secondhand smoke than other workers (U.S. CDC 1996). Food service workers, many of whom are under age 18, have a 50 percent higher risk of lung cancer than the general population (Corsun, Young, Enz. "Should NYC Restaurateurs Lighten Up?" Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly: 1996). Waitresses, compared to other women, are four times more likely to die from lung cancer and two and a half more likely to die from heart disease (Glantz 1992). Economic Impact of Going Smoke -Free Sales tax data, consistently demonstrates that ordinances restricting smoking in restaurants have no effect on revenues (Glantz 1999). Over 60 cities and counties with smoke-free restaurant ordinances have been studied for economic impact. All studies, based on sales tax data, show that there is no negative economic impact. (Glantz 1999) The tobacco industry often forms front groups who claim ordinances have a negative economic impact. Every time this claim has been raised, they are always wrong (Project for aTobacco -Free Future 1999). Scientific studies in North Carolina, Arizona, California, Colorado, New York, Massachusetts and Texas have all shown that ordinances banning smoking have had no negative economic effect. Bars and restaurants would likely see an increase in business if they implement smoke-free policies (Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 1999). The National Restaurant Association polls show that if a restaurant goes smoke-free, 56 percent would eat at the restaurant more frequently, and only 26 percent would eat there less frequently (Tobacco -Free Coalition 1999). Costs of Secondhand Smoke to Employers Smoking causes inefficiency, errors, eye irritation and lower attentiveness, which costs the employer (Action on Smoking and Health 1999) Employers who have banned smoking reported a dramatic decrease in maintenance costs Action on Smoking and Health 1999) Fire risks and subsequent insurance costs decrease when a business goes smoke-free Tobacco -Free Coalition 1999). Ventilation Doesn't Work Ventilation systems and designated smoking sections do not protect people from the dangerous toxins in secondhand smoke (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers 2000). Secondhand smoke is more than visible "smoke." Ventilation systems are not equipped to filter out the deadly toxins you cannot see or smell (ASHRAE 1999). Ventilation is a tobacco -industry ploy to protect industry profits (our fact sheet). In a letter to a medical professional, Honeywell confirmed that their ventilation systems are comfort and convenience products that do not protect public health (Honeywell letter, June 2000). Page 2 of 3 http://wwvv.smokefreecoalition.org/utils/priniArticle.asp?id=149 3/25,2001 Printable Version MINNESOTA SMOKE-FREE COALITION published on: 1/18/01 2:40:00 PM irce: http://smokefreecoalition.org r,sintable version) Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet What is Secondhand Smoke? Also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and passive smoking. Contains more than 50 known carcinogens and 200 known poisons, including ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, carbon monoxide and benzene (National Cancer Institute 1999). Classified as a Group A. carcinogen. There is no safe level of exposure to Group A toxins U.S. EPA 1992). One in four US adults report exposure to secondhand smoke at home or at work (California EPA 1997). Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Secondhand smoke kills. Every year, more than 53,000 non-smokers die from exposure to secondhand smoke, making it the third leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. (National Cancer Institute.) For every eight smokers the tobacco industry kills, it takes one non-smoker with them. Glantz, Stan and Parmley, W., "Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Epidemiology, Physiology, and Biochemisty,"Circulation: 1991; Taylor, A, Johnson, D., and Kazemi, H. Environmental Heart Disease and Cardiovascular Disease," Circulation: 1992). Secondhand smoke causes cancer. Lung cancer caused by exposure to secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 3,000 deaths per year among nonsmokers in the U.S. It is a confirmed cause of nasal sinus cancer in nonsmokers. (National_ Cancer Institute, Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, December 1999). Secondhand smoke causes heart disease. Exposure to secondhand smoke causes between 35,000 and 62,000 coronary heart disease deaths each year in the United States (National Cancer Institute 1999). Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke on a regular basis develop hardening of the arteries 20 percent faster than people not regularly exposed to secondhand smoke (Journal of the American Medical Association 1998). Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke regularly have an 82 percent greater chance of suffering from a stroke (Tobacco Control [British Medical Journal] 1999). Children are at risk. Children are more vulnerable to the effects of secondhand smoke because of their small airways. More than 15 million children and teenagers live in houses where they are exposed to secondhand smoke every year (U.S. CDC 1996). Over 40 percent of U.S. children under age 6 live in households where someone smokes U.S. CDC 1996). In Hennepin County, children in one out of five homes are exposed to secondhand smoke at home. Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 1,868 to 2,708 deaths annually in the United States due to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (National Cancer Institute) 26,000 healthy U.S. children develop asthma. -every year because of secondhand smoke American Lung Association 1998). Every year, between 150,000 and 300,000 children 18 months or younger suffer from lower respiratory infections (like bronchitis and pneumonia) from breathing secondhand smoke (U.S. EPA). Secondhand smoke causes between 700,000 and 1.6 million visits to the doctor for children 18 months and younger for childhood ear infections (U.S. EPA) Women are at risk. http://«,,N,,v. smokefreecoal i tion. org/utils/printArticle.asp?id=149 Page 1 of 3 3/25/2-001 SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES Page 1 of 3 English 105 Sect. KA Evan Saxton -Williams Smoking in Public Places Whether or not smoking should be allowed in public places has been debated ever since the introduction of the first non-smoking law. There have been many reasons for and against smoking that have come about in the last ten years, including the more recent anti public smoking laws that have come into effect in businesses, restaurants, and other public facilities. The problem is that most of these laws have little or no merit and undermine the personal freedoms of smokers resulting in political, economic, and social consequences. In most cases, anti-smoking laws do nothing but take away from one's civil liberties. That liberty being the right to smoke and do what one wants to his or her own body and to make informed choices and decisions. Many anti-smoking activists have tried to use the constitution as a means of evidence for their anti -public smoking laws that are infringing upon smokers, -liberties. One case of infringement occurred when anti -smokers attempted to interpret the meaning of the ninth amendment as the right to breathe clean air. Even the court system rejected this method of thought as legal reasoning for abandoning smoking in public places. One reason that smoking should be allowed in public places is because of the difficulties of making anti-smoking legislature. Along with the high cost of producing such a law, formulating an anti-smoking bill would only place more burden on governmental institutions. Any time government makes a law, there must be time and money spent determining the regulations and consequences that will be set forth. Fines, penalties, and actions against repeated offenders would have to be outlined. Even if restrictions were placed on smokers, who is to determine how large the fines will be, the non-smokers? The other concern is who is going to enforce these anti -public smoking laws? The police force could be used, but they have enough to worry about and do not need to worry themselves with something as non -eventful as having a cigarette in a regulated area. Enforcing smoking laws would be equivalent to trying to enforce littering or jaywalking. Some say that smoking in public places is harmful to those around them and to the environment. What smokers and non-smokers alike do not realize is that these statements are all misleading. The fact is that a person receives more pollutants from automobile exhaust than from second hand smoke. Forces Canada found that the EPA estimated "fifty percent of the total incidents of cancer caused from air toxins in large cities are attributed to emissions from motor vehicles." Forces also determined that the amount of carcinogens released into the air by motor vehicles is equivalent to every person in the United States smoking 42.5 cigarettes every minute. Even after studies like this, many legislators and environmental agencies would rather focus on smoking instead of the more prevalent and dangerous problem of exhaust emissions. So instead of worrying about whom is,smoking next to you, worry about your daily commute to work. If a smoker can not smoke in a public place then where can they smoke? Many non-smokers are arguing that smokero should just go to the areas were smoking is permitted, solving a majority of the problems. The solution is not that easy, in many cases designated smoking areas are not being constructed and they are often in inconvenient areas. In some Instances smokers' options have been so limited that smoking outdoors is a problem. Such is the case for residents in the cities of Berkeley, California and Sharon, Massachusetts whom have already http://ww«,.public.iastate.edu/- evan/english10.5.html 8/7/01 SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES Page 2 of 3 enforced some laws against smoking in public outdoor areas. Some businesses are now enforcing no smoking laws within their offices without providing adequate smoker facilities. This is the reason hordes of smokers are forced to stand in alleyways, exposed to the weather, in order to enjoy one of their personal freedoms of smoking. If regulations about smoking in public places continue, then even smoking outside will soon become illegal to all smokers. Smokers will find themselves trapped within their own homes, unable to go out and enjoy a walk in the park, movie, or dinner out, all because they are the smoking minority. It is not only the smokers that will be losing out if the anti -public smoking laws continue to gain popularity. If these laws are enacted, than a large majority of smokers will have to leave the sanctioned public areas in order to smoke. This might mean a trip outdoors or maybe to a special sanctioned area, an inconvenience in any case. What public businesses and companies do not realize is that during the time that the smoker is out away from the restaurant, shops, or workplace, the companies are loosing money. Instead of being inside the store shopping and spending money, smokers are outside wasting their valuable shopping time. This inconvenience is especially true for business employees who have anti -public smoking laws enforced in their place of work. For every minute an employee spends away from the desk, business owners loose money. If a smoker has to leave his desk in order to have a cigarette, then the business is the one that is loosing out. Time is money. Many citizens have tried to fight the city councils and businesses but with little help and halting progress. The tobacco companies seem to be surviving these attacks on smokers' rights because they have the power and the money to fight the local, state, and federal government. The common citizens, those that are severely affected by these laws, are unable to fight the government with their limited resources. Smokers are being forced to go along with what the seventy percent of non-smokers feel is the right choice for both nonsmokers and smokers. The main reason for all of the recent action against smoking in public places has to do with passive or second hand smoke. The activist of these anti smoking laws claim that being in contact with a smoker will cause you to have a shorter life or develop some sort of medical problems. Many anti -smoker groups' even go as far as to say that second hand smoke is just as bad as smoking an actual cigarette. In court, these anti -smoker activists use the report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prove to the public and the courts that being around someone in a restaurant who is smoking, is going to be detrimental to your health. What the EPA studies failed to show, was that in most cases, their studies were over the long-term effects of a non-smoker living with a smoker. In the overall argument about whether or not to allow smoking in public places, the EPA gives little evidence. While in a restaurant or public park, one may come in contact with second hand smoke for brief instances, this doesn't mean that you are doomed to lung cancer or that years have been removed from your life. The EPA studies are not specific enough for the public to get a true feeling of the situation on public smoking. Companies such as Philip Morris are so concerned about the false information that has been reported that they have involved themselves in a lawsuit against the EPA. Smokers are loosing the battle against public smoking, Uzych states that more than 150 cities since 1990 that have already enacted non-smoking ordinances. Smokers are being punished because of a habit that they may have picked up when it was considered fashionable to be smoking a cigarette. They are being punished for living their lives the way that they want to. With the ever increasing presence of new restrictions on smoking in public places the decrease on smokers freedoms will continue to decline unless the smoking minorities protest their rights to the governing bodies and businesses. http:i7Nvww.public.iastate.edu/—evan/english'i.05.htmi 8/7/01 Restaurant Report On-line - Restaurant Smoking Policies & Laws Rest ran Z port Ema 11ervSI tdaFoihosprtautypr6tesslbnatsade_fbot%connorsseiir. > ltrleer Top _10Q.._Food Sites "Smoker's don't kill Articles people —it's the E-mail_ Newsletter smoke!" The Great Debates by Bob Bradley Question5...ns«er We ran a commentary about some impolite Buver's Guide smokers in a restaurant, and it became World War III. We got cards and letters, and most of the Marketplace response was totally predictable — the non-smokers loved it and the smokers suggested we move to Hospitality_Jobs California. And after a careful study of the great smoking debate (at least in the eyes of our readers), James._i.3eard_Dateline the simple conclusion is that this is a complex problem that won't be solved anytime soon. Don't Pr -..i hold your breath for peace in the Middle East... or Advertising_ lnfo for any sensible resolution of the tobacco wars. Contact Us Let's keep in mind that smoking will never become an illegal activity in the United States. There's Home Page entirely too much money involved, and it involves approximately 25% of our population, and most of them would prefer that we get rid of the Surgeon General before we even think about outlawing smoking. Many see the decision to smoke as a basic right, and perhaps even a guarantee that's spelled out somewhere in the Constitution. They won't take away our guns, and god knows they'll never take away our cigarettes. The issue for our industry becomes the realization that they might take smoking out of bars and restaurants, and on a State by State basis, this concept is already becoming a reality. Everyone watches California because they already made the move by first outlawing smoking in bars, and followed with smoking bans in the restaurants. All of this is too new to intelligently assess — including the claim that business actually increased by some 4% after the ban went into effect. And keep in mind that about 18 percent of the adult population in California smokes, and by definition, the basic http ://www. res taurantreport.com/Features/ft—smokin g2.html Page 1 of 5 8/7/01 Restaurant Report On-line - Restaurant Smoking Policies & Laws Page 2 of 5 outdoor lifestyle of this area has little in common with places like New York, Boston and Philadelphia. The real problem rests with our legal community, and based upon the predictability of their actions, smoking in bars and restaurants will probably be banned everywhere sometime in the very foreseeable future. A recent study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that California's waitresses die from higher rates of lung and heart disease than any other female occupational group. They have four times the expected lung cancer mortality and 2-1/2 times the expected heart disease mortality rate. According to the study, this increased death rate is directly attributable to having to work day after day in smoke-filled rooms. If you can spell the word lawsuit, you have some idea of the real problem, and it's only just beginning. The fear becomes that employers who allow smoking in their establishments may risk future Workers Compensation claims by continuing to expose their employees to a known health hazard, as evidenced by an employee of a Marin County California) restaurant and bar that allowed smoking, who received an $85,000 settlement for such a claim. The studies will continue to accumulate concerning the health hazards of smoking on employees, and the lawyers will do the rest. Far more interesting is the activity in Wisconsin where restaurants are banning smoking on a volunteer basis, and the early returns suggest that the eventual ban might even be favorable for the average restaurant. We present the Wisconsin information with the warning that while "smoking can be harmful to your health", the early results and conclusions of any study can be highly suspect, and can have little, or nothing to do with your personal circumstances. According to Jack Lohman, founder and chair an of the Wisconsin Initiative on Smoking and Health, the facts are clear: if restaurants go smoke free, they will at least retain their current level of business, and they will often increase it. Maybe only http://w vw.resta irantreport.com/Featares/ft_smoking2.html 8/7/01 Restaurant Report On-line - Restaurant Smoking Policies & Laws Page 3 of 5 by 3-5%, but an increase nonetheless. Only 2-3% of the population are die-hard smokers who would actually avoid a smoke-free restaurant. For every smoker a restaurant might lose, they stand to gain two nonsmokers in return. That's a pretty good trade, and one that is substantiated by the restaurant industry's own polls." We estimate that every smoking customer will, over time, chase away five nonsmoking customers. Of course, the smokers keep returning and the nonsmokers do not, so restaurateurs are left with a false sense of where their majority customer base really is. The smaller the restaurant, the higher the price they will pay. Historically, the tobacco industry has done an excellent job of convincing restaurant operators that since 25% of the population are smokers, going smoke-free would cost them 25% of their business. Clearly erroneous, but it is easy to see why one would balk at making such a drastic change." Why isn't the restaurant operator equally afraid of losing the 75% who do not smoke? Because rather than complain, these folks just quietly slip away to cleaner air down the street. Operators see the returns; they do not see the departures. Fortunately, increasing numbers of operators are understanding the health and financial benefits of being smoke- free." In over 150 U.S. communities, smoke free ordinances have been implemented without a loss of restaurant business, and since 1992, the number of smoke-free restaurants in Wisconsin has grown from 65 to well over 1100 today. Why would these restaurants remain smoke free, were it not profitable? Indeed, most smokers do not quit eating in their favorite restaurant when it goes smoke free, they just quit smoking in it." Back to our letters... and the following one provided some sanity in a sea of insanity: Dear Restaurant Report: I enjoyed your piece on smoking in our restaurants. As a non-smoker, I too would like a smoke-free environment. However, can't we have it both ways? http://wwvv.restaurantreport.com-/Features/ft_smoking2.html 8/7/01 Restaurant Report On-line - Restaurant Smoking Policies & Laws Page 4 of 5 How come we discuss trends in kitchen equipment, computer equipment, innovation in bar technology, but not air filtration technology? I believe that if we spend money on state of the art air -filtration technology, we can have it both ways. I wouldn't mind going to a restaurant that allows smoking, if once I sat down next to a smoker, the smoke went straight up and not across to me. I look at it as a marketing advantage. Maybe you can point us all to state of the art, air filtration systems being used at the growing number of cigar bars, as an example of how smoke and dining can go together. It's not people that smoke that bother me, it's the smoke. Lets get rid of the smoke, and not the people who are our customers. Sincerely, Tom Dudchik (restaurant owner) When it comes to smoke in restaurants, it doesn't get more dramatic than a good (or bad) cigar, so we paid a visit to a real live cigar bar in downtown Philadelphia — Mahogany on Walnut (1524 Walnut Street in the heart of "Restaurant Row"). It was suggested that smoke in this establishment really wasn't a problem, and perhaps we would discover the secret to making Mr. Dudchik and the restaurant industry very happy. The restaurant presented the cigar aroma, which was totally understandable, but smoke itself was noticeably absent, and owner Tom Piazza gave us the good news and the bad news all at the same time. "We have virtually eliminated the smoke problem, and to accomplish this, we went with an industrial concept that absolutely works, but is comparable to building out an entire kitchen — in our case, a cost in excess of $25,000." According to Piazza, "my real objective was to build a beautiful, and extremely comfortable restaurant and cocktail lounge where people could enjoy a good cigar, and where smoking was totally welcome and an important part of our presentation. But I also realized that excessive smoke would positively kill us. So many people think of us an littp://www.re,;taurantreport.com/--'7eatures/ft—smoking2.html 8/7/01 Restaurant Report On-line - Restaurant Smoking Policies & Laws Page 5 of 5 extension of a cigar dinner, but these events are the worst places to experience a cigar. Everyone is smoking at the precise same time, and the restaurant is rarely equipped to properly handle the ventilation." We worked with a company from New Jersey by the name of TEC MAR. These people designed a system that was incorporated into our air conditioning, and was basically maintenance free. It was an industrial system that you would find in a factory as opposed to a restaurant. We looked at all the standard smoke systems and concluded they wouldn't work for us, and we knew that the day- to- day maintenance factor would be a major consideration. Probably the very best thing you can do is install a "Hollywood" type wind fan, and blow the smoke out an open window. Of course, this is totally impracticable." So the technology is there, all you have to do is pay for it, and everybody will be happy. But faced with the current climate of anti-smoking fervor and legislation, how many restaurant and bar owners are willing to make a major investment in a problem that the government and the lawyers are handling all by themselves? Comments and feedback are welcome. Bob Bradley can be reached at bbradley restauratttreport.conn Read more opinions about the issue of smoking in restaurant in the "Great Debates" Top 100 Food Sites I Articles I E-mail Newsletter Great Debates I Buyer's Guide I Marketplace i Job O opprtunities James Beard Dateline I E m Print I Contact Us I Home Copyright ©1996-2001 by Restaurant Report All rights reserved. http://www.restaurantrepor-t.com/Features/ft—smoking2.html 8/7/01 Restaurant Report On-line - Restaurant Smoking Policies & Laws Resta i l Restaurant Re ert Em.111 Newsletterp .ubsc es For hospitalityprotfeaknals and flood cofinols5m It s tree! It Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, To_oo_Food_stes. Emphysema, and May Complicate Articles Pregnancy" It can also annoy the hell out of your customers. E_ mailNewsletter by Bob Bradley The Great Debates When you list the serious problems facing the Question &_answer restaurant industry, the subject of smoking is right up there with the big ones. It's a major leagueBu1er's_Guide headache, and such a gigantic problem that the best arketplace way to address it is to pretend it simply doesn't exist. H_ospitalt• Jobs We just had dinner (party of four) in an excellent James Beard Dateline suburban restaurant, and while awaiting a table, we were escorted to the bar area that was crowded with Print Subscriptionspeople enjoying the incredibly colorful and very happening bar scene. It was so pleasant that we even Advertisin Info talked about having dinner in this more casual environment. What was absolutely amazing was Contact tis that not one person was smoking — in a bar! Being at the restaurant for the first time, I even commented Home_ Page that maybe this was a non-smoking establishment. We were shortly escorted to a loft area, which was basically a small room with about six tables. The food was great — not good —great! And two women smoking (chain smoking) at a nearby table unfortunately spoiled what could have been a perfect dining experience. I found myself more fascinated than irritated. I found it fascinating that people can be so blatantly inconsiderate as we are talking about a rather intimate dining area, and one would assume that even smokers would have more courtesy. However, I have learned that to expect common courtesy from a large segment of the American public is an exercise in total futility. This is a country where people think nothing of throwing trash out of car windows, blasting radios, and talking incessantly in movie theaters. You can grow old very quickly looking for courtesy. iittp:Hw-vv-vv.restaurantreport.com/features/ft—smoking.html Page 1 of 3 g/7/01 Secondhand Smoke and Community Laws Page 1 of 3 Secondhand Smoke SAVE LIVES, NOT TOBACCO and Community Laws HOIMMUHITY - NO CAPS Last modified February 6, 2000. Topics: Are you poisoningyouur dinner companion? How(and why) to pass a local smoking law And where to get help in doin it How the tobacco industry fights back Links to other tobacco -related sites About the author See also: The How Not to Pass a Local Smoking Law Page Astro -Turf: Bogus Grass -Roots Groups and the Tobacco Industry RM Are you poisoning your dinner companion? Perhaps, although not in California. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America today, with over 430,000 dyingeachach year from tobacco -related causes. And another 53,000 non-smoking Americans die annually from inhaling other people's tobacco smoke. Breathing tobacco smoke can hurt anyone, but it is especially harmful to the elderly, the very young, and those with existing respiratory problems. Refraining from smoking during pregnancy and around children will give them a healthier start in life. So if you're dining out, and you or someone else in the room is smoking, your health and that of your dinner companion is suffering. But not here in California, where state law prohibits smoking in restaurants and almost all other workplaces. In addition, 281 California communities have passed their own local http://vrww.tool-,t-orks.con-i/bilofsky/srri-ok)*ng.htm 8/6/01 Secondhand Smoke and Community Laws Page 2 of 3 smoking restrictions. Hundreds of communities in other states have done likewise. Back,_. to top How (and why) to pass a local smoking law Local smoking legislation helps make the indoor air safer in your town, but there are other benefits as well. Publicity during the public debate helps educate your community to the health hazards of secondhand smoke. The process brings people concerned about health together, and they may continue with other useful projects. And since many smokers sincerely want to quit, smoking restrictions can provide that additional incentive to kick the addiction. People often ask, "Why can't the state or Federal government deal with this problem?" Good question. In fact, progress is being made on all levels of government. But the tobacco industry is extremely active in fighting clean air laws. Their hired lobbyists and massive campaign contributions are very effective in Congress and state legislatures. Your local elected officials, on the other hand, are more responsive to what the community wants. Each community can enact the laws that its citizens are ready for. One town may be ready to ban smoking in all workplaces and indoor public places. Another may -deal just with workplaces. Another may start with a prohibition on smoking in schools and hospitals, or tobacco advertising near schools. Experience shows that once a community sees that initial smoking restrictions don't cause problems, better protection for nonsmokers can be enacted. Back to top Where to get help in passing a smoking law There are many organizations involved in tobacco control, but one of the most effective in supporting local legislation is Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. With over 22 years of experience in California and nationwide, ANR has developed a wealth of knowledge about tobacco legislation, and some helpful materials to get you started. Here in Marin County, California, all twelve of our local jurisdictions have enacted strong smoking laws. In the process, we've learned a lot about doing local legislation, and, if you can stand our tongue-in-cheek humor, we'd be happy to share it with you. Back to top How the tobacco industry fights back The single most dangerous tactic used by the tobacco industry to fight local smoking laws http://www.toolworks.com/bilofsky/smoking.htm 8/5/01 Secondhand Smoke and Community Laws Page 3 of 3 is preemption. A state legislator sympathetic to the tobacco folks introduces a weak statewide smoking law which also prevents localities from adopting anything stronger. Or a good smoking bill can be hijacked, amended and weakened by the bad guys, sometimes at the last minute. Whenever the issue of smoking regulation is before the state legislature, it must be watched closely. Again, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights tracks these issues closely and can be helpful. Back_to_lon Links to other tobacco -related sites: The Lesko Brothers: Two kids take on cigarette machines (hugely cute). Tobacco BBS: Latest news from the front in the tobacco wars. N.O. P.A.T.S.Y.: News, ads, a variety of links from Canadian grass-roots group. alt.suPport.non-smokers.moderated: Smoke-free, flame -free newsgroup for non -hostile discussions. The Master Anti -Smoking Page: Individuals' comments on quitting; lots of links. National Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health (Canada): Very complete; aussi en frangaise. The BADvertising Institute: A look at the grim and funny sides of merchandising death. Oncolink (U. Pa.) Smoking Tobacco and Cancer: Links to research reports. INFACT's Tobacco Industry Campaign: Fighting tobacco through corporate accountability. Tobacco Control Archives: Including the notorious Brown & Williamson secret papers. Action on Smoking and Health: Antismoking guerrillas in Washington's bureaucratic trenches. Tobacco Industry Information: Major players who battle (and defend) tobacco; many source documents. AIRSPACE Action on Smoking and Health: A grassroots organization in British Columbia. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights: National resource for grass-roots legislation. About the author Walt Bilofsky is a longtime volunteer advocate in the area of tobacco control, and has been active in promoting the enactment of over 30 local smoking ordinances in Massachusetts and California. He was an officer of GASP of Massachusetts in 1975-76, a director of California GASP from 1978 to 1984, and served on the steering committee of the 1980 California statewide No Smoking Sections ballot initiative. He has been a director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights since its founding in 1982, and served as its president from 1987 to 1989. Back to Walt Bilofsky's Home Page Bach to top http://Nvw,,v.toolworks.com/bilofsky/smoking htm 8;'6/01 Effects of Second -Hand Smoke Page 1 of 2 LutenHere AudioHealth Library Topic 1842 Effects of Second -Hand Smoke Second-hand smoke, the smoke inhaled from other people's cigarettes, pipes and cigars, causes 53,000 deaths a year, and is the third largest preventable cause of death in the United States, behind regular smoking and alcohol use. Second-hand smoke, also called passive smoke, dramatically increases the risk of heart disease and heart attacks by increasing a person's risk of developing blood clots. Other dangers from inhaling second-hand smoke include: increased risk of lung and other cancers, breathing difficulties, including asthma attacks, increased strain on the heart during exercise, aggravated conditions in those with chronic heart and lung disease, and health risks to infants and unborn babies like damaging lung tissue. Children and teenagers are most seriously affected by second-hand smoke since developing tissues are more likely to be damaged. Children who live in a smoke-filled environment for several hours a day are more likely to: need emergency care for breathing problems, be hospitalized for respiratory illnesses, be absent from school due to illness caused by inhaling second-hand smoke, make frequent trips to the doctor for more serious illnesses like: bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, and ear infections, and, start smoking themselves. Very young children and those born prematurely or at a low birth weight suffer the greatest damage from second-hand smoke. Children whose mothers were exposed to second-hand smoke during pregnancy often have: academic performance difficulties less developed motor skills, more behavioral problems. The carcinogens, or cancer-causing agents in second-hand smoke, are spread evenly throughout an indoor environment. Contrary to popular belief, the carcinogens are just as dangerous to people inhaling the smoke from across the room as they are to those close to the source. In addition, even though the amount of second-hand smoke inhaled by a nonsmoker is small compared to the amount inhaled by a smoker, research indicates that second-hand smoke contains higher concentrations of some of the carcinogens than found in smoke inhaled and exhaled by the smoker. Therefore, even though less second-hand smoke is being inhaled it is very dangerous. http:/,,'w-,vw.yourhealth.conVahL/l 842.html 8/5/01 Effects of Second -Hand Smoke Page 2 of 2 The only effective way to avoid the negative effects of second-hand smoke is to insist on a smoke-free environment whenever and wherever possible. If you live or work in an environment where you must breathe second-hand smoke, you can minimize damage from exposure by encouraging the smoker to smoke outdoors and opening windows and doors to keep the area well ventilated. Search the Online Library for more information on Effects o Second -Hand Smoke_ C 1996 Access Health, Inc. http:// vww.; ourh8/ 6/01eath.ron-/ahUl842.html Secondhand Smoke - What You Can Do Page 1 of S ti10 EPA Unked States Environmental Proteabn Agency EPA -402-F-93-004 July 1993 SECONDHAND SMOKE WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT SECONDHAND SMOKE AS PARENTS, DECISION -MAKERS, AND BUILDING OCCUPANTS Disclaimer: EnVironmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer The Environmental Protection Agency firmly maintains that the bulk of the scientific evidence demonstrates that secondhand smoke -- environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS" -- causes lung cancer and other significant health threats to children and adults. EPA's report ("Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," EPA/600/6-90/006F) was peer-reviewed by 18 eminent, independent scientists who unanimously endorsed the study's methodology and conclusions. Since EPA's 1993 report which estimated the risks posed by ETS, numerous independent health studies have presented an impressive accumulating body of evidence that confirms and strengthens the EPA findings. It is widely accepted in the scientific and public health communities that secondhand smoke poses significant health risks to children and adults. U.S. District Court decision has vacated several chapters of the EPA document respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" that erved as the basis for EPA's classification of secondhand smoke as a Group A arcinogen and estimates that ETS causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-smokers ach year. The ruling was largely based on procedural grounds. EPA is appealing this ecision. None of the findings concerning the serious respiratory health effects of econdhand smoke in children were challenged. What is secondhand smoke? Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe, or cigar, and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. This mixture contains more than 4,000 substances, more than 40 of which are known to cause cancer in humans or animals and many of which are strong irritants. Secondhand smoke is also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS); exposure to secondhand smoke is called involuntary smoking, or passive smoking. Secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in nonsmokers. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of lung cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). Passive smoking is estimated by EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year. Secondhand smoke is a serious health risk to children. http://w-vvw.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ctsbro.html 8/6/01 Secondhand Smoke - What You Can Do Page 2 of 5 The developing lungs of young children are also affected by exposure to secondhand smoke. Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also more likely to have reduced lung function and symptoms of respiratory irritation like cough, excess phlegm, and wheeze. Passive smoking can lead to buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation. Asthmatic children are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in hundreds of thousands of asthmatic children. EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Passive smoking may also cause thousands of non -asthmatic children to develop the condition each year. Other health implications. Exposure to secondhand smoke causes irritation of the eye, nose, and throat. Passive smoking can also irritate the lungs, leading to coughing, excess phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function. Secondhand smoke may affect the cardiovascular system, and some studies have linked exposure to secondhand smoke with the onset of chest pain. PROTECTING YOUR HEALTH WHAT YOU CAN DO TO REDUCE THE HEALTH RISKS OF PASSIVE SMOKING In The Home: Don't smoke in your house or permit others to do so. If a family member insists on smoking indoors, increase ventilation in the area where smoking takes place. Open windows or use exhaust fans. Do not smoke if children are present, particularly infants and toddlers. They are particularly susceptible to the effects of passive smoking. Don't allow baby-sitters or others who work in your home to smoke in the house or near your children. Where Children Spend Time: EPA recommends that every organization dealing with children have a smoking policy that effectively protects children from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Find out about the smoking policies of the day care providers, pre-schools, schools, and other care -givers for your children. Help other parents understand the serious health risks to children from secondhand smoke. Work with parent/teacher associations, your school http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html 8/6/01 Secondhand Smoke - What You Can Do Page 3 of 5 board and school administrators, community leaders, and other concerned citizens to make your child's environment smoke free. In The Workplace: EPA recommends that every company have a smoking policy that effectively protects nonsmokers from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. Many businesses and organizations already have smoking policies in place but these policies vary in their effectiveness. If your company does not have a smoking policy that effectively controls secondhand smoke, work with appropriate management and labor organizations to establish one. Simply separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same area, such as a cafeteria, may reduce exposure, but nonsmokers will still be exposed to re- circulated smoke or smoke drifting into nonsmoking areas. Prohibiting smoking indoors or limiting smoking to rooms that have been specially designed to prevent smoke from escaping to other area of the building are two options that will effectively protect nonsmokers. The costs associated with establishing properly designated smoking rooms vary from building to building, and are likely to be greater than simply eliminating smoking entirely. If smoking is permitted indoors, it should be in a room that meets several conditions: Air from the smoking room should be directly exhausted to the outside by an exhaust fan. Air from the smoking room should not be re -circulated to other parts of the building. More air should be exhausted from the room than is supplied to it to make sure ETS doesn't drift to surrounding spaces. The ventilation system should provide the smoking room with 60 cubic feet per minute (CFM) of supply air per smoker. This air is often supplied by air transferred from other parts of the building, such as corridors. Nonsmokers should not have to use the smoking room for any purpose. It should be located in a non -work area where no one, as part of his or her work responsibilities, is required to enter. Employer -supported smoking cessation programs are an important part of any smoking policy. Approximately 25 percent of American adults still smoke. Many smokers would like to quit, but cigarette smoking is physically and psychologically addictive, and quitting is not easy. While working in a smoke- free building may encourage some smokers to quit, a goal of any smoking policy should be to actively support smokers who want to kick the habit. If there are designated outdoor smoking areas, smoking should not be permitted right outside the doors (or near building ventilation system air intakes) where nonsmokers may have to pass through smoke from smokers congregated near doorways. Some employers have set up outdoor areas equipped with shelters and ashtrays to accommodate smokers. In Restaurants and Bars: Know the law concerning smoking in your community. Some communities have banned smoking in places such as restaurants entirely. Others require separate smoking areas in restaurants, although most rely on simply separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same space, which may reduce but not eliminate involuntary exposure to ETS. If smoking is permitted, placement of smoking areas should be determined with some knowledge of the ventilation characteristics of the space to http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html 8/6/01 Secondhand Smoke - What You Can Do Page 4 of 5 minimize nonsmoker exposure. For example, nonsmoking areas should be near air supply ducts while smoking areas should be near return registers or exhausts. Ask to be seated in nonsmoking areas as far from smokers as possible. If your community does not have a smoking control ordinance, urge that one be enacted. If your local ordinances are not sufficiently protective, urge your local government officials to take action. Few restrictions have been imposed in bars where drinking and smoking seem to go together. In the absence of state or local laws restricting smoking in bars, encourage the proprietor to consider his or her nonsmoking clientele, and frequent places that do so. In Other Indoor Spaces: Does your state or community have laws addressing smoking in public spaces? Many states have laws prohibiting smoking in public facilities such as schools, hospitals, airports, bus terminals, and other public buildings. Know the law. Take advantage of laws designed to protect you. Federal laws now prohibit smoking on all airline flights of six hours or less within the U.S. and on all interstate bus travel. A Special Message For Smokers: This is a difficult time to be a smoker. As the public becomes more aware that smoking is not only a hazard to you but also to others, nonsmokers are becoming more outspoken, and smokers are finding themselves a beleaguered group. If you choose to smoke, here are some things you can do to help protect the people close to you: Don't smoke around children. Their lungs are very susceptible to smoke. If you are expecting a child, quit smoking. Take an active role in the development of your company's smoking policy. Encourage the offering of smoking cessation programs for those who want them. Keep your home smoke free. Nonsmokers can get lung cancer from exposure to your smoke. Because smoke lingers in the air, people may be exposed even if they are not present while you smoke. If you must smoke inside, limit smoking to a room where you can open windows for cross - ventilation. Be sure the room in which you smoke has a working smoke detector to lessen the risk of fire. Test your home for radon. Radon contamination in combination with smoking is a much greater health risk than either one individually. Don't smoke in an automobile with the windows closed if passengers are present. The high concentration of smoke in a small, closed compartment substantially increases the exposure of other passengers. More than two million people quit smoking every year, most of them on their own, without the aid of a program or medication. If you want to quit smoking, assistance is available. Stroking cessation programs can help. Your employer may offer programs, or ask your doctor for advice. For more information: Indoor Air Quality Information Clearinghouse (IAQ INFO) P.O. Box 37133, Washington, DC 20013-7133 1-800-438-4318, (703) 356-4020 fax) (703) 356-5386 or e-mail: iaginfo()aol.com http://viww.epa.gov/laq/pubs/etsbro.htm! 8/6/01 Duluth a harbinger of a smoke-free Minnesota? Northern Minnesota's L&WI Antique MAII ClassifiedsoMarketplacen a ow naps n iliconValley.com Pages Directions Email April 30, 2000 DtMiN VSA btne www.duluthnews.com Weather forecast & and more LocalLocal/National Real Guide ® News EntertainmentnAuctionsnCarsn Estate Careers Toda s EditionSearch: ' Y_ _ _ Search Help Front Page 7 -Day Edition Duluth a harbinger of a smoke-free Business CareerPath Minnesota? Discussions DuluthSuperior.com Health advocates, city leaders and regular Elections 2000 citizens around Minnesota are watching Duluth Entertainment as it considers a restaurant smoking ban Features Legislature By Melanie Evans Local & News Tribune staff writer State News WeWe are watching," said Jeanne Carls, intervention National & From start to finish, California's legal conversion to a World News smoke-free state took less than five years. The sweeping Outdoors statute -- which grew from a handful of local ordinances Site Index banned smoking in restaurants in 1995. Sports smoking bans. Submit Your Web Now, as Duluth contemplates one of Minnesota's first Site such laws, health advocates here wonder: Is the proposed Weather ordinance the harbinger of a smoke-free state? The WIRE presents a number of highly personal and immediate http://www.d.ulutt-mews.com/docs/smoke/smoke0430.htm Page 1 of 5 8/7/01 The answer is as anticipated, and uncertain, as the OMANpOWER. outcome of Duluth's proposed law. Dukrth MN vc.iarorla's IeadetfiRg WeWe are watching," said Jeanne Carls, intervention coordinator for the Tobacco Free Future Project. An y epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota -Twin Cities, Carls recently worked with Faribault and New fmn{tNtlliY Prague to craft the southern Minnesota cities' proposedI'ansupitllt la+tl u{n. lot. smoking bans. Carls isn't the only outsider monitoring Duluth's progress. For Duluth residents, the city's proposed smoking ban presents a number of highly personal and immediate http://www.d.ulutt-mews.com/docs/smoke/smoke0430.htm Page 1 of 5 8/7/01 Duluth a harbinger of a smoke-free Minnesota? Page 2 of 5 concerns. Will the law stifle business? Who will handle enforcement? Where can I smoke? Feedack Contact us But beyond Duluth's borders, lawyers and advocates say the city's law could set a cultural and legal precedent for other cities, which may be poised to pursue similar laws, but unwilling to be among the first to do so. Already, a handful of cities -- such as Shakopee, Little Falls and Mound -- have begun to publicly contemplate the switch. In February, Moose Lake became Minnesota's first city to pass a smoke-free restaurant law, just a month after Crookston's 14 restaurants voluntarily made the switch Jan. 1. But Duluth's proposed ordinance is unique because of the city's size and its far reach: Not only would it curb smoking in restaurants, but bowling alleys, pool halls and those hybrid bar -restaurants that serve to children under the age of 18. Some, like Jeremy Hanson of Minnesota Smoke Free Coalition, see a victory as both a policy and public relations coup -- one that sends a clear message about a growing public intolerance for unhealthy secondhand smoke. Others, like Peter Vogel, city attorney for Little Falls, see the potential for a lawsuit in Duluth's proposed ordinance -- a legal challenge that may make or break future efforts to pass municipal smoking bans. Curious activists around the state also see a potential blueprint for success in Duluth's grassroots efforts, one that may help them land a share of Minnesota's landmark tobacco settlement in their communities. Curbing youth exposure to cigarette smoking made a top -five list for a $590 million fund earmarked for tobacco prevention, a share of the Health Department's spoils from Minnesota's $6.1 billion landmark settlement with the tobacco industry. Adult smokers "model" cigarettes for teenagers, said Mary Sheehan, director of the Minnesota Department of Health's Tobacco Endowment Implementation. "Kids copy." Take away the model and you remove one incentive to http://www.duluthnews.com/docs/smoke/smoke04,30.htm 8/7/01 Duluth a harbinger of a smoke-free Minnesota? Page 3 of 5 smoke, she said. Eliminating smoking sections is one way to cut down on the number of adults children see smoking. Success in the Midwest hinges on the same factor that won California activists their stunning, if gradual, victory, explains Anne Klink, who worked as an organizer for California Healthy Cities in the early 1990s. 4Changing people's minds. IConvincing the public that secondhand smoke is not just an annoyance but a health threat as well isn't simple, she said. Klink calls it a "big shift". It was Lodi, a mid-sized city in California's wine country, that passed the state's first smoking ban. Lodi's move tapped a vein of health -conscious -- but reticent -- activists, Klink said. "After Lodi it was like a tsunami, like a wave." Whether or not a tsunami could happen like that in Minnesota ... I don't see why it couldn't happen." Randy Kirkendall, manager of the Minnesota Department of Health's Tobacco Prevention and Control Section, sees evidence of a slight shift in public tolerance for secondhand smoke in Duluth's proposed ban. Just how much? He isn't sure. But "It represents a social and environmental change," he said. Kirkendall cites California, Massachusetts and Oregon as a reason for optimism. A handful of pioneering cities generated a "domino effect," in each of those states, he said, although neither Massachusetts nor Oregon have a statewide ban on the practice, yet. But the domino won't fall in Little Falls, Minn., until city officials see a municipal smoking ban tested in the courts, said Little Fall's city attorney Vogel. Passing the law is only one step, he said. Withstanding a legal challenge is another. Cities can't do everything," Vogel said. Existing state and federal laws limit cities' legal authority, he explained. http://www.duluthnews.com/docs/smoke/smoke0430.htm 8/7/01 Duluth a harbinger of a smoke-free Minnesota? Page 4 of 5 So can a city ban smoking without violating Minnesota's 1975 Clean Indoor Air Act? I'd be real interested in the first ordinance to be taken to court," he said. "That's where the rubber is going to hit the road. Until you get that court decision, all you have is an opinion." Take Marquette, Mich. The city lost a legal challenge to its 1997 ordinance prohibiting smoking in restaurants after a judge ruled such a measure fell outside the city's jurisdiction. Existing Michigan statute overruled the city's law. In January 1999, a circuit court judge struck down the city's law that eliminated smoking sections in restaurants. Little Falls is willing to wait and see, Vogel said. And Duluth may provide the answer. I don't think that there is any question that there are going to be any challenges to this," Vogel said. "It is going to be significant additional limitation on the ability of people to smoke." The increased scrutiny hasn't gone unnoticed. "We're very conscious of that," said Greg Gilbert, city council president and co-sponsor of Duluth's law. 4Very conscious. I Intense interest in the smoking ban recently landed Gilbert in unfamiliar territory. He took his first call from a paid lobbyist, a St. Paul - based lawyer and former politician who now represents licensed beverage retailers across Minnesota who oppose Duluth's ban. I've never been contacted by a paid lobbyist," Gilbert said. "I don't quite know what I do." Melanie Evans covers health-care issues. She can be reached weekdays at (218) 720-4154 or by e-mail at mevans@duluthnews.com http://www.(Iuluthnews.com/docs/smoke/smokeO430.htm 8/7/01 Duluth City Council Ordinance - 00-009-0 Dan Twaddle From: Dan Twaddle Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:39 AM To: Dan Twaddle Subject: Duluth City Council Ordinance - 00-009-O.htm 00-009-0 REPLACEMENT 3, AS AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES; ADDING A NEW ARTICLE VII TO CHAPTER 28, DULUTH CITY CODE, 1959, AS AMENDED. BY COUNCILORS GILBERT, ECKENBERG, AND NESS: The city of Duluth does ordain: Pagel of 3 Section 1. That a new Article VII be added to Chapter 28 of the Duluth City Code, 1959, as amended, to read as follows: ARTICLE VII. Smoking in Public Places. Section 28-62. Findings of fact and statement of purpose. a) The Duluth City Council finds the following facts to exist: 1) Tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution, and breathing second hand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers. At special risk are children, elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease. Many of these individuals cannot go into public places with second-hand smoke due to their respiratory or allergenic handicap; and 2) Health hazards induced by breathing second-hand smoke include, but are not limited to, lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection and decreased respiratory function; and 3) The simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke for which there is no known safe level of exposure; 4) Consideration should be given to businesses who will experience undue economic hardship as a result of legislation prohibiting smoking in public places. Section 28-63. Definitions. 8/7/01 Duluth City Council Ordinance - 00-009-0 Page 2 of 3 For the purpose of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given them in this Section. a) Bar. Bar means any establishment or portion of an establishment where one can purchase and consume alcoholic beverages; b) Office. Office means any building, structure, or area used by the general public or serving as a place of work at which the principal activities consist of professional, clerical, or administrative services. An office includes professional offices, offices in financial institutions, business offices, telemarketing offices, and government offices; c) Public conveyance. Public conveyance means any air, land, or water vehicle used for the transportation of persons for compensation, including but not limited to airplanes, trains, buses, boats, and taxis; d) Public place. Public place means any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public, including, but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments, public conveyances, bars, hospitals, auditoriums, arenas, meeting rooms, and common areas of hotels and motels, but excluding bowling alleys, pool halls, and private, enclosed offices occupied exclusively by smokers even though such offices may be visited by nonsmokers; e) Restaurant. Restaurant means any building, structure, or area used as, maintained as, or advertised as, or held out to the public for food service as defined in Minnesota Rules Part 4625.2401, subpart 15, which requires licensure under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 157, in consideration of payment other than a bar as defined in (a) above; f) Retail store. Retail store means that portion of a commercial occupancy used for the transaction of business or the rendering of a service directly to the public, including shops, retail food stores, laundries or laundromats, and department stores; g) Room. Room means any indoor area bordered on all sides by a floor to ceiling wall. The sides must be continuous and solid except for closeable doors for entry and exit, except no closeable door shall be required to be installed on entries and exits that have historical significance as recognized by the Duluth heritage commission and except that at such time as the council deems by amendment of this ordinance. that sufficient scientific evidence supports the effectiveness of air barriers or other technologies said barriers or technologies may be substituted for walls; h) Smoking. Smoking includes possessing or carrying a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted smoking equipment. Section 28-64. Smoking prohibited in public places; exception. No person shall smoke in any public place except those rooms constituting bars where persons under the age of 18 are not permitted to enter or remain, and except restaurants that have a designated smoking area in a separate room, separately ventilated to the outside and constituting not more than 30% of the seating floor space, and persons under the age of 18 are not permitted to enter or remain. Section 28-65. Signage. Signs shall be posted in all public places informing the public of the smoking restrictions contained 8/7/01 Duluth City Council Ordinance - 00-009-0 Page s of s in this ordinance. The form and placement of the signs shall conform to Minnesota Rules part 4620.0500. Section 28-66. Loss of revenues; exemption. A restaurant which realizes a loss of sales, based upon sales tax receipts as compared to the same months the previous year, greater than 15 percent as a.result of complying with the provision of this ordinance for one month or greater than ten percent for two consecutive months may make a request to the city council for an exception from this ordinance, A request for an exception shall be automatically approved if it is not denied by the council within 30 days after its receipt by the city clerk. Section 28-67. Employees not required to enter bar area. At public places that include both a restaurant and a bar, the owner shall not require non-smoking employees to enter the bar area as part of the employee's duties without the employee's consent. Section 28-68. Religious use of tobacco. This ordinance shall not apply to the use of tobacco as part of recognized religious rituals or activities. Section 28-69. Owners not obligated to enforce. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to impose any requirements to enforce this ordinance upon owners of public places. Section 28-70. Private clubs. No private club shall be established for the purpose of avoiding compliance with this ordinance. Section 28-71. Hours of application. Subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, smoking may be allowed by the management at restaurants holding alcoholic beverage licenses or beer and wine licenses after 8:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. Section 28-72. Penalty. Any person who violates this ordinance shall be subject to the penalty set out in Section 1-7 of the Duluth City Code, as amended, or its successor. Section 2. That this ordinance shall -take effect and oe in force on January 1, 2001. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: This ordinance prohibits smoking in all public places except bars where persons under 18 are not allowed to be on the premises. The definitions and -signage provisions of the ordinance are as much as possible consistent with the provisions of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. 8/7/01 Council takes testimony on smoking -ban ordinance oa:Don't Hay;,tq;$Pend Big to m LOOK FASHIONS FOR FiH ClassifiedsnMarketplacen mYellow Maps & n Free n5iliconValley.comPagesDirectionsEail May 2, 2000 Tilunellkh.le www.duluthnews.com Weather forecast and more LocalReal nLocal/National . EntertainmentnAuctionsnCarsn Estate ,Careers Guide News oa 's on 'Goy = Search HelpSearch: ITdEdltl Front Page 7=Day._Ed.ition Council takes testimony on Business smoking -ban ordinanceCareerPath Discussions DuluthSuperio_r.com Health advocates, business owners stake out sides Elections. 2000 in three-hour debate Entertainment Features By Jason Skog Le_gisl_atu_re News Tribune staff writer Local & State News National & Duluth city councilors on Monday began the debate over World News whether to adopt an ordinance that would ban smoking Outdoors in restaurants, places that allow children under 18 and Site Index virtually every bar. Sports Submit Your Web At a special committee -of -the -whole meeting, councilors Site took nearly three hours of testimony from a select group Weather of experts and representatives on both sides of the issue. The -WIRE Roughly 80 people attended. Invited to speak were physicians, the American Lung Association and managers and owners from some of Duluth's restaurants, hotels and bowling centers. HAIR ASSOCIATES Among those who testified was Dr. Richard Hurt, an t internist who works with smokers at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. He told councilors the effects of smoking and secondhand smoke are abundantly clear. 15%ot profits donated toy Hurt, who was an expert in the state's tobacco lawsuit, said there are about 50 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. He also said those carcinogens affect nonsmokers. http://www.duluthnews.com/docs/smoke/smoke52.htm 1 a6k, t vl -t 8/7/01 i—bunch taxes testimony on smoking -ban ordinance Page 2 of 4 If you can smell tobacco smoke, that means you're taking it into your system," Hurt said. Feedback Hurt said secondhand smoke contributes to respiratoryContactus problems, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, low birth weight and emphysema, along with other illnesses. Hurt cited a 1993 study that found that people who work in restaurants that allow smoking are 1.6 times to 2 times more likely to contract lung cancer than those who work in office buildings. And those who work in bars are 4 to 6 times more likely to contract lung cancer than those in office buildings. This is a matter of health," Hurt said. "If you have environmental tobacco smoke in your environment, you are being exposed to carcinogens. I know of no safe level for such a dangerous particle." Councilor Russ Stewart asked about different exposures to smoke for people who live with a smoker, those who work in a bar and those who might frequent a restaurant and sit in the nonsmoking section. Certainly the more exposure, the more the risk," Hurt said. Councilor Gary Eckenberg asked about using ventilation systems to evacuate smoke. I do not know of any way to rid a room of all environmental tobacco smoke where there is smoking," Hurt said. Brian Daugherty, president of the Canal Park Business Association, told councilors that the area's business owners are hoping for a "common ground." He also said while he could not put an estimate on revenues that might be lost as a result of such a ban, he did say there is "definitely a risk" of businesses losing money. This issue came upon us fast, and it's very divisive," Daugherty said. "I would hope that we could slow this down and look at the law already provided for us." Daugherty urged a possible modification of Minnesota's http://www.duluthnews.com/docs/smoke/smoke52.htm 8/7/01 t_UU1KA1 Laxcs Wsuiiiuiiy Oil s[iioxing-uau uiuuiaut;c Clean Indoor Air Act, including perhaps separating smoking areas from nonsmoking areas with a wall. He also questioned the motivation behind the proposed ban. I know these resolutions are noble, but I don't know if it's a response from your constituents saying, hey, we've got to clean up the air in the restaurants in this city," he said. The way the ordinance is written, it would prohibit smoking in restaurants, but also in places that serve liquor and have seating for 50 or more and a limited food service license. By that definition, the ordinance would affect every bar in the city but three. Colin Minehart, a bar and restaurant owner from Albert Lea and president of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, said it's easy to lose sight of the economic problems a smoking ban could pose to Duluth businesses. Businesses in California, after the smoking ban, lost 26 percent of their business," Minehart said. "You take away 15 percent of my business, I am out of business -- that's my profit margin." Minehart said there are air filtering technologies that would allow smokers and nonsmokers to coexist. Some of those cleaners cost roughly $2,000 per 1,000 square foot. Kay Biga, owner of the Duluth Grill and an admitted rabid nonsmoker" said this particular ordinance would be unfair because it discriminates against her restaurant because she does not serve alcohol. Biga said the council should allow business owners to adopt the ban voluntarily. Customers can chose to go to smoke-free restaurants if they like, she added. I'm very concerned (smoking customers) are going to go elsewhere," she said. "I can't tell you how difficult it would be for me to stand at the door and tell people we can't accommodate them when we have a whole restaurant full of empty tables. It's a devastating thought." Paul Goeb of Stadium Lanes said he's already getting a whiff of lost business due to the proposed smoking ban. http://www.duluthnews.com/docs/smoke/smoke52.htm 1 -r 1. J V l Z 8/7/01 k,vuit(;tt Latcc5 tcstimony on smoxtng-ban ordinance While we were talking about contracts with our bowling leagues, they already are talking about the smoking ban," Goeb said. "Some have told me that they are leaving if they can find a spot in Superior. Another said they were going to Cloquet." The council will consider the ordinance at its regular meeting Monday. Jason Skog covers Duluth city government and community issues. He can be reached at (218) 723-5330 or e-mail atjskog@duluthnews.com Back to too 1 LOO FJ4 IIoxo: FOR>.!Stt r Page 4 of 4 http://www.duluthnews.com/docs/smoke/smoke52.htm 8/7/01 Four months into a smoking ban in Duluth restaurants, critics are defying it and City Council members are working to revise or repeal Star Trbune photos by Marlin Levison Stephanie Olson stopped by the 21st Delight, one of several Duluth restaurants granted an exemption from the city's smoking ban after the restaurants claimed financial hardship because of a loss of business. Future- is hazy for beleaguered smoking ban By Larry Oakes Star Tribune Northern Minnesota Correspondent DULUTH — In January, Duluth became the second city in Minnesota, after Moose Lake, to ban smoking in res- taurants. But they're still lighting up at Sammy's Pizza. They're still puffing away at the 21st De- light, the Country Kitchen by the mall and Jim's Hamburg- ers in Lincoln Park. The ban has been about as effective as Prohibition was. Speaking of which, people can see a photo of the moment Prohibition ended in 1933 at the historic Pickwick restau- rant, where smoking,. still is allowed in the bar, in open violation of the ban. This is supposed to be a free country," owner Chris Wi socki said. "Next theyll be telling us what clothes to wear. ' As more Minnesota cities struggle with whether to pass restaurant smoking bans, Du- luth may have shown how not to do it. BAN continues on 06: What s next? Duluth City Council meets May 29. Owner Judy Thomas maintains smoking and non- smoking areas at 21st Delight. Some Duluth restaurant owners have suggested that a smok- Ing ban Is an Issue best put to voters. e , r u ' h4 ;elF,l't f. Owner Judy Thomas maintains smoking and non- smoking areas at 21st Delight. Some Duluth restaurant owners have suggested that a smok- Ing ban Is an Issue best put to voters. PAGE l36 • STAR TRIBUNE * BAN from 61 Duluth's police chief says the ban is difficult to enforce Four- months into the so- called ban, at least three res- taurants have defied it, four. have been exempted from it,- and one went_ out of business and blamed it. Police Chief - Scott Lyons says it's difficult to -enforce,- and three mem- bers of the City Council are trying to repeal it. Others on the council are pushing for revisions that they say would make the ban more effective and less objection- able. Though the ban also ap- plies to waiting rooms and otlrer enclosed public places, it's the part about restaurants that has provoked all the pub- lic angst. Of all the communities across the country that have implemented ordinances, we've had one of the most bumpy rides in the first four months," said Pat McKone, senior director of the Ameri- can Lung Association in Greater Minnesota. Said Council Member Gary Eckenberg, cosponsor of the ban: 'There was religious -like ferocity on both sides. We tried to make everybody hap- py, and we made no one happy" Birth of a ban To understand fully why Duluth has become a smoking battleground in a larger war,. you have to go back a few years. In the mid-1990s, 63 health-care providers from northeastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin formed the Bridge to Health Collaborative and identified tobacco as the region's No. 1 enemy of good health. The group gave $100,000 to the`Duluth office of the Amer- ican Lung Association for a campaign to reduce kids' ac- cess to cigarettes. Encouraged by its success, the' = Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota Founda- tion gave the Lung Associa- tion's Duluth office $50,000 to pursue a restaurant smoking ordinance in Moose Lake, about 40 miles south of Du- luth. The Duluth office also goc part of a $350,000 grant from the Minnesota Partner- ship for Action_ Against Tobac- co!— money from Minneso- ta's settlement in the lawsuit Owner Judy Thomas had coffee and a cigarette at her restaurant, 2 for economic reasons, and the restaurant has smoking and nonsmc against Big Tobacco. Moose Lake was an easy first choice," McKone said. 'It was the first community in Minnesota to have a smoke- free hospital, jail andpublic beach" Plus, it had had a strong campaign against teen smoking and some strong community leaders willing to carry the ban Idea, she said. The Moose Lake ban took effect last Aug. 1. City Admin- istrator David Talbot said townspeople have accepted the ordinance. Ours is an absolute prohi- bition, and that's the only way it can be implemented and be effective," Talbot said. Duluth's dilutions The Lung Association and allied antismoking groups then turned toward Duluth, site of the state's first Indoor - air repilations. Asked why they didn't work instead for it statewide ban, organizers said they will, but not yet. They said antismok- ing groups in California and elsewhere found more success with campaigns that began on the local level and worked up. CohAnced of the risks of secondhand smoke, especially to children and the frail, City Council Members Eckenberg and Greg Gilbert carried the ordinance -in Duluth. We're in a cultural transi- tion," Eckenberg said. 'Res- taurants are one of the last bastions of public smoking, which has no place in modem The ordinance theeyy ham- mered out allows sm%ng ar- eas only if they're sealed off, with separate ventilation. Smoking is otherwise allowed in smoking sections of restau- rants with bars after 8 p.m., but only if minors are prohib- ited. Bars that serve snacks but not meals are exempted. But at the urging of restau- rant owners, the City Council added provisions that have proved troublesome. One says owners aren't re- 3uired to enforce the or- inance. Are customers supposed to call 911 every time they see a violation? Give me a break," Chief Lyons said. 'It makes this ordinance hard for us to enforce." Another provision allows the council to exempt restau- rants that can show a 15 per- cent loss of business for one month or a 10 percent loss for two consecutive months. Bowling alleys and pool halls Were automatically exempted. Soon, several restaurants complained of lost business and llned`up for hardship ex- emptions. , Once they began grantingg those, everybody ;started: thumbing their noses at the ordinance," Lyons said. WSTATE SUNDAY, MAY 20.2001 1st Delight Her business was granted aStar Trbune photo by Madin n exemption from the barn king sections. Three other Duluth restaurants have exemptions. The council is considering several options. One would phase out most loopholes and make noncompliant owners subject to penalty, another would simply repeal the ordi- nance. A third plan would al- low smoking provided restau- rant owners phase in better separation of smoking areas and improve ventilation sys- tems. That plan was designed to conform to new Hiles ex- pected to be imposed state- wide by the Minnesota De- partment of Health. Some Du. luth restaurant owners sug- gest the city repeal the ban and wait for those new rules. Other Duluth restaurant owners have suggested sus- pending the ban, establishing a task force and then puttingtheissuetovotersifthetask force recommends a ban. The City Council is expect- ed to discuss and possibly vote on those options at a meeting May 29. Nose-thumbers speak At the Pickwick, owner Wi- socldresponded to the ban with civil disobedience. He had banned smoking in his dining rooms last year, but he refuses to comply with the or- dinance's directives to either wall off his bar area or ban smoking there, too. This place is old -school — people come here to enjoy a nice dinner and then move over to the bar for a stogie," he said. He said a wall or door between ' the restaurant and bar would disrupt,traffic now and present a safety hazard to employees and patrons. If his bar went smoke-free, he said, he'd lose business. Under the ordinance, the Pickwick, opened in 1914, probably would qualify for an exemption to the wall rule be- cause of its historic signifi- cance. But that would mean getting approval from a his - have no choice but to comply. Jeff Perrella, whose family owns several Sammy's pizza places in the city, said that after he instituted the ban, "it was like you flipped a switch — mybusinesswascutinhalf." But he refused to apply for a hardship exemption because he doesn't think he should have to show his books to nosy city officials. What really galled him, he said, was when he realized that three places serving food close to one of his restaurants were exempted from the ban. He said that when his objec- tions went unanswered by the council, he decided to defytheban. I believe secondhand smoke is a health hazard," Perrella said. "I will gladly go smoke-free, as soon as they make this ordinance apply to everybody. If it's hazardous here, it's hazardous in the bar, the bowling alley and the bar- ber shop, too." Larry Oakes is at bakes@startribune.com. CCAA - Restaurant Smoking Bans Don't Hurt Tourism Page 1 of 2 Restaurant Smoking Bans Do Not Hurt Tourism Smoking bans in restaurants do not hurt tourism, and may actually increase business, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. The study, published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JAMA), examined hotel revenues, comparing figures before and after smoking bans were enacted, in three states and six cities. The researchers looked at hotel revenue in California, Utah and Vermont, and the cities of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Mesa and Flagstaff, AZ, and Boulder, CO. In each location, the tobacco industry and opponents of the bans claimed that tourism would suffer as a result of the restaurant smoking bans. Hotel revenue actually jumped in half of the locations after the bans were enacted. "Before many of these laws were passed, there were very spec predictions of catastrophe voiced all over the country by the tobacco industry and their toadies," said Stan Glantz, the UCSF professor who conducted the study. "Those dire warnings simply were not true." The study also shows that international tourism rose in California and New York City Thomas Humber, president of the National Smokers Alliance (NSA), said the study is "an advocacy piece masquerading as research" and that it used "too broad an ax, too broad a methodology to understand what is going on in very specific circumstances." Glantz argues that the study shows that the dire predictions of the industry and its front groups were unfounded. "At some point people are going to stop believing the industry since every claim they've made about smoking laws has been proven wrong," Glantz said. Glantz adds further that the main criticism raised by the tobacco industry — through the NSA — is that the only reason they found increasing tourism revenues is that business was going up anyway. Glantz provides two responses to this: 1. They controlled for the health of the underlying economy and the tourist economy in particular. 2. The criticism begs the question: The industry claimed that the ordinances would make tourism go DOWN. It never did. They are now arguing about whether the ordinances affected how fast tourism was going up. Related Articles: Smoking Ban's Effect on Tourism Studied Tobacco Foe Studied Hotel Revenues Sources: No Change In Tourism After Passage Of Smoke -Free Restaurant Laws," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, May 26, 1999, p. 1911; Eric Bailey, "Smoking Ban's Effect On Tourism Studied," LOS ANGELES TIMES (on-line), May 26, 1999; Tracy Boutelle, "Study: Smoke Ban Won't Hurt Tourism," ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 25,1999; Smoke -Free And The Bottom Line," WASHINGTON POST, May 26, 1999, p. A9. back http://www.clearilungs.com/education/features/tourism.html 8/7/01 Stubborn bunch defends choice, upends Little Falls smoking ban (1/31/2001) Page 1 of 4 ADVERTISEMENT> Cta=i>TIHO A CAREER EiHU,'a1f064E :Yiha lies E rtr z' S irw Published: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 STORY OPTIONS E-mail to a friend_ Print this article D.J. Tice Today's Pioneer. Editorial Writer Press PioneerPlanet: front Stubborn bunch defends choice, On Jan. 23, Little Falls voters surprised many by rejecting a ban on smoking in the town's restaurants. The City Council had enacted the ban last fall. The 18 -vote margin in the repeal referendum was as thin as a wisp of smoke. The struggle that for months roiled the central Minnesota community was the latest firefight in a war being waged across the state against smokers and restaurateurs who wish to serve them. Last year, officials in Moose Lake and Duluth enacted new restrictions on restaurant smoking. Smoking bans have been pushed in at least half a dozen other towns. There's precious little evidence that such heavy- handed government intervention is necessary. Market forces are responding to growing demand for smoke-free environments. According to Tom Day, communications director for Hospitality Minnesota, a restaurant trade group, the average http://ww v.pioneerplanet.com/c.olumnists/docs/TICE/docs/031503.htm 8/7/01 Little Falls banColumnistsupendssmoking Business Sports Entertainment Minnesota's anti-smoking warriors often portraySummerGuide Travel themselves as plucky Davids confronting the Living slobbering Goliath of "Big Tobacco." Tech Health But last week, roles seemed reversed when a Water Cooler handful of ordinary citizens in Little Falls, Minn., Special Reports Classified Ads population 7,300) turned back a determined siege Site index from various anti -tobacco groups wielding federal funds and proceeds from Minnesota's tobacco settlement. On Jan. 23, Little Falls voters surprised many by rejecting a ban on smoking in the town's restaurants. The City Council had enacted the ban last fall. The 18 -vote margin in the repeal referendum was as thin as a wisp of smoke. The struggle that for months roiled the central Minnesota community was the latest firefight in a war being waged across the state against smokers and restaurateurs who wish to serve them. Last year, officials in Moose Lake and Duluth enacted new restrictions on restaurant smoking. Smoking bans have been pushed in at least half a dozen other towns. There's precious little evidence that such heavy- handed government intervention is necessary. Market forces are responding to growing demand for smoke-free environments. According to Tom Day, communications director for Hospitality Minnesota, a restaurant trade group, the average http://ww v.pioneerplanet.com/c.olumnists/docs/TICE/docs/031503.htm 8/7/01 Stubborn bunch defends choice, upends Little Falls smoking ban (1/31/2001) Page 2 of 4 Minnesota restaurant devotes 60 percent of its tables to nonsmoking sections -- double the percentage required by law -- while 25 percent of all restaurants are entirely smokeless. Government smoking bans that supplant the free choices of business owners and customers are being pressed by Minnesota's increasingly well -armed anti -tobacco armies. Something called the Project for a Tobacco -Free Future launched the effort in Little Falls, hiring a local project leader and pressuring the City Council for the new policy. TFF is a "research" project, according to its director, at the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health. Funded by the federal National Cancer Institute, the project has a stated goal of reducing the social availability and acceptability of smoking. Numerous other advocacy groups, many with interlocking leadership, have recently received sizable grants to promote smoking restrictions -- with the money coming out of the proceeds of Minnesota's tobacco settlement. Such grants have come in some cases from the Minnesota Department of Health's anti-smoking endowment; in others, from health insurer Blue Cross and Blue Shield, the state's co -plaintiff in the tobacco lawsuit; and especially from the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco, a private nonprofit created in the settlement and given $202 million to fight smoking. The Minnesota Smoke -Free Coalition, which received some $600,000 from MPAAT last year "to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke," got involved in the late stages of the Little Falls campaign. A spokesperson acknowledges that settlement money was used to develop and fund advertising promoting the ban. Yet, in Little Falls, this anti-smoking war machine, with its newspaper and broadcast ads, phone banks and lawn signs, was upended by a few stubborn local residents. Led by bartender Cindy Poppen, opponents mounted a petition drive last fall that forced a referendum on the issue. Paying for signs and reminder cards out of their own pockets, the ban opponents prevailed, Poppen says, because they convinced people in Little Falls that the real issue http://www.pioneerplanet.com/columnists/docs/TICE/docs/031503.htm 8/7/01 Stubborn bunch defends choice, upends Little Falls smoking ban (1/31/2001) Page 3 of 4 was "freedom of choice." Ban advocates, meanwhile, charged that Poppen and her allies were backed by the tobacco industry. Twin Cities tobacco lobbyist Tom Briant says he spoke to Poppen and provided her with some newspaper clippings and a sample alternative ordinance. But he says she refused any other help. On Jan. 8, the Morrison County Record published a strongly worded editorial insisting "residents of Little Falls deserve better" than "innuendo and supposition," alleging tobacco industry influence behind local opposition to the ban. Its own investigation, the paper reported, found "no plausible connection." It noted the role of outside money was clear in the anti-smoking effort. No one who has followed Minnesota's tobacco wars for long will be surprised to hear of these allegations. For years, anti-smoking advocates have routinely accused anyone who disagreed with them of being a dupe or an agent of "Big Tobacco." It seems those tactics may have backfired in Little Falls. Fact is, notwithstanding the bans passed in Moose Lake and Duluth, the war on Minnesota smokers is not producing easy conquest. Proposed smoking bans have been rejected or withdrawn in recent months in Grand Rapids, Maple Grove, Shakopee, Faribault, St. Cloud and New Prague. But it's early. Anti-smoking advocates have a mountain of public money at their disposal and a sincere zeal for their cause. The Cindy Poppens of Minnesota had best be prepared for a long twilight struggle. For Minnesota taxpayers as a whole, the question is whether this campaign to strong-arm small towns and impose smoking bans on Main Street cafes is the kind of priceless public benefit they were Help hoping for from the tobacco settlement. News Archives Feedback Back to Top Write Tice at dtice cu ioneerpress.com or at the Pioneer Press, 345 Cedar St., St. Paul, Minn. 55101. v 2001 PioneerPlanet / St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press / TwinCities.com- All Rights Reserved http://www.ploneerplanet.com/columnists/docs/TICE/docs/031503.htm 8/7/01 Page 1 of 1 Smoking Ban Banned Minneapolis — In a special election held January 23which drew more voters than the presidential election, citizens of Little Falls, MN rejected a restaurant smoking ban passed by the city council last October but put on hold until now due to a wide protest. As Archie Anderson, president of Forces Minnesota, commented, "This gives the lie to anti -tobacco claims that `the people' want such bans. The American Lung Association has $369,000 in grant money available for efforts on such bans. Hard telling how much additional money might be anted up by other agencies. The anti tobacco cartel has all the wealth these days, what with the state settlement plus all the money they reap from cigarette taxes. It runs into billions." On the other hand the opposition, headed by Cindy Poppen, Bill Wieczorek and Sandy Kestner had a total budget of only $29.00 available, yet were able to collect more than enough signatures to force the ordinance to an open vote. Ban supporters charged that the effort to oppose the ban was made by "Big Tobacco mercenaries," their standard claim whenever they are opposed. However, an investigation by the Morrison County Record, the local newspaper, found no basis for the charge. On the other hand, Anderson pointed out, "The city council of Moose Lake was offered what amounted to a $10 to 20,000 bribe to pass a similar ban there. (Moose Lake was the first Minnesota town to pass such a smoking ban. Duluth was the second and Little Falls would have been the third.) The Little Falls defeat should put a crimp in anti -tobacco's plan to get bans passed in a few more cities and then try to get the Minnesota legislature to install a state-wide smoking ban. Thus the Little Falls outcome signifies a victory for democratic freedom and self-determination and may represent a turning point in the prohibitionist's strategy to go whole hog throughout the state. CONTACT: Personal information deleted] Felt Lair, CAGE Moderator Archie Anderson, Forces Minnesota President http://«ww.taz.tc/rialtos/littlefallsvote.htm 8/7/01 rrr f ri I no 11A TECal ., P t ki - — category ¢' Current Boyle backs statewide Surrounding News restuarant smokingban AreaArea Judged Murphy Oil violated laws By STAN MILAM Ashland, WI Teen is Local charged with Capitol News Service News two counts of e Quick Poll first-degree MADISON — Northern Wisconsin legislator Frank Qpen intentional Boyle doesn't have to look far to find reasons to Forum homicide limit secondary smoke. Hayward, WI Four charged Local with making Boyle, D -Superior, said that he will introduce News meth' legislation to prohibit smoking in all but the smallest mom Quick PollQ--- drug in restaurants and bars in Wisconsin. Smaller area cabin and pop" bars and cafes would be excluded from the Open Reynolds bill Prohibition, he said. Forum to eliminate Parkfalls, WI caucuses sent We are finally at the point in our society where Local there's no longer any question about the devastating Newstocommitteeeffectsofsmokingandsecondarysmoke," Boyle Quick PollMoreStoriessaidduringaninterviewinhisStateCapitoloffice. We need to take steps to further eliminate those en dangers." Forum Phillips, WI Boyle said the effects of secondary smoke hit home his daughter, Annie, the Black Local when worked at News Woods Lodge in Duluth, Minn. Quick Poll She worked there for three years, and developed a Qpen constant hacking from the secondary smoke," Boyle Forum said. "She was exposed to secondary smoke in the Spooner, WI workplace." Local News Annie Boyle is a non-smoker. Her coughing cleared Quick Poll up after she stopped working at the lodge. Open Those employees who continue to work in similar Forum environments remain at risk, Boyle said. Superior, WI Local It's something most employees have no control News over," Boyle said. "They are often assigned to uick Poll smoking sections where there's a high concentration Open of secondary smoke."• Forum Boyle and his daughter, now a graduate student at UW -Madison, found out later about the potential http://www. ashlandwi.com/upnorth/pIaced/story/01-22-2001 UNW.htm1 8/7/01 dangers of secondary smoke. Annie looked into it and found out that working in an area of concentrated secondary smoke, an area such as the smoking section of a restaurant, is the equivalent of smoking a half pack of cigarettes in an hour," Boyle said. "That's obviously unacceptable." Boyleis brother-in-law, a smoker, died at the age of 54 from lung cancer. I watched him die a horrible death," Boyle said. "I need not be reminded of the suffering associated with smoking and the effects of secondary smoke." Boyle, a non-smoker, said his views have also been affected by a personal health crisis. Nine years ago, they found a spot on my lung," Boyle said. "Before I was operated on, they told me there was an 80 percent chance it was malignant. I beat the odds. It wasn't malignant," Boyle said. Unfortunately, there are others who aren't as lucky. It's time we revisit Wisconsin's Clean Air Act," Boyle said. "We need to provide cleaner air to people subjected to secondary smoke in places such as larger restaurants and bars." Small establishments would be exempt because of the nature of corner bars and diners, Boyle said. The owners of these small establishments usually run the place themselves and have no employees," Boyle said. "They know the risks, and can make those decisions for themselves. But, in larger businesses, the employees carat make those decisions," he said. The only recourse the have is to quit, and that's not an option for many workers." Copyright 2000 Murphy McGinnis Interative. All rights reserved. http://www.ashlandwi.com/upnorth/placed/story/01-22-2001UNW.html 8/7/01 Position on Smoke -Free Restaurant Ordinances Our Position. The. American Cancer Society, Midwest Division su ortslocallevelthatprotectpeoplefromsecondhandsmoke. Further, the American Can Pp public policies at the Midwest Division actively supports local ordinances that broaden the scope andCancer Society, standards of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act without relying on unproven Ivenventl thetechnologies. atfon Secondhand Smoke Kills. Secondhand smoke is a complex mixture of chemicalduringtheburningandsmokingoftobaccoproducts, including more than s generatedcausingagents. The dangers of secondhand smoke exposure are well estab shed own cancer - secondhand smoke causes 3,000 deaths from lung each yeardisease. Infants and children exposed to secondhandsmokeare up to mo e0 likely from heart pneumonia, bronchitis, asthma and middle ear infection.i Y to developgovernmentshaveplacedsomelevelofrestrictiononsmokinginaresult, a number of local In public places. Smoke -Free Ordinances Make Sense. Laws enacted at the state level benefit the publicbyimplementingstatewidestandards. Ideally, these laws set minimum requirements healththecontinuedpassageandenforcementoflocalordinancesthatmayestablishae q is and allow Protection of public health. The state of Minnesota has a long ater level of smoking dating all the way back to its 1975 Clean Indoor Air Act history restrictedlasmo publicdesignatedareasinpublicplaces. Since then, extensive research has linked second smoking totocancerandheartdiseaseandhasshownthat, ventilation and separation techni uhand smokeinadequateinprotectingnonsmokers.q es are Smoke -Free Ordinances Don't Hurt the Bottom i Line. Contrary to some claims smoke-freeordinancesdonotadverselyaffectrestaurantsalesortourismbusiness. Economic studies ungobjectivesalestaxdatafromnearly100differentcommunitiesacrossthecountha es usingthatsmoke-free regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on restaurants. One showne suchstudyanalyzedsalestaxdatafor15citieswithsmoke-free restaurant ordinances and foutheregulationshadnonegativeeffectonrestaurantsales." rid that Ventilation Doesn't Work. Some opponents of smoke-free ordinances argue that ventilationsystemsprovideenoughprotectionfornonsmokersinrestaurants. Unfortunately,exstinventilationsystemsfailtoremoveallofthedansVentilationtechnologiesmayremovethesmellofsmokeintheairbut theynd in an hand smoke."' cancer-causing chemicals. Y not remove the Local smoke-free policies remain the only measure to truly ensure that employeeandchildrenareadequatelyprotectedfromthedangersofsecondhandsmoke. s, patrons, U'S' Environtnmlal Protection Agency. Glan S. S g '' Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. 1992. L The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke -Free Restaurants and Bars on Revenue: A Follow -U , Public Health. Oen 1997. American Society Quality p American ioumalofetyofHeating. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers. Indoor Air ualit Position Statement. February 2000. L r i N1KC HATCW ATTORACT Oi!(i1fR6 Mr. Peter Vogel Rosenrneicr, Aaderson & Vogel 210 Second Street N.E. Little Falls, MN 5634S Dear Mr. Vogel: tk orrICC of TNC ArTORMLr QCMCRA, cc e bar of Mjj=.'Zab, 5T. PAUL b$I69 May 4,.2000 You are an attorney represenriag the City of Little Falls, Mimesota. The City Council i catisidering whether it tan adopt an ordinance, pursuant to its s Beheral police power, to prohibitthesmokingoftobaccoinrestaurants. In a letter to the Attorney General ou subfollowing; Y tract the QUESTION Do Minnesota Statues which authorize the regUation of smoking inrestaurantsbytheDepartmentofInHealthre8preemptdcompletebanonsmokinginfALrantg ie ,.a ,iww! voauil` lGtlt'..1 OPMON We answer your question in the negative. 'tiVhile the legislature has addressed restaurants and other public planes. und:r the smoking in Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Minn, Ste. ff 144.411-144.417 (Supp.1999), it did so while expressly preserving theogovePnttoimposemorestringentsmokinglimitations. p wcr of local The authority for local regulation of smoking and of tobaccoroducP is in this state haslongbeenestablished. In uphoIding a conyictloo of a cigarette wholesaler Mn."eapolis licensing ordinance, the Minnesota Su for violatinga pra me Court observed: J LA I—CG"GGJGJV L.O. La — — 1 a u &a 1a.... ---I y — --- --I— 1 --, c Mr. Peter Vogel Page 2 The police power of the legislature in these respeots has never been sur„orssfuIly guestionod. Both do state and its municipalities have a wide discretion in resorting to that power for the purpose of preserving publio health, safety, and morals, or abating public auisenees. Cigarettes being a proprs yield of regulation under the police power, a city or village may operata in that field Zander the general welfaro clause of its charter t:aless excluded therefrom by expresslegislativeenactment. State v. 77.4 Crabtree Co., 21 g Minn. 36, 40, 15 N.W.2d 99, 100 (Minot. 1944), (Citationotratt:d.) The state first entered into M911lation of second-hand sruoke (now called "covironmentW tobacco smoke") wiih the 1975 enactment ofthe Minnesota Clem Indoor Air Act (CIA.A), Minn. Laws 1975, ch. 211. Examination of the CIAA, and rules promulgracd by the Carrmissidnrr of Hcalth' pursuant to the CUA, indicat that these state restrictions on smoking in restau.+ is do not pree'ff:pt locJ* ordinances which mrohibit smoking in restauraznts, Th- CIAA's stated purpose ,is to protect the public health, comfort and environment by prohibiting smoking in areas where cliaron or ill or injurad persons are present,. and by limiting smoking in public places and at public meetings to designated smaking areas." Mirm. Stat. 144,412. "?ublic places" arc broadly defined in I,iun, Stat. 1144.413, subd. 2, sad include restaurants. Section 144.414, subd.1, provides: "No person shall smoke in a public place or at a public me=ting except :n designated smok(ng areas," Subdivisions 2 and 3(a) of § 144.414 describe area where smoking is unconditionally prohibited. For other public places, including restautants, § 144.415 provides (emphasis added): Smoking areas may be designated by proprietors or other persons in charge of public places, ez W in places in which smoking is prohibited by thefiremarshalorbyotherlaw, ordinance or rule. Minn. R 4670.0050.4620.1450 (1999). IOSr. Peter Vogel Y'age 3 The Health Depmtment =jes lmplem.enting the CIAA repeat the except39n es144.4 IS: established in Nothing In parts 4620.0050 to 4620.1500 shall be coastrwd to elleprohibitionsimposedbythefirethsr&hal or oew laws, ordinances, or re' t 8rnOjCn gulaens• lb+ WL R. 4620.0050 (1999). . The above provisions establish a gang prohibition on smoking in Public places with anexaeptioafordesignatedsmokingareasinrestaurantsandcrraizlOtherfacilitiesif wish to have them and if theysans Ptvpnetars . fy the requirements of both Minn, Stat. § 144.415 and of theHealthDepartrnentrules. This excepdoa, however, can be overnilcd by fire marshat actibyotherlaw, ordinance, or rule. in othean, or r.words, a local ne•gate agovernmentcanbyOrdinanceA Proprietor's ability under the Cl:AA to desi Snare M"Ok--ing areas in*Q. mstaUrant.2 Ip light oP this cuexpresslegislativedtr_Yon Md th.. i well-established power ofMur, cipatiti es- tOFrVIL1 o teRsmoiangun3er Their lio — --- — — - -- P POWers, we do not believe there is a need toengageinapre-emption analysis to determine whcther state law,, the field" o . Prohibits conflicting or inconsistent local re r implicitly gelation. ,See Mangold Midwest Co. a Ylllage ofRichfleld,274 Minn 347, 143 N.W.2d 813 (Minn, 1966). That atslysis need when the intent of the legislature as to local regulat,6n of the same s pnlybe employed the context of the legislation. Iii this Case ub3`"t must be inferred firorn the legislature; by enacting Minn. Stat. 144.415, has 2 Included with your requagt was a eo of $ c' a difrrrcnt " City attorney opinion from another municipalityPmPosalfor -an environmental tobacco onprOpnioasoAanCeanddonotexpressanyopinion smoke ardinattne.. We have not reviewed tA ot'tha CIAA to limit municipal authorityit, We disagree, hovmver, with thatwhichdesigaatesrnoldngareasinpublicplaces. ..p authority to the adoption of ordina ccs i oI VJII GG LVW ia/ii v V. . e u u e rr v`ne s .r r ... .—sw a • ww ww r Mr. Peter Vogel Page 4 . expressly preserved the power of local governments to prohibit s=ldng in those public places which the CIAA otherwise leaves open for proprietor -designated smoking arers. Thus, we aanclude that M ordinr ncs which prohibits the smoking of tobacco any place in a public restaurant is Consistent with state law and not pr-.rmpted by 1t. Very truly yours, I MIKE HATCH Attomey Crenoral cc: Stephen Shakman I4:3764 15,Y. 01 i Protecting, Maintaining and Improving the Health of All Minnesotans November 15, 2000 Ms. Judy Knapp Minnesota Smoke Free Coalition 1619 Dayton Avenue, Suite -204B Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 Dear Ms. Knapp: Thank you for your-Ietter regarding the committee to study a smoking ban in restaurantsinSt. CIoud. I am disappointed to hear that the committee was dissolved. While it is true that the Minnesota Department of Health rewriting the state Hiles governing is the process of ales are in noway meant to supersede local goya„ mt authority ' an Indoor oAct C' mese restaurants. Rather, in' communities where smoking, ' restrict smoking in other establishments, these rules will ensure greater protectronfor customers frtted in om and second-hand smoke. Under the MCIAA, the state health department does not have the authority to prohibitsmokinginrestaurantsorotherestablishments. However, cities and counties can enactordinancesthataremorerestrictivethanthecurrentMCIAA. The Office of the AttorneyGeneralissuedanopiniononlocalresta; .*tet —okg ordCes on May 4, 2000. T"neOpinionread,.in part "...we conclude that an'ordinance-which prohibits the smoking oftobaccoanyplaceinthepublicrestaurantisconsistentwithstate'law and not preemptedbyit." I strongly support the current option given to. cities and counties under current Iaw toenactordinancesthataremorerestrictivethantheMCIAA. With regard to the rule revision, the August 2000 draft of the MCIAA rules is stillundergoingreviewwithintheadministrationandcouldchangesignificantlybefore finaladoption. However, the revised MCIAA rules will not include a prohibition on smokingmrestaurants. The draft rules must still undergo -a lengthy process ofreview. , I do notanticipatetherulestobefinaluntil2001. 85 East Seventh Place - St Paul, MN 5510.1 • httpJ/www.hea]th,state.mn.us An Mud oppo—iry t_pk. Ms. Judy Knapp Page 2 November 15, 2000 ' In summary, MDH does not consider the current MCIAA rule or the draft rules to be a subs tute..for local tobacco ordinances: if a city or,county wants to prohibit smoking in restaurants, a local ordinance must be in place. The revised MCIA.A rules will not include such a ban. If you have any questions regarding the MCIAA, please contact Laura Oatman of my staff at (651) 215-0911. Sincerely, K. Malcolm Commissioner P:O. Box 64882 . St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0882 Cc: David Popken, St. Cloud Health Department ka c American Nonsmokers' Rights FoundationU -S. Communities vvithiikUej-aT,0IMM- or ControlCumulativeTotalsfromtheANTRFoundation Local Tobacco Control Ordinance Database0 March 30, 2001 Tobacco Control (any coverage): I 1,704 Clean Indoor Air (any coverage):1 1,082 Workplaces, 100% Smokefree: 1,0 57 Workplaces (any coverage): 221 Restaurants, 100% Smokefree: 787 Restaurants (any coverage): 300 Free -Standing Bars, 100% Smokefree: 847 Free -Standing Bars (any coverage): Public Places (any coverage):2 73 Self -Service Displays: 648 Youth Access (any coverage):1 1,082Vending, Total bans: X51Vending (any coverage):3 Sampling: 860 Licensing (any coverage): 300 Licensing w/ Revocation 443 or Sus- pension as 1st or 2nd penalties: 335Self -Service Displays: Single Cigarettes: 467 Use/ Possession/ Purchase: 252 326 Excise Taxes: 1 14 Advertising (any coverage):1 127LocationZoning: Tombstone Exem t' 98 pions. 38 T Public Transit: Retailer 39 Restrictions: 3 Because 65 many ordinances have overlapping provisions, subtotals are not expected to add up to the total of eachmaincategory. In addition, the totals will not be equivalent to totals reported on ANRF lists. 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J 0 Berkeley, California 94702 • (510) 841-3032 / l~ e V ic, n -t n.. _ _ . I This includes all ordinances that require all enclosed public places (unless specifically exempt) to be smokefreeorhavenonsmokingsections. Of these, 551 establish the presumption that public places are smokefree unlessotherwiseexempt; while 89 establish the presumption that public places may establish nonsmoking sections unlesstheordinancespecifiesthattheyareexemptormustbesmokefree. Most other clean indoor air ordinances willspecificallyenumeratecertainenclosedareas, but will not include a clause covering public places in general. 2 This includes all vending machine ordinances in the database, including those that require locking devices, tokens, etc. Afay be reprinted with appropriate credit to American No ismokers I Riglrts Foundation. MIIa O'NEAL: We Need GovernmentClearTheSmokeFromRestaurants To Help Us Source: Nation's Restaurant News, April 16, 2001 I have been active in several restaurant associations for the past 35servedaspresidentoftheNewYorkStateRestaurantAssociationas years. I've president of the New York City chapter. I «gas a member of the board of twell as National Restaurant Association for nine years and have been an honor he for 17 years. I've lobbied on the side of the restaurant industry for all ofary directorinNewYork; Albany, N.Y.; and Washington, D.C. those yearssmall-business man in mind. g Al« a3 s I had the plight of theHavingsaidthat, I feel strongly that it is pro-business and pro -health tosmokinginall «workplaces, including restaurants. eliminateSmoke-free workplace legislation does not hurt business. Smoking roiCalifornia, Utah, Vermont, Maryland and Maine as well as in hundreds of donsin overthecountryprovethatsmoke -free -workplace legislation is good for allcities allbusinesses, including the restaurant business. That shouldn't be a surprise. smokers prefer to breathe clean air, P Se. Even I constantly am asked why I don't ban smoking at my bar. Chan a isdon't want to be different from eve g scary, and Ir1oneelse. I i-ant a level playing field. My goal is not to outlaw smoking, but to outlaw smoking in the workplace. including waitresses and bartenders, in the course of doing his or heroone, have to breathe something that causes cancer. lob should As life goes on, many of us lose loved ones to cancer. We learn more abouttobaccoindustryknowinglyhasliedtousduringtheit flow thetheI'm tired of that Philip Morris advertisement ontelevtelevision, telling yeag whatcitizenPhilipMorrisisbecauseitbringswaterinMillerbottlestohurricaneagood victims. Philip Morris spends millions of dollars on that advertisement, spends only several thousands of dollars to truck in the water. As teen bile it say about the Philip Morris campaign: "«e l:no v what s in Florida You're doing it. And we're not going to stopuntil ever , 3 011 re doing. «'e know vliyDr. Dileep G. Bal, the head of the American Cancer So body knows." that comes off the unfiltered end of a lighted cigarette is six timesfmoreidBadly than t the smokethesmokethatisdrawninthroughafilter. When I heard the testimony, unhappy about exposing my workers to the smoke. A bartender who works bt a bar for a normal, eight-hour shift breathes unfiltered smoke that is the equehind ivalenttosmokingtwopacksofcigarettesaday. Fifty-three thousand Americans dieYearfromexposuretosecondhandsmoke. ie eachTheproofisin: Tobacco smoke -- disputes that anymore. We owe on both firsthand and secondhand -- ]cirworkersasafe, Healthy work environment. When itis so evident that secondhand smoke is a ]tiller, it becomesoobligationtoprotectthehealthofworkers. Secondhand g v ernment s carcinogen, the same as benzene, asbestos and radon. Givnothose aGroup A facts, I understand, accept and welcome government's involvement. This is a health issue, not a rights issue. So who are the people in the restaurant business afraid of losing as customers? Forthemostpart, they have been frightened by the tobacco-company propaganda. Theyallarehard-working, small-business people who fear they will be put out of businessifsmoke-free-workplace legislation is enacted. The only thing that will negativelyaffectourbusinesseswillbeageneraldownturnintheeconomy, which may behappening. The evidence is in: Secondhand smoke kills. It's time "to ride the horse in thedirectionit's going." Our industry should be leading the charge, not fighting it. POLICY BRIEF ya a r Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. following primary smoking and alcohol abuse.' Secondhand Smoke Causes Cancer in Nonsmokers. Secondhand smoke is a complex mixture of nearly 5,000 chemical compounds including more than 50 known cancer-causing agents. The 1986 U.S. Surgeon General's report on involuntary smoking was the .first to conclude that secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers. Since then, numerous scientific studies have confirmed the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. It is conservatively estimated that at least 3,000 nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke." Secondhand Smoke Causes lFIeart Disease in Nonsmokers. There are a number of epidemiological studies that reflect an approximate 30 percent increase in risk of death from heart disease among nonsmokers living with smokers. The increased risk of heart disease from secondhand smoke exposure is much greater than the lung cancer risk. It is estimated that as many as 62,000 nonsmokers die each year from heart disease caused by secondhand Smolce."' Secondhand Smoke Causes Disease in Children. Strong evidence has shown that children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are at considerably higher risk for illness from since their lungs and respiratory tissues are still developing. Infants and children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to develop pneumonia, bronchitis, asthma, and middle ear disease. As many as 300,000 cases of lower respiratory tract infections in children up to 18 months old and up to 2,700 deaths from sudden infant death syndrome each year are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure." In addition to inducing new cases of asthma, secondhand smoke also increases the number and severity of asthma attacks in children." Workers At Significant Risk. Virtually everyone is at some risk of harm from exposure to secondhand smoke but those who work where smoking is allowed are at greater risk. In fact, workplace exposure to secondhand smoke causes more death and disease than all other regulated occupational substances combined."' Restaurant and bar employees have been found to be at an even higher risk of disease due to their disproportionate exposure to secondhand smoke. Research has shown that there may be a 50 percent increase in lung cancer risk among food service workers that is attributable to their secondhand smoke exposure." Research has also shown that the average exposure level for bar and restaurant workers was sufficient to double the risk of a fatal asthma attack for workers with asthma.""' US. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. 1986. G1aNtr.SA. Parrnley. WW. Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Epidemiology, Physiology, and Biochemistry. Circulation. 1997. Welk. AJ. 'Passive Smoking as a Cause of Heart Disease." Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1994. California Environmenial Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. 1997. U.S-Euvannmrntal Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. 1992. lbi& Siegel.)°(. involuntarySmoking in the Restaurant Workplace: A Review of Employees Exposure and Health Effects. JAMA. 1993. Hedley AJ. McGhee SM. Repace J. et al. Passive Smoking and Risks For Heart Disease and Cancer in Hong Kong Catering Workers. [longKongCm=-1 on Smoking and Health. May 211(11. 12/01/00 08:50 AM CDC/Lung Cancer: Anti -Tobacco Measures Lessen Cancer By Jennifer Coleman / Associated Press Writer Thursday, Nov• 30, 2000; 4:00 p•m• EST SACRAMENTO, Calif• California's tough anti-smoking measures and public health campaigns have resulted in a 14 percent decrease in lung cancer over the past 10 years, the government reported Thursday• Other regions of the country reported only a 2.7 percent decrease over the same period, the Centers for Disease Control ,and Prevention said. Based on the California experience, we would hope to see similar effects in other states using similar programs," said Dr• Terry Pechacek, CDC associate director for science and public health. Lung cancer develops slowly and the full benefits of quitting can take up to 15 years to be realized• However, Pechacek said, researchers can start seeing some results within five years• Smoking rates in California began dropping in the late 1980s, helped in part by Proposition 99 in 1988• The voter -approved measure added a 25 -cent -per -pack tax on tobacco products that paid for anti-smoking and education programs• Local governments also began restricting smoking in public buildings and workplaces - Two years ago, voters bumped the price of cigarettes an additional 50 cents per pack, money also earmarked for education• And this year alone, the state will spend $136 million on smoking prevention, cessation and research some $45 million of it on anti -tobacco advertising. California has the most comprehensive program for protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke," said Ken August, spokesman for the state health department• "Restaurants, bars and almost all indoor workplaces are smoke-free•" The effect of the anti -tobacco efforts has been fewer smokers and fewer deadly cases of cancer related to smoking, health officials said• August and Pechacek both said they expect the trend to continue. August said that means there will be up to 4,000 fewer lung cancer cases in California this year and about 2,000 fewer deaths• In its report, the CDC compared cancer registries in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico and Utah, as well as Seattle, Atlanta and Detroit. In 1988, the lung cancer rate in California was 72 cases per 100,000 people, slightly higher than that of the other regions studied- By 1997, California's rate had dropped to about 60 per 100,000- Llhile lung cancer rates for women in the other regions rose 13 percent, the rate for California women dropped 4.8 percent. Among California men, lung cancer rates dropped 23 percent, compared with a 13 percent drop among men elsewhere. Dr. David Burns, a volunteer with the American Lung Association in California, said: "This is an accomplishment of Proposition 99 money being invested wisely by the state to help people change their smoking behavior." On the Net: CDC: Declines in Lung Cancer Rates --- California, 1988--1997 http://www•cdc-gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4947a4•htm California health services agency: http://www.dhs-cahwnet-gov Message Author: billasmokescreen-org To subscribe and/or search archives, go to: http://smokescreen-org/?bg-announce To unsubscribe, send any message to: bg-announce-unsubscribe-25469@smokescreen-org Note: You are subscribed as Corinne-ertzacancer•org) Bill Godshall" To: 'Health Advocates' <bg-announce@smokescreen.org> t. t <bill@smokescreen.o cc: rg> Subject: [bg-announce]33,000 heart disease deaths prevented 12/14/00 06:16 PM California Anti-smoking Program May Have Saved More Than 30,000 Lives From Heart Disease, UCSF Study Shows; Cutbacks Linked To 8300 Excess Deaths University of California at San Francisco,.Wednesday, 12/13/00 Alice Trinkl, News Director Wallace Ravven (415) 476-2557 wravvenapubaff.ucsf.edu An estimated 33,300 heart -disease deaths were,prevented during the first nine years of the voter -approved anti-smoking program in California, according to a new report by researchers at UCSF. The report represents the first time that scientists have attributed savings in lives to a tobacco control program. In addition, the researchers estimate that 8,300 excess deaths from heart disease can be attributed to budget cuts and changes made to focus the program primarily on youth - steps which they say weakened the effort in the mid-1990s. The study published in the December 14 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine examined the relationship between the tobacco control program and death rates for heart disease because, unlike lung cancer, the harmful effects of smoking on the heart develop rapidly and resolve rapidly. Research has shown that when people quit smoking, their excess risk of a heart attack is cut in half in just one year. In 1988 the voters of California approved Proposition 99, which increased the tax on cigarettes by 25 cents per package and allocated five cents of the new tax to an anti -tobacco education program, including an aggressive media campaign attacking the tobacco industry and programs promoting clean indoor air. It became the largest such program ever undertaken. Previous studies by UCSF researchers and others have estimated that the California Tobacco Control Program accelerated a decline in the prevalence of smoking and in per capita cigarette consumption. In the new study, the researchers compared death rates from heart disease in California with the rest of the United States beginning in 1980 - nine years before the California Tobacco Control Program began - until 1997 (the last year for which statistics were available). As is customary in such studies, the comparison was age-adjusted - adjusted to take into account differences in age distributions between California and the U•S. The study used the relationship between heart disease death rates outside and inside California to estimate the death rates that would have existed without the program. Comparing those figures to the actual pattern of deaths, the researchers were able to estimate the number of lives saved through implementation of the tobacco control program. Our results show that large-scale, aggressive tobacco control programs save lives," said Stanton Glantz, PhD, UCSF professor of medicine. "They also show that there is a real human price to be paid when the tobacco industry succeeds in convincing politicians to cut back and water down these programs." Glantz is a member of the UCSF Cardiovascular Research Institute and the UCSF Institute for Health Policy Studies• Lead author on the paper is Caroline Fichtenberg, MS, a post -graduate researcher in the Institute for Health Policy Studies. Glantz and Fichtenberg also compared per capita cigarette consumption in California with the rest of the country and found that the state's tobacco control program was associated with about 2.9 billion fewer packs of cigarettes being smoked (worth 4 billion in pre-tax sales to the tobacco industry) between 1989 and 1997. The reduced effectiveness of the program due to cutbacks and program changes in the mid-1990s is associated with an extra one billion packs of cigarettes being consumed in the state between 1993 and 1997, they report. The changes in heart disease death rates paralleled the changes in cigarette consumption in about the proportion that would be expected given the known risk of heart disease associated with smoking, they estimate. Fichtenberg and Glantz conclude that well-designed, aggressive tobacco control programs are associated with major reductions in deaths from heart disease in a short period of time. Our study also shows that scaling back or weakening such programs by limiting them to children, as the tobacco industry and some representatives of the public health community advocate, is associated with an increase in death," they write. The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute. In the NEJM paper the researchers note that a simple calculation shows that the changes in the rate of death from heart disease were quantitatively consistent with the changes in cigarette consumption. "Values.for the risk of death from coronary heart disease that is•attributable to smoking range from 40 to 55 percent," they write. "In 1997, the rate of per capita cigarette consumption in California was 21 percent lower than the predicted rate had the pre -1989 relation between the rates in California and the rest of the United States been maintained. A 40 to 55 percent reduction of 21 percent is 8 to 12 percent, which is similar to the actual 13 percent difference between the actual rate of death from heart disease in California and the predicted rate had the pre -1989 trend been maintained•" Message Author: billasmokescreen.org To subscribe and/or search archives, go to: http://smokescreen.org/?bg-announce To unsubscribe, send any message to: bg-announce-unsubscribe.25469asmokescreen.org Note: You are subscribed as corinne.ertzacancer.org) Draft response to commenters Addendum 62g PR 2 April 6, 2000 The material that follows addresses the issue of the health risks of ETS. f COGNIZANT AUTHORITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE (ETS) From Merriam -Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition: knowledgeable of something esp. through personal experience; aLvo: MINDFUL: Cognizant: syn see AWARE Health I the general condition of the body Authority: 1 c an individual cited or appealed to as an expert 3 a: persons in command; specif: GOVERNMENT Cognizant health authority Representati ve document Date Representative statement(s) (Note: "ETS" sometimes used in place of "environmental tobacco smoke" and certain other abbreviations are used. American AHA 1992 Because more information on enviromnental Heart M6dical/Scie tobacco smoke is now available, its health effects Association ntific are reviewed in this report,..." "sufficient AHA) Statement, information has been published to implicate ETS Position as a definite health hazard." "....since 1956 Statement, several studies have been published documenting Environment a link between environmental tobacco smoke, al Tobacco cancer, and heart disease." (page 1) "Attempts Smoke and to control tobacco smoke. by increasing room Cardiovascul ventilation can be futile, and the only sure way ar Disease to protect nonsmokers from ETS is to eliminate smoking. from areas they share with nonsmokers." "...the responsibility of everyone to eliminate this health hazard from the environment." "The risk of death due to heart disease is increased by about 30% among those exposed to ETS at home and could be much higher in those exposed at the workplace, where higher levels of ETS may be present." "...an estimated 35,000 to 40,000 cardiovascular disease -related deaths. and 3,000 - 5,000 lune cancer deaths due to environmental tobacco smoke exposure have been predicted to occur each year. The AHA's Council on Cai-diopulmonary and Critical Care has concluded that ETS is a major Draft response to commenters Addendum 62g PR 2 April 6, 2000 preventable cause of cardiovascular disease and death. The council strongly supports efiforts to eliminate all exposure..." American Lung Indoor 1998 Secondhand smoke, the smoke from someone Association Pollution In else's cigarette, cigar or pipe, contains more than ALA) The Office, 4,000 chemicals including nicotine, http://www.1 forinaldehyde; carbon monoxide, and other ungusa.org/ri known cancer-causing agents. ght.html While smokers themselves face serious health risks from tobacco, it is now clear that even people who don't smoke may be threatened. Exposure to secondhand smoke, also called environmental tobacco smoke, may have ' certain harmful, possibly even fatal, health effects such as lung cancer and heart disease. Health effects: Tobacco smoke can irritate eyes, nose and throat and can cause headaches and nausea. The Surgeon General of the Unitcd States has concluded that secondlicluid smoke is definitely . dangerous to human health. Involuntary smoking has now been established as a cause of lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers." American Summary 5 The AMA has.adopted no fewer than 16 policy Medical letter Octo statements that call for protection from the risks Association ber that come from exposure to smoke in the AMA) 1998 environment,"... "produced a review paper in 1995 that agrees with the findings of the US EPA and others that ETS should be classified as a known human carcinogen." "There is no controversy within the health community about the hazards to health imposed by ETS exposure"... "This is not the opinion of one or two minor groups, but that of the AMA, the American Cancer Society, the American heart sic) . Association, the American Lung: Association, the US .EPA, the Surgeon General, the National Academy of Sciences, and many others." "ETS is the third leading, cause of preventable death in the US, surpassed only by direct smoke and the use of alcohol." The best estimate"... "is between 40-50,000 deaths per year; most of that is from heart disease..." Draft response to commenters Addendum 62g PR 2 April 6, 2000 The science of ETS was recently reviewed by both the California EPA in a massive review published last year and by the Ohio State University School of Public. -.IIealth' (publication in press). 'Both groups independently found that ETS causes lung cancer." "...the AMA strongly supports efforts to minimize exposure of the public and workers..." "These chemicals are not the natural byproducts of any manufactiu•ing process --or an unavoidable hazard..." ASHRAE's proposal)"... seem to us a reasonable standard that will go far in improving the health status of the indoor environment." California Health Septe Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke Environmental Effects of tuber. ETS) has been linked to a variety of adverse Protection Exposure to 1997 health outcomes." "In the comprehensive Agency Environment reviews published as Reports of the Surgeon CaIEPA) al Tobacco General and by the U.S. EPA and by the NRC, Smoke ETS exposure has been found to be causally associated with respiratory illnesses, including lung cancer, childhood asthma and lover respiratory tract infections. Scientific knowledge about - ETS-related effects has expanded considerably since the release of these* reviews. The State of California has therefore undertaken a broad review of ETS," "...a 'weight of evidence' approach has been used..." "... the epidemiological data are extensive... (page ES -1). Effects Causally Associated with ETS Exposure"... [Note: not all are listed]..."Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Eye and nasal irritation in adults; Lung Cancer, Nasal Sinus Cancer, Heart disease mortality, Acute and chronic heart disease morbidity" (from Table ES.1 on page ES -2) "Estimated Aruival Morbidity and Mortality in Nonsmokers Associated with ETS Exposure, Cardiovascular Effects, 35,000 - 62,000 deaths. (from Table ES.2 on page ES4) . National Environment June NIOSH therefore considers ETS to be a Institutes of al Tobacco 1991 potential occupational carcinogen and Safety' and Smoke in the recommends that exposures be reduced to the Health Workplace lowest feasible concentration. All available NIOSH preventive measures should be used to minimize Draft response to commenters Addendum 629 PR 2 April 6, 2000 occupational exposure to ETS." (Foreword page iii) "'Potential occupational carcinogen' means any substance, or combination or mixture of substances, which causes an increased incidence of benign and/or malignant neoplasms. or a substantial decrease in the latency period between exposure and onset of neoplasms in humans or in one or more experimental mammalian species..." National Environment. 1986 Considering the evidence as a whole, exposure Research al Tobacco to ETS increases the incidence of lung cancer in Council Smoke, nonsmokers." (page 10) NRC); Measuring . National Exposures Academy of and Sciences (NAS) Assessing Health Effects National 9°i Report on 2000 First listing of ETS under category "Known to Toxicology Carcinogens be Human Carcinogens," based on sufficient Program,. 2000 evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in Public Health http://6his.ni humans that indicate a causal relationsliip Service, U.S. ehs.nih.gov/r. between passive 'exposure ... and luny, cancer ... Department. of oc/toc9.html also cancers of the nasal sinus." Evidence... Health and from studies examining nonsmol6nd Human spouses ... occu ational settinus. [emphasis Services added] and exposure to parents' smoking:.. page 1 of ETS section) "Factors related to chance, bias and/or confounding, have been adequately excluded, and exposure to ETS is established as causally related to human lung cancer." (page 2 of ETS section) "Levels of ETS in restaurants were 'found to be approximately 1.5 times higher than residences... isolating smokers to a specific section of'restaurants was found to afford some protection for nonsmokers, but the best protection resulted from seating arrangements that segregated smokers by a wall or partition.... Food servers ... are exposed to even more ... (page '3 of ETS section). Surgeon The -Health 1986 Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease. General Consequence including -lung cancer, in hcalthy nonsmol:r:.•rs." , s of Simple separation of smokers and nonsniok-ers Involunta within' the Not Accepted. Same airs ace may I' Draft response to commenters Addendum 62g PR 2 April 6, 2000 Smoking reduce, but does not eliminate, exposure of nonsmokers- to . ETS." (Foreword page vii) extrapolation from atmospheric measures to cigarette equivalent units 'of disease risk..." [is] a complex and potentially meaningless process." (. 200) United States Respiratory Augu "...confirms and strengthens the results 'of the Department of Health st two 1986 reports - by the U.S. Surgeon General Health and Effects of 1 h93 and the National Research Council..." "...that Human Passive tobacco smoke is not just a health risk for Services, Smoking: smokers." "...significant risk for nonsmokers, HHS)NationaI Lung Cancer particularly for children." "This report Cancer and - Other demonstrates conclusively that environmental Institute (NCI) Disorders, : tobacco smoke increases the risk of lung cancer The Report in healthy nonsmokers." "...lung cancer risks of the U.S. associated with environmental tobacco smol<e are EPA more that ten times greater than the cancer risks which would normally elicit an action by EPA." from Foreword) ...".National Cancer Institute NCI), in cooperation with EPA, ispublishing and disseminating this report..." "Based on the total weight of the available scientific evidence, EPA reached the following major conclusions: human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers." "...significant effects on the respiratory health of nonsmokers, including reduced lung function,..." "In conducting a formal risk assessment to establish the carcinogenic potential of a low-level exposure to an environmental agent, it is rare to * have such a large epidemioligic base upon. which to make scientific judgements. It is especially rare when the population data being examined are based ori actual levels to which people are commonly exposed in their everyday environments. 'Phis is in sharp contract to other risk assessments, for which the. only epidemiological data are populations with histories of very high occupational exposure to an agent..." "ETS is the only agent ever classified by EPA as a known human carcinogen for which an increased cancer risk has actually been observed at typical environmental levels of exposure." (From Draft response to commenters Addendum 62g PR 2 April 6, 2000 Preface, pages v and ix, by Samuel Broder, M.D., Director, NCI) United States Respiratory 1992 In adults, ETS is a human carcinogen, Environmental health effects responsible for approximantely 3,000 luuig Protection of passive cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers." Agency (EPA) smoking: Note: .Judge Osteen did not rule on any of the Lung cancer following health. impacts. "Ili and other children"... "causally associated with an disorders increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections"..."increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear"..."additional episodes and increased severity of • symptoms in children with asthma"..."is a risk factor for new cases cif' asthma..." (page 3) "Passive smoking has Subtle but significant effects on the respiratory health of nonsmoking adults, including coughing, phlegm production, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function." (page 7) United States Indoor Air April The epidemiological and clinical studies, taken Occupational Quality; 5, in aggregate, indicate that exposure to Safety and Proposed . 1994 environmental tobacco smoke may produce Health Rule mucous membrane irritation, pulmonary, Administration cardiovascular, reproductive, and carctnogetltc OSHA) effects in nonsmokers. Exposure to ETS may aggravate existing pulmonary or cardiovascular disease in nonsmokers." (pa(ye 15982) ""fhe agency estimates that there will be between 2,094 and 13,000 deaths fi-om heart disease per year among noes iokin<g American workers exposed to CTS in the workplace." (page 1600 1) World Health Environment 1987 As part of the IARC series concerned with the Organization al measurement of exposure to carcinogens, this WHO) (esp. Carcinogens volume focuses on involuntary exposure to International Methods of tobacco smoke." "Involuntary exposure to Agency for Analysis and tobacco smoke..." "...presents some degree of Research in Exposure risk due to the presence of a number of noxious Cancet - Measuremeri and . carcinogenic substances in tobacco IARC) t, Volume 9 - sidestream smoke..." Passive Smoking World Health Press Release 9 PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG Organization WHO/29 Marc CANCER, DO NOT .LET THEM FOOL WHO) (esp. h YOU":.."The resutlts of this study, which have Internation!9--i 1 1998 been completely misrepresented in recent news Draft response to commenters Addendum 62g PR 2 April 6, 2000 Agency for reports, are very much in line with theresults of Research in similar studies..." Cancer - IARC) An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association on May 20, 1998 entitled, "Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions," concluded that "The conclusions of review articles are strongly associated with the affiliations of their authors. Authors of review articles should disclose potential financial conflicts of interest, and readers of review articles should consider authors' affiliations when deciding how to judge an articles conclusions." "A total of 106 reviews were identified. Overall, 37% (39/106) of reviews concluded that passive smoking is not harmful to health; 74% (29/39) of these were written by authors with tobacco industry affiliations." "...the only factor associated with concluding that passive. smoking is not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the tobacco indust..." Since 31 of the authors had tobacco industry affiliations, it appears that only two of them did not conclude that passive smoking is not harmful. t I 346 SPECIAL REPORT Tobacco C0111r01 1997;6:346-353 In September 1997, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-Ep4) released its final reportonHealtheffectsofexposuretoenvironmentaltobaccosmoke. The report, in draft form, wasreviewedinanewsarticlebyDonShoplandintheSummer1997issueofTobaccoControl (1997;6.•87). Issuance of the final report follows an extensive process of manuscript preparation, scientific peer review, Public comment, revision, and review by the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants (SRP). Described by Shopland as "the "lost comprehensive report to date on the topic", it contains more than500pages, eight chapters, two appendices, 60 tables, and 11 figures. The full report is available on theworldwidewebat <http://Www.calepa.cahwnet. govloehhaldocsl nalets.htm>. summary of the report, and the findings of the SRI, are reproduced below. Hard copiesaof and epoImaybeobtainedbycontactingMsBoyceSnrylieat +I SIO S40 2084 (tel), or +1 SIO 540 2695 (fax), or by writing to: Cal -EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 301 Capitol Mall, 2ndFloor, Sacramento, California 95814-4327, USA. The report confirms causal relationships between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure andlungcancer, and between ET, r.. S and several conditions in children (respiratory tract infections, middle eari1eczio .s, as:."inz 1 exacerbuiion), •tv"lirh have been reported previous!, by the US Surgeon Genera!, the GSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency; the National Research Council, and other authorities. The Cal -EPAreportconcludes, however, that more•recent evidence allows a conclusion that ETS is causally related tofetalgrowthretardation, sudden infant death syndrome, asthma induction in children, nasal sinut cancer, heart disease mortality, and acute and chronic coronary heart disease morbidity. A particularly valuablecontributionofthereportisitsguantiiTcationoftheestimatedannualmorbidityandmortalityinnon=smokers associated with ETS exposure (see table ES 2 below).—ED Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke California Environmental Protection Agency Preface Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), also called second hand tobacco smoke, can affect nonsmokers in proximity to people smokingtobacco. The -scientific and medical literature contains hundreds of investigations of the association between ETS exposure and a vari- ety of adverse health impacts, including carcinogenicity as well as cardiovascular, developmental, reproductive, and childhood respiratory effects. Although some studies have not shown an association, authoritative investi- gations and reviews over the past two decades have presented substantial scientific evidence linking ETS exposures to a number of adversehealthoutcomes. Interest in the health effects of second hand tobacco smoke on the part of members of the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) on Toxic Air Contaminants led to a request by the SRP for a health assessment of ETS, and a collaborative agreement between the Office of Environmen- tal Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Air Resources Board (ARB) in. February 11992toinitiatesuchanassessment. Although not formally entered into the State's Assembly rBill1807toxicaircontaminantidentification program, the ARB, SRP and OEHHA agreed that a thorough assessment of risk similar to • ethatdoneundertheAB1807processwaswar- ranted. This was done to erisure a comptehen- s sive review of the scientific data, frequent pub- rlicinputthroimhn,vi%n _ . . workshops, and an independent scientificreviewbytheSRP. This report mill be presented as an informa- tional item at a public meeting of the members Of the Air Resources' Board. The report alongwithallcommentswillbeforwardedtotheDepartmentofHealthServices (DHS) Tobacco Control Program for appropriate action under their mandate as the State's leadagencyforaddressinghealtheffectsrelatedtotobaccouse. OEHHA, with the assistance of scientistsfromtheDHS, had primary responsibility forthepreparationofthisassessment. ARB provided assistance with the ETS-related exposure data as well as with report reproduc- tion, workshop organization, and .mailouts. OEHHA and ARB sponsored a workshop inOctober1992toobtainpublicinputearlyintheevaluationofETShealtheffectsandexpo- sure in California. At the workshop, preliminary thoughts on the direction of theETSassessmentwerediscussedwith participants, which included individuals from ocal, state,- and federal government agencies, universities and other research organizations, epresentatives of the tobacco industry, andPinterestgroups. The development of the assessment involved xtensive literature review; document develop- ment, public workshops, public comment and cientific peer review followed by documentevision. Public release ni r ar;.•u. ... ._ . were prepared. The first two documents (Res- piratory Health Effects of ETS and The Role of ETS in Cancers Other Than Lung Cancer) were mailed in Mav 1994; the public comment period was May 2 to June 24, 1994, and a pub- lic workshop on these documents was held June 14; 1994. Subsequent documents were released with -public. comment periods (and public workshops) as follows: September 1994 release of Cardiovascular Health Effects of Exposure to ETS, public com- ment period September 2 to November 4, 1994 workshop: October 4, 1994) (extended deadline due to late mailing of tables); March 1995 release of Developmental and Reproduc- tive Effects of Exposure to ETS, public comment period March 3 to April 24, 1995 workshop: April 4, 1995); September 1995 release of ETS: Exposure Measurements and Prevalence, public comment period September 1 to October 16, 1995 (workshop: October 3, 1995); and January 1996 release of Carcino- genic Effects of Exposure to ETS, Excerpt: ETS and Lung Cancer, public comment period January 26 to April 1, 1996 (work -.shop: March 25, 1996). Following the public comment perind, each document was revised to respond to comments received and updated to include critical new studies; these revised documents were compiled to form the Final Draft for Scientific,. Public, and SRP Review, Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke; released in February 1997. The Final Draft had a public comment period of March 7 to May 5, 1997 (public forum: April 17, 1997). The Final Draft along with Appendices A and B. which summarize and respond to com- ments received during the formal comment periods, were reviewed by the SRP and discussed at its meeting on June 19, 1997. Sev- eral newly published studies were added to the final document at the request of the SRP (e.g., the full report of Kawachi er nk.'s analysis of cardiovascular disease risk in the Nurse's Health study, published afier the release of the Final Draft, in which it was reported as an abstract). The SRP's Findings as a result of its review of the Final Draft are included in Attachment I. As noted in the Findings transmittal letter from ' SRP Chairman Dr James N Pitts, "the Panel views ETS as a toxic air contaminant, and it has a major impact on public health." Table of contents Preface Authors and Acknowledgements Executive Summary Attachment I: Scientific Review Panel Findings 1 Introduction 1.0 Impact of ETS on the Health of California 1.1 Organization of the Report 1.2 Definition of ETS 1.3 Methodology, 1.4 Weight -of Evidence Evaluations Table References 2 Exposure Measurement and Prevalence 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Properties of ETS and Its Constituents 2.3 Exposure Measurement: ETS Concentra- tions in Indoor Environments 2.4 Exposure Measurement: Biological iMark- ers 2.5 Exposure Measurement: Use of Question- naires 2.6 Exposure Prevalence and Determinants 2.7 Chapter Summary and Conclusions Figures Tables References 3 Developmental Toxicity I: Perinatal i'lani- festations 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Fetal Growth 3.3 Spontaneous Abortion and Perinatal Mor- tality 3.4 Congenital -MalfortMations 3.5 Chapter Summary and Conclusions Figures Tables References 4 Developmental Toxicity II: Postnatal Manifestations 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Sudden Infant Death Syndrome 4.3 Cognition and Behavior in Children 4.4 Postnatal Physical Development 4.5 Respiratory Development and Function 4.6 Chapter Summary and Conclusions Tables References 5 Reproductive Effects 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Female Fertility and Fecundability 5.3 Other Female Reproductive Effects 5.4 Male ReproductiveToxicity 5.5 Chapter Summary and Conclusions Tables References 6 Respiratory Health Effects 6.0 Introduction 6.1 Acute Health Effects 6:2 Chronic Health Effects 6.3 Susceptible Populations 6.4 Chapter Summary and Conclusions References 7 Carcinogenic Effects 7.0 Introduction 7.1 All Cancers (combined) 7.2 ETS and Lung Cancer 7.3 ETS and Cancer Sites Other Than Lung that are Associated with Active Smoking: Nasal Sinus, Cervical and Bladder 7.4 ETS and Cancer Sites Where Evidence for the Role of Active Smoking is Equivocal: Breast, Stomach, Brain, Leukemia, Lymphomas Wand Non -Hodgkin's Lym- phomas, Other Rare Childhood Cancers 7.5 Chapter Summary and Conclusions Tables References 8 Cardiovascular Effects 8.0 Introduction 8.1 Description of Epidemiologic Studies 8.2 Discussion of Epidemiologic Studies 8.3 Other Supportive Evidence 348 I 8.4 Chapter Summary and ConclusionsTables References Appendix A: Summary of PublicCommentsandResponses Appendix B: Summary of PublicCommentsandResponsesonthe February 1997 Final Draft Executive summary Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ETS) has been linked to a variety of adversehealthoutcomes. Many Californians are exposed at home, at work and in public places. In the comprehensive reviews published as Reports of the Surgeon General and by the US EnvironlnCntai 1zotucrioll:iecnL"j (l -S and the National Research Council (NRC), ETS. exposure has been found to be causally associated with respiratory illnesses, includinglungcancer, childhood asthma and lower respiratory tract infections. Scientific knowl- edge about ETS-related eff h Special report Table ES. / Health effects a,rociared with exposure rocrrvironnrenraItobaccosmoke Effects causally associated with ETS exposureDevelopmentaleffects Fetal growth: low birthweight or small for gestational ageSuddeninfantdeathsyndrome (SIDS) Respiratory effects Acute lower respiratory tract infections in childrene.g., bronchitis and pneumonia) Asthma induction and exacerbation in childrenChronicrespiratorysymptomsinchildrenEyeandnasalirritationinadults Middle ear infections in children Carcinogenic etrects Lung cancer Nasal sinus cancer Cardiovascular effects Heart disease mortality Acute and chronic coronary heart disease morbidityEffectswithsuggestiveevidenceofacausalassociationwith ETSerpotun Developmental effects Spontaneous abortion Lets" imp:et Q.- :ate:: on end ht- io• Respiratory effects Exacerbation of cystic fibrosis Decreased pulrrionary function Carcinogenic effects Cervical cancer eas as expanded exposure is causally associated with a numberconsiderablysincethereleaseofthesereviews. of health effects. Listed in Table ES.1 are theTheStateofCalifornia .has therefore developmental, undertaken a broad review of ETS, covering respiratory, carcinogenic and cardiovascular effects for which there isthemajorhealthendpointspotentially - sufficient evidence of a causal relationship, associated with ETS exposure: perinatal and including fatal outcomes -such as sudden infantpostnatalmanifestationsofdevelopmentaltox- death syndrome and heart diseaseiciM mortality, asadverseimpactsonmaleandfemalewellasseriouschronicdiseasessuchas. reproduction, respiratory disease, cancer, and childhood asthma. There are in additioncardiovasculardisease. A "weight of evidence" effects for which evidence is suggestive of anapproachhasbeenusedtodescribethebodyofassociationbutfurtherresearchisneededforevidencetoconcludewhetherornotETSconfirmation. These include spontaneousexposureiscausallyassociatedwithaabortion, cervical cancer, particular effect. Because the epidemiological data are extensive, they serve as the primary and exacerbation ofasthmainadults (Table ES.1). Finally, it is not basis for assessment of ETS-related effects in possible to judge on the' basis of the current humans. The report also presents an overview evidence the impact of ETS on a number of on measurements of ETS exposure, particu- endpoints, including congenital malforma- larly as they relate to characterizations of expo- tions, changes in female fertility andfecundability, sure in epidemiological investigations, and on the prevalence of ETS exposure in California male reproductive effects, rare childhood cancers and cancers of the bladder, and nationally. breast, stomach, brain, hematopoietic system, anaETS, or "secondhand smoke" is the complex mixture fed an • from t and 1lymphatic system. the escaping smoke of a tobacco product, and smoke exhaled the number of people adversely afFected maynglylarge. Tblebythesmoker. The characteristics of ETS change as it ages and combines ES.2 resents, morbidity and mortality estimates for healthwithother constituents in the ambient air. Exposure to effects causally associated with ETS exposure. ForETSisalsofrequently•referred to as "passive cancer, cardiovascular and some smoking", or "involuntary tobacco smoke" exposure. respiratory endpoints, estimates are derivedfromfigurespublishedforUSAlthoughallexposuresofthefetus are "passive" ' and "involuntary", for the population, assuming that the number affected inthe purposes of this review in utero exposure resulting from California would be 12% of the total. The esti- mates for middle ear infection, maternal- smoking during prdgnancy is not considered to be ETS sudden infant death syndrome and low birthweight were exposure. derived using information on prevalence of GEI.'ERAL FINDrNGS ETS is an important source of exposure to toxic air contaminants indoors. There is also some exposure outdoors, ' in the vicinity of smokers. Despite an increasing number of restrictions on smoking • and increased awareness of health impacts, exposures in thehome, especially of infants and children, continue to he. a ntthl F-1.1..,.,____ ETS exposure in California and the US. Relative risk estimates associated with some of these endpoints arc small, but because the diseases are common the overall impact can be quite large. A relative risk estimate of 1.3 for heart disease mortality in nonsmokers is supported by the collective evidence; this corresponds to a Iifetime risk of death of roughly I to 3% for exposed nonsmokers and approximately 4,000 deaths annually in 1.4 associated with low birthweight implies that ETS may impact fetal growth of 1,200 to 2,200 newborns in California, roughly 1 to 2% r —of newborns of nonsmokers exposedat.home i or Wooc ETS mayexacerbate'asthma (RR = 1.6 to in 48,000 to 120,000 children in California. Large impacts are associated. with relative risks, for respiratory effects in children such as middle ear infection (RR = 1.62), and lower respiratory disease in young children RR = 1.5 to 2). Asthma induction (RR = 1.75 to 2.25) may occur in as many as 0.5 to 2% of ETS-exposed children. ETS exposure may be implicated in 120 SIDS deaths per year in California (RR = 3.5), with a risk of death to 0.1% of infants exposed to ETS in their homes. Lifetime risk of lung cancer death related to ETS-exposed nonsmokers may be l about 0.7% _ (RR - 1.2). For na'sal sinus ranee*e, ghS'tve'1 r-„tiVP. risks have raneed from 1.7 to 3.0, but future studies are needed to confirm the magnitude of ETS-related risks. SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Exposure measurement and prevalence ETS is a complex mixture of chemicals gener- ated during -the burning and smoking of tobacco products. Chemicals present in ETS include irritants and systemic toxicants such as hydrogen cyanide and sulfur dioxide, mutagens and carcinogens such as benzo(a)py- rene, formaldehyde and- 4-2minobiphenyl, and the reproductive toxicants nicotine, cadmium and carbon monoxide. Many ETS constituents have been identified as hazardous by state, fed- eral and international agencies. To date, over 50 compounds in tobacco smoke have been identified as carcinogens and six as developmental or reproductive toxicants under. California's Proposition 65 (California Health and Safety Code 25249.5 et seq.). Exposure assessment is critical in epidemio- logical investigations of the health impacts of ETS, and in evaluating the effectiveness of strategies to reduce exposure. Exposure can be assessed through the measurement of indoor air concentrations of ETS constituents, through surveys and questionnaires, or more directly through the use of personal monitors and the measurement of biomarkers in saliva, urine and blood. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with the various tech- niques, which must be weighed in interpreting study results. One important consideration in epidemiologic studies is misclassification of exposure. Studies on the reliability of questionnaire responses indicate qualitative information obtained is generally reliable, but that quantitative information may not be. Also, individuals are often unaware of their ETS exposure, particularly outside the hotr.e. In studies using both self -reporting and biological markers, the exposure prevalence was higher when determined using biological markers. Available data suggest that the prevalence of ETS exposure in California is lower than else- where in the US. Among adults in California, the workplace, home and other indoor locations all contribute significantly to ETS exposure. For children the most important sin- gle location is the home. Over the past decade ETS exposures in California have decreased significantly in the home; workplace and in public places. Over the same . period, restrictions on smoking in enclosed worksites , and public places have increased (e.g., Gov. Code, Section 19994.30 and California Labor Code, Section 6404.5) and the percentage of the adults who smoke has declined. Decreases in tobacco smoke exposure may not be experi- enced for. some population subgroups, as patterns of smoking shift with age, race, sex Table ES 2 Estimated annual morbidiry and mortali{y in nonsmokers associated with ETS exposure Condition in the U.S. Number ofpeople or ease! in California DeveJop,nensal effecu Low birthweight 9700-18 600 cases' 1200-2200 cases' Sudden lnfant Death Svndrome 1900-2700 deaths 120 deaths SIDS) P.espinuory dfcu in children Middle car iofeetion 0.7 to 1.6 million 78 600 to 188 700 Physician office visiu physician office visits Asthma induction 8000 to 26 000 new cases 960 to 3120 new uses Asthma exacerbation 400 000 to 1 000 000 children 48 009 to 120 000 children Bronchitis or pricumonis in infants 150 000 to 300 000 cases 18 000 to 36 000 cases' and toddlers (18 months and 7500 to 15 000 900 to 1800 under) hospitah=tions' hospitalizations' 136-212 deaths' 16-25 deaths' Caesar Lung 3D00 deaths' 360 deaths' Nasal sinus NIA' N/A' Cardiovascular effects Ischemic heart disease 35 000-42 000 deaths' 4200-7440 deaths' The numbers in the table are based on maximum likelihood estimates of the relative risk. As discussed in the body of the report, there.are uncertainties in these estimates, so actual impacts could be somewhat higher or lower than indicated in the table. The endpoints listed are those for which there is a causal association with ETS exposure based on observations of effects in exposed human populations. California estimates for low birthweight, SIDS, and middle car infection (otitis media) are provided in Chapters 3, 4, and 6, respectively. US estimates are obtained by dividing by 12%. the fraction of the L'S population residing in California. Estimates of mortality in she US for lune cancer and respiratory effects, with the exception of middle ear infection (otitis media), come from US EPA (1992). US range for heart disease mortality reflects estimates reported in Wells (1988 and 1994). Glantz and Parmley 0 991), Steertland (1992). California predictions are made bymmultiplying the US estimate by 12%, the fraction of the US population residing in the State. Because of decreases in smoking presalenee in California in recent years, the number of cases for some endpoints may be somewhat overestimated, depending on the relative impacts of current versus past ETS exposures on l 1I and socioeconomic status. For example, from 1975 to 1988, the overall smoking prevalence among 16 to 18 year olds declined, but after1988thetrendreversed. Perinatal manifestations of developmental toxicity wETSexposureadverselyaffectsfetalgroth, with elevated risks of low birth weight or "small for gestational age" observed in numerous epi- demiological studies. The primary effect observed, reduction in mean birthweight, is small in magnitude. But if the distribution ofbirthweightisshiftedlowerwithETS exposure, as it appears to be with active smok- ing, infants who are already compromised maybepushedintoevenhigherriskcategories. Low birthweight is associated with many well- recognized, problems for infants, and is strongly associa:cd WIL'i perinatal rnortaliry. The impact of ETS on perinatal manifestations of development other than fetal growth is less clear. The few studies examining the association between ETS and perinatal death are relatively non-informativr_, with only two early studies showing increased risk associ- ated with parental smoking, and with the sparse data on stillbirth not indicative of an effect StuA.*-- Special report childhood asthma exacerbation, and, inchildren, acute low respiratory tract illness, middle ear infection and chronic respiratorsymptoms. Female and male reproductive toxicityThoughactivesmokingbywomen has beenfoundtobeassociatedwithdecreasedfertilityinanumberofstudies, and tobacco smoke appears to be anti -estrogenic, the epidemio- logical data on ETS exposure and fertility arenotextensiveandshowmixedresults, and it is not possible to determine whether ETS affectsfecundabilityorfertility. Regarding otherfemalereproductiveeffects, while studies indi- cate a possible association of ETS exposure with early menopause, the analytic methods ofthesestudiescouldnotbe ' thoroughly evaluated, and iih—r-i r: ct PIC firm evidence that ETS exposure ,aff cts age at menopause. Although associations have been seen epidemiologically between active smokingandspermparameters., conclusions can not be made regarding ETS exposure and male reproduction, as there is very limited informa- tion available on this topic. on spontaneous abortion are suggestive of a role for ETS, but further work is Respiratory effects ETS needed, particularly as a recent report did not exposure produces a variety of acuteeffectsinvolvingtheconfirmthefindingsof .four earlier studies. Although epidemiological studies suggest upper and lower respiratory tract. In children, ETS exposurea moderate association of severe congenital mal- can exacerbate asthma, and increases the riskoflowerrespiratorytractillness, formations with paternal smoking, the findings and acute and chronic middle ear infection. are complicated by the use ofpaternal smoking Eye and nasalirritationarethe ' status as a surrogate for ETS exposure, since a direct effect of active smoking on sperm most commonly reported symptoms among adult nonsmokers exposedcannot be ruled out. In general, the defects implicated to ETS. Odor annoyance has beendemonstratedindifferedacrossthestudies, with the most con- several studies. Regarding chronic healthsistentassociationseenforneuraltubedefects. At this time, it is effects, there is compelling evidence that ETS is a risk factornotpossibletodetermine whether there is a causal for induction of new cases of asthma as well asassociationbetween ETS exposure and this or other birth defects. for increasing the severity of disease amongchildrenwith1: Postnatal manifestations of developmental toxiciryNumerousstudieshavedemonstratedanincreasedriskofsuddeninfantdeath syndrome, or "SIDS," in infants of mothers who smoke. Until recently it has not been pos- sible to separate the effects of postnatal ETS exposure from those of prenatal exposure to maternal active smoking. Recent epjdcmidggi--,,. cal studies now have demonstrated that pMr.1grALUS exposure is an independent riskfactorforSIDS'' Although definitive conclusions regarding causality cannot yet be made"on the basis of available epidemiological studies of cognition and behavior, there is suggestive evidence that ETS exposure may pose a hazard for neuropsychological development. With respect to physical development, while small but consistent effects of active maternal smokingduringpregnancyhavebeenobservedonheightgrowth, there is no evidence that postnatal ETS exposure has a significant impact in otherwise healthy children. As discussed in greater detail below, developmen- tal effects of ETS exposure on the respirator} system include lung growth and det+elnnm&nr estab tshed asthma. In addition, chronic respiratory symptoms in children, such as cough, phlegm, and wheezing, are associated with parental smoking. 1•X'hile the results from all studies are not wholly consistent, there is evidence that child- hood exposure to ETS affects lung growth and development, as measured by small, but statis- tically significant decrements in pulmonaryfunctiontests; associated reductions maypersistintoadulthood. The effect of chronic ETS exposure on pulmonary function in otherwise healthy adults is Iikely to be small, and unlikely by itself to result in clinically sig- nificant chronic disease. However, in combina- tion with other insults (e.g., prior smoking his- tory, exposure to occupational irritants or ambient air pollutants), ETS exposure could contribute to chronic respiratory impairment in adults. In addition, regular ETS exposure in adults has been reported to increase the risk of occurrence of a variety of lower respirator• symptoms. Children are especially sensitive to.the respi- ratory effects of ETS exposure. Children with cystic fibrosis are Iikely to be more sensitive than healthy individuals. Several studies of characterized by recurrent and chronic pulm nary infections, suggest that ETS ca exacerbate -the condition. Several studies ha shown an increased risk of atopy (a predispos tion to develop IgE antibodies against commo allergens, which can then be manifested as variety of allergic conditions) in children smoking mothers, though the evidence regard ing this issue is mixed. Carcinogenic effect The role of ETS in the etiology of cancers nonsmokers was explored, as smoking is established cause of a number of cancers (lung larnyx, oral cavity, esophagus and bladder) and a probable cause of several other cervical, ladney, pancreas, and stomach) Also, ETS contains a number of constituents which have been identified as carcinogens. P -:.:_:vs p::5lis'1zd i.. the 1935 Repo.L of the Surgeon General, by the National Research Council in 1986, and by the US EPA in 1992 concluded that ETS exposure causes lung can- cer. Three large US population -based studies and a smaller hospital-based case control study have been published since the completion of the US EPA review. The -population-based studies were designed to and have successfully addressed many of the wealmesses for which the previous studies on ETS and lung cancer have been criticized. Results from these studies are compatible with the causal association between ETS exposure and lung cancer already. reported by the US EPA, Surgeon General, and National Research Council. Of the studies examining 'the eff ct of ETS exposure on nasal sinus cancers, all three show consistent associations, presenting strong evidence that ETS exposure increases the risk of nasal sinus cancers in nonsmoking adults. Further study is needed to characterize the magnitude of the risk of nasal sinus cancer from ETS exposure. hc„ _ epidemiological and biochemical . evidence s increase ific ne" sIc Oan Zdi. Positive' as`s"ociations were observed` M` • two of three case -control studies and a statistically nonsignificant positive association was ob= served in the only cohort study conducted. Findings of DNA adducts in the cervical epithelium as well as nicotine and cotinine in the cervical mucus of ETS-exposed nonsmok- ers provides biological plausibility. For other cancer sites in adults, there has been limited ETS-related epidemiological research in general: there* is currently insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion regarding the relationship between ETS expo- sure and the risk of occurrence. A review of the available literature clearly indicates the need for more research. For example, although com- pounds established as important in the etiology s of stomach cancer are present in tobacco smoke, only a single cohort study has been e performed for this site. Precursors of a endogenously formed N -nitroso compounds e suspected of causing brain tumors are present s o- suggest a positive.. association, but the results n are based on small numbers and may be ve confounded by active smoking. In biochemical i- studies of nonsmokers, higher levels of n hemoglobin adducts of the established bladder a carcinogen, 4-aminobiphenyl, have been found of in those exposed to ETS. However, no signifi- cant increases in bladder cancer were seen in die two epidemiological studies (case -control) conducted to date, although both studies were limited in their ability to detect an effect. Sev- eral compounds in tobacco smoke are an associated with increased risk of leukemia, but only one small case -control study in adults, reporting an increased risk with ETS exposure s during childhood, has been performed. Finally, all four studies on ETS exposure and breast cancer suggest an association, but in two of the studies the associations were present only in select groups, and in three sruuiL-; d;z;- i, either no association between active smoking and the risk of breast cancer or the association for active smoking is weaker than for passive smoking. Moreover, there is no indication of increasing tisk with increasing intensity of ETS exposure. Still, results from a recent study su;- gest that tobacco smoke may influence the risk of breast cancer in certain susceptible groups of women, and this requires further investigation. Regarding childhood cancers, it is unclear whether parental smoldng increases risk overall, or for specific cancers such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia and brain tumorsi the two most. common cancers in children. The lack of clarity is due to the conflicting results reported and the limitations of studies finding no association. The epidemiological data on ETS exposure and rare childhood cancers also provide an inadequate foundation for making conclusions regarding causality. Some studies found small increased risks in children in rela- non to parental smoking for neuroblastoma, Wilm's tumor, bone and soh -tissue sarcomas, but not for germ cell tumors. Studies to date on these rare cancers have been limited in their power to detect effects. The impact of ETS exposure on childhood cancer would benefit from far greater attention than it has received to date. Cardiavascular effects The epidemiological data, from prospective and case -control studies conducted in diverse populations, in males and females and in west- ern and eastern countries, are supportive of a causal association between ETS exposure from spousal smoking and coronary heart disease CIdD) mortality in nonsmokers. To the extent possible, estimates of risk were determined with adjustment for demographic factors, and often for other factors related to heart disease, uch as blood pressure, serum cholesterol level and obesity index. Risks associated with ETS xposure were almost always strengthened by djustment for other cofactors. For nonsmok- rs exposed to spousal ETS compared to non- mokers not exposed, the risk of CHD mortal- opeciar reparr for mortaliry than for non-fatal outcomes, contaminants. Thus, despite aq increasingincludingangina. number of restrictions onDatafromclinicalstudiessuggestvariousincreasedawarenessof smoking and heamechanismsbywhichETScausesheartexposurescontinuetobea majorlth publ c healthdisease. In a number of studies in which concern. nonsmokers were exposed to ETS, carotid wall 2. A causal association exists between ETSthickeningandcompromiseofendothelialexposurefromspousalsmofunctionweresirtmilarto, but less extensive than king and coronaryheartdisease (CHD) mortality in nonsmokers. those experienced by active smokers. Other Risks associated with ETS exposure wereeffectsobservedincludeimpairedexerciseper- almost always strengthened by adjustment forformance, altered lipoprotein profiles, en- other cofactors. For nonsmokers exposed tohancedplateletaggregation, and increased spousal ETS compared to nonsmokers notendothelialcellcounts. These findings may exposed, the risk of CHD mortality isaccountforboththeshort- and long-term increased by a factor of 1.3. The associationeffectsofETSexposureontheheart. between CHD d ' Attachment I: Review of the OEHHA ssesszac= t of en::: munent 1 tobacco smoke by the Scientific Review Panel SRP) Interest in the health effects of second h tobacco smoke on the pan of members of Scientific Review Panel (SRP) on Toxic Contaminants led to a request by the SRP a health assessment of environmental toba smoke, and a collaborative agreement betty the Office of Environmental Health H Assessment (OEHHA) and the Air Resoui Board (ARB) to initiate such an assessme SRP members reviewed the drafts as they w developed •and participated in each of workshops held as the document underwe public review (see Preface for details). Final Draft reflected the input of S members, as well as that of other reviewers: Specific changes made at the request of SRP following its review of the Final D rz include the addition of new studies (e.g., th results of Kawaehi et al.'s analysis of cardiova cular disease risk in the Nurse's Health stud published after the release of the Final Draft, which it was reported as an abstract), a discus sion of issues related to misclassification o smoking status and cancer risk, and clarifvin language in the presentation of attributable risk estimates; minor editorial changes were also requested and made. The SRP discussed the assessment and made findings on the health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as a result of its review; these findings are included in this Attachment. Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as adopted at the Panel's June 19, 1997 meeting The Scientific Review Panel (SRP/Pariel) has reviewed the report "Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke" PreP'red bY the Office of Environmental Hazard Assessment (0EHHA). ThePant] members also reviewed the public aomrnems received on this report. Based on zb's review, the SRP makes the followingfindings. I- Envizonmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is an iutporraar source of eaposurc to toxic air an risk is stronger for mortal- ity than for non-fatal outcomes, includingangina. Heart disease is the primary fatal end- point from ETS exposure. 3. ETS is a complex mixture of chemicals generated during the burning and smoking of tobacco products. Chemicals present in ETS and include irritants and systemic toxicants, muta- the gens and carcinogens, and reproductive and Air developmental toxicants. To date,---over--50 for compounds in tobacco smoke have been iden- e as carcinogens and'sixasd v'lopmcntal• eco or—reroducav`e toricat;ts :;tinder.-.Califo ia'seenP-•• az.^.rd Proposition 65 (California Health and Safety ces Code 2524.9:5: et seg.)`.and twelve have been _ nt. identified as a toxic air contaiiu.%iaFunder IiB we the 4. The 1986 Report of the Surgeon General, nt the 1986 National Research Council report rne Environmental 'Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Expo - RP sures and Assessing Health Effeca, and the 1992 US EPA report Respiratory Health Effect of the Positive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disor- ders have established that ETS exposure causes e lung cancer. Results from recent epidemiologi- cal studies are compatible with the causal asso- ciation already established. 5. Available data suggestn of ETS exposure in . California at tiselower lthan f elsewhere in the US. Nevertheless, among g adults in California, the workplaee,'home and other indoor locations all contribute signifi- cantly to ETS exposure. For children the most important single location is the home. 6. ETS—exposureadversely affectsy-•fetal_ r...•. growth, withelcvatet sks ofIow.b`t> rii^Weigh_i or, stnaH fo rf gestational -.age"..,_observed in_.. Harr;cr..ous•cpidetniologil tudirs The primary, effect observed, reducrion in meanbirth weight, is small in magnitude. If the distribution of birth weight is shifted lower with ETS exposure, as it appears to be with active smoking, infants who are already compromised may be pushed into even higher risk categories. Low birth weight is associated with many well-recognized problems for infants and is strongly associated with perinatal mortality. 7-- umcrous-studies-•have-demonstrated an increased-risk-ofsttdderl infant death syndrome, or.'`'SIIDS," .in-.infants--of--mothers K16 smoke.— Until recently it has not been possible to separate the effects of postnatal ETS exposure from those of prenatal exposure to maternal active smoking. Recent epidemiological studies now have demonstrated that postnatal ETS exposure is an indrnf-nri..,.......-- 8. ETS exposure produces a variety of acute • 14. Studies on ETS exposure and breasteffectsinvolvingtheupperandlowercancersuggestanassociation, but therespiratorytract. In children, ETS exposure associations were present only in select groups, can exacerbate asthma, and increases the risk or there is either no association between activeoflowerrespiratorytractillness, and acute and smoking and the risk of breast cancer or thechronicmiddleearinfection. Eye and nasal association for active smoking is weaker thanirritationarethemostcommonlyreportedforpassivesmoking. However, there is no indisymptomsamongadultnonsmokersexposedcationofincreasingriskwithincreasinginten- to ETS. Odor annoyance - has been sity of ETS exposure. Still, ' results from ademonstratedinseveralstudies. recent study suggest that tobacco smoke may l 9. Regarding chronic health effects, there is influence the risk of breast cancer in certain compelling evidence that ETS is a risk factor susceptible groups of women, and this requires further investigation. fo>»nduction of:i cases ofasthmaa well as rfnrincreading, they severity of discasc among , n summary, ETS exposure is causally . children with established `asthma. Iti addition, associated witl} a number of fatal and non-fatalciiroiucresiratos '' ° w' r health effects., Heart disease mortality, suddenPryymptomsmchildren, such p as cough, phlegm, and wheezing, are associated enfant death syndrome, and lung and nasal with parental smoking. While the results from sinus cancer have been causally linked to ETS all studies are not wholly consistent, there is exposure 'Serious impacts of ETS on the young evidence that childhood exposure to ETS include childhood asthma induction and affects lung growth and development, as meas-k ^:3te v_`viy bron&itis mit paeui.;iaii:a, cared by small, but statistically significanil" mLiddle car infection, chronic respiratory symp- decrements in pulmonary function tests; asso- toms, and low birch weight. In adults acute and ciated reductions may persist into adulthood. chronic heart disease morbidity is causally10. as with ETS exposure. ETS also causesTheeffectofchronicETSexposureon eye and nasal irritation and odor annoy'_ pulmonary function in othenvise healthy ' adults is likely to be small. However, in combi- 16. Effects for which evidence is suggestive nation with other insults (e.g., prior smoking of an association, but further research is history, exposure to occupational irritants or needed for confirmation, include: spontaneous ambient air pollutants), ETS exposure could abortion, adverse neuropsychological develop- contribute to chromic respiratory impairment meet, cervical cancer, exacerbation of cystic in adults. In addition, regular ETS exposure 'fibrosis, and decreased pulmonary function. in adults has been reported to increase the risk of 17. It is not possible to judge on the basis of occurrence of a variety of lower respiratory the curretit evidence the impact of ETS on a symptoms (e.g. bronchitis and wheezing apart number of endpoints, including congenital from colds). malformations, changes in female frtility and 11. Children are especially sensitive to the fecundability, male reproductive effedts, rare respiratory effects of ETS exposure. Children childhood cancers and cancers of the bladder, breast, stomach, brain, hematopoietic system, with cystic fibrosis are likely to be more sensi- and lymphatic system. tive than healthy individuals. Several studies of 18. Many Californians are exposed to ETS, patients with cystic fibrosis, a disease and the number of people adversely affected ischaracterizedbyrecurrentandchronicpulmo- nary infections, suggest that ETS can correspondingly large. Each year ETS contrib- utes to asthma exacerbation in 48,000 toexacerbatethecondition. Several studies have 120;000 children, 960 to 3120 nasthmainchildren, 78,600 to cew case188; 700s ofshownanincreasedriskofatopy (a predisposi- tion to develop IgE antibodies against common physicians office visits due to middle ear infec- allergens, which can then be manifested as a tions in children, 18,000 to 36,000 cases andvarietyofallergicconditions) in children of 900 to 1800 hospitalizations from bronchitis orsmokingmothers, though the evidence regard- pneumonia in toddlers and infants, and 1,200ingthisissueismixed. to 2,200 • cases of low birth weight. Annual12. Of the studies examining the effect of mortality estimates associated with ETS expo- ETS exposure on nasal sinus cancers, all three sure in California are: approximately 120showconsistentassociations, presenting strong deaths from SIDS, 16-25 deaths in toddlersevidencethatETSexposureincreasestheriskandinfantsfrombronchitisandpneumonia, of nasal sinus cancers in nonsmoking adults. approximately deaths from lung cancer, andFurtherstudyisneededtocharacterizethe4,200-7,440 deaths from ischemic heartmagnitudeoftheriskofnasalsinuscancerdisease. Thus, ETS has a major public healthfromETSexposure. impact 13. The--epidemiological and biochemical evidence suggest the osurc o--gl=S..may. increase the nskof cervi _ i6ifi- . cancer. ]?6sitive After careful review of the February 1997assiiaauonswereoservedintwo of three draft of the OEHHA report, Healrh E}fecu ofcase-control studies and a statistically Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, wenonsignificantpositiveassociationwasob- find the draft, with the changes specified byservedintheonlycohortstudypondueted. OEHHA in our June 19; 1997 meeting, as rep- Findings of DNA adducts in the cervical resenting a complete and balanced assessmentepitheliumaswellasnicotineandcotinineinofcurrentscientificunderstanding. Based onthecervicalmucusofETS-exposed nonsmok- the available evidence we conclude ETS is aenprovidesbiologicalplausibility. toxic air contaminant. Richard Hurt, M.D. Mayo Clinic Colonial Building Rochester, AIN 55905 Doctor Richard Hurt is the Director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic and Professor of Medicine at the Mayo Medical School in Rochester, Minnesota. Doctor Hurt and colleagues at Mayo have developed a treatment program for nicotine dependence based on behavioral treatment, addictions treatment, pharmacological treatment, and relapse prevention. Since its inception in April of 1988, the Nicotine Dependence Center has treated over 16,000 patients with services including individual counseling, group programs, telephone counseling and an intensive residential treatment program. The Center also provides educational services for medical students, residents, trainees, and fellows and has developed a training program for health care providers who want to provide clinical services to patients with nicotine dependence. The research activities of the Center have included randomized clinical trials with pharmacological agents in addition to outcomes research, epidemiological studies, and basic science research. The goal of the Center is to enhance the quality of life for patients with nicotine dependence by providing the best treatment possible through a program that fully integrates practice, education and research. Dr. Hurt has written and spoken widely on addiction and addiction treatment, and serves as a scientific reviewer for numerous journals and research study sections. Dr. Hurt earned his BA at Murray State University, and his MD at the University of Louisville. Secondhand Smoke — The Scientific Basis for the Harm Bloomington, MN November 30, 2000 Richard D. Hurt, M.D. Secondhand Smoke Secondhand Smoke 1964 — U.S. Surgeon General Report — Smoking and Health 1975 — MN Clean Indoor Air Act 1986 — U.S. Surgeon General Report — The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking 1986 — National_ Academy of Science — Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health Effects 1992 — U.S. EPA — Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders 1999 — California EPA — Health Effects of exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke Group A Carcinogens Arsenic Asbestos Benzene Environmental tobacco smoke Radon Vinyl Chloride Tobacco Smoke Constituents Arsenic Lead Benzene Nitrosamines Benzo[a]pyrene Phenol Cadmium Polonium 210 Chromium VI Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Cresol Vinyl chloride Formaldehyde ETS and Lung Cancer 91,540 nonsmoking Japanese (age _40) wives followed for 14, years Husband's smoking behavior Standardized mortality rates for lung cancer Dose -response _ risk (RR 2.08) of lung cancer in wives of heavy smokers (-20 cpd) Highest RR (4.6) in younger couples in agricultural families Hirayama T. BAfJ 282:183-185, 1981 Richard D. Hurt, M.D. Page 2 Interesting Developments in the Hirayama Matter — Ernest Peeples to J. K. Wells, July 24, 1981 Memo Summarizing Phone Conversation Between Peeples and Attorney Tim Finnegan Dr. Adlkofer who is the scientific director of the German Verbandt has committed himself to the position that Lee and Hirayama are correct and Mantel and TI are wrong." They believe Hirayama is a good scientist and that his nonsmoking wives publication was correct..." He (Adlkofer) replied with a strong statement that Hirayama was correct, that the TI knew it and that TI published its statement about IIirayama knowing that his work was correct..." Barnes DE. JAM,4 274.24,8-253,1995 Estimated Annual Morbidity and Mortality in Nonsmokers Associated with ETS Exposure U.S. Minnesota Children Low birthweight Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) Middle ear infections office visits) Asthma induction Asthma exacerbation Bronchitis or pneumonia infants _18 months old) Adults Lung cancer Coronary disease 9,700-18,600 cases 1,900-2,700 cases 0.7-1.6 million 8,000-26,000 new cases 400,000-1 million children 150,000-300,000 cases 7,500-15,000 hospitalizations 136-212 deaths 3,000 deaths 35,000-62,000 deaths 190-370 cases 30-50 deaths 14,000-32,000 160-520 new cases 8,000-20,000 children 3,000-6,000 cases 150-300 hospitalizations s-4 deaths 60 deaths 700-1,240 deaths ETS and Exacerbations of Asthina in Children 199 children with asthma Parental report of ETS exposure Median urine cotinine 5.6, 13.1 and 55.8 with no ETS exposure, another or other persons, mother and other persons acute asthma exacerbations with _ exposure (RR 1.8 parent report & 1.7 by cotinine) FEV, with — exposure Chilmonczyk BJ. NEJAT 328:1665, 1993 Richard D. Hurt, M.D. Page 3 Secondhand Smoke— Acute Effects 5 minutes of ETS exposure _ deterioration in aortic elastic properties Passive and active smokers _ dose dependent impairment in aortic elastic properties Arterial endothelial dysfunction with impaired arterial dilatation ETS exposure breaks down antioxidant defense _ _ LDL cholesterol Improvement in bartenders' respiratory symptoms and lung function studies after smoke-free bar ordinance in California Chilmonczyk B,1. NEJM 328.1665, 1993 Passive Smoking and Aortic Function 16 male nonsmokers and 32 smokers (active or sham smoking) undergoing cardiac catheterization for chest pain Aortic catheter to measure pressure and diameter Passive smoke exposure x 5 minutes vs. 1 cigarette vs. sham smoking aortic distensibility of 21%, 27% and 0% Stefanadis C. 4nn Intern Med 128.4.26, 1998 Passive Smoking and Impaired Endothelial Function 78 healthy subjects (26 active smokers, 26 nonsmokers + ETS, 26 nonsmokers — ETS) Brachial artery ultrasound — baseline, reactive hyperemia & after NTG Flow -mediated dilatation impaired in smokers and nonsmokers + ETS impairment in flow -mediated dilatation with _ intensity of ETS exposure Celermajer DS. NEJM 334:•150, 1996 Arterial Endothelial Dysfunction Related to Passive Smoking 60 healthy nonsmokers (20 each, no ETS exposure, current ETS exposure _1 h/d _3 years, or former ETS exposure) Brachial artery ultrasound Endothelial -dependent dilatation in no exposure > former exposure > current Arterial endothelial dysfunction related to passive smoking seems to be partially reversible Raitakari OT. flnn InternA7ed 130.578, 1999 Tobacco Smoke and Oxidants Tobacco smoke contains numerous oxidants and pro-oxidants capable of producing free radicals Free radicals entering the body are first trapped by serum aqueous and lipophilic antioxidants Failure of antioxidant barrier allows for peroxidation of LDL LDL oxidation followed by LDL accumulation in macrophages is a key event in atherosclerosis Richard D. Hurt, M.D. Page 4 Passive Smoking and LDL Acute effects of passive smoking on antioxidant defense, lipid peroxidation, and LDL accumulation in macrophages 10 healthy nonsmokers — 30 minutes in smoke-free area vs. 30 minutes in room for smokers Acute _ serum ascorbic acid and serum antioxidant defense capacity of LDL to resist oxidation and _ in serum levels of lipid peroxidation end products uptake of LDL by cultured macrophages Vallconen M. Circ 97.2012, 1998 Smoke -Free Bars and Bartenders' Respiratory Health 53 bartenders before and after smoke-free bar law in California, Jan. 1998 Dec. 1997 — interviews assessed Feb. 1998 — respiratory symptoms + PFT's repeated ETS exposure at work, _ respiratory symptoms, _ FVC & FEV, Eisner 117D. JX1VL4 280.1909, 1998 Smoke -Free Bars and Bartenders' Respiratory Health Baseline Follow-up Finding (Dec 1997) (Feb 1998) u ETS exposure at work 28 hours/week 2 hours/week <0.001 Respiratory symptoms 39(74.%) 16(50%) <0.001 Sensory irritant symptoms 4.1(77%) 9(17%) <0.001 Eisner MD. JWMW 280.1909, 1998 ETS and Tobacco Industry Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) March 1988 — Founded by PM, RJR & Lorillard sponsoring high quality research on indoor air issues and to facilitate the communication of research findings to the broad scientific community." 1989-99 — Funded at least 244 published studies Annual dues 1995: PM - $5.3 million, RJR - $1 million Acted as a buffer between industry and scientists Funded U.S. Exposure Study (Oak Ridge) and U.S. Confounders Study (Johns Hopkins) Richard D. Hurt, M.D. Page 5 Tobacco Industry and ETS probably the single most important challenge we currently face." This will have a very direct and major impact on consumption — an impact which will be as bad as, or worse than, excise tax increases." William Murray Vice Chairman of the Board Philip Morris April 1989 Tobacco Industry and ETS We know that choice and accommodation with regard to smoking are two powerful and positive positions. And, our spokesmen cannot utter these two words enough." Directors Presentation to Philip Morris Board of June 24, 1992 Tobacco Industry.and ETS We have been referring to our initial report as 'sand in the gears.' Our objective is to slow down the ETS risk assessment until we could get better policy decisions out of the administration. To be honest, we made every effort to prevent the risk assessment." Directors Presentation to Philip Morris Board of Tune 24,.1992 Tobacco Industry and ETS one of PM USA's most important priorities for 1994 and 1995 — accommodation/pre- emption. Our goal, simply stated, is to see some form of accommodation/pre-emption legislation passed in all 50 states." Tina Walls Presentation at Philip Morris July 8, 1994 Tobacco Industry and Economic Effects of Smoke -Free Ordinances Also, the economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off smoking ban activity were no longer working, if indeed they ever did. These arguments simply had no credibility with the public, which isn't surprising when you consider that our dire predictions in the past rarely came true." David Laufer Presentation at Philip Morris July 8, 1994 Richard D. Hurt, M.D. Page 6 Philip Morris and ETS Consultant Prograin — A. Whist to G. C. Bible, July 11, 1989 Summary report of international ETS consultant program initiated by PMI 1987 Developed in conjunction with Covington & Burling Recruited 70 "scientists," 49 with university affiliation Disciplines: epidemiology, biostatistics, pulmonary medicine, pharmacology _ building systems Average compensation $15,000-$20,000/year 42 published papers, 33 in preparation, 3 books Total cost over 2 years - $2.5 million Total legal costs over 2 years - $1 million PM 2023034623-4632 ETS Consultant Prograin The above does not provide a complete inventory of our various activities — we have attempted to create an atmosphere of not resting on past laurels, but continuing to keep up the pace, going just as hard as our limited manpower and financial resources will allow us." A. Whist to G. C. Bible July 11, 1989 PM 2023034623-4632 International ETS Consulting Program — Covington & Burling Oversight of ETS consulting program by Covington & Burling (70' in income in U.S.) of Washington, DC, from the outset Covington & Burling opened London office to coordinate the European ETS program Played important role in managing the consultants ETS Consultants — Activities Creating in Indoor Air Quality Journal Submitting manuscripts to scientific journals Media briefings TV appearances Videos Op-ed articles for magazines and textbooks IAQ/ETS conferences Lawyers and ETS Consultancy I asked John (Rupp of Covington & Burling) why the UK industry should rely on a U.S. law firm to develop scientific consultants who would be active in Europe. John said it is important to have a law firm play the role of organizing because the firm can, in the process of organization and horse -shedding individual scientists, avoid product liability problems. The law firm also can serve as a buffer distance and some opportunities for work product protection." Kendrick Wells, Attorney, B&W October 10, 1998 BAT 401033325-3328 ETS Consultants Richard D. Hurt, M.D. Page 7 Lancet — One of our consultants is an editor of this very influential British Medical Journal and is continuing to publish numerous reviews, editorials, and comments on ETS and other issues." Covington & Burling, London March 6, 1990 PM 2501473124-3137 POLICY BRIEF t- • Ventilation The state of Minnesota has a long history of regulating public smoking dating all the way back to its 1975 Clean Indoor Air Act. Since then, extensive research has linked secondhand smoke to cancer and heart disease and has shown that ventilation and separation techniques are inadequate in protecting nonsmokers. Smoke-free policies remain the only measure to truly ensure that employees, patrons, and children are adequately protected from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Smoking Sections Don't Protect Nonsmokers. Designated smoking sections within restaurants and workplaces have often been used as a method to address health concerns related to secondhand smoke. In restaurants, these smoking areas are often part of the same room as nonsmoking areas. When there is no physical separation of smokers and nonsmokers, secondhand smoke rapidly diffuses throughout the room resulting in substantial exposure among nonsmokers.' In 1986, the U.S. Surgeon General's report on secondhand smoke concluded that separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same airspace may reduce, but cannot eliminate the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke." Ventilation Simply Recirculates Smokey Air. In recent years, attempts have been made to establish smoking areas in physically separated rooms on the same ventilation system. Unfortunately, recirculation of air through a building's ventilation systems results in secondhand smoke from a smoking area appearing in nonsmoking areas as well Ventilation that recirculates rather than exhausts to the outdoors offers no protection against secondhand smoke. This approach assumes that the air volume of the building will dilute the secondhand smoke to an acceptable level. However, it would take approximately one million square feet of building area per smoker to dilute the air enough to achieve minimal, acceptable secondhand smoke exposure levels among nonsmokers."' New Ventilation Technologies Are A Tobacco Industry Strategy. As research has shown that secondhand smoke has a serious impact on public health, the tobacco industry has begun to actively promote new ventilation technologies as an optional control measure for secondhand smoke. Unfortunately, ventilation rates would have to be increased more than a thousand -fold in order to reduce health risks from secondhand smoke exposure to an acceptable level. Such tornado-like ventilation rates would create a virtual windstorm indoors." Ventilation technology can help reduce the irritability of smoke, but does not eliminate its poisonous components." Separately Ventilated Areas Are Costly and Don't Protect Workers. In some cases, designated smoking areas have been established in rooms with separate ventilation systems. Air from designated smoking areas is exhausted directly to the outside. and not recirculated. The smoking area has negative air pressure that causes air to flow into the smoking room from other parts of the building rather than smoke-filled air escaping out. Unfortunately, installation, maintenance and remodeling costs associated with a proper ventilation system that includes an enclosed smoking area and outside exhaust will be cost -prohibitive for many businesses. Ventilation policies can also be more difficult and more costly for cities to enforce. In addition, separately ventilated rooms do not take into consideration the health of employees who must enter these rooms. Restaurant and bar employees have been found to be at a higher risk of disease due to their disproportionate exposure to secondhand smoke. One study found that there may be a 50% increase in lung cancer risk among food -service workers that is attributable to tobacco smoke exposure in the workplace.'i Smoke -Free Policies Work! Smoke-free restaurant policies remain the only measure to truly ensure that all nonsmokers, including children, the elderly and restaurant employees, are adequately protected from the dangers of secondhand smoke. The American Cancer Society, Midwest Division actively supports public policies at the local level that protect people from secondhand smoke without relying on ineffective ventilation technologies. Repace, James. Risk management of passive smoking at work and at home. 1994. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. 1986. Repace, 1994. Ibid. World Health Organization. Frequently Asked Questions About Secondhand Smoke. 2001. a Siegel, M. Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace: A Review of Employees Exposure and Health Effects. JAMA. 1993. en their small size and small market share, it will be challenging for them to build a new cigarette brand," says Joel D. Luton, an analyst with nps Financial Corp. who personally owns a few hun- dred shares of Vector. Still, he believes the Omni brands could add $150 million to yearly cash flow within three years. Big Tobacco isn't LeBow's only hur- dle. He struggled to enlist farmers to grow his genetically altered no -nicotine leaves. Many of them worried they would lose export sales if European buyers thought the new crops were mixed in with traditional leaf. But LeBow recently signed up some 600 Amish farmers in Pennsylvania, and now claims he has 80% to 90% of the 4,000 acres he needs. LeBow still faces opposition from smoking opponents, who insist there are no independent scientif- ic studies to verify the new cigarettes are safer—or that they induce smokers to quit "Nobody' knows whether the product Ms LeBow is introducing to- day will reduce the risk of disease," says Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco -Free Kids. The son of a door-to-door insurance salesman in West Philadelphia, LeBow LeBow's challenge is huge. His rivals have tried, and failed., bo offer "safer" Cgs got the business bug early, selling men's clothing at a department store while in high school- LeBow says he made his first million after takingg-a jewelry busi- ness out of bankruptcy in the late 1970s. Ile built his reputation by targeting troubled companies, such as Prime Com- paten'But the deal that earned him the most attention was Western Union. In 1987, LeBow acquired the company for 25 million. Although it had plunged into bankruptcy by the early 1990s, LeBow focused on Western Union's wire -transfer business and managed to sell it for a hefty $12 billion. "When things are really bad, you know he's going to figure out a way to get out of it," says financier Carl - Icahn, who teamed up with LeBow six years ago in a failed attempt to break up BJH Nabis- co. "He's got a great survival instinct." Whether LeBow can thrive as an in- novator is another question. Persuad- ing smokers to Zack the. habit through safer" cigarettes will be his most chal- lenging sale yet By Aixa Al Pascual in Durham, N. C. cmc r zs t. tr 19=E`4 at; of an event that will not be cele brated by the tobacco industry: the publication of 27he.Health Conse- quences of Involuntary Smoking by then -Surgeon General C. Everett troop. The report solidly linked sec- ondhand smoke to cancer and heart disease in nonsmokers, and included. these words: "Separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same air- space may reduce, but does not elim- inate, exposure of nonsmokers to -en- vironmental tobacco smoke." The report's publication .vas an ominous development for the tobacco industry.. Smoldng restrictions began appearing around the U.S. The rules, however, were effective in reducing nonsmokers' exposure to secondhand smoke. On Mar. 21, the Centers for Disease Control (CDc) released a study that found "a dramatic reduc- tion in exposure of the U.S. popula- tion to environmental tobacco Smoke" since 1991. FRESH BREEZE. Despite this good nvvvs, the industry has struggled to shake off the restrictions. Fint, it ar- iadKL smoRd was suspect 'Then it warned- that. smoking restrictions : a-ould put: liars restaurants. out of. bL,ci ess:.. . Neither argument held up;.:rior did:: • -. they slow. the .trend toward restricting or banning smoking in workplace's; pubNe spaces, restaurants, and' bars. Now the in4iistry-thinks .it has a strategy that cant fail:. Its center= piece' Ventilation. `Bringing in a lot of fresh :air can help reduce the con- centration of secondhand smoke and provide a more comfortable environ- ment for everyone," says Brendan. McCormick, manager of media rela- tions for Philip Morris usa. "The comfort of the nonsmoker is what's at issue." Indeed, the company has been lobbying city councils and state legislatures to draft laws encourag- ing the use of ventilation as an alter- native to smoking restrictions. Public-health officials object to Philip-llforris' new emphasis on comfort." They say it obscures something much more important: the health .of nonsmokers. ?ccording to the CDC in Atlanta, se^andhand 0 byffi: Ventilation reindies-econdhand smokeYT smoke causes 62,000 heart -disease necessary to ban or wall off smoking. and Washin 'Ont InWashington_._. - MesEi ih 1999 deatlis• And if New York goes on record industry. nearly - vhad; itg; bfiiiist, rancer in the, U.S. 6:i& year. supporting, ventila*tiorr as an alterna- ry. The-City.iDoiiiicii,ilass6y.-II.a..bd,'.'ai'-t'-,**' V's true that ventilation can. c1dar";* iii4 to smoking restrictions, Philip lowing vent atioli'as: an.altern itiVe'-:f UP smoky haze- and odoi-s. N6verfhe'- could use that to: persuade fa:- , ill'. - tough-!s'M6. 9 restrictions- was.,..-,, jessi, what the Surgeon General', con- other communities todo the same. in response to a: ventilatf6ir demon'- duded -in f986' still holds true.- 71e. How the ventilation. proposal- got strattionz.preparedt-by i-ePr6sentitives,-,? ibeclmology can't eliminate h6altli: info -the New York MY, is a mystery.. frOin" gangers Sec6ndhand. smoke: full of one onihe-:.City'CounciIr ta ces Ita"s ca,11 tIhoutan 0 many o.k credit for it, and a spokesman says it Philip -,NIbrz='v-The.. consult itsan .. which. increase the risk of cah66 is"aclear who inserted the language. under ffisiruc io . ns- to_. nake ha health heart disease, and respiratory iil=, "As far as I know, the language was claims. But the demo.:sudceeded'dn be -judged by- meats. And air: in there because there is, some, aesthetic b nce'-fiamvcArciT6g6ns'grg-f"99Ptro irsy" about ventflationsays• OA,mel Th'e'*vi o'ry, ow' eeversssi offbileand.inisibf6 Thd ,tfiesDokesman, JordarBar0'witz_. lived .L6cid-h6fi]tlridvoae I** atfoavAabti..'to d ikS,Morris' &aunoC don;6: Philipyan says hecaalarmed`alarma. dTL- - _ y the ceivably control, sec6ndhari&'inbk- eis§ detailsof the company's'1'obby tion, :prq s evj.9oko lie:ev "'of risk withoutfor s ingirr-view York City.'Butithe-c'ort h- acceptable P,X_i w l health : emain-e; d"Ieve tiveTyjnrblVe& it months atbrAhi YCouncil y J:meLR process" in many local r reversed' q.et th secondhand t"* tions sperrtrst at the Environ < Utherlocahtres Have been -dby Vsnv t.restaurants V, ;t,,.T,he,--ve'rittiltitibhi.lhdtistrv.'itsell'corT I i:cedes-'the ;,-poyj,.F.A.R current J) J, A.- -standar s-spedft-th it'Aircon6li"j,-- y cannot 14 8iiilg? ere& acceptable; no maitei. X" tborougy, 91it_ ventilated. Sfid'. even Philip Mortis dqps.not argue wIM, these>'.—A6isi6fis: We&q"gt' s ..any cay address the health effects, . SAtibbf-Vent. ornags Plyan; ]a: programs 1W Philip;- oms." Mean.t' e company pep.to-pr64bo,e.-i 460MO aThple,. it- has* created what i r,an.0ptions prbgram. lt.:encourages-',_ ivneis.. ot bars; 'restaurants,. and abow".Ilng':Oe'ys:to. upgra.dia-t.pir.-y j„ti6n:syAemsiso eYcwr'i&-O`ffi`-r..I,:M i`'-jnodate- both-Abibokers -an no Viiii; .thofit either re§ or confining's,mor-6p IA— epaftte-rooml._ GiiUAM Jr.YS.TERY. The latest bit- s il , and is. New York City; whefe. r the City I Council is considering 'a'bill tbat_-q o -d- slightly tighten smokingi":iestrictiont in. restaurant,: Thick6d 1-Ansid.6 b- i -propossalta -create or to study yentilatibit as aft' Z,-; :-A teriiativd to..S te. ?;mo 40V . sfMte company twn'1: try to eAtilati6n keeps nonsmo - rs Aiealthyz But the tassh force-- witir Balm to Phft Morris-wM _'T- - raise reasonablesoundingqdes- MM: - tions about whether it's really WI AlashEL.Littlb Rotlq.,khd',Ksa;- STACKED..'I i a onz.- ghd) .'are V reis. no hciitia 0"*TL'F tiied,-V around- est,' 3rd: tha, 0 BusinessWeek / May 7, 2001 73 r Smoking in Restaurants and Bars Requirements of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA) was enacted in 1975 to protect public health by restricting smoking in public places and workplaces. The MCIAA only regulates the act of smoking. The act does not regulate where the smoke goes, and it does not cover other indoor air quality issues. The act is enforced by the Minnesota Department of Health, who delegates enforcement activities to some (city or county) health departments. This fact sheet explains how the MCIAA restricts smoking in eating establishments. Restaurants Seating - restaurants must designate at least 30 percent of the total seating capacity as nonsmoking. Nonsmoking seating must be available for patrons at all times. Separation - nonsmoking and smoking -permitted seating must be separated by one of the following options: a four foot wide space; a physical barrier 56 inches or more in height; or outdoor (fresh) air ventilation of not less than 15 cubic feet per minute per person. Posting Signs Entrance(s): Smoking is prohibited except Entrances must be in designated areas. posted with signs, stating: Tables: When the seating is controlled by a host or hostess, the nonsmoking and smoking - permitted areas do not have to be posted with signs. When patrons seat themselves, the nonsmoking and smoking -permitted areas must be posted with the appropriate signs. Waiting Area Waiting areas measuring less than 200 square feet must be designated and posted as nonsmoking. Waiting areas measuring more than 200 square feet may be divided into nonsmoking and smoking=permitted areas. At least 200 square feet must be nonsmoking, any remaining space could be designated as smoking -permitted. The nonsmoking and smoking -permitted areas must be posted with appropriate signs and separated by one of the three methods of separation listed above. Environmental Health Division Indoor Air Program Violations by Patrons Restaurant operators are responsible for asking people to refrain from smoking in designated a t, nonsmoking areas when violations are observed. Smoking in a designated nonsmoking area is a petty misdemeanor. Bars Seating - bars must designate.a least s0 percent of the total seating as nonsmoking if: licensed food service is provided, in consideration of payment, excluding licensed limited food service establishments; and table and seating are available for more than 50 people at one time. The nonsmoking seating must be available during hours of operation when food service is provided. If a bar serves meals and has seating facilities for 50 people or less, the bar may designate all of its seating as smoking -permitted. Separation - bars required to designate nonsmoking seating must provide one of the following methods of separation between the nonsmoking and smoking -permitted seating: a four foot wide space; a physical barrier 56 inches or more in height; or outdoor (fi-esh) air ventilation of not less than 15 cubic feet per minute per person. Posting Signs Entrance(s): Bars which are their entirety must post a sign stating: Bars which are nonsmoking seating entrance(s) with a sign This establisliment is a smoking area in its entirety. This establishment is a smoking area in its entirety except when food service is available. smoking -permitted in the entrances(s) with required to have must post the stating: Tables: When patrons seat themselves the nonsmoking and smoking -permitted seating areas must be posted with the appropriate signs. When the seating is controlled by a host or hostess, the nonsmoking and smoking -permitted seating areas do not have to be posted with signs. Violations by Patrons Bar operators that are required to provide nonsmoking seating must ask patrons to refrain from smoking in the nonsmoking area when violations are observed. Smoking in a designated nonsmoking area is a petty misdemeanor. Employee Lunchroom or Lounge When a lunchroom or lounge is provided, it must be designated as specified below: A. An acceptable nonsmoking area in the lunchroom or lounge that meets demand must be provided. B. The demand for a nonsmoking area may be determined either by a survey or at least 70 percent of the lunchroom or lounge may be designated as a nonsmoking area. C. Amenities, such as a refrigerators or microwaves, must be located in the nonsmoking area. The space occupied by these amenities must not be calculated as part of the square footage or percentage of area allocated to the nonsmoking seating area. D. The nonsmoking and smoking -permitted areas must be separated by one of the following options: a four foot wide space; a physical barrier 56 inches or more in height; or outdoor (fresh) air ventilation of not less than 15 cubic feet per minute per person. E. If there are two or more lunchroom or lounges, one may be designated as smoking -permitted in its entirety as long as at least one other similar lunchroom or lounge is designated as nonsmoking it its entirety. F. If there is only one lunchroom or lounge and it measures less than 200 square feet, alternating nonsmoking and smoking -permitted break times may be designated. Nonsmoking employees must not be required to take breaks during the time the lunchroom or lounge is designated as smoking -permitted in its entirety. Private Offices A private office is defined as a room occupied by one person with floor to ceiling walls and a closeable door. Smoking may be permitted in the individual private offices of a restaurant if the door is kept closed while smoking occurs. In a bar, the door to the private office must be kept closed while smoking occurs only when meal service is available. Penalties Compliance with the MCIAA is required under a food service establishment's license to operate. Orders for correction of violation are issued by the inspecting sanitarian when necessary. Going Smoke -Free The MCIAA restricts smoking in eating establishments; however, restaurant management has the option of being more restrictive. Restaurant management can establish a smoke-free policy for the entire restaurant. If smoke-free policy is created, main entrances will need to be posted with the new" policy. For More Information Minnesota Department of Health Indoor Air Program 651/215-0909 Call to receive a copy of the MCIAA or if you need to file a smoking complaint. Additional educational materials are available on environmental tobacco smoke and how the MCIAA restricts smoking in other public places and workplaces. Additional Resources Sniokih<r and Ventilation Standards.: Oc vberl5;.1998;• . .. .. . maiiaging.Workpdace ETS risme; smolang policies sii, a' s separating smvkers...:> i .... frorn. nonsmokers' in- the same space or:,on the same ventilation.. system•'_r pbse . nonsmoke s:to unacceptAii risk"' James Repave, Ph.D:; St: Louis,UniversiOPuhlicLitw"Reirie»,15 % SMOKING SECTIONS Ar D VENTILATTON'SYSTEMS The 1'985 Surgeon General's repgit-on involuntary smoking-coricIuded that;*"th& simple separation'of'smokers and -nonsmokers. within the same. anspace may reduce; but. does'not eliminate; the. -exposure ofnonsmokers to •[enviroraental tobacco smoke]. ETS"•: (U.S.:Surgeon• :.. Geneial. The Healfh Consequences of Involuntary Smoking.Washington,- DC: U:S. Departmentof Health and Human. Servic:es;1986) - • _ 3: Following the basic Iaws ofpbiy ics, secondhand smoke•rapidly diffuses tlno6bgliout a room: At one air'change:per hour, it takes more fl= three hours for 95% of the smoke in a room to sipate once smoking has ended.. (Repave; J.'Risk Management acid Passive Smoking of Work and at Home; St. Louis UIhersdy'Pubric Law Review; .13(2):761785; .94). Using cu:d=t:indoor air quality standards, ventilation rates would -have be in more " than a'thousand-fold.to reduce cancerrisk associated with ETS io a'Ievel considered: ' acceptable -to•federal •egnlatory:agencies: =Such'.a ventilation rate is impractical since itwould result in a virtual windstorm indoors. (Ibid) , o Guidelines regarding ETS and indoor air ventilation :developed by the National:Iustitute for Occupational'Healtli and Safety (NIOSI)-specifythat "[t]he most dire& and. effective ' m& od•o.feliminating ETS from the workplace is,to elimiiied-smoldngin,thi.workplace.s.,• Untiil `tbif is achieved, employers: can designate'separate;:'enclosed areas for smoking,: with:: ' '. separate ventilation.' Air -from this area; should be. ex&usted-.directly outside and not recirculated within the. bi ilding or'aiiaced with the° general dilution ventilation. for the.;.... bmlding"rEnvironmental Tobacco Smoking in the Workplace: Lung Cancer and Other Health Effects; IVIOSFI CitrrenE . Jnte rjgence.Buie$n 54,: June 1 g91,) ': The Environmental Prot( 6don-.Agency `r• inmends that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke be minimized wherever possible. The most•effective-way to minimize exposure is to.. restrict smoking to smoking areas that are.separately ventilated and*directly exhausted to the outside; or b eliminating smoking.in the butiding entirely.". ('Environmental Totiacco Smoke; Indoor - ds No. 5; ;lune 1988 Washingtori,.D.C_ .: U.S.-Envimnmental Protection Agency) HINNE50TA - w9 Dayton.Avenue, Suite 209E • Si: Paul, Minnesota 5510¢1. (651) 611-.1223 phone'- 65.51) 691-1601 fax-'. FREE - - COAUTION TOBACCO INDIISTRY NCT;: T ASHRAM: STANDARD Indoor ventilation standards.are set..try the.Americaii Society of Heating Refrigeration and Ventilation•Engineers (ASM? -AE) and implemented.by locaibuilding'codes.throiighout the ; U.S.,. (ventr7agon forAct eptable lhdoorA'irQuafty, ASHRAE'Stmidard G2-1989:).. j ,,., ., ;; ..,: . AS, E.. : A: -..E <. 's ventil,a• .ti•o. n•- ,'.•The tobacco indusryhasIistoric llypyed an vpolen . . standards developinent pivicess: Several remembers of ASHRAE's board.'of directorshave. known tobacco:industry ties. {'Did the,1'otiacco`lndustry:Sabotage the Standard 62 Revision?'./EQ,Sirategi 1. es" 10(9), September, 1997) - a : ASPIIZAE ventilation standard 62-1989 did not'recognize ETS' as a human carcimgea, UO to ` " tfireat of tobacco: industry:'litigatioi :, . Void-.ofstaten,ients -6 out, smoke's fiealthl effects, it is not surprising-. ttiat the tobacco industry promotes this'standard :as- a:: solution., (Repave; ?fie Dramatiq Changes.:ur: Recommended Gutdoot Air. Rates -What are the Raffonal Motives and ° Consequences2' 4 •Coridusrons and Recommendations tgrHeafthier B6077 gs'88,; a 32;.•1991.) The'most recent revision to the; standard; devel"opedovcr a penod o nLmy. years: and; ' commonly:refeaed- to as ASftkk 62=19898, was withdrawn. as. a result -ofvigorous -.tobacco industry opposition and "will. at .best resurface only as -'a.' guidekine: "' • .The draft revision T implicitly'recognized the dangers ofsecondhand smoke: ETS was not iriclvded:iu.ventiTaiion rates'and E S conta*ninanfs were controlled.by isolating.'smoking to.* de' signated'rooms.:" ' Proposed American National ;Standard: Ventilation forArxeptable Indoor AirQual4. Public ReviewDraft,.BSR/ASHRAE 62-.1989R.. AUanta, GA: ASHRAE, August 1996;'Did the Tobacco tiiduslry. Saboiage.lhe Standard.62 RevisaonT'/EQ ..:: S6fegies,10(9),.September 1997) According to ventilation industry observer, ,: "[i]t's no secret. that the tobacco industry. - -- opposed the revised standard, for the principal reason that if.assumed there:would be no smoking in buildings.: Tliis.would,• in effect; constitilk.a smoking.ban in-.. any urisdiction that` adopted the: standard as a code; and the..committee.vas in. fact;. diafling .the staadaid in code ` language:"..("Did ihe.Totiacco IndustrySabotage the Standard 62 Revision?:IEQ Sirafegies,•10(9), September 1997): TOBACCO,LWUSTRY "SOLMONSII "• f I - The tobacco industrypromotesineffective. ventilation;' or HVAC;;stems ai `reasonable - alteinatives.to accommodating-smokers:and-.nonsmokers mpublicplaces." The.ventilation•' solutions proppsed by Philip Morris; and other:cigarette manufacturers (e.g:; Accommodation Program;. Red:Light=Green Light:policies, ei6 ). do not pivvide.protection.from the: significant. health effects of ETS: ('Top -Flight Venti7ation.Sysiem Soars of Restaurant„' Sign of Me runes;.Sutnmer.1998) ly ,disregarding' all crediiile science and recklessI endaii ei n 'nonsmokers 'Philip.-....-..— Y g g Morris' Accomrtiodatiori.Program promotes ventilation systems that do'nothing more than' ' j • - earliausf the air in a-sindke=filled room and pum in "i 00 percent outside air tliat. is`properly r co toned the room:..- {Ibidj:' T'lie free print of a Philip.lVlouis publicadon'pronioting its Accommodation Progcain gives: Big Tobacco,legal cover against potential liability claims for knowingly. exposing nonsmokers.io dangerous secondhand -smoke: `editor's Note: `:-'Me Accommodation- Program'does not purport to address..fiealth effects-attnbufed.to srnoldng." ° (lbid). ivVr 6ieriaAractshts1venWation '• [F4-07] :; Janel Siegfried 1965 Douglas Detre Nl. Golden Valley, MN 65422 Phone; (612) 95"263 FAX (612) 954-4276 l E••Ma c..,.n .r. cat 612-61&9760 f` 1R Y-q,' d 4 1( Sh. i}• y A f f Y Dear Dr. Ciartc You had some questions late Iastweek about the he Viers thacleanersyhelp answer ou gem to some of theme via . lax I have Dio third -party SUMS about the peribrma like dig questions you have --the same infomrfion P+ 2- 263 The tism swdles togthe Dulilth city Council. edara close to 60 -pages tong-' you yet today. please Mme know by calling j* stand by. the our air cleaners as comfort and convenience products. but we are Mt rrtaldrtgtheefficiencyandgtrafiiywedohavefrofiltrationperfcrrrtanceirtfonnatiortbaciedbllclaimsthatthesearehealthproducts. However. i . industry standards eridui on'the Honeywell carrunefcW air cleaner unit being used. AAiriscleanedintwoorthreestagesclapg ditfonat panc filtration is aditevedprefiitercaptureslargeparticles. Adusing: 99.973b ear p.O.P_ HEPA of 95 filters. S5% DAP efficient? hospital grade filters. electronic air cleaner ceitss ases, odors and b Cs in order . Additionally the use of CPZT" scrbent criedia Some units tower levels of most g to reduce odor problems that ar® part of doing business. - HEPA (High. FfciencY Particulate Air) mega Riters-are certiffed to be 99.97% D.O.P. ef5dent at caPtufing 0.3 mi-cron particles, 0 3 mfcrort particles 295% D.a.P. hospita e media `iitarsarecmfredtobe95% efficient at cap dng - 116 units capture from 8&. m 95°!0 of particles in the air passing through .the air cleaners ele&onic ceIIs, depending on the air velocity through the all. F116 efficiency rating is based on resufts ftnrri ride ASHRAE 5 1-92 Initial Atmospheric Dust $Pot Eiticiency ' lord ASHRAE 521-92 lnft 195% and 65% ASHRAE filter efficiency ratings are based on the industry star Atmospheric Dust Spat EfWency TesL Clean. Air is defined a5 filtered air containing significantly reduced levels of airborne Contamirrards- in response to your specific questions sent ip Scott Roberts: t1 Wit tiiten'ng eijnitnate all health hazards known to ocarrw eXp sure m environmental bobacr~tsioke? At SWe"R: Honeywell has not in the. past and does not make health hazard dorms- _ Q: if filtering does not eliminate all hearth hazards. 'to what degree are those hazards reduced? ANSWER: Honeywell has no data to support health hazard Bairns. . Q is there a level of ihtens-ity of tobacco smoake generation -which can overwhelm ttte et%ctivenessef the fr7tering rystk=7Ifsa, how. is that level esUbfished?the corrtd number and size.ofANSWER: Yes. We have an ASHRAE standard load calucleon formula for apPiY 9 air cleaners based on the specific apptic.260M set- by HoneywellWhat'aca the requirements on ell for periodic service and maintenance of equipment, how are theyQ- monitored and what is the meaning of a Honeywell -dean air "certifica6e.07 their taa7'ties as 'dean air F Program Nl assists businessesr* We and W' sn tY' ANSWER: Honeyweirs G'tean Air acility' cog ( i of air To qualify, commercial businesses must nstall and property i carr fax a copy ofaccordintoHoneywellandASHWdesrtersrequiredtoimproveindoorairquality9 . ourspecitic program gufde{mes 7you'd litae: contarrinants. lean Air is defined as filtered air containing significant! reduced. levels of airborne Thank!; for your interest -and let me know if I can be of fuither assistant~. tett ctr ir9c ci POLICY BRIEF t f Economic In As the public has become more aware of the dangers of secondhand smoke, many U.S. communities have implemented ordinances to regulate smoking in workplaces and public places, including restaurants. Restaurateurs, restaurant associations and the tobacco industry have challenged these new laws by claiming that smoke-free ordinances cause economic damage to businesses. Smoke -Free Ordinances Do Not Hurt Restaurants. Economic studies using objective sales tax data from nearly 100 different communities across the country have shown that smoke-free regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on restaurants. One such study analyzed sales tax data for 15 cities with smoke-free restaurant ordinances and found that the regulations had no negative effect on restaurant sales.' A study conducted at the University of Wisconsin also reviewed restaurant revenues following passage of a smoke-free restaurant ordinance. Over a five-year period restaurant sales in the city impacted by the ordinance increased 24 percent, compared to a 19 percent increase over the same period in the rest of the state. Even in North Carolina, the number one tobacco-prodilcing state in the U.S., research has shown that smoke-free ordinances have presented no adverse economic impact." Smoke -Free Ordinances Do Not Hurt Tourism. Despite arguments from the tobacco industry that smoke-free ordinances will destroy a community's tourism business, studies have found no change in tourist business and even some instances Where business has increased after ordinance passage. An analysis of sales tax revenues and hotel visitors in three states and six cities with 100 percent smoke-free restaurant ordinances found that none experienced a drop in hotel visitors and some registered increases after smoke-free laws went into effect."' Similarly, tobacco industry predictions of economic ruin for the California tourism industry when restaurants became smoke-free in 1994 have not materialized. California remains the most visited state in America. Adverse Economic Impact Research is Flais'ed. There is currently no valid evidence that smoke-free ordinances decrease restaurant sales. Research that has been used to convince policymakers and the public of an adverse economic impact has been based on evaluation approaches that are methodologically flawed. Reports of decreases in restaurant sales following the enactment of a smoke-free ordinance have been based on anecdotal information, restaurant owners' self -reports instead of validated sales data, and on studies of tax data from only one or two quarters following implementation of the ordinance? Restaurants Can Save Money By Going Smoke -Free. Employers who implement smoke-free policies often experience cost -savings related to fire risk, damage to property and furnishings, cleaning costs, workers' compensation, disability, absenteeism and productivity losses. Secondhand smoke harms the health and productivity of nonsmokers and was estimated in 1983 to cost employers $56 to $490 per smoker per year." In addition, health and fire insurance premiums can be 25 to 35 percent lower for smoke-free businesses." Workplace smoking also increases an employer's potential legal liability. Nonsmoking employees have received settlements in cases based on their exposure to secondhand smoke. Glantz, S, Smith L The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke -Free Restaurants and Bars on Revenue: A Follow -Up. American Journal of Public Health. October 1997. Goldstein A, Sobel R. Environmental Tobacco Smoke Regulations Have Not Hurt Restaurant Sales in North Carolina. North Carolina Medical Journal. 1998. Glantz S, Charlesworth A. Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke -Free Restaurant Ordinances. Journal of the 4merican Medical Association. May 1999. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assessment of the impact of a 100% Smoke -Free Ordinance on Restaurant Sales — 'Vest Lake Hills, Texas, 1992-1994. May 1995. Kristein. How Much Can Business Expect to Profit From Smoking Cessation? Preventive Medicine. 1983. Action on Smoking and Health. "Smoking in the Workplace Costs Employers Money." htip://ash.org DULUTH NEWS TRIBUNE Our View - Give smoke-free a chance. Though the economy in Duluth has seen a downturn in some sectors, there's good news on the restaurant front. Sales in January 2001 were better than in January 2000: $4,979,625 this January; 4,758,006 last January. The city did $221,619 more in restaurant business than last January. This increase in sales at eating places comes at a time when sales of building materials and cars were down from the previous January. This increase also comes after the city's smoke-free ordinance began. Since Jan. 1, Duluth restaurants have been entirely smoke-free, unless the owner provides a separate smoking room separately ventilated to the outside. Duluth restaurants that serve alcohol have been smoke-free during the day, but can allow smoking after 8 p.m. when minors are not allowed in the establishment. These establishments also have seen increases in sales over last year. So let's stop all the hand -wringing about the city's new smoke-free restaurant ordinance. Resist theurgetotinkerwithit. Give the ordinance a year, collect data and then revisit it with the aim of strengthening it. This year, concentrate all efforts on encouraging recalcitrant establishments, such as Pickwick and Tappa Keg Inn, to abide by the ordinance. At this stage, implementation of the smoke-free ordinancedependsonowners' good will. But if owners fail to comply voluntarily this year, the Duluth City Council next year should consider strong enforcement measures, including stiff fines for noncompliance. Though there's been no negative economic impact to the city with the smoke-free ordinance, it has had a positive impact on restaurant employees and customers who no longer have secondhand smoke involuntarily imposed on them. Comments from employees and customers have been overwhelmingly positive. At a time when more and more people are concerned about the effects of secondhand smoke, the smoke-free ordinance over time should be a boon for Duluth restaurants. It's unlikely to be a hardship, except to a very small number of restaurants. We've probably already seen all the requests for hardship exemptions -- a total of three. More and more people want smoke-free dining. This year, too, the Duluth Convention and Visitors Bureau could do a lot to promote smoke-free dining as another unique amenity that makes Duluth attractive as a destination. For the vast majority of people who don't smoke, the smoke-free ordinance makes dining in Duluth a much more enjoyable experience than in the past. And most smokers understand that non-smokers shouldn't be forced to breathe secondhand smoke involuntarily. Until next year, leave the smoke-free ordinance alone. Any tinkering at this stage just makes the ordinance unwieldy and even weaker than it already is. Next year is the time to make the ordinance stronger — for instance, revise the provision that grants hardship exemptions in perpetuity based only on one month's receipts, eliminate the provision allowing smoking after 8 p.m. and apply the ordinance equally to all establishments that serve food. For this year, residents, business owners and council members should work together to give Duluth's smoke-free ordinance a fair chance to succeed. Fatal dnd,''noa=fatal::heart disease. Flow does workplace sinokin costthe employer? J , According.fo•ASH, Action'on Smoking andHealtli; smoking activity by,employees: . increases costs in many areas: Some.of these areas are:.. , Absenteeism: On average, smokers:are absent.50 percent more`ofteri than nonsmokers... As'lbn ago as 1974,, Dow .Chemical Company:found that cigarette'smoking :employees•". weie'missing S.5 more .work.days per year than theirnonsmoking Beers:. Costs•for.theset.' absencesinclude.temporary replacements and lowered;prodijctivity and morale among employees who are the,job'and:must.cope wiili-the. absences:. ' Productivity: One has-only to visualize the smoking ritual to realize the' time lost by; . smokers:' Add to,that inefficiencyand errors caused by :higlier C0 levels in smokers, eyes: . irritation, and lower attentiveness:,. Research is documenting lowerproductivity in .::. smokingenmployees.and increases in productivity wfien'smoking is limited or banned..?, In suirance::Additional:health-carecost°,per snioker`in this'eountry is sliehtIyover:$300` year in 1983 dollars; and this estimate is-cons brvAtive..;Some insurers, recognizing, e differential in" -orafes between'sthokem and nonsmokers;'are•:offe,144 up to 45% percent discounts on premiums for tern-life coverage for nonsmokers: with medical examinations: ; Incremental health ifisura _ce'costs incuzed on.behalf of nonsmokers wlio must breathe the smoke.iiiahe. workplace involuntarily are. nota part -of the 'considerations above: . ' . T`hey represent another area of potential savings when smoking-'is: either banned or....: ' restricted in the worl.;place: ' NFaintenance -Costs:- Employers: who have banned smoking report,dramatic- decreases: tlie.maintenance costsof their.businesses: Building maintenanceservices are entliiisiastic abouf the change. in the amount of cleaning, required. ,. Furniture and drapes last longer and . haye to be cleaned less often. Many chores done on:a monthly basis canoe :scheduled - ysemiannually or 1619 Dayton Avenue Suite 204B' •= Si.. Paul; Minnesota 55104-(651) 641-1223' phone. %: (651).641-..1601 fax ''. FREE- COAUTION 9 Effects of ETS Policy on Restaurants There is no reliable scientific evidence that the enactment or enforcement of smoke-free policies orordinancescausesareductioninrevenue, customers or customer satisfaction. Sales tax data consistently demonstrate that ordinances restricting smoking in restaurantshavenoeffectonrevenues (Glantz, 1999). Tax data are more reliable than total restaurant sales because they control for fluctuation inboththegeneralandrestauranteconomy. The Tobacco Industry has been known to form, or give money to existing, restaurant associations to support their claim of negative economic impact. They discredit theresearchfromabovebysayingthatdataforeachcommunityisnotavailableuntilafter theordinancehaspassedandpotentialharmhasbeendone. Every time this claim has been raised, when the objective data are available and analyzed a year or two after ordinance enactment, the Tobacco Industry has always been wrong. Smoke-free ordinances also help keep down the restaurant's costs from cleaning, upholstery repair, employee absenteeism, and fire insurance. The public overwhelming supports and complies with smoke-free ordinances. Many restaurant owners have gone smoke-free 'voluntarily and agree with the points madeabove: In five years, only 2 or 3 three people have said anything negative about not being able tosmoke, but we've never had anyone leave because of it." (Baker's Ribs, Eden Prairie, MN, smoke-free since opening 5 years ago) All business has done is grown." (50's Grille, Brooklyn Center, MN, smoke-free for Syears -due to customer request) If you are a family restaurant, then smoke-free is the way to go." (Frankie's Pizza, Chanhassen, MN, went smoke-free 6 months after opening in 1993) r' While individual restaurants choosing to go smoke-free voIuntariIy is an important step, itonlyprotectstheemployeesandpatronsofthoserestaurants. An ordinance is the only waytoprotectthehealthoftheentirecommunityandsetastandardfornewbusinessescomingtotown. TIFF: Effects of ETS on Restaurants April 17, 2000 40 / V Helping you breathe a little easier ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CLEAN INDOOR AIR POLICIES Jarrrrcrry 15. 2000 Financial impact of smoking bans will be tremendous.... Three to five fewer cid arettes per Clay per smoker ivrll reditce ann[[al manufacturers profits a billion dollars plus per year. Philip Morris, internal d6cument, . http:/hviviv.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=2025771934/1995> ECoYorM,1C IMPACT OF ENACTED LEGISLATION There*has been no serious controve'rsy.regarding the economic impact of.smokefree ordinances on private workplaces. Instead, the debate•has 'centered around the'effect such laws have on the hospitality industry, particularly restaurants and bars. The tobacco industry has consistently claimed that smokefree restaurant ordinances will lead to a decrease in business, usually 20-30% Gambee, 199 1,. KPMG Peat Marwick, f998). However; there'is no reliable scientific evidence to support these claims. Restaurant and Bar Sales The most comprehensive study of the effect of legislation requiring smokefree restaurants on restaurant revenues found that smokefree restaurant ordinances do not harm restaurant sales Glantz & Smith, 1994). This landmark study was updated in 1997 and examined fifteen cities with smokefree restaurant ordinances and fifteen control communities without smokefree ordinances. The 1997 study also looked at five cities and two counties with smokefree bar ordinances and similar control cities and counties without.bar ordinances. Both analyses were based on sales tax data reported to the California Board of Equalization and the Colorado State Department of Revenue. To account for population growth, inflation and changes in underlying conditions, the researchers analyzed five ratios: Restaurant sales as a fraction of'total retail sales. Restaurant sales in cities with smokefree restaurant ordinances versos a comparison city with* no such ordinance. a Bar sales as a fraction of total retail sales (1997 study only). Bar sales in cities/counties with smokefree bar ordinances versus a comparison city/county with no such ordinance (1997 study only). Bar'saIes as a fraction of all sales by eating and drinkina establishments (1997 study only). The above ratios are a better measure than simply looking at -total restatirant or bar sales, as the comparisons help control for quarter to quarter fluctuations in the general economy and in the restaurant economy (Glantz & Smith, 1992). Any of the ratios would have dropped if the smokefree ordinance led to a decrease in restaurant sales in the study city or county. 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J • Berkeley, California 94702 • (51 0) 841.30321 FAX (510) 841-3071 Smokefree ordinances generally had no statistically effect on any oFtl e fryGlantz &Smith, 1994; Glantz & Smith, 1997). smokefree restabrant/bar ord' fractions Inherently neutral in their effect on restaurant/bar sales. finances are Dispelling the ATyths of Beverly Hills and Be1florver, CA The 1994 study also noted two important findings in the California citiesBellflower, which repealed their ordinances following opposition organized b e lerly Hills andindustry.: y e tobacco L While in effect, neither smokefree ordinance caused a drop in restaurant sales ctobaccoindustryclairuisofuptoa3)0% decrease. contrary toanupsurgeinrestaurantsales, as would be expected iFthe ord Hance hadhde city experiencedsales; and pressed restaurant 2. The Bellflower ordinance was actually associated with a marginally significant irestaurantsalesduringthetimeitwasineffect (Glantz & Smith, 1994) increase in Effects are Consistetzt in a Tlariety of Coutnztttzities The Glantz/Smith studies covered a wide variety of types of cities. The Colorado c' Sno>•vmass Village, and Tellzrride are popular ski resorts. The California cities incl Ides ofl4spen, small Sierra foothills community; Andersolz and Re ude Aztbztrn, aHills, an affluent urban city; Bel orver, a middle class bedroom in agricultural areas; Beverlytown; El Cerrito and rl artitzez, in him community; Davis, a universityAlto, a large suburban community and home to StanfordareaUniversity, Lodt a rural agricultural center; Palo agricultural community; Sacramento, a large city and the statecap toe San Lziis aradise, a small -semi- community; town on the California coast; Roseville, a semi -rural bedroom community Ross Obispo, a Tiburon, well-to-do San Francisco Bay communities; and, San Lids Obispo, a coasts s andbothauniversityandconsiderabletoturism (Glantz &Smith, 1994; Glantz &Smit 1 town with1997studyalsoanalyzedoneruralCaliforniacounty, Shasta, and one suburban h, 1997). The county, Santa Clara. rban California Oflier Studies Duplicate Fiuzdilr, s The Glantz/Smith findings were duplicated by a study conducted at the CI aremontEconomicpolicyStudies. This study examined restaurant sales tax data in 19 cities, ns 0wi for . Partial restrictions on smoking•in restaurants, 9 of which are 100% smokefree 10 with compared the study cities with restaurant sales in 87 cities located within a 15 The study ofstudycities. Researchers concluded that both partial and 100% smokethe had no systematic impact on -restaurant revenues (Maroney, et free restaurant al, 1994. There ordinances that ordinance cities had patterns of effects which were indistinguisha le from those of s noted surrounding cities•without restaurant ordinances (Maroney, et al, 1994). se of Independent researchers studying the effect of smokefree restaurant orNC; Flagstaff, Arizona; New York City, NY; [Pest Lake Hills, Texas; and several cos in mmunities In 2 Massachusetts; have found that these -cities smokefree ordinances had no negative impact on restaurant sales (Goldstein and Sobel, 1998; Sciacca and Ratliffe, 1998, Hyland, 1999; CDC, 1995; Bartosh and Pope, 1999). Early Evidence on Bars The Glantz/Smith studies found that the effects of smokefree ordinances were similar for all types of restaurants, as defined by the kind of alcoholic beverages (if any) served on premises Glantz & Smith, 1994; Taylor Consulting Group, 1993). The 1997 Glantz/Smith study found that the effects of smokefree bar ordinances do not affect revenues. The study relies on data for bars with full liquor licenses; it does not separately analyze the effects on free-standing bars and bars within restaurants (Glantz & Smith, 1997). Tourism and Convention°Business In addition to being home to a state university, San Luis Obispo is a popular tourist destination on the California coast. The Taylor Consulting Group found that 48% of the visitors surveyed knew of the ban prior to their current visit; smokers were as equally aware of the ban as nonsmokers. None of the smoking visitors, almost half of whom were aware of 'the ban before visiting, reported avoiding San Luis Obispo because. of the ban- (Taylor Consulting Group, 1993). The three Colorado cities of Aspen; Snowmass Village and Telluride are popular ski resorts which rely heavily on tourism. None of these cities experienced a drop in sales following adoption of their ordinances (Glantz & Smith, 1994). The Aspen Environmental Health Department reports receiving "favorable comments from visitors" about the ordinance; their own studies have shown no negative effect on business (Cassin, 1990). New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Boston are also popular tourist destinations. None of these cities has experienced a decline in sales following adoption of their ordinances. Hyland, 1999; California Department of Health Services, 1996: Bartosh and Pope, 1999). The only report. to date on convention business found that -convention groups would not avoid a Jurisdiction because it had enacted smokefree legislation. Forty convention groups; representing 174.840 attendees, that met in San Diego in 199.1 and 1992 were asked if they would return to San Dieg6 if a smokefree restaurant ordinance was in effect. Only one group, an organization representing candy and tobacco. industries, would. not have booked their convention in San Diego. representing 6,000 attendees (Task Force for a Smoke-free San Diego, 1992). Economic Impact Stcrdies Circulated by the Tobacco Industry Tlie tobacco industry has sponsored'a number of economic impact studies. These studies have been aggressively disseminated to elected officials and businesses. An analysis of the studies most widely circulated- by the tobacco industry follows: Effects of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, *Taverns and :Night Clubs, conducted by KPMG Peat Marwick for the American Beverage Institute, 1998. Study tested respondents' views of whether business increased or decreased after January 1, 1993, the date the bar ban went into effect; and found that respondents reported that their . business declined an average of 26.2%. Nest Virginia Reslaztrant and Bar Survey, conducted by The Craig Group, Inc, of Columbus, Ohio, and funded by Philip Morris' Accommodation Program, for The Club Association of WestVirginia, an affiliate of the National Licensed Beverage Association, 1997. Study surveyed restaurant and tavern owners and.found that 59% of the owners believed smoking customers would spend less money in their establishment if a ban were enacted. Massachusetts Restaztratit Association Study, conducted by InCoritext for the MassachusettsRestaurantAssociation, 1996: Study measuted the change in the number of restaurant jobs in 23 Massachusetts cities duringtheperiod1993-1995.. Several of the towns, however, enacted their smokefree air ordinancesin1996, after the study period. The study did not look at restaurant sales tax data. Restaurant Jobs bi New York Cit); 1993 Through First Ouarter 1996, and the RestaurantSmokingBan; conducted by InContext for the Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Association, 1996. Study alleges that New York City lostjobs- as the result of its smokefree restaurants ordinance. However, New York City's clean indoor air Iaw did not go into effect until April1995, one month after New York City -supposedly lost -^r% of its restaurant jobs. ?lie studydidnotloot; at restaurant sales tax data. Economic Impact ofthe City ofMesa Smoke-free Ordinance,-FVorking Paper 1: Business f • i Intervietii,s, conducted by Applied Economics for the City of Mesa Finance Department, 1996. Study surveyed 17 restaurants or restaurdnt/lounges in Mesa one month after the city'sordinancewentintoeffect. Study results are based on owners/managers' opinions about theimpact -of the ordinance on sales. ` Economic Impact ofthe City ofJVcsa Smoke-free Ordinance, FVorking Paper 2: PreliminarySalesTa_ Analysis, conducted by Applied Economics for'the City of Mesa Finance Department, 1996. Study compared sales data from July and August 1996 (the two months after the July 1" datethe. ordinance went into effect), with sales data from July and August 1995. While the use of sales tax data to monitor -impact is appropriate, the study should have used several years' worth of data to establish an -accurate baseline and account for any random fluctuations. Potential Economic Effects ofa Smoking -Ban in the State of California, conducted by PriceWaterhousefortheSouthern. California Business' Association, Los Angeles County Hotel Motelgroup, and San Diego Tavern and Restatirant Association, 1993. Study- based on restaurant owners and managers' predictions about the effecis of a proposedstatewidesmokingbanonbusiness. General Principles forAnalyzing Econonuc Lnpact Reports 4 The following guidelines can help assess the validity and reliability of all econom is impactstudy's findings: Anecdotal information and non-random surveys are unreliable sources oj invrmation. SalestaxdatareortedtothefPpp*ropriate state agency are preferable, because the numbers reflectallrestaurantsalesinacommunity, not a small,sample of restaurants (Glantz & Smith, 1994; ANR, 1998). Sales tax data are objective. Figures*are collected using consistent methods by state agencies with no agenda regarding tobacco control legislation. Tax figures are considered accuratebecauseitisacrimetoliewhenreportingreceiptstothestate (Glantz & Smith, 1994). Studies should include data for several years before enactment ofsmokefiree legislation, andfor611quartersafterenactment. Many businesses, including restaurants, experience quarter to quarter fluctuations in sales, and Iona -term seasonal patterns. Any analysis can selectivelyhighlightquarterswhichgivetheimpressionofadecline *in sales (Glantz & Smith, 1994; ANR, 1998). Figures in a vacuum are difficult to intetpret.:'The analysis should take into account the general economic trends in the jurisdiction, as well as the trends in the restaurant economy inthearea (Glantz & Smith, 1994; AIR, 1998). The study may have been conducted by a tobacco industryfront group. Many economicimpactstudiescirculatedbythetobaccoindustrywereconductedbyanalystspaidbythetobaccoindustry. To find out whether the analysis was conducted by a researcher or organization affiliated with the tobacco industry, call ANR (ANR, 1998). ECONO?v11C IMPACT OF VOLUNTARY POLICIES - Restaurants and Bars Health Departments in the California counties of Marin, San Mateo, Ventura and Alameda conducted surveys'of restaurants which had voluntarily adopted smokefree policies: Cumulativeresultsshowthat90% or more of the restaurants surveyed reported that business had eitherimprovedordidn't ehan,e after they went smokefree (Roberts. 1993). A survey of smokefree restaurants whose ban included bars attached to the restaurants found that93% of the owners reported either no change or -an improvement in business after their bar went smokefree (Smoke -Free Marin Coalition, 1993). Convention Business On July 1, I993, the Los Angeles Convention Center chose to eliminate all smoking at the - facility. According to the Convention Center's General Manager, the policy "has had nonegativeimpactonoursalesandmarketingorbookingefforts" (Walsh, 1994). fyorAplaces 5 The economic impact of voluntarily eliminating smoking in tlle work la ' savings an employer can expect after adopting a smokefree otictheworkplaceincludecostsassociatedwiththeeffectsof P. ce relates to the cost costs associated with higher health and life.insi P y' Cost estimates of smoking insmokingonthesmoker: and disability and premature death of smokers (Mari onoMe e10 increasedherabs.nteeism aeonsmokingintheworkplacewillreducethesecostsonlyinasmuchasthe ti smokers; 1 Dotiv, 1•j91), Eliminatingandconsumpti6nrateofsmokers. However, there are other costs asso ' tivorkplace that an employer.can always expect to Y reduce the prevalence . P avoid when ado tincr a s d with smoking P a smokefree o in the Smoking in the workplace increases costs to employers b an Policy. smoking employee (CDC, 1996. Y stimated $1,300 pe e arthat23-.3% reported a reduction in main nan eey of 2cos00 workplaces with smoking P y per concluded that implementiria smoking Swart. Aug 5 restrictions found restrictions in U.S. workplaces 190. An EPA analysisandmaintenancecostsbybetween $4 billion to $ s billion each would reduce Operating year (US EPA; 1994). prating Secondhand smoke ari z'Xacts a toll on nonsmokingassociatedwiththeeffectsofsecondhandsmokeonnworkers nain te e workplace. 56 dollai s per smoker per year (Itristein '] 983. , Estimated costs employees range.from $27 toestimatesthateliminating ) The Environmental Protection AgencyexposuretosecondhandsmokeinmostindoorenvironmentsWsave $35 billion to $66 billion per. year (due to'premature deaths avoided andUSEPA, 199=1). would reduction in illness) R'EFERENCES Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. What. to Look for in an Economic Impact Study. Ber P • r r ANA, 1993. `. Applied Economics. Economic Impact of the City ofMesa Smoke -frees y kel;- - California: Intervietivs. Mesa; Arizona: Applied Economics, 1996. - Ordinance, Working Paper 1: Applied Economics. Economic Impact of the City of Mesa Smoke= free Ordinance, p . Business Preliminarn' Sales Tax Anhlysis. Mesa. Arizona: Applied Economics• 1996. Bartosh. WI . Pope. Working Paper 2: p G. The Economic Effect ofSmoke-free Restaurant Policies on Restaurant ausineMassachusetts. Journal ofPublic Health tllanaoenrc,7r and PracticeCaliforniaDepartmentofHealthServices, Tobacco Control Section. California's law for ss in1):53-62,"January 1999workplace: Assembly Bill 13 quick facts a't a glanceTobaccoControlSection, July 24, 1996. Sacramento. California D a stnokeFree Cassin, L -E. Air Pollution Prog par''ment of Health Service ram Manager, Aspen, CO. Personal correspondence. AsCentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention, Assessment oFthe impact ofd 100% smoke-freerestaurantsales. kforbidity and Alorrality lYeekly Report, 44:,70-; j Aspen. Colorado: 1990. Centers for Disease Control and Peeve' 3 fe- ordinance on ntion. Makin, 1995,. 11996. Craig Your Workplace Smokefree: A Decision Maker's Guide, P. Craig Group. West Your Restaurant and Bar Survey. . fide, GaMbee, P. Economic Impacts ofa Smokin* y Columbus, Ohio: The CraigCaliforniaBusinessandRestaurantAlliance, 99 1. Bellflou.r. California. Los Ano Group, 1997, Glantz, S.A.. Smith, L.A.A. eles, California: The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke Free RestaurantiniralifOrnia.•San Francisco, California: Glaniz, S.A.. Smith, L.R.A. The effect Ofordin nc,s requiring son Restaurant SalesryofCalifornia, Institute for Health Policy Studies, 1992, United States. American Journal ofPublic Arealrh 84:1081-85, 1994. 9 , smok:iree restaurants on restaurant sales in theGlantzS-A.. Smith LRA.followA• The effect of ordinances requiring smoke' p AmericanJorirnal of Public Heal.h 87:1687-1693, t* n revenues: restaurants and bars oA 6 Goldstein, A.. Sobel. R. Environmental tobacco smoke regulations have not hurt restaurant sales in North Carolina. North Carolina h/edic•al ,lournal 59(5): 284-288, September/October 1998. Hyland, A., Cummings, KM., Nauenberg, E. Analysis.of Taxable Sales Receipts: Was New York City's Smoke -Free Air Act Bad for Restaurant Business? Journal of Public Health h/annszeinent incl Practice, 5(1):14-21, 1999. - InContext. Massachusetts Restaurant Association Study. Washington, DC.-. InContext, 1996. InContext. Restaurant Jobs in New York City, 1993 Through First Quarter 1996, and the Restaurant Smoking Ban. Washington, DC: InContext, 1996. KPMG Peat Marwick. Effects of 1993 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns and Night Clubs. Washington, DC: American Beveraste Institute web site: littp:#wivw.abionline.org, 199.8. Kristein, M.M. How much can business expect to profit from smoking cessation? Preventive Aledicine 12:358- 381.1983. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc. The economic impact of smoking: in the workplace; on cardiovascular health; on wound healin- and recovery from surgery; on infants and children; on pulmonary health; on dental and oral health. Medical Information Services, Inc., 1991. Maroney, N., Sherwood, D.,.Stubblebine, W.C. The Impact of Tobacco Control Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in California. Claremont, California: The Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 1994. Pope, J. et al. The Economic Impact of Brookline's Restaurant Smoking Ban. Waltham, Massachusetts: Health Economics Research, Inc., 1995. Price Waterhouse. Potential Economic Effects of a Smoking Ban in the State of California. Washington, DC:, Price Waterhouse, 1993. Roberts, S. California Health Departments Survey Local Restaurants for Business Impact of Goin; Smokefree. San Rafael, California: Smoke -Free Marin Coalition, 1993. ' Sciacca, J.P., Ratliff, M.L. Prohibiting smoking in restaurants: Effects on restaurant sales, American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(3): 176-184, January/February 1998' Smoke -Free Marin Coalition. Follow -Up Interview of Marin County Smoke -Free Restaurants With Bars. San Rafael, California: Smoke -Free Marin Coalition, 1993. Swart, "An Overlooked Cost of Employee Smoking"Personnel, August 1990. Task Force for a Smoke-free San Diezo. The Economic Implications of a Smoke-free San Diego. San Diego,, California: Task Force for a Smoke-free San Diego, 1992. Taylor Consulting Group. The San Luis Obispo Smoking Ordinance: A Study of the Economic Impacts on San Luis Obispo Restaurants and Bars. San Luis Obispo, California:* Taylor Consulting Group, January 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv. The Costs and Benefits of Smoking Restrictions: An Assessment of the Smoke-Free'Environmental Act of 1993 (H.R. 3434). Office of Air and Radiation. Washington. DC: U.S. EPA; April 1994.' Walsh, D. General Manager. Lot Angeles Convention Center. Letter to Councilman Marvin Braude. Los Anzeles. California: 1994. j m Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, 1996, revised 2000 w:lmaterial/pospaper/econ [PP -05] ic r /l/o ke' Helping you breathe a little easier WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY October 15. 1998 What evidence does the study use? Is the information anecdotal, or is it based on hard data? Sales tax receipts, from the state Board of Equalization, or equivalent state agency, are the only data which measure restaurant sales in an unbiased, accurate fashion. Surveys measure restaurant owners' impressions; they generally do not provide data to back up those impressions. Although restaurant owners may perceive a downturn in sales, only sales tax receipts tell the real story. Are sales figures for more than one quarter analyzed? To identify underlying trends in restaurant sales that occur each year (such as slumps during the cold winter months), economic impaci studies should include restaurant sales data for several years before an ordinance is enacted, as well as for all quarters after enactment. An observed decrease in sales data for one or two quarters may simply be the typical downward trend in'restaurant sales that occurs every year. Delays in filing statements with the Board of Equalization artificially decrease the sales figures for any one quarter. Comparison? Figures in a vacuum tell little. Compare restaurant sales tvith total retail sales --what's going on in the general economy of the city? Compare restaurant sales to comparable cities' restaurant sales --what's going on in the restaurant economy in the area? The least useful comparison is previous quarters before ordinance passed with same quarters after ordinance passed --the general economy may have changed from one year to the next. Did the tobacco industry really conduct the study? Was the economic impact study conducted by a tobacco industry front group? Check the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation's Tobacco Industry Tracking Database, or call ANR for assistance. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, 1998 w:\f\materiaRfactshts\econ_lookfor [FS -041 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J • Berkeley, California 94702 9 (510) 841-30321 FAX (510) 841-3071 ic uv. Xo- /l/o a-smoked-y' Helping you breathe a little easier THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 100% SMOKI FREE ORDINANCES October 15, 1998 Chapel Hill, NC: Researchers at UNC -Chapel Hill examined restaurant sales data for 1990-1997 in ten counties, five with strict smoking ordinances and five similarly situated counties without restrictive ordinances. No differences were found in restaurant sales between the two groups. (Goldstein and Sobel, 'Environmental Tobacco SmokeRegulationsHaveNotHurtRestaurantSalesinNorthCarolina; North Carolina Medical Journal, 59(5): 284-288, September/October 1998.) Flagstaff, AZ: A study conducted at Northern Arizona University found Flagstaff s smokefree restaurant ordinance had no negative impact on restaurants, as measured by sales tax data from January 1, 1990 (3.5 yearsbeforetheenactmentofthesmokefreeordinance) to December 31, 1994 (1.5 years after enactment). Using fourdifferentmethodsofanalysis, the study compared Flagstaff restaurant and retail sales with sales in two similarArizonacities, three counties, and the entire state -of Arizona. (Sciacca and Ratliff, 'Prohibiting Smoking in Restaurants: EffectsonRestaurantSales," American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(3):176-184, January/February 1998.) California and Colorado: In a follow-up to a landmark 1994 study, University of California'researchers foundthat100% smokefree restaurant and bar ordinances do not adversely impact revenues. Researchers analyzed sales tax data, comparing restaurant sales in 15 cities to total retail sales in the same cities, and restaurant salesin15comparisoncities. The researchers also examined five cities and two counties with smokefree bar ordinances. (Glantz and Smith, 'The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke -Free Restaurants and Bars Revenues: A Follow-up," American JournalofPublicHealth, 87(10):1687-1693, October 1997.) New York, NY: Cummings examined various sales tax measures for the year after New York City's ordinance took effect and compared them to the previous year. He found that in the year following enactment, taxablesalesfromeatinganddrinkingestablishmentsinNewYorkCitywereup3.6% (they were flat for the rest of thestate); taxable hotel sales were up 1.1.2%; and the number of new restaurant permits increased 30%. (Cummings, K.M., "Economic Impact of the New York City Smoke -Free Air Act," Roswell Park Cancer Institute, 1997.) Massachusetts: Researchers examined taxable meals receipts data collected by the state for the period January1992toDecember1995andfoundthatsmokefreerestaurantrestrictionsincreasedreceiptsintownsadoptingsmokefreepoliciesby5to9%. They compared 29 -communities that had enacted or adopted smokefree policies with 222 cities and towns that did not adopt a restaurant smoking policy or that passed "relatively weakpolicies," such as "simply designating a percentage of seats non-smoking." (Pope and Bartosch, "Effect of Local Smoke -treeRestaurantPoliciesonRestaurantRevenueinMassachusetts; Center for Health Economics Research, April 22, 1997.) West Lake Hills, TX: Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed restaurant salestaxdataandfoundthatthe "total sales of the restaurants did not decrease after implementation of the ordinance" banning smoking in restaurants in West Lake Hills, Texas. (CDCP,'Assessment of the Impact of a 100% Smoke -Free OrdinanceonRestaurantSales' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 44:370-372, 1 995.) Beverly Hills and Bellflower, CA: The California cities of Beverly Hills and Bellflower repealed their smokefree restaurant ordinances following opposition organized by the tobacco industry. Contrary to tobaccoindustryclaims, there was no drop in restaurant sales in either city during the time their ordinances were in effect, -nor was there an increase in restaurant sales following reversal of the 100% smokefree policy inrestaurants. (Hinderliter, de llamas and Associates, Glendora, CA, November 8,1991; Glantz and Smith, 'The Effect of Ordinances RequiringSmokefreeRestaurantsonRestaurantSales; American Journal of Public Health 1994; 84:1081-1085; and "The 30 Percent Myth," Consumer Reports, May 1994; p. 320.) w:1f\mat\factshts\econ_cia [FS -03j 253(7 San Pahln Avonr o Qnifn I The New Battleground: California's Experience With Smoke -Free Bars Sheryl Magzamen, MPH, and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD In 1994, the California Legislature en- acted the California Smoke -Free Workplace Law (Assembly Bill [AB] 13), which required indoor workplaces in California to be smoke free.',2 AB 13 went into effect January 1, 1995, except for the provisions governing bars, tav- erns, and gaming rooms; these provisions, which aimed to give bar employees the same protections as other workers, took effect on January 1,1998. The tobacco industry claimed that making bars smoke free would devastate business, deny adults the freedom to smoke, violate the rights of business owners, and be difficult to enforce3 (also I Miller, interview with authors, December 4, 1998). The tobacco industry always opposes smoke-free workplace legislation.° Except for 1 unsuccessful attempt to undermine im- plementation of a local clean indoor air ordi- nance after it passed in 1987, the industry gen- erally retreats and accepts the law after it takes effect. However, the tobacco industry went to extraordinary lengths -9 repeal attempts, an unsuccessful $18 million initiative campaign,° and a statewide public relations campaign— to prevent the implementation of the Smoke - Free Workplace Law in California bars. Pub- lic health groups countered with surveys and community activities to demonstrate that the personal testimonials the tobacco industry so- licited did not reflect the broader public senti- ment, which favored smoke-free bars. Tobacco control groups upheld smoke-free bars by ex- pending considerable resources to mobilize public support, working in the legislature, and remaining focused on smoke-free bars as a workplace safety measure. Methods We interviewed representatives from vol- untary health organizations, legislative offices, advocacy groups, state agencies, state con- tractors, interest groups, trade groups, and media observers. We obtained information from news reports, internal tobacco industry memoranda, personal correspondence, public documents, and legislative meetings. We con- tacted tobacco industry agency Burson- Marsteller for an interview; it deferred ques- tions to its client, the National Smokers' Alliance (NSA), which declined to participate. Results Delaying Initial Implementation of the Smoke -Free Bar Provisions oj.4B 13 On February 23, 1996, AB 3037 was in- troduced to extend the bar exemption in AB 13—originally scheduled to expire on Janu- ary 1, 1997—to January 1, 2000, to give the state Occupational Safety and Health Stan- dards tandardsBoardorfederalEnvironmentalProtec- tion Agency additional time to develop a ven- tilation standard! Neither AB 13 nor the proposed AB 3037 placed an affirmative duty on either agency to produce ventilation stan- dards. In the more than 2 years between the passage ofAB 13 in 1994 and January 1, 1997, no representatives from bars, taverns, gaming clubs, or the tobacco industry petitioned either agency to create a standard (L. Aubry Jr, mem- orandum to Gov. Pete Wilson, September 12, 1996). The senate reduced AB 3037 to a 1 -year extension (to January 1, 1998), and the bill passed without controversy. The health groups did not oppose the 1 -year extension. John Miller, chief of staff for the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, explained why: The authors are with the Institute for Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, University of Cal- ifornia, San Francisco. Requests for reprints should be sent to Stan- ton A. Glantz, PhD, Professor of Medicine, Divi- sion of Cardiology, Box 0130, University of Cali- fornia, San Francisco, CA 94143 (e-mail: glantz@ medicine.ucsfedu). This article was accepted January 3, 2000. American Journal of Public Health 245 Magzamen and Glantz When we imposed a statewide ban on restau- rants and workplaces, it was the first [such state law] in the country. Nobody really knew if it would work or not And we did not know what the effects would be. We never anticipated what the [tobacco industry] said they were. But you need to demonstrate that And you need to win the sympathy of the press. It took a little time for the public to get used to that idea" (J Miller, interview with authors, December 4, 1998). 1997-1999 Attempts to Repeal Smoke - Free Bar Law After AB 3037 passed, 8 additional bills were introduced to overturn the smoke-free bar provisions ofAB 13, both before and after the law took effect9 Rather than the tobacco in- dustry or its known front groups, the organi- zations publicly supporting the repeal laws were Tavern Owners United for Fairness, Northern California Coalition Against Prohibition, Northern CaliforniaTavern and RestaurantAs- sociation, and California Licensed Beverage Association, as well as individual bars and bowling alleys. Groups on record as opposing the repeal included the American Cancer So- ciety, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, the California Medical Association, California Labor Federation American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations [AFL-CIO]), the California Nurses Association, and the League of California Cities. Two bills illustrate the key legislative battles. AB 297. AB 297 was introduced by As- semblyman Ed Vincent (D -Inglewood) in Feb- ruary 1997 to amend the law relating to gam- ing clubs. In May 1997, Vincent inserted amendments into AB 297 written by a lobby- ist1D for Philip Morris and Hollywood Park, a casino and racetrack in Vincents district." AB 297 would have extended the exemption for bars until January 1, 2001, and required that if the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration adopted a standard for sec- ondhand smoke exposure, bars would have 2 years to comply. AB 297 passed the Assembly Labor Com- mittee in July, too late to be enacted during the current legislative session, 12 so it could not delay implementation of the smoke-free bar provisions on January 1, 1998. The bill, how- ever, would remain alive when the legislature re=ed on January 5,1998, and would provide a vrhicle for tobacco industry efforts to over - tum the law after it was in effect Senate Bill 137. In August 1997, Vincent amendedSenate Bill (SB)137, a horse -racing bill authored by Senator Ken Maddy (R- Fmsnol to extend smoking in bars until Janu- ary 1, 200L SB 137 had already passed in the senate and could still be enacted during the 1997 legislative session to prevent the smoke- free bar law from going into effect Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D -Fresno) granted SB 137 rule waivers that suspended the nor- mal filing and hearing deadlines. 13.14 The Cal- ifornia Occupational Safety and Health Ad- ministration was to create standards for safe levels of smoke in the bars and casinos by Jan- uary 1999 or smoking would be permitted until 2001.12 Because of the cost of developing such standards, the bill would have been sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where the committee chair, a strong public health ad- vocate who refined tobacco industry campaign contributions, opposed it 12 To avoid this hos- tile committee, Vincent and Maddy removed the requirement that the state Occupational Safety and Health Administration develop ven- tilation standards. Bustamante then referred SB 137 to the Assembly Governmental Orga- nization Committee, which approved it 11-2. This parliamentary maneuvering illustrates how the tobacco industry is able to use insider strategies to operate quietly through legislative leaders who control the process." Between July and September, the media reported on Maddy and Vincent's intentions to use SB 137 to delay implementation of smoke- free bars.1 -"'" To counter the industry's in- sider strategies, the health groups publicized its activities. On August 28, 1997, the day SB 137 was amended into a smoke-free bar repeal law, the American HeartAssociation and Amer- icans for Nonsmokers' Rights took out a full- page advertisement in the New York Times Western Edition headlined "Don't all workers deserve smoke-free workplaces? The law says yes. Big tobacco says no." On August 29, the assembly passed SB 137 by a vote of44-28. Legislators voting yes on SB 137 (pro -tobacco) received a total of 433 700 in tobacco industry campaign con- tributions in the period 1997 to 1998 (mean, 9857 per vote)9; those voting no on SB 137 pro -health) received 51000 in tobacco indus- try campaign contributions in the period 1997 to 1998 (mean, $36 per vote) (P<.001 by Mann-Whitney test). Previous research in Cal- ifornia,9,17,1B other states, 1-5 and the US Con- gress19 has shown that tobacco industry cam- paign contributions both influence legislators' voting patterns on tobacco issues and serve as a reward for voting favorably for the tobacco industry. The amended bill went back to the senate for concurrence. Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D -Hayward), who had been a strong ally of the tobacco industry,""" had come to view protection of bar employees from sec- ondhand smoke as a "worker's rights issue"21 He referred SB 137 to the Senate Judiciary Committee to kill it The week before SB 137 was to be heard in the Judiciary Committee, the American Can- cer Society held a widely covered press con- ference and took out a full-page advertisement in the Sacramento Bee—headlined "Can Cal- ifomians Afford the Best Legislature Money Can Buy?"—lambasting the assembly and ex- posing the industry's manipulation of the leg- islative process. The day before SB 137 was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the American Heart Association, American Lung Associa- tion, American Cancer Society, and Califor- nia Medical Association took out a full-page advertisement in the Sacramento Bee head- lined 'Big Tobacco Is At It Again!" The ad- vertisment highlighted the industry's unjusti- fied claims that the law was hurting business and costing jobs and contested the industry's claim that ventilation standards could control secondhand smoke. The advertisement also listed phone numbers of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and urged con- stituents to call. The next day, September 9, 1997, the Judiciary Committee deferred a vote on SB 137, killing it During the last days of the 1997 legisla- tive session, a tobacco industry lobbyist pro- posed a 5 -cent tax increase on cigarettes to Lockyer in exchange for legislation allowing smoking to continue in bars 22 Lockyer refused, and California became the first state to have smoke-free bars. AB 297 revisited. AB 297 was alive when the legislature returned on January 5, 1998, just 4 days after the smoke-free bar provisions went into force. According to American Lung Association lobbyist Paul Knepprath,"As soon as the [smoke-free bar provisions] went into effect, it changed the legislative landscape com- pletely. Now the onus was on the tobacco in- dustry and [its] supporters and allies to undo and repeal a law that had gone into effect, which is much more difficult than stopping something from going into effect" (P Knep- prath, interview with authors, November 23, 1998). Nevertheless, on January 28, the as- sembly passed AB 297 .by 42-26. Those vot- ing yes received $412800 in tobacco industry contributions in the period 1997 to 1998 (mean, 9829), and those voting no received $1000 mean, $38) (P<.001).9 AB 297 then moved to the senate. Lock- yer had stepped down as president pro tem, and Senator John Burton (D -San Francisco), who had a strong public health record, suc- ceeded him. Recognizing the controversy the tobacco industry's public relations campaign generated, Burton was willing to consider the alleged nehative economic impact of smoke- free bars. Because he viewed the law as a worker safetyissue" and not a "customer - preference issue:24 Burton put the burden of 246 American Journal of Public Health February 2001, Vol. 91, No. 2 Proof on opponents to prove that the law actually hurting business .21,25.26 Burton directed the bill to the Sen Health and Human Services Committ chaired by anti -tobacco Senator Diane Wats D -Los Angeles), who planned a public he ing.21 Watson was concerned that the indus was "undermining the implementation of th public health laWi27 by urging noncomplian Vincent wanted the hearing delayed until Jun which would give the industry more time build opposition, so he attempted to pull th bill off the voting calendar (J. Miller, intervie with authors, December 4, 1998) and did n appear at the hearing in an effort to prevent vote." Watson kept AB 297 on the calenda and held the hearing. The health advocates used the hearing a a focal point for their activities (M. Burgat, in- terview with authors, November 17,1998). O March 12, 16, and 23, 1998, the health group ran advertisements in the Sacramento Bee, N York Times Western Edition, and La Opinion, countering the tobacco industrys argument that AB 297 was about individual rights rather than employee protection from secondhand smoke. On March 25, the day of the hearing, the American Cancer Society released the results of a poll conducted in February 1998 demon- strating public support for smoke-free bars28; 61 % ofvoters surveyed supported the 2 -month- old law. In another survey conducted for the California Department of Health Services, 61 % reported that the new law had no effect on the likelihood of their visiting a bar, and 24% re- ported that they would be more likely to visit a smoke-free bar.29In addition, 75% of bar pa- trons who were smokers reported complying with the law when in a bar. This poll was con- sistent with other independent polls (cable 1) indicating public support for smoke-free bars and was used to counter widely accepted an- ecdotal claims of lost income and noncompli- ance in news reports orchestrated by the to- bacco industry mostly through the NSA, an organization created by the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller for Philip Morris.36 Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights linked groups such as the Northern California Bar and Tavern Association (created by the Dol- phin Group, under contract with Philip Mor- ris37) back to the tobacco industry or the NSA C. Hallett, interview with authors, Novem- ber 16, 1998). It also publicized Philip Morris documents disclosed during Minnesota" lid- gation against the tobacco industry that demon- strated that the NSA was a front group for the industry rather than an organization repre- senting smokers-" The hearing was a direct confrontation between the tobacco industry and the health groups. Bar owners, club owners, and bar- tenders opposing the law, complained of lost February 2001, Vol. 91, No. 2 was business and infringement of their rights as business owners.39 The health groups presentedSenaevidencethatsmoke-free workplaces were an ee, integral part of the decline in smoking preva- on lence in California .39 The president of the Cal - r_ ifornia Labor Federation (AFL-CIO) stated, try "We believe disease and death should not be aisconditionofemployment.s27 To put a human ce. face on the issue, the health groups were also e, represented by individual bartenders, wait - to resses, and club owners who supported the law e (M. Burgat, interview with authors, Novem- ber 17,1998; P. Knepprath, interview with au- ot thors, November 23, 1998). a AB 297 died in committee. r Putting the EconomicArgument to Rest s In May 1998, the American Beverage In- n stitute released a survey of selected bar own- s ers and managers in California that claimed aNewdeclineinbusinessof59.3% since January 1998, with stand-alone bars claiming a 81.3% drop.3 Similar anecdotal claims of lost revenues have been used to fight smoke-free restaurant laws,40-42 despite the fact that they have been re- peatedly shown to be false in studies of actual restaurant43-52 and bar48 revenues. Burton requested that the state Board of Equalization, Californias sales tax collection agency, rapidly produce a preliminary analy- sis of taxable sales. On June 24,1998, the board reported that the state's smallest 1161 estab- lishments that serve alcohol (less than $50000 in taxable sales per month) had a 1.06% in- crease in revenues in January 1998 compared with January 1997.53 The board also found that the state's 131 smallest bars—those the indus- try claimed would be hurt most—showed the largest increase in business, 35% over the pre- vious January.S3 Later, the board released data comparing January 1997 and 1998 sales for 1175 larger ban; and restaurants with bars that showed a 1.07% increase in sales.S9 For the first quarter of 1998, there was a 6.0% increase in taxable sales for all eating and drinking estab- lishments compared with 1997.55 While the to- bacco industry continued to press its economic claims in the media, the board reports ended the economic argument in the legislature. s State Efforts to Implement Smoke -Free Bars i v As with other public health laws, the pri- jt mary mode for implementing the Smoke -Free Workplace Law in 1995 was education, with w formal enforcement actions (citations and sm fines) kept to a minimum. A public education if: campaign focusing on the dangers of second- n hand smoke (the justification for the law) that L started 6 months before the law took effect si eased implementation and minimized the need A for formal enforcement (R. Shimizu, Califor- 19 Smoke -Free Bars nia Department of Health Services (DHS), memo to J. Howard, D. Bal, and D. Lyman, May 27,1997; C. Stevens, DHS, memo to M. Genest, September 30,1997; C. Stevens, DHS, memo to L. Frost, May 23, 1997). Refusal to use media campaign. Public health advocates were concerned that the to- bacco industry would run a campaign to un- dercut compliance with the smoke-free barpro- visions and felt it was important that the health message reach the public first. The Tobacco Control Section of the California Department of Health Services had 2 resources to undertake this task, a contract agency responsible for the implementation of the smoke-free bar provi- sions and a large statewide media campaign funded by the tobacco tax. 16,11 The Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Commit- tee, the body with the legislative mandate to oversee the California Tobacco Control Pro- gram, recommended that an educational cam- paign begin as early as August 1997.56 The administration of Governor Pete Wil- son (R) ignored this advice (M. Genest, memo to J. Howard and J. Stratton, May 28, 1997) and refttsed to implement an educational cam- paign on the grounds that promoting the new bar law would be considered "lobbying" against tobacco industry's efforts to overturn thelaw5as9 By October 1997, the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society were complaining that bar patrons would be unprepared for the new provisions and that the tobacco industry would incite bar owners and patrons to violate the law60 The Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee and public health advo- cates asked that, even if the administration would not allow advertisements while the leg- islature was in session, it at least develop and approve advertising that could air quickly after the legislature adjourned in September 1997. The administration refused (M. Genest, DHS, memo to J Howard and J. Stratton, May 28, 1997), despite the fact that detailed advertising concepts had been presented by its advertising agency in April 1997 (A. Schafer, Asher/Gould Advertising, letter to C. Stevens, April 8, 1997). Only when legislative attempts to repeal the moke-free bar law failed when the legislature djourned did the administration begin work - ng on an advertising campaign.' The first ad- ertisement promoting smoke-free bars aired Ist 6 weeks before the law went into effect. Supporting local agencies. BY July 1996, hen planning of the implementation of the oke -free bar provisions began, 85% of Cal- mia localities already had agencies desig- ated to enforce the Smoke -Free Workplace aw because of the general workplace provi- ons implemented in 1995 (D. Kiser, inter- ew with authors, November 11, 1998). In 96, theTobacco Control Section conducted American Journal of Public Health 247 Magzamen and Glantz TABLE 1—Surveys of Popular Support of and Compliance With the California Smoke -Free Bar Law Study Sponsor Major Findings Additional Findings California Smokefree 64% agreed that bar employers had a responsibility 36% reported that they would be less likely to go to a barCities" (March 1996) to protect bar employees. that allowed smoking, as opposed to 11% who reported 61 % agreed that bar employers had a responsibility that they would be more likely to go to a bar that allowed to protect bar patrons. smoking. California Department 60% of bar patrons reported that they would prefer 75% of bar patrons reported that they did not smoke of Health Services ° a smoke-free bar. at all or did not smoke in bars. July 1997) 87% of bar patrons stated that it would make no 64% of Californians had visited a bar in the past year; difference orthat they would be more likely to visit bars 11 % reported being weekly bar patrons. if they went smoke free. Los Angeles County 85% of bar patrons were more likely to go Department of Health` to a smoke-free bar, or it made no difference. March 4, 1998) American Lung Association, Contra Costa–Solano° March 11, 1998) American Cancer Society, California Division' March 25, 1998) California Department of Health Services) March 1998) Los Angeles Times Poll° May 27, 1998) 70% of bar patrons reported that it was very or somewhat important to have smoke-free bars. 100% of bars in Jack London Square (Oakland) were smoke free. 96% of bars in Fisherman's Wharf (San Francisco) were smoke free. 78% of frequent bar goers (1 or more times per week) bbd that law increased or had an effect on their intent to visit bars. 61 % of frequent bar goers strongly or somewhat approved of the smoking ban. The 2 areas are heavily patronized by tourists. 61 % of voters supported the smoke-free bar law. 61 % strongly agreed that the tobacco industry spent 69% of voters were concerned about the effects of too much money on lobbying and advertising. secondhand smoke on bar workers and patrons. 90% agreed that secondhand smoke is harmful to health. 75% favored a complete ban on smoking in all workplaces. 66% of bar patrons reported that having smoke-free 33% of bar patrons reported that having smoke-free bars bars was important. was not important. 61 % reported that the law would have no effect on 14% reported that they were less likely to visit a bar because their likelihood of visiting a bar. of the new law. 24% reported that they were more likely to visit a bar 75% of smokers abided by the law the last time they because of the new law. were in a bar after January 1. 60% of respondents approved of the smoke-free bar law. California Department 65% of bar patrons approved of the smoke-free bar law. of Health Services" 68% reported that it was important to have a October 5, 1998) smoke-free environment inside bars. San Francisco Patrons were in compliance with AB 13 in 78.3% of Tobacco Free Project' San Francisco bars visited. December 14, 1998) 96.5% of restaurant bars visited in San Francisco were in compliance. 100% of hotel bars visited were in compliance. 25% of smokers approved of the new law. 20% of respondents were smokers. 65% of Democrats, 57% of Republicans, and 59% of Independents supported the new law. 87% went to bars more often, or did not change their behavior, after law was implemented. Since poll conducted in March, an increased number of smokers went outside to smoke (63% compared with 53% before March poll). 50.6% of stand-alone bars visited were in compliance. 77.8% of nightclubs visited were in compliance. 57.9% of complying bars posted no -smoking signs. 76.5% of noncomplying bars posted no -smoking signs. Random -digit -dial telephone survey from February 7 to March 17, 1996, of 1283 adult members of California households. Sampling error is2.7%; sampling error with subsample of smokers (n-411) is 14.8%. Survey was conducted by the Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ 30 Random -digit -dial telephone survey from July 11 to 17, 1997, of 1023 California adults 21 years or older, including 686 who were bar patrons. Sampling error is ±3.2%. Survey was conducted by the Field Research Corporation, San Francisco, Calii.31 Random -digit -dial telephone survey in February 1998 of 455 Los Angeles County residents who had been inside a bar, nightclub, lounge, or bar attached to a restaurant after January 2, 1998, and who were 21 years or older. Sampling error is ±4.7%. Survey was conducted byCommunicationSciencesGroup, San Francisco, Calii.32 Site visits to 36 bars in Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco, and 11 bars in Oakland by American Lung Association staff.33 Random -digit -dial telephone survey in March 1998 of 600 California registered voters. Participants were 18 years or older. Sampling error is4.0%. Survey was conducted by Charlton Research Company, Walnut Creek, Calif. 21 Random -digit -dial telephone survey in February and March 1998 of 1001 California bar patrons, 21 years or older. A patron was defined as any adult 21 or older who reported visiting a bar, tavern, or nightclub, including one attached to a restaurant, hotel, or card club, in the last 12 months. Sampling error is 13.2%. Survey was conducted by Field Research Corporation, San Francisco, Calif.34 Random -digit -dial telephone survey in May 1998 of 1514 adults in California. Sampling error is 13%. Survey was conducted by the LosAngelesTimesPoll. Random -digit -dial telephone survey in August 1998 of 1020 bar patrons 21 years or older who in the last 12 months had visited a bar, tavern, or nightclub, including one attached to a restaurant, hotel, or card club. Sampling error is 13%. Survey was conducted by Field ResearchCorporation, San Francisco, Calif.35 Random sample of 225 bars in the city of San Francisco were generated. Each bar was initially contacted to confirm that a bar was in operation and to find out hours and location. A total of 217 bars were open and received compliance checks from 5 PM to 10 PM byconsultantsfortheprojectfora3 -week period in November and December 1998.29 249 American Journal of Public Health February 2001, Vol. 91, No. 2 a Gallup poll to gauge public opinion on th Smoke -Free Workplace Law28 and survey the county and city health departments (know as local lead agencies) to assess how to hand the transition to smoke-free bars.61 The loc lead agencies suggested various activities, i eluding text for no -smoking signs informin people about the law, tip sheets for bar own ers, bartenders, and wait staff, and enforceme suggestions.61 In addition, by the end of 199 77 California communities had already im plemented smoke-free bar ordinances, so th Tobacco Control Section could identify indi- viduals who could advise state and local offi- cials on implementation (T. Buffington, inter- view nter view with authors, November 18,1998). Th efforts were less visible to political appointees within the Wilson administration and were eas- ier for the Tobacco Control Section to com- plete than a media campaign. To support the local implementation of the bar provisions, on March 1, 1997, the To- bacco Control Section awarded an American Lung Association affiliate a contract to assist the local lead agencies in implementing smoke- free bars. This project, named BREATH, al- lowed the Tobacco Control Section to support smoke-free bar implementation in a way that was more resistant to political interference. In June 1997, information about the new law, answers to common questions, results from the Department of Health Services' 1997 poll showing public support for smoke-free bars Table 1). and a letter from the department's directorwere sent to all 36000 bars in the state. BREATH followed with a poster mailing in late 1997 describing the new legal requirements regarding smoke-free bars, penalties for non- compliance, myths about ventilation and an- ticipated impacts, and public support. After the bar provisions went into effect, BREATH pub- lished 2 full-page advertisements in the New York Imes Westem Edition listing 140 well- known bars and restaurants with bars that sup- ported the law to protect the health of their workers and customers. The Agar ofPerceptlons In 1994, well before implementation of the smoke-free bar provisions, Philip Morris contracted with a political public relations firm, the Dolphin Group, to develop a "California Action Plan" to "safeguard bars and taverns against the threat of a total smoking ban" and Protect and support point of sale retail/mar- keting strategies, visibility, and promotion 07 Both Philip Morris and the NSA contacted bar owners and smokers through direct mail cam- paigns using Philip Morriss database of smok- ers36*0-64 (also C. Hallett, interview with au- thors. November 16, 1998) to mobilize them against smoke-free bars. February 2001. VOL 91, No. 2 e Starting in February 1996, the NSA ed mounted a bar poster and coaster campaign, n warning barpatrons, "You are being targeted," le in more than 2000 bars 16 to enlist them in the al campaign to postpone the phase-in of smoke- r- free bars (C. Hallett, interview with authors, g November 16, 1998). The April 1996 NSA newsletter claimed that "California consumers rat now have a way to send a message to state law - 6, makers that they won't stand for an upcoming smoking ban that will force every bar in the e state to quit serving their smoking cus- tomers.s65 Customers were asked to fill out the action coasters" that were sent to state legis- lators. The NSA also took out a 4 -page adver- tise tisement in the Nation's Restaurant News to promote the message that it wanted to help restaurateurs fight for their rights and that restaurants lose business when smoking ordi- nances go into effect 38 In December 1997 and January 1998, the NSA supplied 3000 bars with "action kits," which included a window sticker to register the bar's opinion of smoke-free bars, customer awareness posters to place in the bar, and cus- tomer action coasters that stated, "I'm a con- stituent, not a criminal," to be sent in NSA - provided envelopes to the bar owner's state legislator.66 By March 1998, 4119 printed cards reached the Senate Health and Human Ser- vices Committee.67 The NSA, working through Burson- Marsteller, used print and electronic media to convey the impression that there were ram- pant public dissatisfaction with smoke-free bars and negative economic effects on small businesses (C. Hallett, interview with authors, November 16,1998). Between January 1998 and June 1998, Burson-Marsteller issued more than 70 press releases claiming prob- lems with the implementation of smoke-free bars. The tobacco industry dominated early media coverage of the impact and popularity of smoke-free bars. Articles that were published the week before the smoke-free bar provisions went into effect, and until 3 months afterward, emphasized opposition to the law and claims of lost business, lost jobs, and problems with enforcement, as well as the probability that the i law would be repealed2s,66.8a6 (also J Miller, interview with authors, December 4, 1998). t The Department of Health Services had tried to anticipate this argument by commissioning t opinion polls in 1996 and 1997, which demon- strated that about two thirds of the population a supported smoke-free bars (Table 1). These i Polls, however, did not have the same emo- i tional appeal as the personal stories that the to- P. bacco industry's media operation generated. b Even so, support for smoke-free bars increased throughout 199834 (also C. Hallett, interview by with authors, November 16, 1998). c Smoke -Free Bars Discussion The tobacco industrys campaign to fight smoke-free bars in California was unprece- dented in its duration and intensity and evolved over time. The industry's initial arguments against the law centered on predictions of economic disas- ter and government interference with free choice. The economic argument lost steam after stud- ies showed no effect of local smoke-free bar laws on bar revenues48 and effectively ended after the Board ofEqualization reported thatbar business increased (D. Kiser, interview with au- thors, November 11, 1998; P. Hunting, inter- view with authors, December 18, 1998). The free -choice argument subsided as polling data from the state, voluntary health agencies, and theLosAngeles Tines showed that most barpa- trons supported smoke-free bars." Research showing that bar workers' health improved 4 to 8 weeks after the law took effect78 reinforced the concept of smoke-free bars as a workplace safety issue. Throughout these battles, the industry tried to create a positive feedback loop in which smokers would be encouraged to ignore the law because it was going to be repealed, and the industry then used the noncompliance as an argument in the legislature for repeal. Although this strategy failed to get the law repealed; how- ever, it did create compliance problems. Although the health groups were outspent by the tobacco industry,'they were willing to make the implementation of smoke-free bars a priority and commit resources to defending the law (P. Knepprath, interview with authors, No- vember 23, 1998). In addition to funds for polling and advertising, these groups used their credibility to garner public support for smoke- free bars and to counter the tobacco industry activities, both outside and inside the legisla- ture. Repeating the successful strategy used in other legislative battles,' the groups directly at- tacked the tobacco industry and state legislators willing to support the industry through a se- ries of advertisements, which served as both a call to action for the public and a message to the legislature that the health groups were wili- ng to use their public regard to hold the in- dustry's political allies accountable. In addi- ion, the health groups were able to attract critical support for smoke-free bars from enti- ies outside the traditional public health com- munity, including the California Labor Feder - tion, the California League of Cities, and ndividual cities across the state (M. Burgat, nterview with authors, November 17, 1998; Knepprath, interview with authors, Novem- er 23, 1998). The public health groups also were aided powerful legislators sympathetic to their use. Foryears, Democrat Willie Brown, who American Journal of Public Health 249 Magzamen and Glantz received more tobacco industry campaign con- tributions than any other legislator in the coun- try,ts.so used his power as speaker of the as- sembly to protect the tobacco industry. After Brown left the legislature in 1996, anti -tobacco senators in the Democratic Caucus convinced President Pro Tem Lockyer that the Democ- rats were on the wrong side of the tobacco issue, particularly since the industry was fa- voring Republicans in its campaign contribu- tions (D. Watson, T. Hayden, N. Petris; mem- orandum to Caucus Position on Tobacco Interests; April 24,1996). As the bar law went into effect in 1998, new President Pro Tem Bur- ton made it clear that the only reason the sen- ate would reconsider the smoke-free bar law was if there was a substantial negative eco- nomic impact. After the Board of Equalization results were released, repeal of the smoke-free bar provisions was a dead issue in the senate. The health groups were not as successful in getting the Wilson administration to ensure implementation of the smoke-free bar law. De- spite the recommendations ofthe Department of Health Services' advertising agency, theTobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee, and the health groups, the administration delayed using the statewide media campaign to educate the public. It also refused to use the licensing powerofthe Department ofAlcoholic Beverage Control to see that bars did not participate in the tobacco industry's efforts to encourage people to ignore the law (M. Espinoza, letter to Assem- blyman Brett Granlund, December 18,1997).As elsewhere,6"' die health groups were not willing to be as public or aggressive in dealing with the administration as they were with the legislature, and they enjoyed less success there. This situation left pro -health forces lim- ited to lower -profile implementation efforts that would not attract the attention of high-level political figures in the administration. Fortu- nately, they could build on the infrastructure present in California, created by its large to- bacco control prograM37 and through the im- plementation of smoke-free workplaces and restaurants in 1995. Because approximately 90% of the staters bars are part of bar—restaurant combinations83 (also D. Kiser, interview with authors, November 11, 1998), a large majority of bar owners and managers had already im- plemented the Smoke -Free Workplace Law in the restaurant sections of their establishments in 1995- As a result, compliance in bar— restaurant combinations was high from the be- ginning (88% oflocal lead agencies estimated that "most;' "almost all, or "all" bar—restaurant combinations in their jurisdictions were com- plying with AB 13 by the end of January 199863) and remained high (D. Kiser, interview with authors, November 11, 1998). Virtually all the controversy and problems centered on stand-alone bars. 250 American Journal of Public Health Why Bars? Why did the tobacco industry fight so hard against the smoke-free bar law, particularly since the number of cigarettes smoked in bars is much smaller than the number smoked in workplaces? Part of the answer may lie in the fact that bars have become viewed as the `last bastions84 of socially acceptable smoking, and smoke-free bars send a strong message that smoking is not socially desirable (A. Hender- son, interview with authors, February 12, 1999). A more direct reason may have to do with marketing tobacco products. In recent years, the tobacco industry's marketing efforts di- rected at young children have become a polit- ical liability. As a result, die industry may be shifting at least some of its marketing efforts to young adults, where die arguments that public health advocates have mounted about smok- ing and children do not apply. Smoking is in- creasin among college-age students (aged 18- 24),85'8 and young adults (aged 21-30) repre- sent a substantial percentage of bar patrons. 87 The industry explicitly protected bars as pro- motional venues in the Master Settlement Agreement that settled lawsuits that the states brought against the tobacco industry.88 As early as 1996, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds started marketing efforts in bars and clubs through the Camel Club and Marlboro Days campaigns.89-96 The Camel Club pro- gram seeks to "create an alternative market- ing campaign and cigarette distribution net- work that will not be afrected by changing federal regulations or die scores of tobacco re- lated lawsuits."90KBA Marketing, the Chicago firm that runs die Camel Club program, states in its marketing material that "[b]y operating in the nightlife scene, the objective is to di- rectly reach die trend influencers, the people who start and maintain trends. Our association with trend influencers will have a lasting im- pact on club goers who will begin to associate Camel with what is 'c00l.siY7 In addition to reaching these young adults, this group serves as important role models for teens. Increasing smoking among young adults also promotes teen smoking. 98 Although there is nothing in AB 13 that prohibits hese promotional activities in bars, conducting them in a smoke-free bar presum- ably may reduce die effectiveness of these pro- motional campaigns: smoke-free bars send a strong social message that smoking is no longer socially acceptable. Lessons Learned Don t start hvith bats. The smoke-free bars were phased in 3 years after all other work- places in California went smoke free. It was beneficial to implement the Smoke -Free Work- place Law incrementally to prepare for the to- bacco industry responses to the law and to con- duct educational efforts targeting bar owners and workers and the public. Don't let the tobacco industry define the issue. The industry attempted to make die fight over smoke-free bars an economic debate, framing the small business owner as the victim of this law. Instead of using public appearances to respond to the tobacco industry's message, the health groups framed AB 13 as a health and worker safety issue. Health groups must commit resources to upholding the law. The health groups spent an estimated $200000 to promote and uphold the law. Polling, advertising, action alerts, and lob- bying all take commitment and resources. The health groups were also willing to take on not only the tobacco industry but also tobaccos political allies in the legislature. Once the law passes, the fight has just began. The passing ofAB 13 was only the be- ginning of the fight over smoke-free bars. The tobacco industry will continue to seek to un- dermine the law, even after it is passed. Al- though low-level officials in the Department of Health Services sought to implement the law, they did not receive high-level political support, and this reduced the effectiveness of their efforts. The private health groups did not apply effective pressure on die administration to secure optimal implementation. Long-term success requires that public health groups work to ensure not only passage but active imple- mentation of clean indoor air laws. O Contributors Both authors contributed to die design of this study, the analysis of results, and the writing of the paper. Acknowledgments This work was supported by National Cancer Insti- tute grant CA -61021. This work was presented at the American Pub- lic Health Association Conference, November 7-11, 1999. References 1. Glantz S, Balbach E. Tobacco Wars: Guide the California Battles. Berkeley: University of Cal- ifornia Press; 2000. 2. Macdonald H, Glantz SA. Political realities of statewide smoking legislation: the passage of California's Assembly Bill 13. Tob Control. 1997;6:41-54. 3. American Beverage Institute. American Bever- age Institute Market Research Study. Los An- geles, Calif: KPMG Peat Marwick; April 1998. 4. Macdonald H, Aguinaga S, Glantz SA. The de- feat of Philip Morris' "California Uniform To- bacco Control Act." Ant Public Health. 1997; 87:1989-1996. February 2001, Vol. 91, No. 2 5. Samuels B, Glantz SA. The politics of local to- bacco control. JAMA. 1991;266:2110-2117. 6. Traynor M, Begay ME, Glantz SA. New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco con- trol. JAMA. 1993;270:479486. 7. Samuels B, Begay ME, Hazan AR, Glantz SA. Philip Morriss failed experiment in Pittsburgh. J1lea11hFb1i1PolicyLaw 1992;17:329-351. 8. Regardie! Tobacco Road: can smoking ban for bars possibly be good for health and business? Downtown News. September 9, 1996:12. 9. Magzamen S, Glantz S. Turning the Tide: To- bacco Industry Political Influence and Tobacco Policy Making in California 1997-1999. San Francisco: Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco; September 1999. 10. AB 297 BillAnalysis. Sacramento: Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, California Dept of Industrial Relations; June 3, 1997. 11. Vanzi M. Smoking foe mounts offensive. Los Angelej Timm March 23, 1998:A3. 12. Morain D. Smoking ban is hazardous to capitol rules. Los Angeles Ttmes. September 8, 1997. 13. California State Assembly. Assembly Rude 77.2, Joint Rule 61. Sacramento: California Legisla- ture, 1997-98 Session; 1997. 14. Lucas G. Lobbyists try to delay smoking ban: state's bars, card clubs scheduled to be smoke- free. San Francisco Chronicle. July 17,1997:A 1. 15. Monardi F, Glantz S. Are tobacco industry cam- paign contributions influencing state legislative behavior? Am J Public Health:' 1998;88: 918-923. 16. Vellinga M. Foes ofbar smoking ban ready new tactic. Sacramento Bee. August 28, 1997:A20. 17. Glantz S, Begay M. Tobacco industry campaign contributions are affecting tobacco control pol- icy making in California. JAMA. 1994;272: 1176-1182. 18. Balbach E, Monardi F, Fox B, Glantz S. Holding GovernmentAccourntable: Tobacco Policy Mak- ing in California, 1995-1997. San Francisco: Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco; June 1997. 19. Moore S, Wolfe S, Lindes D, Douglas C. Epi- demiology of failed tobacco control legislation. JAM4. 1994;272:1171-1175. 20. Glastris P. Frank Fat's napkin: how the trial lawyers (and the doctors!) sold out to the to- bacco companies. Washington Monthly. De- cember 1987:19-25. 21. Vanzi M. Bid to lift smoking ban comes before key opponent Los Angeles Times. March 25, 1998:A18. 22. Ainsworth B. Smoking out the tobacco lobbys true intention. San Diego Union -Tribune. Octo- ber 13,1997:A3. 23. Vanzi M, Ingram C. Bid to lift smoking ban faces fight Los Angeles Times. January 30, 1998:4. 24. Jordan H. Tax proposals taking aim at pockets of state smokers. San Jose Mercury News. Febru- ary 13, 1998:A1. 25. Salladay R Bar smoking ban still controversial. San Francisco Examiner. February 11, 1998. 26. Sweeney J. Smoking ban under review in the Senate. San Diego Union -Tribune January 30, 1998:A3. 27. Vanzi M. Senate committee upholds ban on in- door smoking. Los Angeles 71'rrtes. Match 26, 1998. February 2001, Vol. 91, No. 2 28. American Cancer Society California Division. Smoke -Free Workplace Law Public Opinion Poll. Walnut Creek, Calif: Charlton Research Cc; March 25, 1998. 29. San Francisco Tobacco Free Project San Fran- cisco Smoke -Free Bar Compliance Survey Re- sults. San Francisco, Calif. San Francisco To- bacco Free Project; December 17, 1998. 30. California Department of Health Services. A Survey on California's Law for a Smokefree Workplace (AB 13): A aitudes After the First Year oflmplementation. Lincoln, Neb: Gallup Orga- nisation; March 1996. 31. California Department of Health Services. A Survey of California Adults Age 21 or Older About Smoking Policies and Smoke -Free Bars. San Francisco, Calif. Field Research Corp; July 1997. 32. Los Angeles County Health Department Bar Patrons in LA County Overwhelmingly Support Smoke -Free Bars. San Francisco, Calif. Com- munication Sciences Group; February 25, 1998. 33. Collins 1, Gaynes M, Weitz A, Kleinschmidt K. Fisherman's Wharf and Jack London Square go for smoke-free bars [press release]. San Fran- cisco, Calif. American Lung Association; 1998. 34. California Department of Health Services. A Survey ofCalifornia Bar PatronsAbout Smoking Policies and Smoke -Free Bars. San Francisco, Calif: Field Research Corp; February 24 -March 2, 1998. 35. California Department of Health Services. Smoke -Free Bars Follow -Up Survey. San Fran- cisco, Calif. Field Research Corp; August 1998. 36. Stauber 1, Rampton S. Toxic Sludge Is Goodfor You. Monroe, Me: Common Courage Press; 1995. 37. Philip Morris Companies Inc. California action plan, 1994. Available at: http://www.library.ucsf. edu/tobacco%alminnesota/html/3560/001. Ac- cessed December 18, 2000. 38. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. NationalSmokersAUiance: Exposed. Berkeley, Calif. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights; Oc- tober 1998. 39. California State Senate Television Program. Sen- ate Health and Hunuan Services Committee llearing-March 25, 1998. Sacramento: Cali- fornia State Senate Television Program; 1998. 40. San Diego Tavern and Restaurant Association. Potential Economic Effects ofa Smoking Ban in the City ofSan Diego. San Diego, Calif. Price Waterhouse; October 1992. 41. Southern California Business Association. Sum- mary ofFindings From LA Restaurant Owners/ Managers Survey. San Francisco, Calif. Charl- ton Research Co; December 1993 -January 1994. 42. Southern California Business Association. 77ie Impact of the Current and Proposed Smoking Bans on Restaurants and Bars in California. Los Angeles, Calif. KPMG Peat Marwick; Feb- ruary 1996. 43. Bartosch W, Pope G. The Economic Impact of BrooklineI Restaurant Smoking Ban. Waltham, Mass: Health Economics Research; 1995. 44. Bartosch W, Pope G. The economic effect of smoke-free restaurant policies on restaurantbusi- ness in Massachusetts. JPublic Health Manage Pract. 1999;5:53-62. 45. Biener L, Siegel M. Behavior intentions of the Smoke -Free Bars public after bans on smoking in restaurants and bars. Am ./Public Health. 1997;87:2042-2044. 46. Enz C, Corsun D, Young Y. To dine or not to dine: restaurant patrons' responses to the New York City smoke-free air act. Cornell Hotel Resta-1 Adm Q. December 1996;37(6):8-12. 47. Glantz S, Smith LRA. The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on restaurant sales [published correction appears in Am JPub- lic Health. 1997;87:1729-17301. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1081-1085. 48. Glantz S, Smith LRA. The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants and bars on revenues: a follow-up [published correction ap- pears in Am J Public Health. 1998;88:11221. Am./Public Health. 1997;87:1687-1693. 49. Goldstein A, Sobel R. Environmental tobacco smoke regulations have not hurt restaurant sales in North Carolina. NCMedJ. 1998;59:284-288, 50. Huang P, Toblas S, Kohout S, et al. Assessment of the impact of a 100% smoke-free ordinance on restaurant sales -West Lake Hills, TX, 1992- 1994. MMWR Morb Mortal TJVy Rep. 1995;44: 370-372. 51. Hyland A, Cummings K, Nauenberg E. Analy- sis of taxable sales receipts: was Newyork Citys smoke-free air act bad for restaurant business? JPublic Health Manage Pract. 1999;5:14-21. 52. Sciacca J, Ratliff M. Prohibiting smoking in restaurants: effects on restaurant sales. Am J Health Promot. 1998;12:176-184. 53. State Board of Equalization, Statistics Section. Cwnparison ofJanuary 1997 and January 1998 Taxable Sales ofSelected Eating and Drinking Places With General On -Sale Licenses. Sacra- mento: Agency Planning and Research Division, California State Board of Equalization; June 24, 1998. 54. State Board of Equalization, Statistics Section. Comparison of1st Quarter 1997 and 1st Quar- ter 1998 Taxable Sales ofSelected Eating and Drinking Places With General On -Sale Licenses Sacramento: State Board of Equalization, Agency Planning and Research Division; Octo- ber 1, 1998. 55. Tobacco Control Section. Final Taxable Sales Figures for Bars and Restaurants for the First Quarter of1998. Sacramento: California Dept of Health Services; December 22, 1998. 56. Bal D, Kizer KW, Felton PG, Mezar MN, Niemeyer D. Reducing tobacco consumption in California. Development of a statewide anti - tobacco use campaign. JAMA. 1990;264: 1570-1574. 57. Balbach E, Glantz SA. Tobacco control advo- cates must demand high-quality media cam- paigns: the California experience. Tob Control. 1998;7:397-408. 58. Hunting L. TEROC Meeting Minutes. Berkeley, Calif, Tobacco Education and Research Over- sight Committee; September 30, 1997. Bates No. 7-12. 59. Russell S. Delay of smoking ads irks panel: cam- paign backs state law against lighting up in bars. San Francisco Chronicle. October 1, 1997. 60. Vellinga M. Wilson urged to publicize bar -smok- ing ban. Sacramento Bee. October 3, 1997:A3. 61. Tobacco Control Section. AB 13 LLA Smoke- free Bar Survey Results. Sacramento: Califor- nia Dept of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section; July -September 1996. 62. Morain D. Behind fuming bar owners is savvy, American Journal of Public Health 251 Magzamen and Glantz well-heeled group. Los Angeles Times. January 30, 1998. 63. Levin M. Smoker group's thick wallet raises ques- tions. LosAngeletTmes. March 29,1998:A2 1. 64. Merlo E. Memo to D. McCloud re: National Smokers Alliance Membership. November 10, 1993. Minnesota Depository Bates No. 2023343150 (Philip Morris, Inc). 65. National Smokers' Alliance. California bar own- ers and smokers send message to lawmakers: Lighten up!" NSA Voice. April 1996:1, 4. 66. Claiborne W. Unfiltered defiance: with tobacco industry's support, California taverns increas- ingly allow patrons to violate smoking bans. Washington Post. February 17, 1998:A3. 67. Miller J. AB 297 Bill Analysis. Sacramento, Calif. Senate Committee on Health and Human Services; March 25, 1998. 68. Weintraub D. Fight over smoking ban is likely to last a while. Orange County Register. Janu- ary 30, 1998:1. 69. Gorman T. Bars still exhibit plenty of puffing— and huffing. Los Angeles ]roses. January 30, 1998. 70. Leeds J. Bar patrons still smoke despite ban. Los Angeles Times. January 15, 1998. 71. Lelyveld N. Where there's smoke—and ire; some tavern owners in California defy the new law that bans smoking. Philadelphia Inquirer. February 11, 1998:E1. 72. Howard J. Lifting of tavern smoking ban OK'd, San Diego Union -Tribune January 29,1998:A3. 73. Hubert C, Lindelof B. Enforcement of smoking ban is spotty: region's counties issue few cita- tions despite complaints. Sacramento Bee. Feb- ruary 9, 1998:A I. 74. Romano B. Barkeeps fume over smoking ban: local tavern owners join statewide chorus say- ing new law is harming their business. San Jose Mercury News. February 27, 1998:132. 75. Glionna J. Ban on bar smoking is target of protests stages in 5 cities. Los Angeles Times. February 27, 1998, 76. Nguyen D. Ban the ban bar owners say: effort launched to repeal smoking law. San Diego Union -Tribune. January 10, 1998. 77. Morain D. Bar smoking ban gets wide backing. Los Angeles Tines. May 27, 1998:A3. 78. Eisner M, Smith AK, Blanc PD. Bartenders' res- piratory health after establishment of smoke- free bars and taverns. JAMA. 1998;280: 1909-1914. 79. Jacobson P, Wasserman J, Raube K. The Politi- cal Evolution oJAnti-Smoking Legislation. Santa Monica, Calif: Rand Corp; 1992. 80. Monardi F, Balbach E, Aguinaga S, Glantz S. ShiftingAllegiances: Tobacco Industry Political Expenditures it, California, January 1995March 1996. San Francisco: Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco; April 1996. 81. Aguinaga S. The Politics of Tobacco Control.• The Case ofArizona. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley; 1999. 82. Jacobson P, Wasserman J. The implementation and enforcement of tobacco control laws: pol- icy implications for activists and the industry. J Health Policy Polit Law. 1999;24:567-598. 83. California Dept of Health Services. January 1998Assessment Survey. Sacramento: California Dept of Health Services, Tobacco Control Sec- tion; January 27, 1998. 84. Morain D. Smoke set to clear in bars—but will it? Los Angeles ]roses. December 22, 1997:A I. 85. Emmons K, Wechsler H, Dowdall G, Abraham M. Predictors of smoking among US college students. Am J Public Health. 1998;88: 104-107. 86. Wechsler H, Rigotti N, Geldhill-Hoyt J, Lee H. Increased levels of cigarette use among college students. JAMA. 1998;280:1673-1678. 87. Clark W. Public drinking context: bars and tav- ems. In: Harford T, Gaines L, eds. Socia/Drink- ing Context (N1AAA Research Monograph No. 7). Washington, DC: Dept of Health and Human Ser- vices; 1981:8-33, PublicationAPM-81-1097. 88. National Association ofAttomeys General. Mas- terSettlenlentAgneement. Washington, DC: Na- tional Association of Attomeys General; 1998: 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 109,110. 89. Gellene D. Joining the clubs; tobacco firms find a venue in bars. Los Angeles Imes. Septem- ber 25, 1997:131. 90. Naymik M. Night light: Camel kids push smokes at "cool clubs.' Winston-Salem Journal. October 27, 1997. 91. Obermayer J. Marlboro fires up marketing cam- paign in Triangle bars. News -Observer. July 28, 1998. 92. Carreon C. Joe Camel turns up in Portland night- clubs. Oregonian. July 31, 1998. 93. Solomon C. Tobacco companies bankroll their own. Seattle Tmes. December 10, 1997:A I. 94. Danielson R. Camel promotion trots into clubs. St Petersburg Tmes. February 22, 1998:B3. 95. Davis H. Cigarette promotions target the col- lege crowd: a party to die for? Buffalo News. July 27, 1998. 96. Cooper N. Warning: tobacco companies' ad- vertising money may be addictive to Houston's club scene. Houston Press. October 1, 1998. 97. Romero D. The detectors are going off. LosAn- geles Times. October 9, 1997. 98. Asher/Gould Advertising. 1998 Advertising Strategy Recommendations. Los Angeles: Cal- ifornia Dept of Health Services, Tobacco Con- trol Section; December 10, 1997. 252 American Journal of Public Health February 2001, Vol. 91, No. 2 Consumer Resources on Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Following are organizations you can contact for more information about the issues surrounding the effects ofsecondhandsmoke. Many of these organizations can also provide you with ideas on how to protect yourselfandyourfamilyfromthedangersofsecondhandsmoke, as well as steps you can take within your communitytohelpmakeMinnesotaahealthierplaceforallofus. Minnesota Resources Minnesota Smoke -Free Coalition 1619 Dayton Avenue Suite 303 St. Paul, MN 55104 phone: (651) 641-1223 RMMMnQkk=fU=== American Lung Association of Minnesota 490 Concordia Avenue St. Paul, MN 55103-2441 651) 223-9562 lune or Contact Clhris Tholkes, CoDirectorofTobacco ntrol Association for Nonsmokers — Minnesota ANSR) 2395 University Avenue \vest, Suite 310 St. Paul, MN 55114-1512 651-646-3005 3mrW.ans nor Contact Jeanne Weigum, President Minnesota Department of Health PO Bog 64975 St Paul, MN 55164-0975 651-215-5800 MZZ_h=W==MaM American Cancer Society, AKIN Council 1096 Raymond Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 1 -800 -ACS -2345 American Heart Association, MN Affiliate 4701 W. 77th St. Minneapolis, MN 55435 612) 278-3648 wlyw• m ri nhPart Org Contact: Peter Foster Metro Media Relations Manager Nicotine Research Center — Mayo Clinic Colonial Building Rochester, MN 55905 507-266-1930 wxvw.ma oh alftori Contact: Richard Hurt, M.D. Director MPAAi — MINN FSOT POpTMiA0Y10 cns . _..... _ _ Midwest Division, Inc. IOWA 8364 Hickman Road, Suite D Des Moines, IA S032S-1300 SIS -2S3-0147 - 1-800.688.0147 FAX 515.253.0806 MINNESOTA (headquarters) 3316 West 66" Street Minneapolis, MN SS/3S-2S56 952.925-2772 • 1.800.582.S1S2 FAX 952.925.6333 SOUTH DAKOTA 221 S. Central Avenue Pierre, SD 57501 605.224-7836 • 1.800.214.1966 FAX 605.224-7847 www. cancer.org WISCONSIN P.O. Boa 902 Pewaukee, WI 53072-0902 262.523.5500 • 1.800.947.0487 FAX 262-523-SS33 AmaicaiNommolcers' You breathe a easiereasier Fotmdcefon 100% SMOKEFREE ORDINANCES* March 29, 2001 100% SMOKEFREE WORKPLACES' INCLUDINGAnchRESTAURANT.eorage, AK Bethel, AK Mesa, AZ Alameda County, C Albany, CA Anderson, CA Antioch, CA Arcata, CA Auburn, CA Belmont, CA Belvedere, CA Berkeley, CA Burlingame, CA Butte County, CA Calistoga, CA Camarillo, CA Capitola, CA Ceres, CA Chico, CA Chino Hills, CA Clayton, CA Concord, CA Contra Costa County, C Cotati, CA Cupertino, CA Danville, CA Davis, CA Del Mar, CA Duarte, CA Dublin, CA El Cerrito, CA El Dorado County, CA Fairfax, CA Folsom, CA Fort Bragg, CA Foster City, CA. Fremont, CA Healdsburg, CA Hercules, CA Hughson, CA Laguna Hills, CA Larkspur, CA Lathrop, CA Lemon Grove, CA Livermore, CA Long Beach, CA Los Gatos, CA A Marin County, CA Martinez, CA Mendocino County, CA Mill Valley, CA Millbrae, CA Modesto, CA Monterey County, CA Moorpark, CA Mountain View, CA Napa, CA Napa County, CA Novato, CA Oakland, CA Oakley, CA Ojai, CA Palo Alto, CA Paradise, CA Pasadena, CA Patterson, CA A Petaluma, CA Pittsburg, CA Placer County, CA Placerville, CA Pleasanton, CA Redding, CA Richmond, CA Roseville, CA Sacramento, CA Sacramento County, CA Salinas, CA San Anselmo, CA San Bernardino, CA San Carlos, CA San Francisco, CA San Jose, CA San Juan Bautista, CA San Luis Obispo, CA C San Mateo, CA San Rafael, CA D San Ramon, CA D Santa Barbara County, CA Ea Santa Clara, CA Falmouth, MA Fitchburg, MA Framingham, MA Grafton, MA Greenfield, MA Halifax, MA Haverhill, MA Holliston, MA Holyoke, MA Hopkinton, MA Lexington, MA Mattapoisett, MA Montague, MA Northampton, MA Norwell, MA Orange, MA Orleans, MA Rochester, MA Southampton, MA Wakefield, MA Wareham, MA Wellfleet, MA West Tisbury, MA Westborough, MA Talbot County, MD Great Falls, MT Missoula, MT New Hanover County, NC Dutchess County, NY Erie County, NY Genesee County, NY Monroe County, NY Barnstable, Belchertown, Brookline, Chatham, Santa Clara County, CA Santa Cruz, CA Santa Cruz County, CA Santa Rosa, CA Saratoga, CA Sausalito, CA Scotts Valley, CA Sebastopol, CA Shafter, CA Shasta County, CA Shasta Lake, CA Solana Beach, CA Solano County, CA Sonoma County, CA Stanislaus County, CA Tiburon, CA Tracy, CA Tuolumne County, CA Ukiah, CA Union City, CA Vallejo, CA Ventura, CA Ventura County, CA Visalia, CA Walnut Creek, CA Watsonville, CA Westlake Village, CA Whittier, CA Yountville, CA Boulder, CO Superior, CO Albany, GA IN Amherst, MA Arlington, MA B Ashland, MA B MA C MA A MA W ambridge, MA MA ennis, MA uxbury, MA sthampton, MA County, NY Bexley, OH aker City, OR enton County, OR orvallis, OR ustin, TX ichita Falls, TX California LOCAL WORKPLACE ORDINANCES INCLUDING RESTAURANTS: 171 2330 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J • Berkeley, California 94702 • 510) 841-3032 /FAX (510) 841-3071Page1of3 Ameficaallormaok-e& You breathe a little easier March 29, 2001 Foun&6on 100 % SMOKEFREE WORKPLACES, EXCLUDING RESTAURANTS Tempe, AZ Alpine County, CA Colfax, CA Lafayette, CA Lindsay, CA Merced, CA Orinda, CA Pinole, CA Pleasant Hill, CA San Diego, CA San Mateo County, CA Santa Ana, CA Santa Clarita, CA Sonoma, CA Homewood, AL Flagstaff, AZ Tucson, AZ Agoura Hills, CA Buellton, CA Calabasas, CA Carpinteria, CA Dana Point, CA El Cajon, CA Fresno, CA Grass Valley, CA Hollister, CA Huntington Beach, CA Imperial County, CA Laguna Beach, CA Lodi, CA Loma Linda, CA Los Angeles, CA Menlo Park, CA Orange County, CA Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Rohnert Park, CA Ross, CA San Juan Capistrano, CA Thousand Oaks, CA West Hollywood, CA Willows, CA Aspen, CO Pitkin County, CO Telluride, CO Acushnet, MA Agawam, MA Andover, MA South Lake Tahoe, CA Turlock, CA Pueblo, CO Honolulu, HI Honolulu County, HI Attleboro, MA Brewster, MA Dracut, MA Eastham, MA Northborough, MA Saugus, MA Templeton, MA Williamstown, MA Marquette, MI Duluth, MN Buncombe County, NC Burke County, NC Catawba County, NC Chatham County, NC Craven County, NC Henderson County, NC Montreat, NC Orange County, NC Wake County, NC Wilkes County, NC Highland Park Borough, NJ Warren City, OH 100% SMOKE FRE E RESTAURANTS ONLY Athol, MA Bedford, MA Bellingham, MA Belmont, MA Boston, MA Boxborough, MA Boylston, MA Chelsea, MA Chicopee, MA Chilmark, MA Cohasset, MA Danvers, MA Dartmouth, MA East Longmeadow, MA Edgartown, MA Fairhaven, MA Foxborough, MA Gardner, MA Hamilton, MA Hingham, MA Holden, MA Lakeville, MA Lanesborough, MA Lee, MA Leicester, MA Lenox, MA Lowell, MA Lynnfield, MA Medfield, MA Medway, MA Melrose, MA Middleton, MA Natick, MA Needham, MA New Bedford, MA Newton, MA Norfolk, MA Oak Bluffs, MA Pittsfield, MA Plainville, MA Princeton, MA Scituate, MA Sharon, MA Sherborn, MA Somerville, MA South Hadley, MA Stockbridge, MA Sturbridge, MA Swampscott, MA Tewksbury, MA Truro, MA Watertown, MA Wellesley, MA West Springfield, MA Westfield, MA Westwood, MA Wilbraham, MA Winchester, MA Yarmouth, MA Howard County, MD Montgomery County, MD Rockville, MD Portland, ME Sabattus, ME Moose Lake, MN Graham County, NC 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J - Berkeley, California 94702 - (510) 841.30321 FAX (510) 841.3071Page2of3 Zanesville, OH Multnomah County, OR Lufkin, TX Mansfield, TX Brooke County, WV Hardy County, WV Lincoln County, WV Mineral County, WV Wyoming County, WV tMaryland Washington Guilford County, NC Glassboro Borough, NJ Linwood City, NJ Las Cruces, NM Ithaca, NY Livingston County, NY Nassau County, NY New York City, NY Suffolk County, NY Westchester County, NY Middletown, OH East Greenwich, RI Alvin, TX Carrollton, TX Plano, TX West Lake Hills, TX Ashland, WI Eau Claire, WI Fond du Lac, WI La Crosse, WI Madison, WI Middleton, WI Shorewood Hills, WI Gilmer County, WV Grant County, WV Mercer County, WV Morgan County, WV Taylor County, WV Upshur County, WV Utah Vermont O Maine AmaicmNormolcm5 Y4 Helping you breathe a tittle easier WORKPLACES INCLUDING RESTAURANTS: 171WORKPLACESEXCLUDINGRESTAURANTS: 50 RESTAURANTS ONLY: 128 TOTAL ORDINANCES: 349 All local California ordinances are listed, but note that all the state's cities and counties have smokefree ordinances. [CA Labor Code 16404.51994)] Some of these ordinances may allow smoking in enclosed, separately ventilated roomstMaryland's regulations prohibiting smoking in enclosed workplaces can be found in the Code of MD Rees f 9.12.23 (1994) Utah's regulations prohibiting smoking in restaurants can be found in UT Code Ann. f 26-28-1 (1994) Vermont's regulations prohibiting smoking in restaurants can be found in VT Stat. Ann. Title 18, f 1744 (1993) OMaine's regulations prohibiting smoking in restaurants can be found in ME 22 MRSA 11541, sub- f4 and sub- 15 (1999) Washington's state law only applies to office workplaces, WAC 296-62- 12000 et seq. (1994) Note: -Workplaces" indicates that both public and private workplaces are covered by ordinance provisions Asay he reprinted ivig, appropriate credit to American Aronsmokers' Rights Foundation. d by ANR Foundation stafrusing standardized criteria are included on these lists. Omissions ofOnlyordinancesreviewedandanalyze 11-11 ular ordinances may be the result of differences of opinion in interpretation, or because staff have not yet analyzed the ordinance. LS -01] 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J - Berkeley, California 94702 • (510) 841-30321 FAX (510) 841.3071 Page'3 of 3 C:IWINDOWSITEMP1Cities- with S -F Ordinances.doc is Local Smoke -Free Policies Work. As evidence of the dangers of secondhand smoke grows, more and more communities are taking action to protect the health of their children, elderly and employees. By promoting smoke-free policies on the local level, communities have begun to educate their members about secondhand smoke exposure and change attitudes about smoking in public places. Local Policies Create Greater Community Awareness and Ownership. Local smoke-free ordinance campaigns engage the whole community in a discussion of public health. Debate of a proposed ordinance is a great educational tool for increasing a community's awareness of secondhand smoke. In addition, a community that has gone through the process of debating and adopting a local smoke-free ordinance is bound to feel more invested in their own health and a great sense of ownership of the new policy. Local policies aren't adopted unless a majority of the community supports them. Local Policies Offer Stronger Protection. Laws enacted at the state level benefit the public health by implementing statewide standards. Ideally, these laws set minimum requirements and allow the continued passage and enforcement of local ordinances that establish an even greater level of protection of public health. Smoke-free ordinances give local governments more control over public health and allow them to tailor their policies to fit the needs and concerns of the community. Local Policies Are Better Complied With and Easier to Enforce. Compliance with local policies is higher due to greater public knowledge and awareness of the new law. The high degree of compliance makes local laws easier to enforce. Local policies are also easier to enforce because they are most likely enforced by a community-based agency such as a city health department or police department rather than a state agency. In addition, any fines that are levied against violators may go entirely to the city as opposed to the state. The Tobacco Industry is Less Powerful at the Local Level. The tobacco industry tends to be more powerful in state legislatures due to their large campaign contributions. The industry's strategy at the state level has been to weaken proposed clean indoor air laws and include a provision, known as "preemption," that prohibits cities and counties from enacting and enforcingtheirownlocalpolicies. In contrast, local officials tend to be closer and more accountable to their constituents and, therefore, less responsive to the tobacco industry, resulting in stronger policies to protect public health. Agenda Number: TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Liquor Issues DATE: August 15, 2001, for Council meeting of August 21, 2001 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the information regarding liquor issues and provide direction to staff if any changes are desired to the City ordinances or policies. 2. BACKGROUND: The Council has placed the topic of liquor issues on the August 17 agenda. Councilmember Harstad has proposed that the Council consider limiting the number of liquor licenses available for issuance in the City. In the past, Councilmembers have requested a status report on compliance checks with respect to costs incurred by the City and success/failure rates by type of establishment, as well as briefly discussed the issue of prohibiting the sale of off -sale 3.2 malt liquor by gasoline station/convenience establishments. We have assembled the information in this report to assist in your discussion. The City of Burnsville recently conducted a survey relating to the number of off -sale intoxicating liquor licenses issued by metro cities. The results are attached. Also attached is information from the Plymouth Police Department on the numbers of arrests in various underage drinking categories. This information was requested by Dave Deziel, Hollydale Golf Course, who indicated he may attend the meeting. The City Council adopted a Best Practices Program for liquor licenses on April 11, 2000. Currently, 35 of our 56 licensed establishments are participants in the Best Practices Program. 3. DISCUSSION: Cities generally have broad discretion in making licensing decisions. The Attorney General has concluded in an opinion that a city is not required to issue the full number of licenses it has available. The Minnesota Supreme Court has concluded there is no right to a liquor license and that city councils have discretion on licensing issues. In one case, the court held that a liquor license "is not a property right, but is in the nature of a privilege, and, as such, subject to reasonable regulation." In another decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that the granting of a license rests in the Liquor Issues August 16, 2001 Page 2 sound discretion of the council, but such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily. This means cities should have valid reasons to justify their denial of a license. There are several types of liquor licenses allowed by the statutes. Some are issued by the city; others by the Commissioner of Public Safety. The following table describes each type of license, the number currently issued in the City, and the cost of the license. Information on the compliance check failure rates by type of establishment (liquor store, convenience store, restaurant, grocery store, golf course) is attached. The maximum number of on -sale intoxicating licenses is established by state law based on a city's population. Plymouth currently has a maximum allowed of 24. This is the only license type limited in number by state law. This is the maximum license fee allowed for this type of license under state law. There are additional fees for investigation of new licensees and for operating managers. We were unable to find that any Minnesota cities that restrict the number of on -sale intoxicating licenses at a number less than allowed by state law, except those that are Currently Cost of Type of License Description/Establishment Types Issued License On -Sale: On -sale Intoxicating and Allows sale of intoxicating liquor for 15 + 8,200** Sunday license consumption on the premises. (Restaurants, 1 pending* hotels, s orts/recreation facilities) Wine Allows on -sale of wine and wine coolers. Strong 8 2,000** beer may be sold under this license if the establishment also has a license to sell 3.2 malt liquor and their gross receipts are at least 60 % attributable to food. (Restaurants) On -sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Allows sale of 3.2 malt liquor for consumption 18 440 on the premises. (Restaurants, golf courses) Consumption & Display Allows the establishment to let people mix and 2 150 consume liquor they bring to the premises. The establishment sells beverages for mixing with liquor. (Clubs, VFWs) Off -Sale: Off -sale Intoxicating Allows the sale of liquor in its original package 13 200** for consumption off the premises. (liquor store) Off -sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Allows the sale of 3.2 malt liquor in its original 9 90 package off the premises. (Convenience stores, grocery stores) The maximum number of on -sale intoxicating licenses is established by state law based on a city's population. Plymouth currently has a maximum allowed of 24. This is the only license type limited in number by state law. This is the maximum license fee allowed for this type of license under state law. There are additional fees for investigation of new licensees and for operating managers. We were unable to find that any Minnesota cities that restrict the number of on -sale intoxicating licenses at a number less than allowed by state law, except those that are Liquor Issues August 16, 2001 Page 3 dry" and completely prohibit the sale of liquor. In fact, many cities have requested legislative authority or conducted special elections to increase their number of licenses. Existing state law places many limitations on liquor licenses, such as hours of sale and age requirements for buying and selling. Plymouth City Code places additional restrictions on liquor licenses. One significant restriction relating to on -sale liquor is that an establishment operating solely as a bar is not allowed in Plymouth -- a liquor establishment must qualify as a "restaurant". Where the licensed premises is a free standing building, the structure must have a minimum value of $500,000. An establishment located in a shopping center may not permit live music or dancing and must have a minimum of 150 seats for dining. Licensed premises in an office building must also have 150 seats for dining. The City cannot issue more than one off -sale intoxicating liquor license for any one person or place in the City. Also, the same business name is not permitted to be used by more than one off -sale licensee. All liquor establishments must designate an Operating Manager who has a residency requirement and a background check. There can be no delinquent taxes or other charges against the licensed premises. And, the Council may impose special conditions on the approval of a license based on the nature of the business, the location of the business, and verified complaints to protect the health, safety, welfare and quietude of the community. The location of licensed establishments is limited by the Zoning Ordinance and by the restriction that no liquor establishment can be located on the same block or within 500 feet of a school. A similar provision prohibiting liquor establishments within 500 feet of a church was repealed several years ago on the advice of the City Attorney. Some cities impose restrictions that prevent liquor establishments from being located within some designated distance of another liquor establishment. The Police Chief is not recommending this type of restriction at this time. Enforcement may actually be easier when liquor establishments are located in a more concentrated area than spread throughout the community, particularly since we currently have no public safety issues from a concentration of liquor establishments. Limiting the number of liquor licenses could result in less liquor stores and restaurants within the City of Plymouth. Residents would likely drive outside the City for these services. It would not impact the existence of convenience stores, golf courses, or grocery stores, as liquor is not a primary product for these establishments. It is unknown if law enforcement costs from alcohol-related driving incidents would be impacted. The Police Department would save some costs in Best Practices tracking and training. A reduction in the number of licenses would mean less revenue in license fees for the City, and it could result in more costly start-up for a new business. The business would need to attempt to buy the rights of a liquor license from a seller, in addition to the City license fee. One city Liquor Issues August 16, 2001 Page 4 in Florida that has reached the limit on the number of available licenses, conducts a lottery when a license becomes available to avoid this artificial secondary liquor license. Based on population, the City of Plymouth is allowed to issue 24 on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses. Currently, 15 licenses have been issued with an additional application pending. This may be a good time for the City Council to consider whether to withhold or designate on -sale intoxicating liquor license(s) for future use. The Plymouth Creek Center currently offers liquor for events through a caterer license. This is a license issue by the State, whereby on existing on -sale intoxicating licensee can transport and sell liquor at a secondary location. There can be some inconvenience and difficulties with this arrangement. Park Director Eric Blank has suggested that the City Council withhold one on -sale intoxicating liquor license to allow the future option of issuing a license to the food caterer, facility manager, or the City with the primary location at Plymouth Creek Center. Also, from an economic development perspective, the City may wish to withhold a license for a new hotel or five-star restaurant that may come to Plymouth at some future date. The procedure to accomplish this is for the Council to adopt an ordinance amendment designating an on -sale intoxicating liquor license for a specific type of establishment. 4. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost to the City of conducting one round of liquor compliance checks for all establishments is approximately $1,500, or $35 per hour. The City currently generates about $160,000 in liquor license revenue each year. This revenue amount can be up to 10 percent less due to the reduction in license fee offered to Best Practices establishments. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Review the attached information regarding liquor issues and provide direction to staff if any changes are desired to the City ordinances or policies. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Breakdown of compliance checks by type Tvpe of License # # checked # fail % fail Alcohol 2001 liquor stores 12 12 2 16.7% convenience stores 4 4 0 0.0% restaurants 20 18 1 5.6% grocery stores 4 4 1 25.0% golf courses 3 3 1 33.3% TOTAL 43 41 5 12.2% Alcohol 2000 liquor stores 12 24 2 8.3% convenience stores 4 8 0 0.0% restaurants 23 36 6 16.7% grocery stores 4 8 1 12.5% golf courses 3 0 0 0.0% TOTAL 46 76 9 11.8% Alcohol 1999 liquor stores 12 24 6 25.0% convenience stores 4 8 3 37.5% restaurants 26 48 21 43.8% grocery stores 4 8 3 37.5% golf courses 3 3 3 100.0% TOTAL 49 91 36 39.6% Alcohol 1998 liquor stores 10 30 2 6.7% convenience stores 11 28 5 17.9% restaurants 11 14 4 28.6% grocery stores 4 9 1 11.1% golf courses 3 0 0 0.0% TOTAL 39 81 12 14.8% Plymouth Police Department Underage liquor statistics 1997 through 2001 2001 includes January 1 through July 31 These are individuals caught by establishments Other liquor offenses are basically consumption/possession Attempting to purchase are individuals caught by establishments and charged 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* underage drinking and driving 18 to 21 42 64 52 33 3 underage DUI under 18) 7 10 3 10 4 other liquor offenses 18 to 21 157 304 286 357 176 other liquor offenses under 18 148 181 130 175 76 attempting to purchase 18 to 21)** 5 0 attempting to purchase under 18)** 1 01 0 TOTALS 354 559 4711 5801 259 2001 includes January 1 through July 31 These are individuals caught by establishments Other liquor offenses are basically consumption/possession Attempting to purchase are individuals caught by establishments and charged PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 Phone (763) 509-5160 Fax (763) 509-5167 DATE: August 14, 2001 TO: Lt. Franz FROM: Det. Bevig/ SUBJECT: Cost of Alcohol Compliance Checks We have completed 1 round of alcohol compliance checks. 41 businesses were checked, 36 passed and 5 failed. Listed are the dates, hours per date, patrol officer wages (@ the 5 year rate / @ time and a half), and buyer's wages @ $10.00/Hr. . DATE: TIME: OFFICER'S WAGES: BUYER'S WAGES: May 25 5 Hours 188.05 50.00 May 26 7 263.27 70.00 May 28 5 188.05 50.00 June 6 4 $150.44 $40.00 TOTALS 21 hours $789.81 $210.00 TOTAL COST $999.81 For each pass a "U-21" shirt was given to the clerk/waitress/bartender. 36 shirts were given out during this round. The cost per shirt is $12.76. TOTAL COST $459.36 For a business to "fail" a sale / transaction must be completed. The sale / transaction is "completed" when our buyer's money is accepted and placed in the register. The business is allowed to keep this money, we keep the product purchased for evidence. TOTAL COST $22.96 TOTAL COST FOR THIS ROUND $1482.13 04/26/01 14:10 FAX 651 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PLYMOUTH CH Z002 City of BURNSVILLE Memo DATE: March 23, 2001 TO: Greg Konat, City Manager FROM: Tina Goodroad and ]enni Tovar RE: Liquor Ordinance Research Staff was requested to research the history of the current liquor ordinance and changing trends in consumer shopping that might affect Burnsville. Staff also looked at the number of City's who may have similar restrictions on the location of off -sale liquor stores and the number of stores related to their population. Research As you are aware the current ordinance requires that off -sale liquor stores be located at least one - mile from another off -sale liquor store and that they be located within a freestanding building. These ordinances date back to the 1970's when Burnsville had a much smaller population. 1n 1982 and again in 1996 amendments eliminating these requirements were presented to the City Council but failed to pass. Staff surveyed market cities for their population, liquor store location restrictions (if any), and number of stores. Please find the results below: C Location Restrictions Number of Stores Apple Valley 43,468 None (municipal) 2 Brooklyn Park 63,940 None- an owner can only own one store, must be 1,000 11 sq. ft. Burnsville 58,705 Carmot be within 1 mi. radius of another 8 liquor store and must be within a freestanding building. Coon Rapids 61,904 One mile radius (Changed ordinance 6 to allow a class B license for wine and beer only as secondary, separate use.) Eagan 60,073 None 12 04/26/01 14:11 FAX 651 452 5.550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PLYMOUTH CH Z003 Lakeville 38,506 None (municipal) 4 Minnetonka 52,691 None 11 Plymouth 62,979 500' from School 12 St, Louis Park 44,242 None 8 Staff also surveyed five additional cities including Eden Praire, Bloomington, Golden Valley, Prior Lake, and Shakopee and none of these cities have any restrictions on the location of liquor stores. Twenty-four other cities (all with population of 20,000 or more) were surveyed. Only Crystal, pop. 24,000) has the same requirement as Burnsville of off -sale liquor stores required to be located in a freestanding building. The Crystal code does not have a distance requirement from another liquor store. Only two cites, Blaine and New Brighton have the same 1 -mile radius requirement but without the freestanding building requirement. Several cities have distance limits on the location liquor stores to a church or school. Coon Rapids has a similar requirement of the one -mile radius from another liquor store. However, Coon Rapids is pursuing an amendment that will create a new class B license for wine and beer only_ This amendment to their City code is not allowed as a separate license under the state statue. Our attorney does not recommend such similar action in Burnsville. Staff has researched changing trends in consumer shopping. The fast -paced life-styles of consumers are driving a need for increased shopping convenience_ This is a continued national trend where from the 1980's the "supercenters" and new concepts of them are increasing yearly. For example, in California, a new company, Beverages and More, carries alcoholic beverages and specialty food products within one store for shopping convenience. Experts also suggest that aging populations with higher incomes are spending more, thus driving an increase in food and liquor consumption among adult populations. In other areas around the county consumers can shop for groceries and choose a wine or beer to accompany the meal. Closer to home, the grocery association in Minnesota is attempting to change legislation to allow the same. This trend not only increases convenience but increases competition among stores and brands. The City of Belle Plain recently left the number of off - sale liquor stores up to free enterprise and removed the limit on the number of off -sale liquor stores. The Belle Plain City Council believes that free enterprise and competition will control the number of liquor stores in the City without the City having to mandate it. Elsewhere in the metropolitan area, a liquor store can be located in a strip mall and even attached to another use provided it has its own entrance and walls such as the Byerly's liquor stores in St. Louis Park, and Minnetonka and Sam's Club stores. Burnsville has received interest from Cost Plus World Market, a California based company that sells household related items, fine food products and wine. They would like to locate in Burnsville but are prohibited due to our ordinance requirements of 1 -mile separation and free standing building. An ordinance amendment to these requirements would allow them to have a separate liquor area attached to their main store_ 04;'26/01 14:11 FAX 651_452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PLYMOUTH CH x]004 What affect do these changing trends in shopping conveniences have on Burnsville's off -sale liquor store restrictions? No other product sold in Burnsville is protected from increased competition the way liquor stores are. Restricting the location, and type of building liquor stores can must be located in, limits competition and reduces the convenience consumers are looking for in today's shopping environment. It also limits opportunities in new urbanism developments that aim to create a pleasing shopping environment that can include a variety of small specialty stores. Limits of our ordinance has and will continue to prohibit Burnsville from keeping pace with new consumer retail trends including attraction of emerging retail concepts and busiuess/consumer opportunities. Staff requested a list of police calls from existing off -sale liquor stores. Each store averaged only 5-7 police calls during 01/01/2000-12/31/2000- Calls range from tobacco complaints, shop lifting and property alarms. The implication is that a retail liquor store does not necessarily result in increased number of alcohol related crimes. Options The City of Burnsville has options that could allow for additional liquor stores through ordinance amendments. The City could remove the 1 -mile radius requirement, which would allow for additional stores to be located closer to each other. Other distance restrictions such as no closer than 500' of a school or church could be added to control the proximity to these public facilities. The location of stores will still be controlled by zoning and could be further restricted by controlling the number of off -sale licenses issued. Eliminating the 1 -mile radius requirement but keeping the freestanding building requirement would further restrict the location as they could still not be located within a multi -tenant building. The City also has the option of eliminating the freestanding building requirement either with or without eliminating the 1 -mile radius requirement. Simply eliminating the freestanding building requirement without the 1 -mile radius opens the options of where stores can be located such as in a multi -tenant building, however it would not open up the number of stores allowed. Eliminating both of these requirements would make our ordinance the most flexible in terms of location and allow for an increase in the number of stores. It's important to keep in mind however that with these amendments will still have the authority to control the location of off -sale liquor stores by zoning and by limiting the total number of off -sale licenses the City will issue. As mentioned earlier in the memo a new approach, under review by the City of Coon Rapids, creates a new Class B license for wine and beer sales only. As this is something not allowed under the current state statute our attorney does not suggest following with a similar ordinance. Agenda Number: TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions DATE: August 16, 2001, for Special Council meeting of August 21, 2001 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list and, if desired, establish future special meetings or amend the topics list. 2. BACKGROUND: Attached is the list of pending study session topics. As the Council requested, we have made contact with City of Maple Grove officials and suggested a joint meeting date of October 25 or October 29. We are awaiting a response. The City Council has also expressed interest in holding a study session soon to review options for disposition of homes along County Road 101 purchased by the City. An inter- departmental committee consisting of staff members from the Engineering, Housing, Building, and Assessing divisions has been formed to review the status of each home and prepare a recommendation for disposition. Pending Study Session Topics at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list) Joint meeting with school districts to discuss safety issues, traffic, future school sites, alcohol and tobacco prevention, trends in population -- start with ISD 284 Options for disposition of homes along County Road 101 bought by the City Meet with Hennepin County Commissioners Discuss estate zoning to include issues of sewer, house size vs. lot size, impervious coverage, setbacks, steep slopes/wooded areas, septic systems near lakes, subdivision of large lots -- Tierney, Johnson, Stein Joint Meeting with Maple Grove (Oct. 25 or Oct. 29 proposed to MG) Consider curbside pick-up for annual waste collection day -- Stein, Tierney, Hewitt, Harstad Future water treatment needs and the taste of the water -- Slavik, Black, Harstad Water depletion of the City's aquifers — Harstad, Black, Tierney Train whistle ordinance -- Black, Johnson, Hewitt OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS August 2001 Sunday Monday Tuesday—Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 Sep 2001Jul2001 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 7:00 PM PLANNING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 COMMISSION, Council Chambers 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7:00 PM SPECIAL HRA MEETING, 5:30 PM NATIONAL NIGHT 7:00 PM ECC, Council Chambers 7:00 PM PRAC, Council Chambers Medicine Lake OUT Room 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 7:00 PM NEIGHBORHOODINFORMATION MEETING ON CO. RD. 61, Council Chambers 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HRA - Medicine Lake Room 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7:00 PM PACT - 7:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING.BASS TOPICS: (1) Central Lake Room Middle School lighting; 2) South Shore Drive safety issues, (3) Liquor issues, (4) Second-hand smoke, (5) Set future study sessions, Public Safety Training Room 26 27 28 29 30 31 7:00 PM SPECIAL1:30AM LOCAL BUSINESS COUNCIL, R.di—n lbw COUNCIL S:OD PM SPECUIL COUNCIL MEETING ON ((1)CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT$PROGRAM MEETING: BUDGETSTUDY AN0 f21 PARl(ING NEAR SESSION, Public Us: T ISRSPUNk TAO PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, C-11 Ch—Imm Safety Training Room modified on 8/16/2001 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS September 2001 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 Aug 2001 Oct 2001 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LABOR DAY - City Offices Closed 7:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING: BUDGET STUDY SESSION, Public Safety Training Room 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - Medicine Lake Room 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 7:00 PM EQC, Council Chambers 7:00 PM PRAC, Council Chambers 10:00 AM -5:00 PM AUTUMN ARTS FAIR, Parkers Lake Park 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rosh Hashanah begins at sunset 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, 7:00 PM HRA - Medicine Lake Room 9:00 AM - 3:30 PM, PLYMOUTH CLEAN-UP DAY, Council Chambers Public Works 7:00 PM PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD, Police Dept. Library Maintenance Facility 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room 7:30 AM LOCAL BUSINESS COUNCIL, Radisson Hotel 7:00 PM PACT - Bass Lake Room Yom Kippur begins at sunset 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 30 modified on 8/16/2001 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS October 2001 Sunday Monday luesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 S 6 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - Medicine Lake Room 1:00 PM -5:00 PM PLYMOUTH ON PARADE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 7:00 PM EQC, Council Chambers 7:00 PM PRAC, Council Chambers 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HRA - Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD, Police Dept. Library 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room 7:30 AM LOCAL BUSINESS COUNCIL, Radisson Hotel 7:00 PM PACT - Bass Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 28 29 30 31 Sep 2001 Nov 2001 DAYLIGHT SAVINGS ENDS- set clocks back 1 hour 6:30 PM VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION EVENT, Plymouth Creek Center 8:00 AM -NOON PBEP BUSINESS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP, Plymouth Creek S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Center 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 modified on 8/16/2001 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS November 2001 Sunday Monday Tuesday I Wednesday Thursday Friday aur ay 1 2 3 Oct 2001 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Dec 2001 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7:0o HUMAN RIGGHTS COMMISSION - Medicine Lake Room 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM PRAC, Council Chambers 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 VETERANS DAY OBSERVED), City Offices Closed 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 7:00 PM EQC, Council ChambersI 7:00 PM HRA - Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD, Police Dept. Library 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY - City Center Offices Closed THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY - City Center Offices Closed 25 26 27 28 29 30 7:30 AM LOCAL BUSINESS COUNCIL, Radisson Hotel 700 PM PACT - Bass Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers modified on 8/16/2001