COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 7, 2005, 10:22 a.m. - - - 050063 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 10-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Public Places -- Prohibited Conduct," by prohibiting smoking in public places and in the workplace, and providing for penalties, all under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
Good morning. We're here today to have a public hearing on Bill Number 050063. We welcome you all here today in City Council chambers. There are many, many panels that will be discussing this issue today, both pro and con. What we ask you to do is, please, each side give the other side respect. And we will have a ten-minute smoking break. (Laughter.)
Being funny; being funny. Just want to get you all... see if you're awake, and get you ready to move along with this bill. I'd like to say that we have established a quorum. That's what we were waiting for, and the presence of Councilman Goode, Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller and Councilman Kenney and also Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown.
We'd like the 3 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Clerk to read the title of the bill please.
Bill Number 050063, An Ordinance amending Chapter 10-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Public Places -- Prohibited Conduct," by prohibiting smoking in public places and in the workplace, and providing for penalties, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you very much. The Chair calls the first panel, the city administration panel, Commissioner John Domzalski, Commerce Director Stephanie Naidoff, Health and Fitness Czar, Gwen Foster, and the Fire Commissioner, Lloyd Ayers. If there is anyone in the room who has not signed up who wishes to testify, would you please see the clerk on this side of the room so we can add you to the list. Good morning. Turn the mike on, please.
Good morning, Chairwoman Tasco, and members of the Public 4 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Health Committee and Human Services. I'm John Domzalski, Health Commissioner for the City of Philadelphia, And I'm pleased to present testimony in support of Bill Number 050063 amending Chapter 10-600 of The Philadelphia Code to prohibit smoking in public places in the workplaces. I will speak about the harmful effects of smoking which is a major public health concern, specifically addressing the health effects of secondhand smoke. And I'll begin by briefly talking about what we do on an ongoing basis with regard to tobacco control in the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. The Philadelphia Tobacco Control Program coordinates a variety of tobacco programs, including smoking cessation, public awareness, youth counter marketing and enforcement activities. Programs for those attempting to stop smoking are offered at all city health centers and at nursing centers across the 5 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 city, as well as at hospital-sponsored programs. Public awareness programs target communities that have high tobacco use incidence. Youth access enforcement program with the Department of Licenses and Inspection and the Health Promotion Council conducts compliance checks for illegal tobacco sales to minors. Smokeless Homes is a program presented to families with children with asthma. All of these initiatives strive to increase awareness of the harmful effects of smoking, and to reduce the level of exposure to secondhand smoke for all Philadelphians. With regard to secondhand smoke, it is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and it is composed of smoke from the burning tip of tobacco products and from exhaled smoke. It results in nearly 54,000 deaths every year from heart disease, lung cancer and sudden infant death syndrome in the United States. Exposure to secondhand smoke 6 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 is also associated with asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia and ear infections in children. This smoke contains several thousand chemicals, including more than 50 that have been proven to cause cancer. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency classified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen. This means that it definitely causes cancer. With regard to workers, smoke-free legislation will protect not only people who are customers of public places: Restaurants, bars and other public facilities, but will also protect workers that must breathe this dangerous smoke day in and day out. A recent study found that the risk of lung cancer in workers, like bartenders and waitresses in establishments that allow smoking, is to 75 percent greater than in 21 the general population. The risk can triple, 22 depending on the number of years worked. 23 This is also a fairness issue. Most 24 of us here -- Most of us here are covered by 25 and work in environments where smoking is not 7 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 allowed. In the United States 76 percent of white collar workers are covered by smoke-free policies, as compared to 52 percent of blue collar workers and only 43 percent of food service workers. Exposure to secondhand smoke is also a major public health concern to the many pregnant women who work through their pregnancies in smoke-filled environments. S. In conclusion, clearly, prohibiting smoke in the workplace can have an immediate and dramatic positive impact on the health of workers and patrons in Philadelphia by protecting them from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Smoke-free public places will help those smokers who want to quit to do so. The more we can do to prevent smoking in the first place and to encourage smokers to quit, the better the health of individuals and the 8 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 health of the community. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. )
Thank you very much. We'll have everyone testify and then we'll open the floor for questions. Mrs. Naidoff.
Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of City Council. My name is Stephanie Naidoff, and I am Philadelphia City Representative and Director of Commerce. I'm here today to provide testimony on behalf of the administration regarding Bill Number 050063, the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law, proposing to amend Chapter 10-600 of The Philadelphia Code to prohibit smoking in public places and in the workplace. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to review with City Council and the public 9 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the economic impact of the proposed ban. The proposed legislation is an important step towards public health and the protection of all Philadelphia's workers. And I believe the negative economic impact of the smoking ban has been exaggerated by a, quote, fear of the unknown. At its simplest level, businesses are successful for two reasons: Because of the people who work there, and because of the people who pay for the business service. The positive economic impact of healthy workers, and consequently the negative economic impact of unhealthy workers, cannot be underestimated. Workers exposed to secondhand smoke get sick more often and generally need more health services, affecting business operator variables like staffing and health insurance premiums. Service workers in the restaurant and bar industry also appear to be among those most at risk of work-related secondhand smoke exposure. S. have workplace protection against exposure to secondhand smoke, only 52 percent of blue collar workers and 43 percent of food service workers are afforded the same protection, as my colleague just said. Restaurant and bar owners, as compared to other businesses, appear to be shouldering greater risks for productivity loss and increased health care costs. In addition to addressing operating cost concerns among business owners, a smoking ban in all workplaces eliminates concerns about fairness and competition. While I understand the fear of the unknown is a common concern when it comes to operating in new ways, history and the experience of others tells us that a smoking ban, with very limited exception, like that being proposed in this bill, is the most equitable choice for all businesses. The smoking ban legislation considered by City Council in 2000 failed in part because the ban would have applied in 11 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 most restaurants and in very few, if any, bars or pubs. At the time the restaurant and hospitality task force, made up of both administration and restaurant and bar industry representatives, and chaired by the then Director of Commerce sought a workable compromise for all and came up short. They found that the proposed remedy for restaurants that wanted to compete on an equal playing field with bars and pubs for business, constructing separate smoking areas with specific ventilation and design standards, was complicated to enforce and cost prohibitive. A complete workplace smoking ban, with very limited exceptions, equalizes the playing field among businesses by eliminating potential business expenses by one particular sector and reducing, if not ending, concerns about fairness. A smoking ban like the one proposed by this legislation has worked in other places. Restaurant and bar smoking bans in 12 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 various cities, states, and even countries like Ireland and most recently Italy have been met with success. On March 1st, Rhode Island became the seventh state to ban smoking in most indoor places, joining California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York in prohibiting smoking in bars, restaurants and indoor workplaces. New Jersey is also considering statewide legislation to prohibit smoking in most workplaces. At the municipal level, a case study of what happened in New York City is helpful to study. 7 percent. Employment in this sector has increased by 10,600 jobs since the law's enactment.
There was a net gain in active liquor licenses. The health and public perception results of New York City's study are also 13 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 hard to rebut. New Yorkers overwhelmingly support the law. Indoor air quality and some important benchmarks for the health of workers have been improved. And the New York Times recently reported that many of the most passionate and outspoken critics of the ban in New York City have come to agree that the doomsday predictions of negative effects simply have not come true. We have a local example to look at as well. Smoking has been banned in all indoor spaces at Philadelphia International Airport since April 30, 2004. 7 percent over sales during the same period in 2003. Arguably, more people are choosing to patronize these establishments because they are now smoke free. I'd also like to say a brief word about the validity of various economic impact studies. Our Budget Office took a look at 14 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 studies of economic impact of smoking bans across the country and came to the following conclusion. In studies where the methodology checked out as sound, smoke-free workplace laws were shown to have a neutral or even a positive effect on business. Further, they found that tobacco- or restaurant industry-funded studies were most often based on perception of impact, rather than actual tax or employment data, and that these studies universally conclude negative impact. In short, there's no credible evidence that smoking bans have a negative impact on businesses and business development. Accommodating exceptions in workplace smoking laws does not benefit business or public health. And study after study has shown that negative economic impact after a smoking ban is a statistical myth. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. )
Good morning. I'm Lloyd Ayers, Fire Commissioner for the City of Philadelphia. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on cigarette smoke-free impact on the Philadelphia Fire Department. As citizens of Philadelphia, our areas of concern encompass deaths as a result of careless smoking, fires in properties caused by careless smoking, resulting in injuries and damage, and the increase in medical responses to patients suffering from respiratory ailments associated with cigarette smoking. During the calendar year 2004 a total of 45 deaths and 193 injuries were recorded. 2004 smoking fire death statistics are as follows: Deaths in dwellings, there 16 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 were 7. Deaths in multiple occupied dwellings, there were 3. The total smoking deaths, 10, equaling percent of the fire deaths in the 6 City of Philadelphia. 7 2004 smoking injuries. Injuries in 8 dwellings were 19. Injuries in multiple 9 occupied dwellings were 5. The total injury 10 was 24, or 12 percent of the injuries from 11 fires. 12 During the period of January 1st to 13 October 31st, 2004, there were 7,861 total 14 fires. The numbers are categorized as 15 follows: Total fires, 7,861. Structure 16 fires, 1,868. Smoking fires, 1,052 which 17 equal 13 percent of all fires in the City of 18 Philadelphia. Dwelling fires were 93. Other 19 structures, 76, the total accounting for 169 20 or 9 percent of the structure fires. 21 Bars, restaurants, and clubs 22 structure fires were 3. Bars, restaurants and clubs non-structure fires were 5. During the calendar year 2003, a total of 44 deaths and 247 injuries were 17 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 recorded. 2003 smoking fire deaths statistics are as follows: Deaths in dwellings, 7. Deaths in multiple occupied dwellings, 1. The smoking death total for 2003 was 8, or percent of 7 the fire deaths in the City of Philadelphia. 8 2003 smoking fire injury statistics: 9 Injuries in dwellings, 25. Injuries in 10 multiple occupied dwellings, 11. Smoke and 11 fire injury total was 36, or 15 percent of 12 the injuries. 13 During the calendar year 2003, there 14 were 9,393 total fires. The numbers are 15 categorized as follows: Total fires; 9,393, 16 Structure fires, 2,357. Smoking fires, 17 1,325, or 13 percent of all fires in the City 18 of Philadelphia. Dwelling fires accounted for 138 of those fires. Other structures was 97, accounting for 235 or 10 percent of the structure fires in the City of Philadelphia. Bars, restaurants and clubs structure fires was 1. Bars, restaurants and club structure fires -- non-structure fires 18 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 was 7. During the calendar year 2002, a total of 32 fire deaths, which was a low for a ten-year period, there were 242 injuries recorded. The smoking death statistics were: Deaths in dwellings, 6. Deaths in multiple occupied dwellings, 0. The smoking fire death total was 6, or percent of the fire 11 deaths in that low year. 12 2002 smoking fire injury statistics 13 are as follows: Injuries in dwellings, 21. 14 Injuries in multiple occupied dwellings were 15 2. Injuries in C and I establishments were 16 2. Other injuries was 1. Smoking fire 17 injury total was 26, or 11 percent of the 18 injuries. 19 During the calendar year, there were 10,877 total fires. Structure fires was 2,510. The smoking fires were 1,591, or 15 percent of all fires. The dwelling fires was 129. Other structures, 107. Accounting for 236, or 9 percent of the structure fires. Bar and 19 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 restaurant and club fires structure fires were 2. Bar restaurant and club fires, non-structure, was 2 as well. As I sat in the back preparing for the testimony and waiting for the testimony the Fire Marshall called me and he informed me of a delayed fire death from January 22, 2005. The man succumbed to his injuries. It was a smoking fire. This was just now sitting here on the awaiting testimony, which brings our total fire deaths in 2005 to 12.
Of those 12, 5 are smoking-related fire deaths. We have 6 injuries related to fire -- smoking fires this year so far. So, I thank you for the opportunity this morning. )
Good morning to our Chair, Marian Tasco, to all of City Council, and to each of you here. I consider it a 20 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 privilege to be able to present testimony today on behalf of Bill Number 050063, The Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law. I'm here this morning to strongly endorse this bill which will improve the health and fitness of the citizens of Philadelphia. Let me back up. I am Gwen Foster, the Health and Fitness Czar for the City of Philadelphia. So, again, I'm here to strongly endorse this bill which we feel will improve the health and fitness of all of the citizens of Philadelphia. Secondhand smoke is a known cause of many terrible diseases, including lung cancer, heart disease and many other chronic ailments. Secondhand smoke is responsible for at least 38,000 deaths every year in this country. And it's not a good business practice, when you think of it, to kill more than 400,000 of your best customers every year which is what tobacco smoking does. 21 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Despite this known harm, we continue to allow our fellow citizens to work in and patronize public establishments polluted with the carcinogens in secondhand smoke. Everyone in Philadelphia, workers and patrons alike, everyone has the right to breathe clean air. Unfortunately, workers are often overlooked or dismissed in this debate. But an eight-hour shift in a smoky environment is the equivalent of smoking a half a pack of cigarettes a day. Many of these workers, from servers to bartenders to busboys, don't necessarily have other options readily available to earn a living, nor should they be forced to change jobs just to protect their health. Endorsing this bill will also allow me to take my four-year-old granddaughter Kayla to one of her favorite restaurants, but I found out this weekend I couldn't because she has asthma so severely and would need a nebulizer. So it would allow me to take her and my other grandchildren. 22 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 That's why this bill is so important. It will improve everyone's health. And when I say everyone, I mean smokers and non-smokers alike. In other cities when smoke-free laws go into effect, many people cut down on the amount they smoke or quit altogether. So, smoke-free laws provide the strong motivation and reason for people to stop smoking. We have heard from and restaurant owners in other cities, who have said many of the people on their staffs have quit smoking after the law went into effect. We all know what it's like to leave a smoky establishment smelling bad and feeling ill. We should have the right to visit these public places -- these public workplaces without putting ourselves at risk in any way. I overheard in recent weeks one exchange between a man and a woman in a public establishment. The man said, mind if I smoked -- Mind if I smoke? 23 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 And she quipped, care if I die? So, this bill will do more than just protect workers. It will promote a healthy lifestyle throughout the city. Now, our Liberty Bell tolls for freedom from oppression and -- but I'd like now for our liberty bell to toll for freedom (rings bell) from destructive lifestyle patterns and the freedom to breathe free. I respectfully urge this Council to support and pass this important measure. And I thank you for the opportunity to share this perspective. (Cheers and applause.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two short questions for Ms. Naidoff. I don't think anyone here is going to offer any credible testimony against the ills of smoking and its health effects -- and 24 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 ill effects, and the fact that people shouldn't do it. In the Bill, there's a carve out for specialty tobacco establishments. There's a food or beverage establishment whose on site sales or rentals of tobacco, tobacco-related products and accessories for consumption or use on the premises compromises percent. 10 So, any -- I guess any operation 11 that either sells tobacco more than 15 12 percent retail would be exempted from the 13 provisions of this bill, as I read it. 14 Could you give me the thought 15 process on why it's fair for their employees to have to suffer these ill effects and why they were carved out.
I don't know the rationale behind it, but I could say to you that certainly in the ideal world, we'd have a complete ban... complete ban on smoking. I think that the idea was to balance the business impact on businesses that a substantial part of their performance, their businesses depending on the sale of tobacco 25 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 products.
And not necessarily that they're correct, but you can see how some business owners of establishments who sell alcohol or food may think that somehow that's not fair to them, and particularly the smaller corner, what we call in South Philadelphia and other places, taprooms used to be called, that somehow that if a carve out could be made, and it's okay for the health of the workers in Mahogany or Holts or in one of those places, then why -- why -- And I'm not making their argument. I'm saying this is the argument I'm getting from them, is that why can't we be carved out also. I understand the across-the-board ban is probably more fair to everybody, but this doesn't seem to be an across-the-board ban.
I certainly think that if the Council were to seek, in its wisdom, a complete ban, there would be lots of people who would be in favor of that. 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
So there was no 3 discussion with the administration relative to...
Councilman Kenney, thank you. No; you're right. These particular establishments -- And there was some discussion. There's a recognition that there are some businesses in Philadelphia that tobacco sales is their business. That's what they do. And in an effort to recognize the fact that that is their business, that's a fairly significant threshold. The businesses who would meet that threshold would probably meet it fairly easily, and...
That is the place that you were deciding consciously to 27 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 come to work, and that is the business that they're in. If you had it across the board, there would be no tobacco shop in the city that could stay open.
I think the argument or the complaint that I'm getting is that if you have a tobacco shop, cigar store, you want to make a purchase, you take the stuff outside and go home and enjoy it or go on the street and enjoy it, outside a public space. But when you have, I guess, a bar-type atmosphere above a tobacco shop which is selling alcohol, no different than a corner taproom or a restaurant or anyone else, but you're permitted to go in there and do the same thing. I think there's some view that there was some unfairness there, but that's... (Applause.)
The only other thing I would ask Ms. Naidoff is to speculate, which is all you can do right now, on the potential that once we experience 28 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 gaming, that the state authorizes a gaming establishment in one or two locations within the city, it is believed that state law will preempt any city ordinances relative to smoking on the premises. And I'm concerned or I want you to speculate on what effect you would think that would have on the businesses surrounding those establishments, that that's a place where you could actually go gamble, drink and smoke. And is there any way that you would look at possibly dealing with the state to have those places also smoke free? Because I can see, you know, 60 -- 31,000 slot machines, you know, in two large locations could create a draw for people who gamble and seemingly gamble or smoke also and drink. I guess they have three bad habits, that it would drag people away from the smoke-free places and put them more securely in the casino-type establishment.
As long as you've 29 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 asked me to speculate, let me speculate in a different way. And that is to say that the Mayor appointed a Gaming Advisory Task Force recently. And one of the reasons for doing that was to try to gather together a lot of the public voices in Philadelphia to have some impact in Harrisburg on the way the gaming laws are applied to Philadelphia. And I would hope that in many instances the social impacts of the gaming licenses, the implementation of the gaming licenses, would include things like the health and safety of the workers and the patrons. And perhaps we can avoid having the kind of implication that you've made, that there would be an overlay on the gaming law -- on the smoking laws.
The worst case scenario, the state preempts our smoking ban in these establishments. Do you believe it would have any kind of detrimental effect on other 30 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 businesses in their vicinity?
I think the credible evidence in other cities, in other states, in other countries has been that actually the economic impact has not been negative. And, in fact, there is some evidence that it may have had some positive effect. So, I do not believe that it would impact other businesses.
Very quickly, thank you, Madam Chair. To go back to the first issue that Councilman Kenney raised, of course the Councilman knows me pretty well and my sense of flexibility. So, if there is interest in going completely across the board, in terms of all establishments, I certainly would be prepared to engage in that discussion. But I'll leave 31 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 that to the committee. But specifically with regard to the gaming issue, I'd like to clear up any confusion that there may be. I think there's been some bad information put out on the record for the members. If you go to on the Bill, Item 3-A.1, small numeral seven, you will see that under the areas where smoking would be prohibited is, any licensed gaming facility. That was anticipating that gaming might come to Philadelphia. I think we're all clear that the state statute only prohibits the city in the area of zoning. Any gaming facility will still have to adhere to the building code here in Philadelphia, street and sidewalk issues, and all the other provisions of The Philadelphia Code. And so, this ordinance does in fact create smoke-free environments for those facilities. If the state were to do something else, fortunately I work in City Council. I 32 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 don't work in Harrisburg. I can't do anything about what the state may or may not do. The gaming board members who I've talked to have expressed concern themselves that they would want to be in compliance with The Philadelphia Code, and would not want employees in those facilities to be subject to a toxic work environment.
And I think, Councilman, you know as well as I what happens in Harrisburg from time to time that bills get changed and amended quite quickly and sometimes under cover of darkness. So, I was just trying to anticipate --
Trying to anticipate what the pro smoking interests may try to do, as it relates to the gaming 33 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 legislation.
I understand. I understand. I tried to provide for it in our legislation.
I passed a bill 7 recently that, you know, talked about local zoning control and gaming sites. And one of the first provisions of the gaming -- state gaming bill was to preempt that. So, they have a way of preempting us on things.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. My first question is to Miss Naidoff. You touted a couple numbers from New York City, 8.7 percent of the -- business has increased 8.7 percent since the non-smoking ban in New York City. I think I'm right with that number. Do you know if those particular statistics involve establishments that were 34 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 non-smoking before the ban? Are they including the non-smoking establishments before the ban, as with the...
I don't know the answer to that. I would find out. It's based on some studies that we had received about taxes collected and employment numbers. So, I'll find out what the base was which is really what you're asking.
Okay. And another thing about your testimony that I understand, but I'm not sure I agree with. I think it's hard to compare Ireland and Italy with this because that's a nationwide ban. And I think this ban would work if it was a nationwide ban. I'm a non-smoker because I see my Fitness Czar sitting there. And I'm a hulk of a human being. I am because of her... her involvement being the Fitness Czar. I went to her classes. I don't smoke, but I just see it as being... All the health issues, there's 35 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 nobody arguing with the health issues here. We're arguing with the economic issues, and the economic issues with the people that work in these restaurants and these bars. It's strictly an adult decision, I think, that adults have to make. In Ireland it works because -- (Applause.)
-- if people want to smoke in Ireland -- If people want to smoke in Ireland, and they can't in a public place, they take the ferry and go across to Great Britain, I guess, and smoke or go to Denmark or France and smoke. Here, what we're going to do is drive businesses from Juniata, Center City, South Philly, West Philly, Northeast, East Philadelphia over to Camden, Montgomery and Bucks County, all the surrounding counties. This could work. This could work. (Applause.)
This possibly could work. I'm married to a non-smoker [sic]. And if she's listening, I'm sure I'm 36 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 going to get in a lot of trouble tonight. I wish she didn't smoke, but it's an adult decision she makes that affects her life. It's an adult decision that that business owner over there or over there decides. Guess what? I'm going to have a bar and a restaurant, and I'm going to have smoking. And I'm going to have smoking because I think if I'm going out tonight... We're not asking for people to smoke in a public library. We're not even asking to smoke in the Wachovia Center, although I think they still smoke in Holts down at the Wachovia Center. And I think you can still smoke in Jet Rock at the airport. Does anybody know that answer? Is that the only place you can still smoke?
Is there a total ban? 37 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
Okay. Well, then, that works. It has to be a total ban. But the airport, the library, and the places I mentioned, except for these restaurants and bars, they're places that you're going through. You're going to the library to do something. You're going through the airport to do something. You're going to his or her or their restaurant or establishment to do something: To relax, to relax as an adult, to relax and drink, to relax and smoke, if you choose, as an adult. My good friend Councilman Kenney smokes -- Not smokes. I'm sorry, Jimmy. I know you don't smoke. Jimmy said -- Well, one of the three vices, I guess, gambling. Jimmy doesn't gamble, smoke or drink. I know that for a fact. Don't say nothing, Councilman. I'm saying that; you're not. He doesn't. I don't. 38 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 If you go do this stuff, it's an adult decision that you're deciding to do. If you want to go to the Indian reservation where you can go up in Connecticut and smoke, downstairs they have the non-smoking; upstairs they have smoking. When I go -- And I've only been there a couple times, I go to the non-smoking because you can get a casino, you can get a slot machine because nobody wants to be downstairs. And Councilman Nutter, who has done a good job on this bill -- He's done a great job here, trying to get the health issues out. We know that the casino people that are coming here, there's no way they're going to let us preempt anything they're doing. They don't want the city involved. And it's been legislated by -- Councilman Kenney said, to keep us from being involved. So anything we do, anything the Mayor does, it's not going to change smoking. If we do this, we will simply drive people 39 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 out of business in the City of Philadelphia. And they may be establishments that I don't go to or I do. They may be establishments that the good Councilman here doesn't go to or the Mayor. And I understand you're up here because you believe in this. I know you believe in this. I know you. And you also work for a guy that believes in it, and he works for the guy, and she works for him, and he works for him. (Applause.) You're not going to come up here and say something...
And I like the Mayor. I really like the Mayor. But we disagree on this issue. The Mayor, through his religious beliefs and his health concerns -- And there is no one in this city that's a bigger spartan than John Street as far as non-smoking, eating all the right stuff, getting the correct amount of sleep, drinking the right amount of water. Right, Glenn? 40 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Got to do all that stuff. Someone may not want to do that. Someone may want to smoke. And it's my analogy that smokers in this country are whipped. They're whipped puppies. Nobody can admit to smoking. 40 years ago everybody smoked. If you didn't smoke during World War II, you were the exception. You were -- Actually, 60 years ago. You actually learned to smoke because it was just something to do. years ago less people smoked. 10 14 years ago less people smoked. And now it's 15 down to a handful of people. 16 You got six foot two, 250-pound men 17 standing outside because their wives won't 18 let them smoke in the house. Why? Because 19 nobody wants to admit to their wives, their 20 husbands, their daughters, their sons that they smoke. If people want to smoke, it's an adult decision. For whatever reason they don't want to. Now, I just got two more questions, 41 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 one for the Fire Commissioner. Commissioner, you talked about smoking deaths from cigarettes, these fire deaths from cigarettes.
It's hard to look at you and do this thing. But, do you know if they were deaths, like, people in bed smoking? Because that's always been a problem. You've been a fireman -- You haven't been a commissioner long, but you've been a fireman for a long time. That's always a problem, right?
Yes. They're various. Most of the time it's contact with combustible materials, sometimes a couch, quite often a bed, but mostly in materials, clothes, trash baskets where ashes are discarded improperly. So it's various reasons, yes.
We get the point where firemen are going to fires that if we could prevent would be great. But I 42 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 don't think anyone's igniting themself in any of these restaurants or clubs or bars. I mean, the last bar -- (Applause.)
-- the last bar I think I was in was a place called the Ashbrenner up the Northeast. And I see one of the owners sitting around here somewhere, a handsome-looking fellow. I didn't see anyone setting themselves on fire there. There was a lot of people smoking. And I ate my dinner at a table where I think everybody was smoking at the bar. And I don't know if the place had a filtration system, but the people at the bar were smoking, the people in the restaurant working. I think there's room to compromise, and I think the compromise is everyone stays around until 2 o'clock today, and listens to another hearing we have in the Committee of the Whole, and let's put this in the ballot in May and see what people really want. If those smokers that I said are 43 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 whipped, if they really want to have their rights as Americans, they should be able to come and vote. They should be able to vote in May. (Applause.)
And anything we're doing here today -- and not to take anything away from good Councilman Nutter that did all the work here -- This can wait. This doesn't have to happen in May. It can happen. We can hold legislation. Let's come to that hearing this afternoon at 2 o'clock with the Committee of the Whole, talk to your Council people, and let's just wait and see. If you care enough about smoking or if you care enough about this issue of non-smoking, come and vote. If you live in Philadelphia, come and vote and let everybody know how you feel. I mean, there's nobody here going to disagree with the health issues that are going on. It's strictly economic issues and adults that can make decisions that they want 44 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 to make. And my last point is, I wear an arm bracelet here of a young man that's in the marines in Falujah. His name's John Snow. Now, I happen to know -- and if John's mom and dad are listening, I feel bad. I'm sorry. I'm going to let the cat out of the bag. John smokes. Now, you tell me when John comes home from Iraq in April, and we have a party at that bar for John, at that restaurant bar, that John can't smoke a cigarette after going to Iraq for 10 months or 12 months? Something... (Applause and cheers.)
Something is really wrong in this country if a guy can go -- a 23-year-old can go to Iraq and fight for his country and can't come back here and have a cigarette. Okay? And let's make it easy. Let's just vote. See what the voters want. It's a non-binding resolution anyhow. Let's just see what the people want. 45 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 So, I would ask the Council people here to think about the vote because we all know how we feel about smoking. There's no 5 one at that table or no one at these chairs -- And if they smoke, they are not going to tell you. And they don't believe in it. They believe that smoking is not good. And we wish nobody smoked. But we're also realists. I wish nobody drank and, I wish nobody did a lot of things. But it's not my job here as a Councilman to make adults do adult decisions. Thank you. (Applause.)
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair and good morning. I had a brief conversation with Councilman Nutter, the sponsor of this legislation. And I had some questions. And I talked to him about it before I proceeded with them for the record. 46 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Private clubs, as an example, people make a conscious decision to pay annual dues to join. And I'm not promoting the Vesper Club, but I'll use the Vesper Club as an example. People make a conscious decision to join the Vesper Club. They pay annual dues. If someone -- if the Vesper Club under this -- under this bill, the Vesper Club would no longer -- would be a non-smoking establishment going forward. But it's not a public place. It's public in the sense that people go in and out of it, but it's just you or I. I happen to be a member, but if someone's not a member, you can't just walk in. So, I'm curious as to what effect that may have on all the private clubs and those kinds of establishments. My other concern is -- And this may be something more for the Law Department. One of the things that has really enhanced the quality of life in this city, especially in Center City, was the advent of outdoor cafes. 47 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 The way I read this legislation -- and again, I stand corrected -- stand to be corrected if I'm wrong -- is that aside from the ten-foot entrance -- part of the legislation which you can't smoke within ten feet of the entrance of an establishment -- an employee who works for Rouge, it's an enclosed restaurant with outdoor seating. That employee may be the waiter or waitress who serves the table outside. The way I read this, you will no longer even be able to smoke at an outdoor cafe. Now, some people may think that I'm making a stretch of this, but the reality is, the way I read it -- And I could be wrong. And if there's someone here from the Law Department who can for the record set me straight, I think that that outdoor cafe would fall within the prohibition of smoking. South Street. John, Bridgett Foyce. Again it's a stretch, but there's a bus station where people board a bus at Second and South directly next to the outdoor cafe, within three feet. 48 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Somebody's going to be standing there with a cigarette. They are within ten feet of the entrance. Someone who is an anti-smoker may be offended by that. I think we're getting into an area now where it's almost like saying, there's not going to be smoking allowed anywhere, whether it's inside or even outside. And I'm a non-smoker, although occasionally I will admit I do pick up a cigarette because the guys I hang out with all smoke. So, I figure I'm going to go -- my lungs are getting polluted anyway, so I enjoy it once in a while. But the reality is, I mean, I'm a non-smoker. And I wish most people would not smoke. I think we all feel that way -- most of us feel that way. So, I need some clarity. And again, I've spoken to the sponsor of this bill. And I don't know if Councilman Nutter has any answers since we last spoke. Would outdoor cafes fall within the prohibition of this legislation? 49 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
Councilman, thanks for the question. Councilman, you'll recall from our wonderful experience the last time on this particular issue, there was actually a specific provision in the last bill that allowed for a sidewalk cafe exemption to the legislation, while that same bill did also have the ten feet -- ten foot entrance prohibition. Certainly there will be some who could argue that those concepts are in conflict with each other. So at the moment, the legislation just has the ten-foot prohibition. Sidewalk cafes are not specifically addressed, although in some instances, depending on the logistics, I guess, or the infrastructure of the particular establishment, you could have a sidewalk cafe, depending on where it's located. If it were not within the ten foot area, then smoking would be allowed at that particular sidewalk cafe. 50 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 I'd be pleased to have further discussion with you about the provisions that were in the previous bill that covered sidewalk cafes, outdoor patios, and the like, even though there would still be the ten-foot prohibition, which is usually just to deal with people congregating, as we've seen presently around the entrance way. That is certainly an item that I'd be pleased to continue a conversation with you. We did try to address sidewalk cafes last time out, but there was such a wonderful negotiating process and working relationship that that provision did stay the last time. Didn't make it this time. But I'm always open for discussion. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And as we spoke earlier, in addition to the ten-foot entrance, some of these establishments have windows that now open out to the sidewalk. So... And I used Rouge as the example. You could be sitting at an outdoor table, but when in nice weather they opened the windows, 51 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 those folding glass doors, and you're in effect sitting right next to a person who's indoors, although the windows are open. So, that would to me suggest that there would be no smoking allowed at all at Rouge. I'm just using Rouge as one of the examples. There are many other restaurants and bars. And I would also, Councilman Nutter, if you would not mind, let's discuss -- we can discuss further the private club issue as well.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is to probably the Health Commissioner and Councilman Nutter. Have you thought about a process for penalties? 52 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Will people actually end up in prison for violating... Prison is already overcrowded with our drug problems.
What is the process if you don't pay your fine? Do you get a lien on your property?
It's a code violation notice, a C.V.N. process which we're all pretty familiar with. It's like, you know, those same violations you get for, I guess, having your trash out on the wrong day, and those kinds of matters. This is not at the level of a criminal action.
Well, it does say in some portion here, if you don't pay your fine, in which case the fine shall not exceed $, 300 together with imprisonment not exceeding ten days. Commissioner, your Health Department will be in charge of the enforcement, correct? 53 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
We will, with other agencies as well, Licenses and Inspection.
Well, Councilwoman, we have... One of the pieces here is that, you know, we do now code enforcement, and there are penalties, and we go through the judicial process. And with... And then my recollection has been there's only been one time when someone has actually gone to jail. And that was a very egregious violation of the Federal law around asbestos. So, we're not talking about that. What we're talking about here is a measure that does impact the public health of the community. That is important. And I think that an awful lot lends itself to looking at this from a public health perspective, in terms of the spirit of the law. There's no question that Councilman Mariano identified that. I've worked for the 54 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Mayor, as we all do. Notwithstanding that the Mayor does support that legislation, the Mayor doesn't tell us what to think professionally. And I will tell you, in the public health profession, there is nothing, nothing people can do to improve their health other than quit smoking that would have a bigger benefit than that. And the fact that the secondhand smoke which we have totally ignored for so many years has been classified as a Class A carcinogen, meaning it actually does -- actually does cause cancer. I think we've got to focus on that very, very clearly, as the Council debates these other important issues as well.
Well, I think we all agree. In fact, I know we all agree on the health impacts of smoking or not smoking. I'm just concerned about penalties and what-not. And I do agree with the Councilman and in general that we're all 55 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 adults, that we make and live by our own decisions. So, I just want to know about the penalties.
Councilwoman, if I can also direct your attention, you will notice in the pink copy of the bill when you go to ... As I know you know, there is a difference in the first sentence which reads 10-606, penalties, one. You'll notice the first five or six words are italics. That's the new language. The rest of the language in the regular type is the language that's already in The Philadelphia Code. The purpose of the new language is to make it clear that violations of this particular bill are not the ones that are in the regular type. They're as provided under six, which says enforcement and penalties. So, their language reads, except as otherwise specifically provided. And that otherwise specifically provided is number six which tells you that the violation is just a fine. 56 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 The other language in 10-606 penalties is what's already in The Philadelphia Code. We're not changing that language.
We're creating a distinction between a violation on this bill 9 and any other violation in The Philadelphia Code. That language already exists. Is that clear?
Thank you, Councilwoman. On the same issue, it just occurred to me as you were reading it. Any person who violates the section shall be subject to a fine of $300 for each violation.
Is that the smoker or is it the establishment owner if he or she refuses to stop the smoking, or both potentially?
It's primarily 57 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the person who's engaged. There are provisions that deal with the actions that are required by the owner of the establishment. And if the owner of the establishment follows those particular provisions, they cannot get a violation.
If they can't make the person stop. And I don't think... People in the hospitality business certainly have encountered the difficult customer: The meat was too dark, it was not cooked well enough, it was this, it was that, didn't like my wine, maybe had a drink too many, whatever the case may be. I mean, I don't believe anyone's going to exercise bad judgment in trying to convince a customer to stop. And if they don't, and they follow the very simple provisions on what they need to do, they can't get a violation.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No response.)
There being none, we thank you so much for your time and your testimony. Thank you. (Applause.)
We now recognize the second panel which represents the Philadelphia Hospitality and Business Alliance members. Prince Gilliard, President, Philadelphia Licensed Tavern and Merchants Association; Garth Weldon, owner of the Prime Rib; Mike Driscoll, Chair of Philadelphia Hospitality and Business Alliance; Pete Ciarrocchi, owner, Chickey and Pete's; Ray Swardlow, owner of the Six-Pack Store. Are they present to testify? Would you come forward, please. The Prime Rib representative, Mike Driscoll, 59 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Prince Gilliard, Garth Weldon, Pete Ciarrocchi, and Ray Swardlow. Good morning.
Would you please identify yourself and begin with your testimony.
My name is Peter Ciarrocchi, owner of Chickey and Pete's Cafe. And I'm here to testify, I guess, to speak about the issues that we have on board today.
I don't know if I was supposed to go first tonight, but I'll just take it. My issues are, I guess, with it's not a fair playing field. And we've spoken. We've heard about the gambling. There's no 20 assurance of knowing if these gambling halls are going to have cigarette smoking or not. And they all -- They don't have to go in front of the Zoning Board, so why would they have to stop smoking? So, therefore, they will have 60 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 alcohol in those places, and they will have slot machines, and they will have cigarette smoking. The private clubs. There's a lot of private clubs around the City of Philadelphia, and they'll have smoking. And it seems to me that it's not a statewide. I mean, most of these -- Most of the places that we've spoken about are statewide. And statewide is a lot different than citywide. I just feel that it's an attack on just the small corner places. We've even spoke of outside cafes. Now, there's not a lot of corner bars in the neighborhoods with outside cafes. So, again, there's a regular corner bar. He's been there for years. And a blue collar guy goes in there after work and has a few beers. And now you can't have a cigarette because that's against the law. Well, you know, he don't have the luxury of flying to Miami Weeklands or having a place in Longport or... You know, this is 61 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 his enjoyment. Now, I'm not a smoker. And if it was across the board, I think I'd feel a lot better about this. But since it's not across the board -- And we depend on a lot of the business from outside the City of Philadelphia. I don't even want to talk about the economic issue. But it seems like that's what it is. You have a lot of people coming in from the suburbs. Now, let's say if there's four of us, two couples. We go out. And one of them doesn't smoke -- I mean, one person smokes. One of the guy's wife smoke. And the four people go to a restaurant. Let's not go tonight. Let's stay somewhere close to home. Let's not go into the city because we can't -- my wife can't smoke there, and she'll be giving me a hard time all night. So, I don't want to have to... You're going to lose business for something that's not -- We're an island. You have New 62 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Jersey and you have Pennsylvania. You have the Bucks County, Montgomery, and Delaware, as we spoke of. It seems that we're like a little island. And if it's an air quality situation, I think we should discuss that, and make it an air quality situation. Let's talk about how it could be air quality or let's talk about doing it differently instead of just cutting off everybody's arm at one time. The City of Philadelphia, surely, especially City Council, are smart people. And they know that this city has done a lot of firsts. And maybe one of the firsts is to make this really work by doing it -- And I would love to sit with a few Council members -- and maybe this is the time -- and discuss this. And say, let's do it a different way. Let's not just do what other -- Well, states, it's one thing. It's a whole state. But in the city, I just think in the city of firsts we should do it different. 63 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Maybe that should come up. As far as the issue of... Nobody could agree with smoking, and I'm with you on that. I don't agree with it either. I mean, it's just... But we're in the hospitality industry. You come there for your relief of... and have a good time. And now we're telling them they can't smoke, after all these years of it. I mean, if you open a business and you spent money in the last year to open up a restaurant in the City of Philadelphia, and you put a lot of money out, and now all of a sudden they change the playing field and said, now all your customers can't smoke. Now your customers aren't going to come from Jersey. Maybe they will one day a week, but they're not going to come two days a week.
Maybe they're not going to come from the suburbs two days a week; they're going to come one day a week. Well, I already invested a lot of money -- not necessarily me -- but a lot of 64 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 different people. Now we're changing the playing field in one year's worth of business. I think it's something we have to think about.
Who wants to testify next? Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
I'll be happy to. My name is Ray Swardlow. I own a store in the northeast part of the city called the Six-Pack Store. Ironically enough, it would effect me positively if there was a smoking ban, because I have take-out beer. But just to follow up with Pete, some of the things that he had said. If you look at all the venues that Pete has, he's got a restaurant in the far northeast. He's got a restaurant on Adams Avenue. He's got restaurants in South Philadelphia. If you stand outside his door and 65 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 you look north, you see Bucks County. If you look south, you see New Jersey. If all these folks that have these wonderful cameras during the Eagles run to the Super Bowl always seem to go to Chickey's and Pete's. And when they interview people, there were people that were wearing very expensive jerseys and very expensive hats, smoking expensive cigarettes and drinking expensive beer. So, I would imagine that they contribute to the economy. And another thing that I noticed was, when the people were interviewed, a lot of the people were either from New Jersey or Delaware County or Bucks County. So, these are people that like Pete's places, and they feel comfortable in Pete's places, but they won't be able to go to Pete's places and smoke. And I think that's a huge financial impact on the city. Everyone here that has an establishment with a liquor license also collects 17 percent taxes, 11 percent of it 66 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 which goes to the city. So, that's another consideration. And I know that Mayor Street is cutting the budget, and I know that the Health Department's budget was also cut, as well as the Police and Fire and every other department. This city likes to shoot movies in Philadelphia. Well, if you look at a lot of movies these days, there's a lot of smoking. Are you going to ban smoking on movie sets? percent of the hotels, according 14 to Councilman Nutter's bill, will have 15 smoking. So, if people want to smoke, are 16 they going to have to rent a hotel room and 17 have smoking and have room service delivered? 18 What about the bell people? What 19 about the people that clean the rooms? What 20 about the other service people that are 21 involved with those 25 percent? 22 If it's an issue of workplace 23 safety, well, those people are impacted. And 24 I think there are a lot of questions to go 25 with this bill. 67 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Garth Weldon. I operate the Prime Rib Restaurant on 17th and Locust Streets, and I thank you for your interest in my views on this matter. I don't smoke cigarettes, but I estimate about to 30 percent of my 12 clientele does. 13 After 25 years in this business in 14 Washington and Philadelphia, I have seen the 15 smoking section shrink and shrink and shrink 16 to basically just the bar area. And that's 17 okay. 18 It's happened not due to government 19 regulation but because we responded to our 20 customers' desires in a free market. , 22 Baltimore and Philadelphia today all offer 23 just the bar area as an outlet for our 24 patrons who spoke. 25 A recent development is that many 68 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 people increasingly choose to eat at the bar. Revenue from the bar, by the way, contributes much more to the bottom line than revenue from the dining room. This smoking at the bar does not bring complaints from our non-smoking customers or staff members, for that matter. And my customers and employees are not hesitant to complain about anything. After the last smoking ban was proposed and defeated, I invested over $12,000 in smoke-eater machines or filtering devices in the bar area alone, to ensure additional comfort for my patrons. Now, during construction seven years ago we did a state-of-the-art 100 percent outside air system, in other words, no mixing of air from the dining room to other areas, at a cost of about $200,000 to make it work. Since the legislation was reintroduced this year, I've been trying to think outside the cigar box. The problem I keep coming up against is a long-standing philosophy in the 69 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 hospitality business: It's always better to hold on to one regular customer than to try to find ten replacements. I oppose the extreme measure of a total ban because it tells my New Jersey and suburban Pennsylvania customers that they cannot have dinner in my 100 percent non-smoking dining room, and then retire to the bar for an after-dinner drink, a cigarette or a cigar. Can the city afford to tell all those people to stay out of Philadelphia? Can it afford to lose any percent of the nearly $120,000 in alcoholic beverage taxes that the Prime Rib of Philadelphia paid alone in 2004? What about the $20 million that Philadelphia restaurants and bars contribute annually via the ten percent over-the-bar tax? A citywide only ban also tells my private dining room parties, like-minded people gathering in a completely enclosed, separately ventilated private room, to take 70 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 their dinner parties to Bala Cynwyd or Cherry Hill if they want to have an after-dinner cigar. , which banned smoking last year, liquor license sales tax receipts grew by less than three-hundredths of one percent, while in Frederick County next door, which permits smoking, the growth was seven percent. The number of restaurants with liquor licenses in Montgomery County fell from a high of 526 in March 2003 to 402 at the end of 2004, according to data from the state of Maryland Controller's Office. 9 million or 11 percent, while the neighboring counties of Dorchester and Caroline grew by 14 and 36 percent. These local bans, when compared to the counties next door, give you an idea of what an unfair effect businesses within the 71 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 banned areas suffer when other dining options are available nearby, as is the case here. I hear many people saying, well, if New York could do it. When they tell you that the restaurant industry in New York is doing well despite the ban, they're counting every establishment in those figures, including Starbucks and McDonald's which never allowed smoking. And their baseline for comparison is 2001, the worst recession in recent history.
Here in Philadelphia we're not surrounded by four non-smoking boroughs like Manhattan, nor do we have a tremendous influx of visitors from all over the world, nor do we possess a convention center with a high rate of repeat business, nor do we have an 82 percent hotel occupancy rate. With a 56 percent hotel occupancy rate, I'd be very hesitant to tell anyone they're not welcome, especially the smoking customers who stay longer in the restaurant, drink longer in the bar and spend more. This emphasis on comparing our 72 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 situation with New York City could turn out to be very misleading and very unfortunate for our tax revenues and hospitality industry after a ban is in place. Others say, look at Ireland. Well, let's look at Ireland. The New York Times reports last November that beer sales in pubs declined to percent because of the 10 smoking ban. 11 At least there, every establishment 12 suffers equally. That wouldn't be the case 13 with the citywide only ban. 14 Another misleading idea is that this 15 is being done for employee health. A. indoor air 17 quality standards now. 18 There are many studies showing that 19 unemployment is very unhealthy, but job loss 20 and decline of business has been the result 21 of smoking bans for certain segments of the 22 restaurant industry. 23 In summary, I'd say that if the 24 State of Pennsylvania or the entire country 25 were to ban smoking, at least businesses 73 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 would have a level playing field to compete upon. Banning one locality, while leaving the surrounding areas with choices, penalizes those businesses who invested in Philadelphia in free-market conditions, and unfairly punishes the very employees it is claiming to protect, with reduced income and possible unemployment. And I predict that City Line Avenue which is saturated on one side with businesses which fled Philadelphia to escape the Business Privilege Tax and the City Wage Tax, may soon have an abundance of upscale restaurant and bars. One final question. Where do I seek restitution, should this ban result in a decline in my business? ) UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We haven't been able to get Prince from...
No. He's here. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We wanted to substitute for Mike. Mike isn't here yet? 74 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Doc Goode from the Empire State Tavern and Restaurant Association in Syracuse, New York.
My name is F.R. Doc Good, G-o-o-d. Sometimes the last name is misleading. (Laughter.)
I'm here on behalf of the hospitality industry. I've been suffering under the blight of the smoking ban in New York since July 23, 2003. Let me give you some history of where I'm coming from. In 1993 they had an E.P.A. study of which they only looked at 15 of the 33 documents available on research due to secondhand smoke. They were called on the carpet by Judge William Ostrand who wrote a 94decision, saying, hey, people, you skewed the data. You took that which you wanted to print and left the rest that was non-damaging 75 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 alone. The World Health Organization which is comprised of the seven most advanced countries in Europe, could not duplicate the data on secondhand smoke as espoused by the E.P.A. There's a lot of junk science running around here, a lot of junk science. Dr. Ken Denson, who is the most advanced research expert on hematology and thrombosis says that if an individual eats one good green salad every day, he can smoke up to ten cigarettes and there would be no 15 effect on his body. (Laughter.)
Okay. I'm not for smoking. Like these other gentlemen, I am a non-smoker, but these are experts. Dr. Madden who is in Worchester [sic] County, New York; cancer research specialist, 30 years. He has yet to come across one of his patients that had damaging effect due to secondhand smoke. (Laughter.) 76 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
The A.M.A. did a study on over-the-road truck drivers. Those that smoke have 95 percent less health problems than those that don't smoke. And why is that? Because their lungs are coated. All right. So, they don't breath in the carcinogens from the spent diesel. All right. I'm just giving you facts, people, because that's what it's all about. That's what it's all about. (Laughter.)
It's funny. But it's not funny when it affects your business. All right? The California ban, 1998, new construction for restaurants is down 19 percent; fast food chains, junk food, up 8 20 percent. 21 Fast food construction was down 9, 22 yet the health care costs -- and here we are 23 seven years after it, and their health care 24 costs are rising faster because they said, we that had to do away with smoking. That 77 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 hasn't affected health care costs at all. That, too, is junk science. Hoboken, New Jersey. Too bad Philadelphia isn't located there. Their sales would be up 37 percent from the people coming out of New York City after they quit work. One of the best revenue generators for Mayor -- they call him Bomber Bloomberg -- is taxing the establishments like the Bull & Bear Pub across from the Stock Exchange, a couple thousand dollars for smokers being outside and impeding the progress of pedestrians. Last December I was in New York City. I was brought up there by the union of Restaurant and Tavern Association Owners, 3,200 of them in New York City. 800 were at this festivity. The gentleman sitting next to me, Mike, has been fined $15,000 for impeding the progress of pedestrians in downtown Manhattan. He has a nightclub. Between shows 78 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 people go out and smoke. The police are right there, and they ticket them. That's what it's coming to. The people are losing money. Roy Dolan [sic], a very, very nice Irish pub in Yonkers, their sales are losing $10,000 a week, a half-a-million dollars a year. Now, the lady that talked about sales being in New York City up 8 percent, Dr. Friedan had an article in the Wall Street Journal. Found it very interesting. 8 percent when it should have been up over 35 percent from the rest of the business that was growing. Business is not good in New York. The OTB, that's the off-track betting, for those people who like to bet, they did not have smoking facilities to meet state standards. Their sales were down $7.2 million per week. That's not chicken feed. We were told -- And if you contact the American Cancer Society in Syracuse, New York -- They know me. They don't want to 79 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 debate me, for the simple fact I got more facts and figures than they do. But they told me that my business would not suffer. My business would not suffer. I got 54 seats. I'm open hours a 7 day, 7 days a week. I had 32 employees. 8 They all smoked except me. 9 Maybe I should have complained, but 10 I like my employees. I am now down to 21 11 employees. My sales are down $127,500 in one 12 year. 13 Why? 86 percent of my customers are 14 smokers, veterans like myself. It's a habit 15 I didn't pick up in the service. But they 16 wanted me to get involved. And five years 17 ago I got involved, and I looked up the 18 statistics. And I know what I'm talking 19 about. Secondhand smoke is not the issue, if 20 you got any type of ventilation whatsoever. 21 (Applause.) 22
And that's a lot. That's 23 the truth. 24 Let me wrap it up here, if you don't mind. Bleachers, which is smart -- I can 80 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 talk to you about all these places. Over percent of the business in Central New York, bars and taverns, are now shut down because of lack of business. And that's the truth. And I didn't drive up here last night to be here to spend junk science. It's the truth. People, you've got to come up with a... What is that law? Leave as is. Well, I forgot it. I'm sorry. I got a little excited there. But... No. The... It's bad news. It's not as bad as they say it is. Thank you. Have a nice day. (Applause.)
If there are witnesses in the balcony who are scheduled to testify, there are seats down here on the floor. Please feel free to come down. We now recognize Prince Gilliard, Philadelphia Licensed Tavern and Merchants Association. Good morning.
Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the 81 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 health committee. I thank you for taking this time to hear my testimony on Council Bill. My name is Prince Gilliard. I'm the President of the Philadelphia Hospitality and Business Alliance and owner of Prince's Jazz Lounge. The alliance represents the largest industry in Philadelphia, is comprised of both large and small businesses, taverns and restaurants, hotel purveyors, merchants, distributors and news stands. We -- The proposed smoking ban on the basis of the negative economic impact the city will feel and we will feel this as taprooms [sic]. Let me just say off the record -- off this record -- I have the highest admiration for this industry, even though in the hard times when the ten percent tax was imposed, legislation was imposed upon them, we were giving out scholarships -- doing it for years, giving millions of dollars in scholarships. 82 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 And when this -- the business got bad, we had to lay off the employees and close their doors, I went to the members and say, are you going to give the scholarship this year? And overwhelmingly, 100 percent said, yes, we're going to continue with our scholarship program. We've been doing it every year and feeding the needy. So, this is the industry that's really been hurt economically by legislation... business. And this will be an additional imposition to them. So, I totally oppose the smoking ban. It is our opinion that the hospitality industry is the economic lifeblood of the city. Consider license fees, permits, taxes, especially the ten percent across the beer [sic] tax on alcoholic beverages and income taxes collected from our employees. You are looking at millions upon millions of industry providers to the city. The lack of economic stability in 83 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Philadelphia does not allow for any loss of revenue or jobs. It is imperative for the city to continue looking toward economic growth. The facts from New York prove smoking bans are not as harmless to business as proponents claim. Out of 160 bars, taverns and restaurants, 39 have closed their doors. That is 39 businesses no longer open to their customers. That is several hundred citizens without jobs and no longer paying income taxes. That is a significant revenue that states has watched slip through the cracks. The City of Philadelphia cannot afford to lose that revenue. There is also a threat to local businesses and borders, the suburbs of New Jersey, if passed. Philadelphia's conceding revenue and jobs to other cities and other states. The question I pose to you today to City Council Whole is simple. Coming up with a solution to which there is no existing 84 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 problem, a strong number of restaurants in Philadelphia already are non-smoking and provide adequate separation from the smoking and non-smoking areas. For these restaurants it is not necessary to force them to become a non-smoking establishment. If a restaurant or bar chooses to become a non-smoking establishment, then they have the right. They could accommodate those customers who wish to have a meal or a couple of drinks, and not be in the presence of unwanted cigarette smoke. I'm a non-smoker myself, never have smoked. I tried one when I was 14, and I got sick and I haven't touched one until 6 years ago. And when people or I come around people who smoke cigarettes, and they say, oh, here's that Prince. He's about that smoking. I say, stop smoking those nasty cigarettes. But again, I go back. That is their choice. And once we get away from the 85 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 freedom of choice, we're going to have a problem. On the second floor of my establishment, I made it a non-smoking room 6 for the non-smokers, to accommodate them, people who didn't smoke. People don't want to be around smoke. On a weekend night the place is packed.
Downstairs on the second floor, the non-smoking room, I had four or five people. It didn't pay off. People had the freedom of choice. And a lot of people get the impression when you walk into a room, there's a smoke-filled room, you must cut it with a knife. Such is not the case. These entrepreneurs that went to great expense in installing smoke systems in their establishments even went to the point of having smokeless ashtrays. So, I admire what they're about doing to protect the health of their customers. And again, it goes back to simple one basic rule, freedom of choice. Let the 86 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 customer decide. When they come to our establishments they know there's smoking on the premises, and they come in on their own free will. If these customers was to come to us and say, listen, we don't come to your places because there's smoking there, trust me, we would abolish smoking. There's no one on City Council that's more concerned about our customers than we are as owners. So, I would ask... )
So, I would ask City Council to seriously consider this ban. And I've been in this business over 40 years and I've seen a steady decline, and some of you people on Council can attest to this. We have lost to 30 percent of the licensees 21 in the last 10, 12 years. 22 So, I close by saying we certainly 23 can't stand any more hardships. And I would 24 ask for your consideration in this -- on this 25 smoking ban. Thank you. 87 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Oh, I'm sorry. Mike, I'm sorry.
Councilwoman, I'm just going to defer my testimony. And if Council will permit, if I can submit it in writing... We had some technical difficulties in printing it out. But I'd be happy... I want to be here...
No. Instead of reading it, if I can submit it for the record. I wanted to be here to provide the opportunity for any of the Council people, and along with my colleagues, to answer any questions that you may have about our industry, about, you know, questions you might have of what might impact us and our employees. 88 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 We just want to be here as an owner of an establishment downtown and one up in the northeast. Also, as a former head of the Licensed Beverage Association.
Thank you. Any questions? Michael Nutter. Well, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, gentlemen. We well remember at least 36 months ago when we were here having deliberations and discussions around this issue, and the proposal was put forth to sit down and pull together a task force which I know met for many, many months around a number of the outstanding provisions of the bill. Provide for us, if you will, your sense about how that went, whether or not it was useful, and where that sits today.
Councilwoman, be more specific about the recommendations from 89 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the... One of the suggestions we had made four years ago, and many of us have adopted is, we printed policy guidelines for our establishments. As Mr. Gilliard alluded to, we have signs that say, smoking establishment, non-smoking establishment, or smoking sections allowed. And a lot of us voluntarily put them up. And before our customers come in, they know what the policy of our place is. And we believe in the areas that those that have done that, it's been effective.
Was that the only recommendation? There were a number of others that dealt with exhausts, costs related to exhaust systems, and the like.
Well, we've each adopted different of the recommendations. For instance, Garth Weldon from the Prime Rib, as he may have testified earlier, actually invested in a completely separate exhaust system for his restaurant for 90 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 post-dining. Those that want to have cigars can go into a separately ventilated area and enjoy their post-dining experience. At Finnegan's Wake we invested in eight state-of-the-art smoke eaters strategically located throughout the establishment that filters the air and recreates better air quality in our establishment. So, each of us in the industry have taken recommendations that were very, very helpful and have adopted them to our own establishments. Each establishment, as you can appreciate, is different here.
Mine's rather large and expansive in a warehouse. And some were actually small in the downtown areas here, in the old architectural buildings.
So, your sense, then, at the end of the day was that the task force and the meetings were -- had some 91 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 purpose, served some purpose.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple comments and then a couple questions. I did want to better understand the gentleman who was up earlier -- I think his last name was Mr. Good, from the Empire State. Did he leave? I just wanted to ask him a question. It's Mr. Good; is that correct?
Okay. Your testimony earlier, I thought you put on the record some concerns, if not definitive testimony, that there were questions about scientific evidence and medical research.
Very much so. I read 92 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 everything I can come across.
I understand. Let me just try to understand this. Your background in health care is what?
My background is, basically I'm an ex-medical student. I worked 40 years for our government in intelligence gathering, top secret clearance which we don't discuss. I got into this business --
I got into this business to help my son. And I got very much involved in the health aspect of it because of the background. I come from a medical background.
No. I've got my engineering. I'm a professional -- retired professional engineer. 93 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
And so, based on your previous time in medical school, and your top secret government clearance, you question all of the science from the Center for Disease Control, the Health Commissioner here in Philadelphia, the health people in New York City, the national studies have been done... You're... (Applause and cheers.)
Let me finish the question, sir. So, I mean, you have figured this thing out, that notwithstanding the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association...
...you have singularly, with medical school training, you are not a doctor, 40 years of intelligence gathering for an agency that we can't discuss, and you come here today saying 94 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 there's no health effect from either smoking or secondhand smoke. That's your testimony?
Secondhand smoke. There's no health effect from secondhand smoke?
...that you can gather and get it. I didn't bring the file with me.
But you go through that, and you look at what they have to say.
And it's not as advocately... It's not as damaging to your health as they say it is. Genetics has a big part to play in your overall life and how you're going to transform yourself. All right? And that's a truth. I know a lot of people that have 95 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 asthma.
I hear you. I'd just like to read something into the record that I think provides some clarity on this particular point. This is from a web site that is easily accessed. And it reads the following: Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media which is middle ear infection, and sudden infant death syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, 96 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 throat, and nasal irritation. Phillip Morris U.S.A. believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoke around them. We believe that the conclusions of public health officials, concerning environmental tobacco smoke, are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers. Now, that's from Phillip Morris U.S.A. web site. 97 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Now, do you know more about smoking and secondhand smoke than Phillip Morris?
I'd like you to give me an answer. Do you know more about secondhand smoke than Phillip Morris U.S.A?
Okay. Thank you. I cut you off. You were going to make a statement.
Well, my statement is, if secondhand smoke is so devastating, why have they yet to perform the first autopsy on somebody who they thought had died from secondhand smoke? (Applause.)
Well, that's an interesting question. And I'm not sure who "they" is. Now, "they" may be another --
"They" may be another secret agency that we're not going to have a conversation about.
But I appreciate your testimony. I appreciate your testimony.
No, no. This is basically from the New York State Department of Health.
On this topic I think Phillip Morris has got it fully covered on secondhand smoke. I think they know what their product is. I think they know what it's about. And they put it on their web site. And you can check it out for yourself when you're doing the other research that you might want to avail yourself of. So, I appreciate that. 99 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
I appreciate that. And I have a couple of other questions that I want to ask. I appreciate you coming back to the table, though. Thank you. I wanted to address a couple issues, just for the record. There were concerns re-raised about the gaming issue. And I know my friend Pete here... I think you were in the room when we had some of that discussion.
Yeah, I was in the room. And I wasn't sure about what the answers were.
The answer is is that the bill covers licensed gaming facilities as a part of The Philadelphia Code. State facilities, regardless of how they are licensed, have to be in compliance with The Philadelphia Code, for any number of issues, even liquor license facilities. And so, at the City Council level, which is the only place they let me 100 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 legislate, it is covered. It's in the bill. That's all I can do.
I understand what you're saying it's in the bill. But can you assure us that they will not smoke in these casinos? Can you actually tell me today that that's a fact, that's a fact that they will not smoke in these places?
It's a fact that it is prohibited in the establishment.
It's not what I asked. I asked, could you assure me that they will not smoke in them? That's what I'm asking. Is it a fact?
It's a fact that it is prohibited in the bill. And to the extent that someone wants to violate the law, that's what they're going to do.
The state can do anything that it wants, and has often done so. I cannot tell you what the state is 101 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 going to do because we're not at the state house; we're at City Council.
I know that. I'm just trying to explain to you... You can understand my concern.
I fully understand your concern. And we try to provide for it, like every other workplace. This is a workplace issue. I cannot tell you today what the state is going to do. They're in session at the moment. I have no idea what they might be up to, but I cannot do anything about what they do.
I know that. And I understand you can't. And that's why I --
I understand 102 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 that piece.
-- which you say that that very well could happen, then --
I have not said that. I don't know what they're going to do.
You said they could do anything they want, is what you said.
We are a political subdivision of the state. They have full jurisdiction legislatively --
The one area they went into was zoning. This is not a zoning matter. It's a Philadelphia Code issue. It has nothing to do with zoning. It's in Title 10, regulation of individual conduct.
So, we can both agree that that could -- they still can smoke in them. Can we agree on that?
It's prohibited in the bill. I don't know what else that I can tell you to have you understand that if it is prohibited in a piece of legislation in Philadelphia but for a new act by the legislature, it would be prohibited. And I can't tell you what the legislature is going to do.
That's all I can give you. You made another statement earlier which I'd like to clear up. You expressed a concern. And I thought the colloquy between Councilman DiCicco and I had cleared that matter. You expressed a concern on the record. I took down that you somehow believe that private clubs would allow smoking. Private clubs are covered as well. They are a workplace. All workplaces.
That's what this is actually about, which I do want to say that for all the testimony that we've heard from this particular panel, about 98 percent of the conversation was about economics and not about worker health. The bill is the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law. It's about workers and their health. So, let's talk a little bit about that. 105 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 (Applause.)
Now, we have any number of requirements in the protection of public health.
They're a Federal agency. I work in the Philadelphia City Council. Our Health Department and in our Philadelphia Code and regulations have a variety of requirements to protect the public health which I know you're more than well 106 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 aware of. I believe, last I checked, O.S.H.A. doesn't have a standard on secondhand smoke; is that correct?
Well, I can tell you they don't. So, they have many standards. They don't have one on this particular topic. So, it is not possible for someone to meet an O.S.H.A. standard on secondhand smoke because it doesn't exist because someone took them to court about it.
But what I'm trying to say is, if it's an air quality issue --
-- meeting of a standard of quality and smoke by O.S.H.A. No. It's a workplace issue about people being in a toxic environment. Now, unless you're going to get into the world of Mr. Good over here -- not Councilman Goode, but the gentleman from New 107 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 York...
Right. I didn't think you had a -- I wasn't sure about your top secret clearance... (Laughter.)
...and any research that you've done, but I have reason to believe that you are not sitting at the table disputing the medical science --
-- and research. So, you know that it is a Class A carcinogen.
And you know that it leads to any number of diseases, including the potential fatality. You know that, right?
I'm going by what you say. I do not -- I don't smoke, nor do I like cigarette smoke.
Let me speak for a 108 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 second. Years ago when I first opened up the first place, I used to come home. My wife said, take your clothes off at the door. Now, as times changed --
Well was that because of the smoke or for other reasons? (Laughter.) MR CIARROCCHI: Probably a little bit of both.
I mean, maybe it was... What's that -- What's... See Alice [sic]? I'm not saying that your -- You know, the nighttime is the right time. I mean, maybe you were getting lucky.
Right. What we did was... I don't think it's a big problem now. And I'd like to see if it's an air quality issue, then let's talk about it. If it's an air quality issue, let's test it, if it's an air quality issue. If it's not... If that's what it's about, I 109 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 want safety for my employees and my customers. And if it's an air quality issue, I'd like to discuss it. And I think this City Council, especially yourself, we could sit down and discuss how this could move forward in the right way, not just cutting people's arms off, just stopping it altogether. Give people time to make an air quality decision.
Well, Pete, if I can be so informal, we've been talking about this for a long time. This is not a new conversation to me. We've talked about it and talked about it, in the finest of Philadelphia traditions. And we've studied it, and we had a work group. And then we talked about it some more. And we never did anything. Now, the reality is, quite honestly, for the industry, although no one wanted to recognize it at the time, for the eight billion exceptions that we had five years ago, you would have probably done a lot 110 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 better dealing with that particular piece of legislation, as compared to where we are today. But nothing was ever good enough. That's fine. I understand. You know, life moves on. Let's talk a little bit about the workers. How many people do you employ?
Okay. Could you give me kind of generally a bit of a demographic profile of your work force? Male/female, black/white, young/old.
All of the above. Male/female. 260 people, there's all of the above. There's everything. There's 260 employees in the City of Philadelphia.
There's 260 employees in the city in my place. It's from all walks of life.
Okay. Tell me a little bit about health care. 111 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
Everybody can be covered. All salaried employees are covered, correct.
Okay. So you do 112 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 provide a fair amount of health coverage for your folks?
Okay. Okay. There was an issue raised earlier, and I think it was raised by yourself, the concern about the... I took it down. You had the two-couple scenario. Now, do you believe, given the demographics of the smoking population in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties, less than percent of the public smokes. 17 Are you aware of that? 18
Okay. And do 20 you think that there is anyone in 21 Philadelphia or Southeastern Pennsylvania who 22 possibly is not coming to your establishment 23 because of smoking? 24 (Applause and cheers.) 25
I don't believe 113 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 anybody. I believe that... You're saying they're not coming to my place because of smoking?
Your example earlier was of the man and the woman, and somebody smokes. And if they have to possibly go to a non-smoking establishment, the concern was that the... I don't know why it was put on the wife, but that --
-- that one of the members of the couple might not want to come because the place was smoke free. 114 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 And what I'm asking you is, is at all possible that the reverse situation exists today? Are there -- I mean, are you maxed out? You've got all the customers you're ever going to want or need? In a 75/25 situation, there's no one declining to come to the establishment because of smoking?
I'm saying that I couldn't tell you how to be a -- I don't want to tell you how to be a Councilman. I know everything there is to know about my business.
Don't tell me what's right for my business or what's wrong for my business. I'm just stating a fact that I would like it to be an even playing field. If it's not, let's talk about it.
I understand that. 115 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 I'm not telling you any more about your business than the fact that in Section 4 6-301 you're required to have a food establishment, food safety certificate, aren't you?
And you adhere to these requirements, one, because you have to; but, two, more importantly, because I know you: You do it because you want to make sure that you protect the health and safety of not only your workers but also your clientele.
And you do not know if the inside of Chickey and Pete's is healthy or not. You do not know that. 116 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 That's what I said. If it an air quality issue, I would like you to check it. That's what I say. (Applause.).
It can't be healthy if you allow a carcinogenic toxic substance in the air. It's not possible. (Applause and cheers.)
Well, I believe you're incorrect on that, and that's your opinion.
And short of you having a contract with N.A.S.A., there is no 19 equipment that you're going to buy that will tell you, other than moving the air around and moving the particulate back and forth and taking it wherever it's going, they are not going to tell you that from a public health standpoint that they can guarantee that it will remove all the dangerous particulate in 117 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the air. No one sells a piece of equipment like that, and they won't give you that guarantee.
There's a lot of things you can't give guarantees on that we just talked about before.
Okay. What I'm saying to you is if it's an air quality issue, check it.
The one sure way to ensure that you will not have 4,000 chemicals, 69 of which are carcinogenic, in the environment in which you operate is not to allow smoking. That is the one sure way -- (Applause and cheers.)
That is a guarantee. And it doesn't cost you anything. That's all we're saying.
It's just drastic. What you're asking to do here is a little bit drastic, and I thought the Council could come up with a little bit something better than that.
I understand that, and I appreciate it, and I respect it.
I appreciate it, and I respect it. I mean, we did. We talked a lot about it. This is not -- Not you and I.
Other folks, some of whom are here today. We've been talking about this since --
No, no, no. I 119 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 understand.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you, Councilman Nutter. And thank you, Pete. I just want to say something before -- I want to ask Mike Driscoll a 120 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 question. But you know, we can sit here all day and beat this question up. And guess what? The Councilman, he knows I love him. I gave him candy cigarettes the other week. He's right about this issue. This is a health issue. But it's not a health issue as strongly as it is an economic issue for these guys sitting right here. I know all three of these guys. I don't know the doctor. I'm not in that agency that you talked about. But I do know Mike Driscoll. And I know Mike Driscoll and Petey and Prince have family to feed. Like it or not, they have family to feed. They make adult choices when they opened on establishment. And one of the other people of the previous panel talked about open market, and a fair across-the-board market. Peety has had his little place up there that was the sheet metal workers hall for longer than I can remember. It must be years. 25
1977. It was local before you were in there. 4 That place was so small you couldn't 5 get in there, unless you knew somebody and 6 sneak in the back door. But I never did 7 that, but I know people that did it. 8 Then he opens another one. He takes 9 a building up on the Boulevard that was a 10 failure, a total failure, whatever it was 11 before, what was it a Channels or something 12 that didn't work? 13
Yeah, it was 15 abandoned. He took an abandoned building, 16 and came in. Got his money from wherever he 17 gets it, from partners, from his wife's fund. 18 I don't know what he does. That's his 19 business. He opens it, and it's a success. He goes down and gets another place in the Council President's District at Southwest Philadelphia that was a -- I'm looking at Jerry. What was it Jerry, an empty A & P? UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Shop-Rite. 122 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
He opens an empty A & P, a Shop-Rite with failed businesses. He goes and does this. Now he turns around and he says, I wasn't involved in any of the discussions. And I know that Councilman Nutter was having discussions with the group here. And again, it's economics. Of course they're going to stall to the last minute. They may have stalled past the point where it's no longer able for them to come back. They are just asking for an open playing field. If you passed an amendment to this law or to this ordinance saying, you know what? When Pete did all his stuff and put all his money, and when Mike Driscoll put all that money in the Ashburner [sic], and when everybody else put all that money in, they knew what was coming down the road. The guy from the Prime Rib? Guy's smart. But he also has a national company that feeds him money to keep that Prime Rib open. 123 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Mike Driscoll doesn't have that. Prince doesn't have that. Mr. Ciarrocchi doesn't have that. So, if we could do something here. I mean, we could sit by here and make fun of people. And I know that's not your intentions, but you always got to say that here because the papers and the television cameras are here. And it's not about making some group happy over another group. It's about Mike Driscoll and Peety's and Prince's family being able to have a way to make a living. They took their money in a free open market and established the business. It's the American way. They did that. They didn't invent cigarettes. They're not telling people to smoke cigarettes. The guy from the Prime Rib, that guy makes more sense than anybody that I ever heard speak about this. He did his homework. And I heard him speak before. He did his homework and said, it has to be an open 124 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 market economy. This bill could probably pass, and it may pass. But it would pass a lot easier if you grandfathered these people that already put their businesses in and said, you know what? If I don't want to go to Chickey and Pete's because they smoke, I won't go there. If me and Billy over here decide to open a non-smoking restaurant across the street from Chickey and Pete's up on the Boulevard, and we want to compete ahead and along with them and say -- Guess what? We're going to have the same crab fries, the same chicken wings, but we're not going to use his name so he doesn't sue us, but we're going to sit over there and call it Bill and Rick's, and we're going to have the same thing but it's no smoking. You want to go over Peety's and smoke? Go ahead. Free economy. If Bill and I lose our shirt on that economic deal, it's fine. If Pete loses his shirt, that's why this is America. That's why we make choices. 125 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 And you know what? I don't know if the numbers are skewed. And do I read the numbers? No, I don't read the numbers. And I don't read all the studies. Because you know what? I don't like cigarette smoke. It makes me sick. But that's my decision as an adult, an adult who will be 50 years old in July. They make decisions. They're economics. And we can't have these hearings on health, and we can't have these hearings on smoking and non-smoking. Nobody's going to argue with you about smoking. Nobody -- Does anybody in this room smoke that will admit it? Probably not. Nobody's going to admit it because smokers are sneaking it. Let's not take their livelihood away. Let's not chase them away because we think that someone in New York... It may work. The Doc over here that we don't agree with what he says because a couple of things made us chuckle. 126 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Well, maybe he's not right on everything. But if he's a little bit close to being the truth -- And the part about the greens, I don't smoke. So, if I can go out and eat a bunch of greens today, maybe I'll get super power, and I'll be able to figure all this stuff out. But that's not going to happen.
So I do know that Pete -- Yeah, maybe me and the Councilman are going...
We're going over -- I don't want to be the Hulk. I want to be Spiderman. I told you that before. You can be the Hulk. We're going to go over to Down Home Diner and eat some greens at lunch and we're going to figure this all out. But in all seriousness -- In all seriousness, this is an economic decision. Let's not take their livelihood away. Let's 127 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 not take food out of Mike Driscoll's -- Mike, you got another -- Your wife pregnant again?
Every time I look she is. Let's not take -- He's got about 9 kids. Let's not take food out of his face. 10 Let's put it on the ballot. Let's stick 11 around to 2 o'clock. Let the people speak. 12 Let the people speak. 13 This isn't what the Inquirer thinks 14 is a big economic issue. I mean, them guys 15 don't smoke. They're not real people. 16 They're not real Americans. They sit over there; they make up ideas; they want to go with everything. Let the people decide on May when they have the election. And if the people want to smoke, fine. If it comes back and it says, they don't want smoke in their restaurants -- the restaurants and bars, hey, I'm still voting against it. And Michael's going to vote for it. So, we wash each 128 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 either other one out. Let the people decide. We can wait six months. (Applause.)
Maybe by then -- Maybe by then the tavern owners -- Maybe all these associations will realize that Councilman Nutter does have the votes to pass this thing. And maybe he'll decide -- Maybe he'll let them do some filtration system that may not be a hundred percent, but maybe it's a compromise that we could make as a Council. I don't want to be in the job of ruling -- Because what's next? I know I get fat from eating McDonald's food. Are we going to do that next? We know we're not going to do that. (Applause.)
And I know them hamburgers are bad. And Juan and I only had -- We split the two cheeseburger value meal, and Juan takes the fries. But it's still... It's not good for me, but I still do it. 129 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
You know? We don't supersize, right, Juan? But I know -- I know it's not good for us, but we do it, because we're Americans and we're free to make those decisions. This isn't Ireland. This isn't Italy. And this isn't even New York City. Let's get down to it and be real Philadelphians. The birthplace of liberty is down the street down there where the Liberty Bell is. So, let's do this. Let's give the people a choice. And the Councilman -- I asked you, and I know you've been through this. And you've put many, many hours. And your work ethic is beyond reproach. And I know you're serious about this. And so am I. If we wait until the election in May and put this on the ballot, and it comes back, there's a lot of members in this Council that don't want to vote for this either way because they're not quite sure. Like, they don't like smoking, but they don't 130 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 want to do that. If the people decide to do it, then we come back and everybody does what they want anyhow. And you know, you're thing's going to get passed or it's not going to get passed. Let's see what the people have to say. It's the only common sense approach to this issue. I don't want Mike Driscoll's kids to starve. I don't want Petey's, and -- You know, I'm kidding. Prince has grandchildren. They're not going to starve. But they're businessmen. Okay. That's all it is. It's about business and us regulating business. And Michael Nutter's not trying to ruin you out of business. He believes that this is a good thing. I happen to disagree with him on this issue, but I think there's enough like-minded people, if not on this committee, in Council as a whole that will decide, let's give it a chance. Stick around for the 2 o'clock hearing. And that's all I'll have to 131 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 say today. Thank you. (Applause.)
Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown will be introducing the Big Mac legislation next. (Laughter.)
You're a svelte body. You could be a co-signer of that, too.
Councilman, let me encourage you to stay out of that, stay out of that area. Yes. Madam Chair, if I could just put one piece of factual information on the record with regard to dollars and cents. Many members will recall a little over ten 132 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 years ago there was enormous debate in this chamber with regard to the liquor-by-the-drink tax. And we heard a significant amount of testimony that it would devastate the industry and cause significant financial ruin. I'd just like to put on the record the annual totals of liquor-by-the-drink tax collections over the years, in 1996 the annual total was $20,453,780. In 2004 the annual totals for liquor-by-the-drink tax collections were $33,407,741, a 50 percent increase over that period of time. It is clear that the industry is robust, that people are still enjoying themselves. And I only put those facts on the record as further demonstration that notwithstanding what we were told back at that time, that this either would not work or would have a tremendous negative impact, the facts and the analysis from either the Finance Department or the Controller's Office 133 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 indicate the exact opposite. You could not have those numbers if the industry was not moving in a positive direction. So, I just wanted to make sure those facts were on the record. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm done. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Oh, gentlemen are you finished? Do you have anything else you wanted to say?
Councilwoman, I just wanted to respond. And I do want to compliment Councilman Nutter. We've had many discussions in the past. I don't always oppose Councilman Nutter. I've worked with him closely on the tax reform issues, and I compliment his efforts in that area. I just want to disagree with something that was raised that, you know, we sort of are obstructionists when it comes to solving this problem. Councilman DiCicco, I thought, came 134 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 up with a good idea four years ago which we were prepared to endorse. Since we had this discussion several years ago, it's my understanding that 200 to 300 restaurants have opened up in Philadelphia. We had suggested grandfathering in existing restaurants. And if the Councilman's correct -- And all these statistics get me very confused, our statistics and his statistics. There's lies, there's damn lies, and then there's statistics. I just sort of get confused in that whole area. But one thing I thought would be real was that if he was right and that there is a market for non-smoking establishments, which I'm sure there is, that all new restaurants would have to operate under the new legislation, not the old legislation that we took loans out on our homes, based on the laws that were on the books at the time. And if we had agreed on that, which we were prepared to do three years ago, we'd 135 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 have 200, 300 new restaurants. And let me tell you something, if we are smart businessmen, and those restaurants started to take the market from us, I'll bet you we'd be moving in the direction of a non-smoking restaurant versus the smoking restaurant. So, the market can still decide these things. And we can come to some accommodation that we could all agree on. But I think as Mr. Ciarrocchi said, there needs to be some latitude on this issue. And let me just raise another point. I'm also concerned that government sometimes solves one problem and creates another. Some of the small neighborhood bars have called me and expressed this concern for me to bring to your attention today. And that is, between the hours of 9:00 and 2:00 in the morning they're concerned that if these bars and restaurants are deemed smoke free, that the patrons by law are going to have to smoke somewhere else. 136 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 If they go out on the sidewalks or into the parking lots or into the neighborhoods, we're going to solve the smoking problem inside, but we're going to have a nuisance, loitering, noise issue outside. So we're going to be right back here next year solving that problem. (Applause.)
I just wanted to put that on the record so we understand there's implications no matter what decision we make today.
Thank you so much. It's certainly a whole issue and a whole debate. I think we'll muddle through here today somehow. Thank you very much for your testimony.
The Chair recognizes Dr. Mary Basset and Councilman Robert Curran. Good afternoon. Would you please identify yourself, Dr. Basset, for the 137 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 record, and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. Is my mike on with the green light? Good afternoon. I am Dr. Mary Basset. I am the Deputy Commissioner of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. It's a great pleasure to be here with you this afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Council. I oversee the tobacco control program, and I'm pleased to be able to share the New York City experience with passing similar legislation in 2003. Although all cities are unique --
Just a moment, please. Those of you who are leaving, would you please do so quietly.
Although all cities are unique, the risk of tobacco use is universal. I am pleased to be able to support you in your deliberations of a bill that would ensure that no one would have to make a 138 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 decision between their health and their job.
Well, they're just trying to exit. And they should do so quietly. Okay. Go ahead.
As I indicated, this legislation really addresses the issue of whether anyone should have to choose between their health and their ability to hold a job because of risk of exposure to secondhand smoke. As has been ably discussed by both your Health Commissioner, other commissioners, by Council member Nutter, the risk of tobacco use and exposure is very well documented and no longer the subject of scientific debate. Since 1964 there have been nearly 30 Surgeon General's reports on the risk of tobacco use. The Surgeon General report on the risk of secondhand smoke exposure was 139 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 published nearly years ago. So, it is irrefutable that tobacco use is the leading epidemic of our time. It causes one in every six deaths in New York City and a third of preventable deaths. Secondhand smoke is also a leading cause of death nationally, as it is in my city. And exposure to secondhand smoke killed nearly 1,000 New Yorkers in 2002. It also causes a host of other illnesses. More than 40,000 New Yorkers every year experience asthma exacerbations, respiratory infections, ear infections, some of the conditions described by your Council member. The evidence comes from studies of the chemicals in secondhand smoke, including more than 40 known carcinogens from animal studies and from studies analyzing the health of hundreds of thousands of people. There is no scientific doubt whatsoever about this matter. Secondhand smoke also increases the risk of heart disease. Every 30 minutes of 140 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 exposure changes the way the blood clots, and can increase the risk of heart attack. It increases the risk of lung cancer. And workers in the hospitality industry breathe secondhand smoke more than any other occupational group in the United States, and as a result are more likely to die of lung cancer. Workplace exposure can increase the odds of asthma and chronic bronchitis two to threefold, and secondhand smoke also increases risk of low birth weight, has other adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as the death of infants from sudden infant death syndrome. In New York we tested the air in smoky bars and were amazed to find just how polluted these workplaces are or were. Even with only four or five smokers present, in one minute a bartender breathes as much pollution as you would experience standing for nearly one hour at the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, our major commuter tunnel from New Jersey to New York City during rush hour. A. outdoor standard. Secondhand smoke is an occupational hazard, whether you are a waiter or a secretary, a bartender or a banker. African-Americans, Latinos, and those with low incomes are twice as likely to have to breathe secondhand smoke on the job as other workers. So, there's also an issue of health disparities here. Business owners don't have the right to allow their workers to be exposed to hazardous chemicals in secondhand smoke. The fundamental principle of workers' safety holds that workers should not be forced to choose between their health and their jobs. To help curb this public health threat, New York City passed the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act. It went into effect on March 30, 2003, making virtually all 142 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 workplaces smoke free, including restaurants and bars. A similar law in New York State, the Clean Indoor Air Act, went into effect statewide on July 24, 2003, protecting virtually all workers throughout New York State from secondhand smoke. Similar laws, as you have heard, are being passed across the United States as well as internationally. As we have heard, and we heard also in New York, and as always part of this debate, restaurant and bar owners say that this legislation will hurt their business. That's what they said in New York.
Many predicted that the smoking ban would mark the beginning of the end of the city's reputation as a city that never sleeps, a fun city, that our famed nightlife would wither. Critics warned that bar and restaurant businesses would sink, that the law would cost city jobs, that tourists would go elsewhere, and that city smokers would simply ignore the law. I think you've heard all of those sort of predictions this 143 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 morning. Well, what happened in New York? The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, The Department of Finance, Small Business Services, and the city's Economic Development Corporation jointly released a report entitled The State of Smoke Free New York City, a One-Year Review of the Economic and Health Impact of the Law. 7 percent, that employment in restaurants and bars increased by 10,600 jobs, about 2,800 seasonally adjusted jobs in the year after the law's implementation, rising to its highest level in at least ten years, including during the economic boom of the 1990s. 97 percent of restaurant and bars are in full compliance with the law and are smoke free, and New Yorkers overwhelmingly support the law. The air quality in bars and restaurants improved dramatically. Levels of 144 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 cotinine, which is a byproduct of nicotine, decreased by nearly two-thirds, 65 percent, in non-smoking workers in bars and restaurants since becoming smoke free. And 150,000 New Yorkers -- fewer New Yorkers are now being exposed to secondhand smoke. In short, the ban has not had the crushing effect on New York's economic, cultural and political landscape that was predicted by many of its opponents. In fact, virtually every economic indicator shows that New York City is doing better today than it was a year ago. Movie theaters, concert halls, museums, airports, train stations, sports stadia, other locations which went smoke free years ago also showed no evidence that going smoke free reduced attendance or income in any of these venues. The vast majority of New Yorkers support the law, and most say they are more likely to patronize bars and restaurants now that they are smoke free. And most importantly, the health of 145 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 all New Yorkers, customers and workers alike, is now protected from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. Our agency and the New York State Department of Health have been monitoring the health impact of this legislation. We found significant improvement in the air quality in bars, with a sixfold decrease in pollution levels, greater than 60 percent decline among hospitality workers in levels of cotinine. So, as a result, smoke free workplaces ensure that everyone has the right to breathe cleaner, safer air. Big tobacco has continued to try to cast doubt on how harmful secondhand smoke is. They'll claim that ventilation systems are an acceptable alternative to eliminate the hazards of secondhand smoke. Studies show that ventilation systems are not effective in preventing exposure to secondhand smoke and the resulting disease caused by it. Three simple facts make the case for this bill overwhelming. First, secondhand 146 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 smoke kills. Second, closing loopholes in the current law will save lives. Third, making workplaces smoke free won't hurt business. I'm confident that you will act to ensure that no worker in Philadelphia has to risk illness and death from secondhand smoke just in order to hold a job. Thank you. )
We know you're very supportive and enthusiastic, but we have another hearing at 2 o'clock, so limit your applause to one clap. (Laughter.)
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Philadelphia City Council Committee on Public Health and Human Services. My name is Robert Curran. I am currently in my third term as a member of the 147 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Baltimore City Council, and since 1999 I have been Chairman of the Judiciary and Legislative Investigations Committee of the Baltimore City Council. I am appearing in front of your honorable committee this morning -- this afternoon to lend my support to the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law that is now under consideration by the Philadelphia City Council. However, before I discuss the reasons for my support of this legislation, let me explain how and why I am interested in a favorable passage of this Philadelphia ordinance. There was an article in the New York Times about a month ago, indicating that the New York City smoking ban has proven to be a success even admittedly by the most staunchest opponents. Mayor Bloomberg was vilified when he proposed the smoking ban, and there were cries that political ramifications would be had. 148 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 But the Mayor has emerged not only as being on the right side of the issue, but a civic leader with great courage who has improved the quality of life for all New Yorkers. The text of the New York Times article also stated that the Philadelphia City Council was beginning a review of a newly proposed bill to make bars and restaurants smoke free. The article said the sponsor of the Philadelphia bill, Councilman Michael Nutter, pointed to New York as an inspiration. Quote, what people are saying, if New York can deal with clean air legislations, why can't we. Ladies and gentlemen of the Philadelphia City Council, my intentions are to be able to take back to my colleagues on the Baltimore City Council that if Philadelphia can deal with clean air, so can Baltimore. Madam Chair and members of the committee, I know you, as I, have heard both 149 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 side of this issue many times over. So have many other members of legislative bodies throughout our country. Several states have moved forward for smoke-free air. Just last Wednesday the New Mexico House of Representatives voted 49 to in favor of their smoke-free 9 legislation. The proposal is now heading to 10 the New Mexico Senate. Six other states have 11 enacted smoke-free legislation. 12 I will leave it to the experts on both sides of this issue, such as the Restaurant Association, the American Cancer Society, the Licensed Liquor Beverage Association, the Health Commissioners and other health advocates, to expound on their arguments for or against smoke-free legislation. However, I would like the real dangers of secondhand smoke to resonate with you. Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. For every eight smokers the tobacco industry kills, it takes one non-smoker with 150 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 them. There are 53,000 annual deaths in the United States attributable to secondhand smoke. S. Surgeon General C. Everett Coop said in a presentation, quote, that if we just talk about death from tobacco, we leave out all the dreadful things that precede death such as sickness and disability. I've never been there, but I'd rather have the feeling that if I were suffering from chronic obstructive lung disease, I would view death as a friend and not an enemy. Now, I want to be a bit parochial in my presentation. According to the Smoke-Free Maryland Coalition, Baltimore City drives Maryland cancer and heart diseases rankings up. The financial and societal costs of treating the various tobacco-related diseases and illness are enormous. , car accidents, illegal 151 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 drugs, murder and suicides combined. Unfortunately, I believe those collations of tobacco versus health similarly exist in Philadelphia.
I will not sit here and tell the committee that the concerns of the smoking ban opponents, including certain segments of the hospitality industry, are not real. However, I know those concerns will eventually be found to be baseless. To those who may have fears for their businesses and the effect of the smoking ban, I would like to refer to a report by the Attorney General of Maryland to the Baltimore City Council on an investigational hearing to evaluate the effects of extending the ban on smoking to include bars, restaurants, and entertainment establishments in Baltimore City. S. are widely recognized in the scientific and public health communities. 152 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 The Attorney General goes on to refer to review of 97 studies that made statements about the economic impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Researchers found that all of the 8 well-designed studies, studies that were 9 funded independently of the tobacco industry, 10 had objective measures, such as taxable sales 11 receipts and were published in a 12 peer-reviewed academic journal, reported no 13 negative impact of smoke-free restaurant and 14 bar laws on revenues or jobs. 15 In fact, four of these studies 16 reported a positive impact on taxable sales 17 receipts. Of the 35 studies on the topic 18 published that conducted -- concluded a 19 negative impact, None were funded by a source 20 clearly independent of the tobacco industry, 21 and none have used an objective measure or have been peer-reviewed. In closing, let the truth be known that the only adverse effect of the proposed legislation will be felt by the tobacco 153 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 industry. It is easily proven that the layering effect of prohibitions resulting in individuals eventually finally quit smoking. Make no mistake about this, Madam Chairman, the only unintended consequence of the legislation that is before the Philadelphia City Council is that lives will be saved. Thank you for your time and consideration. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to address them. )
Thank you very much. Dr. Bassett, I'd just like to ask you a couple of questions. In your testimony, am I to understand that New York now has... the state is smoke free?
Yes. The New York state law went into effect in July of 2003.
Okay. You also say that 97 percent of restaurant and bars 154 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 are in full compliance. What about the other three percent? Are they not in compliance? Were there any exclusions or exceptions?
There were no 6 exceptions in the New York City legislation, no exemptions. There are exemptions permitted in the state legislation. We actively enforce this law, and there are times when we find smoking on site in restaurants.
In the New York state legislation, do the exemptions supersede your local law?
The gentleman earlier cited that some bars and restaurants had closed as a result of the legislation. Have you tallied how many -- what impact it has had on some of these establishments?
Well, as the data that I indicated to you show in aggregate, that the number of establishments have increased since the passage of the law. There are, of course, from the 155 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 industry, they have raised concerns that they have been adversely affected by the legislation, but in aggregate the number of establishments has increased. I mean, that's not to say that there are no bars and restaurants that have closed, but I don't believe that the closures can be attributed to the legislation. There are always some bars and some restaurants that face challenges and close. So, some have closed, yes, but more have opened.
I know the passion of Councilman Mariano. All of us have small neighborhood bars in our areas. And you know that if you go to that establishment, you're going to be bombarded with smoke. So, people don't go there. And you can understand his concern about people not being able to smoke who will leave, and some of these establishments will close down, or could, because their patrons do smoke. And they go there, they have a glass of beer or a glass of wine, and they're not going to come downtown. 156 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 And if they don't have -- can't do it at the local establishment, they're going to go home and take their beer and smoke at home.
Well, what I can tell you is that in aggregate our data don't support that concern. And what is very clear is that at any restaurant or bar where smoking is allowed, the people who work there are exposed to secondhand smoke. And that's bad for their health. And that's what this legislation is intended to protect. And that's a role of government, to protect the health of workers. (Applause.)
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for coming up, and good luck to you as you navigate this down in Baltimore.
I'll be the eye of the hurricane, as my good colleague in government Mike Nutter is.
Well, that's 157 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 why we're here, she says, to have this forum and the debate. Thank you.
The next panel will be the health panel: Dr. Frank Leone, Dr. Richard Wender, Dr. Charles Bridges, Dr. Howard Grant, Bishop Ernest Morris, Denise Kopko and Matt Mahlberg. I notice that you all have testimony. And a lot of the statistics that you're going to cite have probably been recited before. Can't tell you not to speak. This is a public forum, and you have every right to speak. But if you could summarize your testimony... We have three other panels and another hearing scheduled for 2 o'clock. Thank you. Would you please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Dr. Richard Wender. I'm the Chair of the Department of Family and Community Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University. 158 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 But I'm here today as in my role as Vice President of the American Cancer Society at the national level. I've also been the past president of both the Philadelphia Divisions and Pennsylvania Divisions of the American Cancer Society. And I want to thank Madam Chair and the rest of the City Council for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Cancer Society in strong support for what has the potential to be one of the most important public health measures that Philadelphia has passed. For the sake of time, I am going to just focus on some items that I think have not been made before.
And try to shorten my comments. I do have a full written statement that I'll make sure you have. As has been stated, we've known about the danger of secondhand smoke for many years. The current count of carcinogens in secondhand smoke is actually over 60. Before 159 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the number 40 was used, but we now know there are over 60 carcinogens. And the current death count from lung cancer that's alone attributable to secondhand smoke is over 3,000 individuals each year. I want to talk a bit about this issue of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As has been mentioned, they utilize a classification system for carcinogens. The highest most dangerous class is their group A class. Secondhand smoke belongs to that class A rating. In fact, secondhand smoke kills more people than exposure to all other group A carcinogens combined. So, it might be interesting to hear what these other group A carcinogens are. They include asbestos, benzine, arsenic and radon. Government has already taken action to eliminate exposure to radon and asbestos. It is time to take similarly clear action to eliminate the most life-threatening 160 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 exposure of all from this group A list and that is secondhand smoke. I want to just comment on a few recent studies. These are not the old studies that have informed us through the decades about the danger of secondhand smoke, but have looked at what the current state of the science is. There was a study in the International Journal of Cancer published just last year that found that inhaling secondhand smoke at work or in a social setting raises the lung cancer risk by about percent. And if that exposure continues 16 for more than 20 years, that risk goes up by 27 percent. One of the key studies that I believe City Council must consider regarding this issue was published just last year, last September, in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. What they did is looked at the concentrations of air pollutants in bars and casinos before and after a smoking ban, as is 161 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 being considered here. This report found that smoky bars and casinos, despite ventilation systems that were excellent and up to standard, had up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than city streets clogged with diesel trucks and other vehicles at rush hour. Workers in these establishments are exposed to pollution at far greater rates than the government permits. After the ban took place -- and that's the key statistic here -- the levels of these cancer-causing substances dropped by 90 percent in every indoor environment that was tested. A smoking ban in Philadelphia without question will save lives. The information that's emerging from these public health studies defines a clear obligation and opportunity for government to take action. We now have the data. Once the data is in on how effective smoking bans are, it creates a moral imperative. So, on behalf of the American Cancer 162 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Society, its tens of thousands of local volunteers and hundreds of thousands of volunteers across the country, the American Cancer Society strongly endorses this move to ban smoking in public spaces. Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Tasco and members of the Public Health and Human Services Committee. My name is Dr. Charles Bridges. I'm Chief of Cardiac Thoracic Surgery at Pennsylvania Hospital, and a member of the standing faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Health System. I serve as the Chair of Breathe Free Philadelphia Alliance and a board member of the American Heart Association, Southeast Pennsylvania Region. Thank you for the opportunity to 163 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 speak in behalf of strong -- on their behalf, rather, in strong support of City Council Bill Number 050063. This bill is a public health issue, as already been discussed. The bill is critical to saving lives and ensuring that restaurant and bar workers and patrons avoid the health problems that result from exposure to secondhand smoke. Again, as has been mentioned multiple times -- I won't reiterate the statistics regarding the numbers of carcinogens, and the increase in cancer deaths associated with secondhand smoke. That has been very eloquently discussed already. Secondhand smoke has long been associated with heart disease because of tobacco's overall effect on the cardiovascular system. Numerous studies show that inhalation of secondhand smoke causes blood vessels to go into spasm, choking the heart's blood supply. L. cholesterol; increases blood clotting; and resulting, again, as has been mentioned, in 40,000 to 60,000 heart disease deaths per year. People exposed to secondhand smoke are 80 percent more likely to suffer a stroke and have a 58 percent higher risk of developing heart disease. I want to just discuss one study. And I'm shortening my remarks from what I had planned. There was a study published recently in the British Medical Journal. Researchers found that hospital admission for heart attacks in Helena, Montana, decreased by 40 percent during the six months when smoking was banned in public places. When the bill was repealed, the incidence of heart attack increased to its former levels. 40 percent reduction in heart attacks is a sobering statistic. It's 165 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 important to note that the beneficial effect of eliminating secondhand smoke is greater in magnitude than any other known intervention to decrease the risk of heart disease, including things such as clot-busting drugs, cholesterol-lowering drugs, heart bypass surgery and angioplasty. None of these medical wonders has been shown statistically to have the same impact on the incidence of heart attack as eliminating secondhand smoke. C. S. Surgeon General statement that, quote, much of the important health risk is preventable by the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free policies. And further, they advise at risk for heart disease to avoid all indoor environments that permit smoking. Well, that statement, I think, deserves some careful analysis, that is, patients at risk for heart disease. Well, who are these patients at risk for heart 166 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 disease? I would argue to you that almost everybody in this room is at risk for heart disease. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight. I would say that the other third, if they're not overweight, often either have a family history of diabetes, smoke themselves or have a family history of heart disease. So literally almost everyone in this country is at risk of heart disease. And at least half of the people that have heart attacks have no previous history of heart disease. So, those of us who are at risk of having a heart attack, the vast majority of us don't even know it. And, you know, any breath you take in a smoke-filled room unfortunately could be your last, if it happens to be the one that precipitates that heart attack that we weren't expecting to have.
And this disease strikes people not only in their 70s and 80s and 90s, it often 167 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 strikes people in that 40s and 50s with families who have no previous history of heart disease and have no really reason to expect that they're at risk for heart disease. So, they really aren't able to heed the Surgeon General's warning because they don't know that they have a risk of heart disease. The Breathe Free Philadelphia Alliance and the American Heart Association believe that nobody should be exposed to secondhand smoke, particularly in the prolonged sequence of daily work. The adverse health effects is argument enough to pass City Council Bill 17 050063 and address the daunting health risks posed by exposure to secondhand smoke. We must respond to the overwhelming data documenting the deleterious effects of secondhand smoke, and protect the workers and residents and visitors of our great city. Thank you. )
Thank you very 168 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 much.
Madam Chairperson, My name is Howard Grant. I'm the Chief Medical Officer of the Temple University Health System. I appreciate the opportunity to come speak with you today regarding the proposed amendments to the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law. I come as a representative of the Temple System, but also as a pediatrician who for many years cared for children whose lives were profoundly affected by exposure to secondhand smoke. I will be brief with my comments, as you requested. I know that I've had the benefit of other medical experts here today, so I will spare you redundant statistics and information. Allow me first to share my perspective as a hospital administrator. During the 20 years of experience in hospital management that I've had, I've managed through the evolution of hospitals being 169 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 places where a patient could smoke as readily as they could on the street or in their home. And most of us remember that. It wasn't that long ago. To the current state of affairs where hospitals are essentially smoke-free institutions, there was considerable resistance in a number of hospitals in which I worked from patients, visitors and employees, as we attempted to voluntarily move toward a smoke-free environment. In spite of our status as health care providers, with missions to foster healing and healthy lifestyles, and in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of the health consequences of smoking, the industry did not move aggressively towards smoke-free environments until the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations took a firm position, and that was only about six years ago, to require that its accredited providers offer smoke-free environments. Once that position was staked out, 170 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 hospitals became places where smoking was forbidden, comprehensive programs were devised to assist patients with smoking cessation when they came to our hospitals, and large numbers of our smoking employees were encouraged to stop. I give you that example today to demonstrate how a regulatory action like the one that you contemplate today had a profoundly positive impact on the well being of our employees and the patients that we serve. As I've listened to people testify this morning about the potential economic consequences of a ban on smoking, I remind the City Council members of the enormous economic consequences of health care expenses directly related to primary and secondhand smoke. (Applause.)
Temple University Health System, where I work, is overwhelmed with tens of thousands of patients annually who are physically ravaged by the effects of 171 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 their own smoking habits or exposure to secondhand smoke. And all of the employers in the City of Philadelphia have realized significant increases in their health care premiums over the last five years, in large part related to the consequences of smoking. And finally, on a personal note, I had a C.A.T. scan completed on myself several months ago to evaluate a potential health problem, and I sat with the radiologist to review the study. Although the purpose of the scan was not to evaluate my lungs, the radiologist said to me, when were you a smoker and how long did you smoke for? I paused. I thought about it. And I said, I have never smoked at all. And then he pointed out to me all of the chronic changes in my lung tissue which although not threatening to me now, clearly revealed evidence of prolonged exposure to smoke, with permanent damage to my lungs. And then the lightbulb went on, as I 172 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 thought back to my childhood, and all of the time that I spent in our home and all of the time cooped up in the car with my mother who smoked heavily throughout my childhood. So, like all of the workers and residents of Philadelphia who you hope to protect by enactment of the contemplated amendments, although I had not chosen to smoke, I was a smoker because of exposure to secondhand smoke. That is the case for all of the employees who work in the businesses that we're talking about. So, on behalf of the Temple University Health System, and as a pediatrician who cares deeply about the well being of our community's children, I applaud your efforts to strengthen the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you here today. (Applause.)
Good afternoon, Council members and Councilwoman Tasco. 173 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 I apologize for my informal dress, but this is about the best suit I can afford as a medical student. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Matt Mahlberg. I'm a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today to share my perspective on why City Council should pass this smoke-free workplace legislation. Let me begin by introducing myself, as I did, being a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania and a resident of district two. I actually grew up and attended college a long way from here, out in Colorado, and went to the University of Colorado, in Bolder, which is actually a smoke-free city. When it came time for graduate school, I decided to come to Philadelphia to pursue the study of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. 174 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 When my wife and I first came to Philadelphia, we knew very little about the city, and as a first-year medical student knew virtually nothing about medicine. But that was three years ago. Since that time I've learned a lot about medicine. And contrary to testimony we heard earlier from Mr. Good, I've learned a lot, that cigarette smoking is not good for you, as these gentlemen have testified as well. And it can have a deleterious effect on people of all ages. But beyond the hospital walls, I've also learned a lot about the City of Philadelphia. I've discovered Kelly Drive, Fairmount Park, Old City, actually learned the Eagles fight song this year. And in short, I've come to see the many reasons why people love to call Philadelphia home. I guess I come before you today with two unique perspectives, first as a medical student, and an advocate for public health and improving public health. I think the doctors -- Like I say, the doctors who spoke 175 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 before me hit upon those points well. But the second perspective I would like to add is as a young professional who's trying to -- will be graduating soon and will be deciding where to go next in my life. Like many of my classmates and other students across the city, I'll be soon moving on from school, from medical school, law school, business school, and beginning my career as a real adult, and an income-earning, taxpaying adult. Of course, many factors enter into the decision of where I'll want to go after graduate school. But one of the most important is the trajectory of the city where I live. By that I mean, where is the city going? What steps is it taking to make the community better for its citizens? What positive steps is a city taking to make itself healthier and a safer place to live? The City of Philadelphia, from a young professional's perspective, is on a great trajectory. I look at the running path 176 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 along the Schuylkill River as an example of that. It's a terrific improvement to the city in improving public health and just opportunities to exercise. But guess what? The smoke-free legislation is also an imperative step in continuing that trajectory and appealing to young adults like myself. Young adults, the ones who fill the bars and restaurants every night, want Philadelphia to be a healthier place. And therefore, they want this bill to pass. These are the young professionals who will become doctors, lawyers and business people. Those are people you want to keep in the city to encourage economic growth and just improve the overall economy of the city. So, in closing, a smoke-free Philadelphia, first and foremost, serves the health of its citizens. It offers health benefits for those people who work in bars and restaurants and other workplaces. But it also send a message to young adults like myself and my wife who are 177 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 deciding where to live after graduate school.
It says this: Philadelphia will continue to take steps in the right direction to make itself a healthier and a better place to live. So, please don't take a step backward. Stop the brain drain. Continue to move forward and keep Philadelphia on the right trajectory by voting in favor of a smoke-free Philadelphia. Thank you. )
Good afternoon. My name is Denise Kopko. I am not a doctor. I'm a mother and a wife. And I would like to submit this as testimony in support of Bill Number 050063 to be entered into the record for the public hearing. If I had the power... If I had the power to stop one family from going through what my family is going through, I would use that power. This legislation is not about taking 178 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 rights away from those who choose to smoke, but it's about giving rights to those who chose to work in the restaurant/bar industry. My story begun when I was only 6 and I met my husband. We fell in love at a 7 very young age, and married eight years later 8 after both completing college. 9 My husband spent many of his later 10 teenage years and adult years working in 11 restaurants as a busboy and then D.J.ing for 12 ten-plus years in bars and restaurants. He 13 sometimes spent four to five nights a week 14 exposed to secondhand smoke. 15 We were young and we thought we were 16 invincible. Never once did we ever stop to think about the environment my husband was working. We have the storybook marriage many hoped for. We have been married for almost 14 years. Hopefully we'll see our anniversary in April, and our lives revolve around our three children, Jeffrey, Jack and Nicole. I would say these are the victims. 179 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 (Holds up photographs.)
My husband is the fully devoted dad, coaching soccer, basketball and directing the school play. In January 2004 my husband started with a cough. His doctors dismissed it as a winter cold, prescribed some inhalers and medicine, and sent him on his way. By March he began experiencing severe back pain. In April he began physical therapy. By the end of April the pain was no 13 better, and he was sent for a chest X-ray. The X-ray showed something but further tests were needed. T. scan. After several more scans and a needle biopsy, we received that dreaded call I hope none of you ever have to receive. On May 12, 2004, Jeff was diagnosed with Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. And for those that don't understand Stage IV, the average life expectancy is seven to nine months. Our lives were shattered overnight. 180 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Just when I thought it could not get much worse, we found it spread to the brain and Jeff would have to go through two weeks of radiation before starting chemotherapy. Jeff began radiation to the brain on May 14th. Then on May 28, 2004, he began 8 weeks of chemotherapy. 9 At first the chemotherapy was 10 working, but by the end of the 18 weeks the 11 mass had shrunk but still were there. From 12 the chemotherapy treatment, my husband had 13 severe neuropathy or nerve damage in his 14 feet. I. showed the 16 two tumors in the brain were still there and 17 further treatments were advised. 18 In December my husband had to undergo stereo-tactical surgical radiation for the masses in his brain again. This February we received some more bad news. T. T. scan revealed that the lung cancer was again growing and spreading quickly. We began a new chemotherapy regimen, and every day we're 181 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 praying for that miracle. My husband's cancer has been very hard on the children. They say daddy can't -- They say children can't fully comprehend, but I would beg to differ. The week my husband was first diagnosed, before we told the kids, my daughter who was referred to as angel child became devil child. She stopped sleeping through the night. She clung to her father, and to this day will not go to sleep without her dad rocking in her room every night. Once my husband started chemotherapy, she would routinely say, daddy looks different, mom. He lost the rest of his hair, his beard and his eyebrows. My oldest son has been seeing a counselor at school. He relates his dad's cancer to dog Bogey, who died of cancer in November 2003. He misses his dad having energy to do everything as he always did. Jeffrey takes after me, and he's the very emotional one. I worry more about my seven-year-old Jack, who is just like his 182 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 father and keeps everything inside. We've talked about their dad's cancer and discussed the results with the kids. The kids believe their dad will get better, mostly because none of us can imagine life without him. My husband is an awesome individual. Throughout all of the treatment, he attends most of the kid games, works and still directed our school play. We don't know what tomorrow will hold but we do have today to live. The victims are not those who choose to smoke. The victims are the families whose lives are torn apart from lung cancer. There is no cure for lung cancer. Our hope is that we keep going into remission until a cure is found. If I had the power to prevent another family from having to explain lung cancer to their three young children, I would use that power that you as Council people have, and make the right decision, not necessarily a politically correct one. 183 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 This is not about how much money restaurant and bar associations can spend on lobbying efforts. This is about protecting the innocent workers. I don't have the power but you do. How many times in your career will you have the opportunity to say, I not only made a difference but I saved a life today?
That is what you have the chance to do. We talk about less and less people have to smoke which means that more and more people would go out to smoke-free restaurants. We talk about... I'm sorry the Councilman is not here because I really would like to address him. This is not a health issue, this is an economic issue. I'd like to know what value he would put on my husband's life and let him explain that to my three children. I also wear a wrist band. It's the live strong cancer bracelet to remind myself every day to live and to breathe, because you know what? Overnight your life can change. 184 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 And a lot of you that are sitting in this room that smoke, that don't smoke, I hope you never ever have to explain to a two and a half year old and hope that their daddy makes their third birthday. So, I really -- I urge you to think not only about the economic issue, but there is no price of a person's life. There's no 10 price for it. And if you think there is, come and talk to my kids, because, you know, they every day just want their daddy to get better. And every day we pray for that miracle because that's the only chance we've got, is the miracle. And thank God for doctors, the Pennsylvania Health System specifically, and University of Pennsylvania because they are awesome. And we hope in a couple years we'll have it here. But we have to stop the exposure of secondhand smoke. Thank you. )
Thank you very, 185 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 very much. I know it took a lot for you to come here to give that testimony. Thank you for sharing your personal experience with us. And we hope for the best for your husband. Who's next? Dr. Leone.
Madam Chair, thank you very much. My name is Frank Leone. I'm the immediate past president of the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania. And I am the Director of the Center for Tobacco Research and Treatment at Thomas Jefferson University. I will simply say that I've prepared comments for your today and have submitted them in writing.
I will only point out that every year in Philadelphia there are approximately 200 people who go through what Jack Kopko goes through.
I suggested that every 186 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 year there are approximately 200 Philadelphians who go through what Jack Kopko is going through and 200 Philadelphia families who experienced the same thing as Mrs. Kopko. I suggest to you that the health effects of secondhand smoke are so well stipulated by our society that they are self evident and beyond discussion. I will simply make myself available to you for questions concerning any issue regarding economics, policy, health effects that you may have. My hat is off to Mrs. Kopko.
Thank you all very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? We appreciate your taking time out from your busy schedules. We appreciate your involvement. And thank you for coming. (Applause.)
We have a group of young people here this afternoon, the 187 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Philadelphia Busted Youth Anti-Tobacco Movement. The anti-tobacco commercials, they do hip-hop anti-tobacco videos. They do youth outreach, and they do anti-tobacco plays. And is this My-yo-a-cap group from Greater Philadelphia Urban Coalition. (Applause.)
We appreciate your coming out, and thank you for attending, and hope you will listen to the testimony. Thank you. Next we have Philadelphia Hospitality and Business Alliance members Allen Barag, Mike Savar, Tom Mooney, Al Littlepage, Drew Montesano, Patrick Pawliczek. I'm butchering these names. I'm sorry. Good afternoon. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
Al Barag, Apple Vending, also restaurant owner in the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you. Would you proceed with your testimony. 188 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
Apple Vending is opposed to the bill. We've been in business since 1943. We not only vend cigarettes but we do all the other equipment in the establishments. All the records and all the information that we have received from New York vending companies is taking away the cigarettes, their vending is down to 30 11 percent because of lack of business in the 12 establishments. 13 We employ 60 employees. 58 of them 14 live inside the city, pay City Wage Tax. We 15 have health benefits for them. We're afraid 16 of the trickle-down effect, that if the 17 cigarettes are banned, less customers come to 18 the local establishments. 19 I've been here since the beginning 20 of the meetings. It appalls me that 21 everybody keeps using the word bar. There is 22 no such thing in the State of Pennsylvania. 23 We are a monopoly state. There are only five 24 types of license: A hotel license, a 25 distributor, a club, a restaurant... What's 189 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the fifth one? A hotel. I'm sorry. So that this law in effect where some of the finer restaurants have gotten up and spoke is going to encumber all of the local establishments, the mom and pop operation, where there's one employee working one shift. That employee is working behind the bar, serving the small amount of food that that place has, and is accommodating the local customers who come home from work and use that place as a meeting place. They may not smoke, but they know that there's smoking inside the place. They come in for a few drinks, maybe play a game of pool, watch the Eagles on T.V., knowing that there's smoking. My bar alone, in the last two years, I have taken three people off of the welfare roll and put them in as workers. I contacted them, all of them, let them know I was coming here, how they felt about it, because they are inhaling secondhand smoke. 190 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 And all of them said that they need a job, they need to make a living, and it beats being on welfare. Now, I know some people have spoken about their personal problems, you know, problems with secondhand smoke. And it is tragic. But in my particular case, my father owned a bar for 40 years, smoked two packs of cigarettes, and lived to 88. And that's all I have to say at this point. (Applause.)
Yes. Good morning. Good afternoon. I'm Mike Savar, President of Penn Vending Company, and a member of the Philadelphia Business and Hospitality Alliance. My company has served Philadelphia bar and restaurant industry for over 40 years. We've generated millions of tax dollars for Philadelphia in sales tax, wage tax, and Business Privilege Taxes. 191 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 We currently have over 40 employees. Many of them now fear losing their jobs if a smoking ban is enacted. There are many reasons why we oppose the smoking ban and the numerous issues it would create. We believe the loss of basic rights, like freedom of choice, is a failure to meet the needs of all the people. The current market environment recognizes this and provides choices for smokers and non-smokers. These choices already include non-smoking and restricted smoking in most bars and restaurants. Many establishments have spent thousands of dollars installing smoke eaters and air filtering systems. Neighborhood bars and their customers are not asking for this ban and will suffer because of it. Taverns closest to the surrounding counties that have no ban will suffer the most. Some will go out of business, as their customers go outside the city for food and entertainment. Other customers will 192 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 simply stay at home. Vending companies, food and drink purveyors, and other businesses supplying bars and restaurants will also do less business. The equation is simple. Less business equals lost revenue, lost jobs and lost tax revenue. The loss of tax by the drink revenue alone will cost the city millions of dollars. Our city needs less government regulation, not more. A free market economy caters to all the citizen. This is the American way. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you, gentlemen. No questions? Call for next panel.
Next panel. Kathy Black, Jill Mumie, Penny Shumate, Scott Lee Lawrence, Danny McGoldrick. We have testimony from some of the 193 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 people? Okay. Thank you for coming. Proceed and identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Councilwoman. My name is Katherine Black. E. District Council 47. And thanks very much for the opportunity to speak today. I am appearing on behalf of Tom Cronin, our District Council President, and the members of the Executive Board of the District Council in strong support of Bill 15 050063. And candidly, I'll say a few years ago I might not have been able to be here and voice that support. Our union hall is also a workplace for about 30 people. And despite the longstanding complaints from non-smoking staff members and from many of our union members, who frequently spend time in the hall, the smokers among us successfully guilt tripped us and held us off for a number of years as 194 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 we attempted to make our hall a non-smoking building. Change is difficult. We recognize that. Resistance is predictable, especially when people think they're being deprived of a right or something pleasurable. And no one wants to feel looked down on for their personal habits. We heard all these protests at the union hall, as well as suggestions that the non-smoker's complaints be answered with technical solutions and air purifiers, ventilation changes. We were sympathetic but unpersuaded. And the non-smokers persisted in making the case for a healthier workplace for all of us. Through those years, you know, we represent city employees, professional and technical City of Philadelphia employees. And as the Health and Safety Director, I've gotten frequent calls for years from our members with complaints about air quality. And when we would check it out, we'd often find that the poor air quality was the 195 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 result or at least exacerbated by the smoking -- the sneaked smoking behavior, especially in private offices by management employees, I might add, and the bathrooms and the fire towers of the building. The city anti-smoking ordinance had been in effect for years at that point, but it was not enforced largely because it was management employees who were among the worst offenders and refused to crack down. But as a result, many of our members who have respiratory problems, asthma and other problems, their health was jeopardized while the harmful addiction of others was indulged. Well, this stands logic on its head and sound public health policy. And as a result, workplaces across the country have been transformed in the last 15 to 20 years. I grew up in Philadelphia. I lived on the west coast for 20 years. When I moved back here in 1988, I could not believe the smoke fog. The rest of the country is way ahead of us on this. 196 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 You've heard from health professionals -- I'm not going to do their job -- about the irrefutable evidence of the harm of secondhand smoke, but I do want to reiterate that the workers and the establishments where smoking is allowed are the most at risk of these negative health consequences. They are typically low wage service sector workers. Even some of our panel members today have admitted that all of their employees don't have health care benefits. And yet, these are the folks who are being asked to bear the brunt of these problems. It's precisely because of the risks. The work force... Smoking was outlawed on airplanes. People still fly. And most other workplaces in America. And the changes are making a dramatic difference. The research clearly shows that removing exposure to secondhand smoke in workplaces results in immediate benefits in adult's respiratory symptoms and functions, even among the smokers. 197 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 By passing this bill, Council will be taking a very affirmative step toward the improved health of Philadelphia citizens and workers. And it's because of the health of the workers that Council is weighing in today. I'm sorry Councilman Mariano is no 9 longer here because week after week after week he sits here and claims to be the voice of working people in Philadelphia.
And today he is absolutely unconcerned with the health and well-being of the workers of this city, and I am embarrassed. )
And I'm speaking for myself there. Tom Cronin's out of town, so don't tell Rick that Tom said this. But as a health and safety professional and somebody who deals with people sick every day and a good union sister, I am embarrassed. About two years ago District Council 47 finally voted to prohibit smoking in the building. It was a long, protracted and nasty debate, just like this one is, but at 198 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the end of the day we had a smooth transition. We offered smoking cessation programs to all our employees who wanted it. They were given advance notice. They knew it was coming. The world went on. Our building has cleaner air as a result. And then our Health and Safety Advisory Committee of the Council reviewed this bill when it came up last year. Many of our committee members are health care providers in the city's health clinics, and they reminded us how they see scores of people every day who suffer from the debilitating effects of tobacco-caused disease. We had a very quick discussion and an almost unanimous vote, and recommended that our Council endorse this bill. They took it up at the next meeting. And wow, had the times changed. There wasn't a discussion. There wasn't a question. There was no debate. It was a unanimous vote to endorse this bill. 199 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 So... And things have changed for our members in city buildings. Air quality issues still come up, but now tobacco is rarely the problem. Gradually the smokers have quit smoking or they've retired or they've succumbed to the will of the majority, and non-smokers are the clear majority here and across the country. So it's really change that we're talking about, that the question is no longer should we make this change, but what are we waiting for. As an elected body which exists to serve the public to promote the general welfare, and to protect the City's Treasury, you have an obligation to support this legislation. Probably the savings in the city's financial obligations of the Department of Health would make a big difference. Those crying wolf about lost business are ignoring the growing body of research that shows just the opposite. 200 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 If people continue to go out to bars and restaurants to eat and drink in New York, El Paso, Colorado, they'll continue to do so in Philadelphia. And frankly, I think those businesses on the rim of the city are more likely to draw out non-smokers from the suburbs into their businesses than they are to lose people to suburbs. As Michael O'Neil, a spokesperson for the New York State Restaurant Association said, smoke-free workplace legislation does not hurt business. Even smokers prefer to breathe clean air. Here's one last argument for the legislation. In recent years, indulging in Europe bashing has become quite popular, even though we are simultaneously jealous of their national health care policies and their generous pensions and vacation allowances. Europeans are notoriously heavy smokers, and they smoke with impunity wherever they please. So, here's an area of progressive 201 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 social policy where we can have the jump on them. If you vote this bill into law citizens across the city can gloat over our fresh, clean indoor air and look down on the French as those so 20th century. As a health and safety professional myself, and on behalf of the forward thinking leadership and membership of A.F.S.C.M.E. District Council 47, I urge you to pass this bill now, this year, this session. Like it or not, laws like this are being passed everywhere because our concern for the public's health and economic well-being can take us in no other direction. Let's not be the last city to get in the parade. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Hello. My name is Scott Lee Lawrence. I am a serving assistant at the White Dog cafe in West Philadelphia. 202 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 I've been in the restaurant industry for years. In that time I've worked at a 4 dinner theater, Chi-Chi's, and at the White 5 Dog where I've been bussing tables for over 6 15 years now. 7 This is my career. It's what I like 8 to do. It's how I've been able to support 9 myself, and it's how I am able to pursue 10 part-time work as an actor. 11 I was offended by comments that an 12 opponent to this bill made saying that if 13 those of us in the restaurant and bar history 14 don't like working in smoky environments, 15 then we can just go get a job at McDonalds. 16 We all contribute to this community 17 through the work that we do, and we shouldn't 18 have to be in a position where we choose 19 between our health and a steady income, like 20 some canary in a coal mine. Like every other worker we work where we do for a reason. As I said, I've been in the service industry for over two decades. Even though I'm a non-smoker, this 203 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 means that I've essentially been a smoker for half of my life, given the amount of secondhand smoke I've been forced to inhale. I hate to think about what health effects it might have on me further down the line. I'm not years old any more. 8 We all know that health concerns 9 grow with the years. And I'm truly nervous 10 that one day I'll go to the doctor for my 11 exam and find out that all that smoke has 12 caught up with me. 13 What Denise told us about her 14 husband's lung cancer is really scary. That 15 could be me. That could happen to Penny or 16 to Jill or to thousands of people in 17 Philadelphia who are putting their health at 18 risk just by going to work to make a living 19 for themselves and their families. 20 (Applause.)
I think that everyone should have the right to breathe clean air. Whether you're a lawyer, a busboy, a salesperson or anything else, cancer causing chemicals shouldn't come with the job. 204 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 I am here today to ask you to please support the smoke-free legislation that would protect so many of us. Thank you. ) MR. McGOLDRICK: My name is Danny McGoldrick. C. Our mission is to reduce tobacco use and protect everyone from the harms of secondhand smoke. You've heard already that secondhand smoke is a proven health hazard that causes cancer, heart/lung disease, all of these problems. And that's why everyone has the right to breathe clean air free of the 4,000 chemicals and many toxins in secondhand smoke. While some adults may choose to smoke and inhale these toxins, when they do that around others, they are effectively making that decision for the non-smoker and the people around them. ) 205 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 MR. McGOLDRICK: Workers like Scott and Penny and Jill that work in non smoke-free environments toil in a virtual toxic stew of chemicals including ammonia, benzine, arsenic, polonium-210, formaldehyde, and carbon monoxide. No amount of separation or ventilation can protect them or their patrons from these poisons. The good news, however, is that the danger from exposure to secondhand smoke is completely preventable. Making workplaces smoke free is an essentially cost-free measure that protects everybody from the hazards in secondhand smoke. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to protection from secondhand smoke, all our workers are not created equal. When it comes to protection from secondhand smoke, it shouldn't matter whether you're a white collar worker or a blue collar worker, an office worker or a restaurant or bar worker, a highly paid executive or a waitress working for tips. But unfortunately, it does matter 206 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 today. Data from the current population surveyed, the United States census, shows that while more than three-fourths of white collar workers in this country work in smoke-free environments, 60 percent of service workers and 55 percent of blue color workers do so. The picture's the same here in Pennsylvania. And the least protected workers in the country are those in the restaurant and bar business. Just 46 percent of all food service workers and only 30 percent of waiters and just percent of 16 bartenders work in smoke-free workplaces. 17 As you might imagine, the least protected in our work force are the young, less educated, and those who are at the lower end of the income scale, many of whom also lack basic health insurance. As a result they suffer disproportionately from all of the harms from exposure to secondhand smoke, simply because their workplaces don't have the same common 207 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 sense protections offered in most government buildings, executive suites and office buildings. It does not have to be that way. I challenge anyone to look at these waiters and bartenders in the eye and tell them that their health is not as important as the health of someone who wears a suit to work. I challenge anyone to look at them and tell them their right to breathe clean air at work is less important than a smoker's choice to smoke. And I challenge anyone to look them in the eye and tell them that their health and their lives are less important than the health and lives of their contemporaries in New York, Delaware, or the other seven states in dozens of jurisdictions around the country that are smoke free. A seven-city indoor air quality study that we conducted last year showed that bars and restaurants in Philadelphia have ten times more air pollutants than those in smoke free New York City.
208 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 As a result, Philadelphia workers in these venues are exposed to ten times the level of fine particulate air pollutants that can penetrate deeply into the lungs and have enormous health consequences. Fortunately, you are in the position to change these inequities in the health of Philadelphia workers. When Philadelphia goes smoke free, the air quality in all workplaces will improve almost immediately, as will the health of workers in those venues. That same air quality study conducted showed that venues in smoke-free cities had 82 percent less air pollution than those in cities where smoking is allowed. In Delaware the carcinogen levels in restaurants and bars declined by 95 percent when that state went smoke free. These improvements in air quality have an almost immediate impact on worker health. Bar and restaurant workers in California and New York have reported significantly less respiratory problems in 209 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the wake of those states going smoke free. Don't these hard-working women and men beside me deserve the same protection? In today's America, it simply defies logic that certain classes of workers are denied a basic health protection that is so easily provided for all of us. By making all workplaces and public places in Philadelphia smoke free, you'll make Philadelphia a healthier place to live, work and play, and it won't just be for some Philadelphians but for all of us. Thank you very much for your time. )
Good afternoon. My name is Penny Shumate, and I am here today to support the ban of smoking. For 12 years I have worked in the bar and service industry as a bartender and assistant manager. Let me start by saying that I am 210 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 here today representing only myself and not the establishment where I work. I say this because I know that there are other workers at my establishment and others around the city that are hoping that you will pass this important law. But many of us feel a real threat of retribution if we speak publicly. Therefore, I do not wish to name the establishment in which I work. The reason why I and many of my colleagues support this law is because we know now that we are working in an environment that threatens our health. I am a singer, and my bartender and manager jobs are the only option I have to earn an income while pursuing my dream. Like me, many who work in the service industry are artists and young students. And the restaurant industry is the only one that provides the flexibility of hours that we need to make a living while pursuing our goals and dreams. I believe smokers should have the 211 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 right to smoke. However, they do not have the right to harm my health as well. I have the right to earn a living without risking my health. When I and my fellow workers spend a long shift behind a smoky bar, not only do we stink of cigarette smoke, many times we go home feeling physically ill. And this does not affect just workers. More and more I overhear customers asking other customers not to smoke, especially if they are eating or have a health condition. Let me conclude with one final observation. I have heard some opponent say that smokers are better tippers or spend more money when they go out, and that by going smoke free, restaurants and bars will lose significant amounts in tips. Based on my 12 years as a bartender in this city, I can tell you this is simply not true. The amount of tip given by a customer is the result of the quality of the service by the employee. It has nothing to 212 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 do with a customer, whether they smoke or not. To reiterate, I see that more and more bar customers prefer not to be around people who smoke. I see customers becoming more conscious of their health. I urge you to help protect me, all my fellow workers and my customers by passing this important law. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Hello. I am a server at Buddakan. You might all know it's a popular restaurant here in Philadelphia. It's an upscale restaurant. And it's my choice to work there. It's a great place to work financially. But my choice is being exposed to high levels of secondhand smoke in my work place. Right now the only way I can avoid breathing in secondhand smoke is to give up my job. For many, myself included, it's not an option. It's as simple as this. At 213 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Buddakan, when someone smokes they stand in the bar area. There are also nine cocktail tables that are used for reserved seating in this bar area. If someone's smoking at the bar, their secondhand smoke goes two directions, not to the people they came in with but to your bartender. It also goes to the service station where servers, all restaurant employees circulate through. So, really, there's no 13 way to avoid the smoke, even if you're working in a non-smoking section in my restaurant. The smoke can be very irritating to both patrons and servers alike. The majority of our patrons' dining experience can be compromised by the smoke, and some of them will definitely outright tell us this. When I say they tell us this, they basically tell me, you know, I've had a great night, service, food. This is why I come. This is why I make two month's reservations to come to this restaurant. 214 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 But because halfway through my meal at o'clock on a Friday night there are ten 4 people smoking around me, I didn't enjoy my 5 experience. I won't come back until 6 something changes. 7 And I will also say that, you know, 8 opponents try to paint the picture that 9 there's a united front in the restaurant and hospitality industry against going smoke free. And I'm basically here to tell you today, it's simply not true. Most of my co-workers I circulated a petition around. They would like to see the restaurant go smoke free, bars go smoke free. And these are smokers, too. These are patrons of Chickey and Pete's. And I just want to say, you're not going to lose business. We are still going to go out, if not more. You know, these people -- me, myself included -- it's our career. We work in this environment at least five days a week. I work with people who are physically affected by the effects of 215 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 secondhand smoke, constant upper respiratory infections. One woman I work with has constant ear and tonsil infections. We miss shifts. We lose money. And as Denise so illustrated today -- and thank you for sharing your story with us -- the exposure to secondhand smoke increases the chance of contracting lung disease. So, we are the people who work around this, eight-, ten-hour shifts, four to five days a week. We are the same people who usually do not have access to health benefits. For days that we miss, we just lose money. Basically myself, I am definitely affected by the smoke. You know, I'll be working, and my contacts get blurry. I got to go outside to get fresh air. It's just all around irritating. So, here I am. It's hard to stand at a table and be personable and be pretty, you know, enhancing anyone's dining experience because I'm irritated. And basically, the point I'm making 216 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 is, is it worth it, I've been thinking to myself, to compromise my health to keep this job. And unfortunately, I have to keep it until I'm able to find another job that will just be as financially rewarding. So, again, I'm saying, we don't have a choice. I don't have a choice. The only choice I have is to let my voice be heard today, to be here to represent many of my co-workers who also support the smoke-free ban. And I just want to say, you are hearing from people who oppose the ban. Some call themselves free choice activists. And I am for the freedom of choice. Though I am a non-smoker, I am not an anti-smoker, as they're calling us.
I'm just saying that in public spaces that we all share smokers are not the only ones smoking a cigarette. This is a health issue and workers need to be protected. Thank you. )
Thank you. 217 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Before I open the floor for questions, I'd like to announce that the Committee on Law and Government which was scheduled to meet at 1 o'clock in this chamber, will now meet across the hall in the Council Caucus Room. So, if you're here for the Committee on Law and Government Committee hearing, it is across the hall in the Council Caucus Room. Thank you. The floor is now open for questions or comments from members of the committee. (No response.)
There being none, thank you all for taking your time out to come and testify on this legislation. Melissa Jayne, Greg DiPapa, Mindy, Jack G., Jim Nichols, Nick Pendergrass and Michael McFadden, will you all come forward, please.
Who wants to go first. Just identify yourself. MR. DiPAPA: Hi. My name is Greg. I've been in the hospitality industry for 15 years. I worked on Delaware Avenue managing 218 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 a nightclub and more recently a restaurant and lounge in Old City, and I am a non-smoker. I don't really want to go over the facts whether secondhand smoke is a problem or not. I'm sure that for every study we've heard today, there's been other people here that have said other things that smoking -- secondhand smoke is good or bad. So, to me, it's an undecided issue. The fact that I do know is that my staff is 40 percent smokers. 60 percent of them are non-smokers. Out of the non-smokers, 50 percent of them are paid by tips, waitresses and bartenders. They don't want a smoking ban because the majority of their tip money comes from smokers. Talking to the non-smoking staff, they don't feel that secondhand smoke is a health issue to them. They also don't feel that they are forced to work in an area that has smoke in it. Our wait staff works continuously in and out of the kitchen, where there is no 219 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 smoking allowed because of cooking. So, they are not in constant contact with customers that could be smoking. Our security staff -- and they are paid; they're not tipped -- work throughout the building. They rotate from the outside to inside several rooms. And they aren't in one area the entire night, so they are never really around potentially smoking customers for any significant length of time. We, of course, like most places, have several smoke eaters, along with the H.V.A. systems that constantly clean and circulate the air. What truly concerns me with the smoking ban are the following questions that you, the City Council, has to understand and resolve. If the smoking ban is passed, who will enforce the ban? The Police? L & I? The Health Department? And are these agencies staffed enough to handle either the 9-1-1 calls from restaurants, bars and residents that have smokers that refuse to 220 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 not smoke or hang outside a location smoking? How about the trash issues or the loitering issues? As an example, pick a Wednesday night, 1:00 a.m., on some corner bar in the neighborhood. Three customers leave the bar, walk over ten feet from the bar's egress, sit on a neighbor's step and talk to each other while smoking their cigarettes. How do you think that neighbor is going to like the smoking ban, when he or she will have to sweep the pavements clean of the cigarette butts? How about the police calls for loitering? That same neighbor is woken up at 1:00 a.m., calls the police to complain. A bar that had no problems with the neighbors or the police is now a nuisance bar. I don't feel that an industry that Ed Rendell promoted to be what Philadelphia is, the tourism and hospitality industry, and an industry that is at this point highly overtaxed and regulated by the city and state, that for any reason the smoking ban is 221 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 a good thing for Philadelphia, the hospitality industry or the workers. I know that you, City Council, is looking at this as a health issue, but you know -- you have to know that this is more than just a health issue. You must consider the good of all sides concerned and rule accordingly. Solving what you think is one problem can create an entirely different and complex group of other problems. There are big economic concerns, tax concerns, enforcement concerns and health concerns. Again, all issues must be considered if you truly want to be fair and effect change. Thank you for listening. (Applause.)
My name is John Jonik. I'm a cartoonist and a political cartoonist. I'm not a scientist or a doctor or have no 24 letters after my name. But I want to bring you a quote from 222 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the United States Patent Office of the United States Government. It's for a class of patents called substitute tobacco material. And I quote: The word tobacco as used in this class is considered generic to any material which may be smoked or may be substituted for real tobacco. In other words, they're saying that anything, even something that's not tobacco can be called tobacco. The Patent Office had the decency and, you know, the wherewithal to make that mention there, what they mean by tobacco. In Mr. Nutter's bill there's no such qualification of the term. I happen to know that there's something like 1,000 different additives from which the cigarette companies choose their particular recipes. Some of these are known human carcinogens. A lot of these are pesticides. These are the adulterants. There are something like 300 different pesticides that are used in the United States registered legally to use on tobacco. 223 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Just two years ago the General Accounting Office in Washington condemned lax government oversight of tobacco residues in cigarettes. Michael Nutter's bill says nothing about this. We're talking about cancer. We have cancer-causing industrial chemicals in the cigarette, and nobody's talking about it. Nobody's warning anybody about it, and nobody's advising or anything. I have another quote which is from... It's a law that was written in Michigan a while back. You know, I got to color code these things. This is the kind of law I would like to see or we would all like to see in Philadelphia. And it reads, Michigan Penal Code, adulterated cigarettes. Adulterated cigarettes. Any person within the state who manufactures, sells or gives to anyone any cigarette containing any ingredient deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. We hear no such legislation here to 224 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 mitigate the harms. We are being hit with the most burdensome possible route to solve a supposed health problem. That is, every bar, bowling alley, restaurant in the state, City, country is going to have to be inspected by health inspectors, monitored by police. They're going to have to put signs up, get rid of ashtrays, and do all these legal dances. Whereas, maybe a handful of cigarette companies could be advised to get these harmful chemicals out of cigarettes. They could be advised to put ingredients less on the package. And that might not be responsible. I have 16 pages of cigarette ingredients here. I was going to roll it out on the floor, but I didn't have time to tape it together. These are all ignored in the products. What we have here, the word tobacco is used by the cigarette industries themselves, these cigarette manufacturers who are all condemning. They call themselves the 225 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 tobacco companies. This is camouflage. It's a marketing term used to camouflage a multi-ingredient, pesticide saturated, highly processed plant that may not even -- product that may not even contain tobacco. And they're trying to camouflage it under the leaf of tobacco, as if it's something Geronimo used 200 years ago. It's a lie, and it's being perpetrated by this bill, and perpetuated, too, I guess. So, therefore, what we have is, we have no -- There's no laws in this country, by the way, requiring tobacco to be in a cigarette, yet here we are all talking about tobacco. We have 200 some -- 298 patents for cigarettes made partly or entirely out of non-tobacco substances, such as municipal paper waste, cocobean hulls, coffee bean hulls, wood chips from loblolly pine cellulose. This is what's in a cigarette.
Most of the stuff is contaminated with chlorine chemicals from the herbicides, 226 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 other pesticides. And we're not told about it. We're not warned about it. And, of course, this is a great favor to the cigarette industry, who doesn't want anybody to know their big crime. It's also a big favor to the Exxons and the Mobils, and all the pesticide companies who contribute these toxic chemicals to the cigarettes and to the lungs of unwitting, uninformed, unprotected smokers. Now, I don't know, but what we have here is a big scapegoating. The bar and restaurant owners did not have anything to do with putting all these chemicals in the cigarette. They have nothing to do with keeping it all secret. They have nothing to do with dodging the corporate liability for these things. Yet they are going to bear the burdens of law all across the board. Even having to defend themselves, I think, is an outrage, when the cigarettes weren't regulated themselves. 227 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 It's probably the only agricultural product in the company that's not regulated, even though it's consumed by millions of people. And what I'm saying is that this law should go back to be rewritten, to protect the public and to protect the workers from secret ingredients in cigarettes. The workers who have been exposed to this stuff over the years might think about getting compensation for this secret poisoning they've been exposed to all the years. They didn't know. They thought they were smoking tobacco. Even Mr. Nutter told them it was tobacco. It's not tobacco or it may not be. I just happened to go out last night on the street to borrow a pack of cigarettes from somebody. Newport. I copied it out the best I could. You can see it on the thing there. The word tobacco does not exist on this pack. I found a pack of Marlboros, searched it with a magnifying glass. The 228 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 word tobacco does not exist on it. We're supposed to assume it's tobacco. This is no more tobacco in these things than cheese slices are cheese. It looks like cheese, looks like tobacco, but they're not. So, therefore... And one more thing, important thing. We're talking about environmental tobacco smoke. S. arguments. 's secondhand smoke material. He threw it out of court with prejudice and strong words. I have quotes from him in my testimony which I handed around, I took right out of the... you know, off the web just every day. And they're pretty interesting. I could do a theater piece here just reading these things. 229 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Now, two years after that, Mr. 's discredited, thrown-out-of-court material to push for a smoking ban attempt. It didn't work. A. prevailed and turned over the Judge O'Steen decision based on one point, jurisdiction. 's secondhand smoke material remains in effect today. This is how they cherry-picked studies, they overlook studies, they even violated Federal radon laws and all these things to get to their preconceived point that secondhand smoke which isn't defined as a carcinogenic thing. Another testifier from a group called Tobacco-Free Kids which -- Tobacco-free child workers, I guess. I'm not sure what kids are in bars. But he talked about polonium-210. This polonium-210 comes from phosphate tobacco fertilizers. It's not natural in the 230 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 soils. It comes out of radon from mined tobacco fertilizers. Occidental Corporation, Mobile Corporation mine this stuff in Florida. It's been indicted even by C. Everett Koop himself for causing most upper bronchial respiratory smoking-related illnesses. It's still there. It's still legal. And there's still no warning whatsoever about it on a package. There's no 12 advice to any smoker or to any secondhand smoker about the existence of this stuff. The Readers Digest even did a report about this. It is not a secret. S. government agencies. They're ignored.
We keep going against secondhand smoke which we don't know what it means. And I think we have to find out what it means, get some definitions, and come back to legislation that would really protect worker health and public health. Thank you. I could go on for another week. ) MR. McFADDEN: Thank you, Council people. My name is Michael J. McFadden. I am the author of a carefully referenced, 400-page book, titled Dissecting Anti-Smoker's Brains. I am not a medical doctor. But I have had two years of propaganda analysis and statistical analysis training in the graduate Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. There is no way in the space allowed me today to properly refute all of the misleading statements made by BAM supporters. All I can do is pull out a few very brief examples, show you why those examples are misleading, and trust that you will believe me when I say virtually everything else you have heard is just as misleading as what I'll point out. In the panel immediately before ours, I believe it's Dr. Charles who testified about a small town named Helena in Montana. Helena banned smoking. They 232 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 protected their citizens from secondhand smoke, and their heart attack rate got cut in half. What that doctor did not tell you is that if you actually went and read the study itself, the authors of the study itself in the study itself tell you that very explicitly they did not examine non-smokers as a separate group for heart attacks because the numbers did not support their theory. The numbers were meaningless. They tell you that in the study itself near the end. They did not look at non-smokers. But all over the world that study is being held up as a blazing example of how by cutting exposure to secondhand smoke you are saving lives. And it simply isn't true. You can see it yourself if you go to the British Medical Journal and read the study. Mary Basset testified that 30 minutes in a room with smokers could cause a heart attack. 4. These men didn't get heart attacks, by the way. What they got was one particular blood measure slightly increased, about the same as if they had eaten a meal at McDonald's. It was testified -- The very first testimony of the day testified that lung cancer in bartenders and waitresses reached to 75 percent higher than in other jobs. 21 That's true, according to a study by 22 Michael Segal in 1993 which is where that 23 figure comes from. But Michael Segal didn't 24 do a study himself. He took six other 25 studies, none of which specifically examined 234 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 secondhand smoke exposure. They were all just studies of lung cancer in food service workers. He took these studies, cherry picked the best results out of them, to get the conclusion that he was looking for to begin with. The study in no way showed that secondhand smoke was responsible for lung cancer. It did not even measure the confounder, that bartender and waitresses tend to smoke a little bit more than librarians and health care workers. The claim that non-smokers are being forced to breathe poisons like arsenic. Well, that's true. There's arsenic in secondhand smoke. I'm not going to say there isn't. Do you know how much arsenic there is? If I take a glass of water, it has arsenic in it. The government tells you the glass of water is safe. To get as much arsenic from secondhand smoke as you would get in this cup of water, you would have to sit next to me 235 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 while I smoked over 50,000 cigarettes. Yes, you're getting arsenic from my secondhand smoke. Is it hurting you? 50,000 cigarettes worth to make what you'd find in one cup of water. I don't call that poisoning somebody. That's just about it. Let me conclude. In just a few minutes I've shown you how questionable the claims supporting a smoking ban are, based on these studies, how these studies are misleading and distorted to support smoking bans.
Smoking bans are being pushed not on the basis of protecting workers' health but as a social engineering tool designed to force smokers to quit smoking. The medical risks of secondhand smoke do not in any sense justify widespread smoking bans. And social engineering is not the sort of thing that government in America, particularly not the sort of thing that government in Philadelphia, is supposed to be about. We are a free people, and we should 236 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 be free to make our own decisions about the enjoyments and the risks that we want in our own lives. Thank you, Council people. )
I guess we're in overtime here, so I'll be as brief as I can. City Council, fellow citizens, thanks for allowing me to speak today. My name is Joe Librandt, and I am Chair of the Libertarian Party of Philadelphia. Libertarians believe in Thomas Jefferson's dictum that the government which governs best governs least. In other words, we believe that the government is only here to protect one's life, liberty and property. We believe in individual liberty, free market, and peace, as well as limited government. We as Libertarians believe that this smoking ban is nothing less than government trying to control the private property of business owners. 237 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that secondhand smoking is not bad for you. I don't know. I haven't looked at all the data. I think that most intelligent people would agree that firsthand smoking is bad for us. So, I wonder why we're not sitting here debating banning smoking completely in the City of Philadelphia. Not to give you more ideas, but we could also try to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in the City of Philadelphia, since it worked so well in the nationwide level in the '20s. We could also try to ban the consumption of cheese steaks and the consumption of scrapple in the City of Philadelphia if this were truly a public health issue. Basically the founding fathers who started this country believed that without private property we are not truly free. To quote James Madison, the rights of persons and the rights of property are the 238 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 objects for the protection of which government was instituted. We also believe that the government is not in the business of trying to run bars and restaurants. I'm not a bar owner. I'm not a restaurant owner. So, I'm going to listen to what owners of bars and restaurants have to say about governing their business. I think that that's who we should really be listening to, if we're going to talk about whether or not we want to promote business opportunities in the City of Philadelphia. And I'm going to conclude on a personal note. I happen to be unemployed, and I have been for eight months. I've sent out literally dozens of resumes and job applications all around the Philadelphia area, particularly in the city. I did receive a job offer in Orange County, California. I'd like to state for the record that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the only county in the United States of America that lost more jobs 239 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 last year in fiscal year 2004 was the County in Michigan where Detroit is. They're number one. Philadelphia happens to be number two. If we want Philadelphia to be number one, then one way that I think that that could happen is if we pass more legislation to infringe upon the rights of business owners and private property owners here in the City of Philadelphia. I'm glad that... I used to think that Philadelphia was the city that did not love me back, but at least I am part of a trend. I believe they referred to it as the brain drain. I fervently hope that City Council upholds the rights and privileges that our founding fathers fought for over 250 year ago, and I hope that you vote to keep private property rights in the City of Philadelphia. Thank you. (Applause.)
I wasn't on the list 240 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 there. I just want to come up and give my support. My name is John Stanton. I own and operate a bar up in Northeast Philadelphia. And I just wanted to reiterate some of the support of my fellow colleagues that were up here and spoke. One is the nuisance issue, which I'm actually in Mr. O'Neill's District, and he understands the nuisance issue that I face up there. If a law like this is to pass, and I really haven't heard any response from anybody or any kind of suggestions from anybody that can help us with that situation, where patrons will be out in the parking lots, maybe even on some of these people's front door steps that are here in opposition of this. They will be sitting out in front of your houses making noise, smoking cigarettes. And we'll do the best we can to keep them in indoors, but obviously that is a problem. And I'd like to hear some kind of solutions on that, if anybody is willing to put forth 241 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 on that. Two I wanted to touch on was, my employees were not able to come here today because they have other jobs. They have other responsibilities. They have children and families that they have to raise. So, they don't have time to come here at 9 o'clock in the morning and spend a day here, 10 like I do. But through my polling of them and asking them, they understand the risks that they face. They understand that secondhand smoke is bad for you. Again, nobody up here really disputes that. But they choose to work in that bar industry. They choose to work in this. I've heard some other employees up here and speak and say that they can't work anywhere else. I'd like to know why. There's lots of industries and lots of jobs out there. Why you can't work in another industry to earn money to be an actress or a singer or anything else, I don't understand. I choose not to work in certain 242 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 industries because of their hazards. I choose not to remove asbestos that somebody had mentioned earlier, because I don't want to get asbestos in my lungs. I choose not to do many jobs that have occupational hazards. I've chosen this position and this what I do, knowing full well the risks that are involved with not only smoke, other hazards that are involved in this industry. So, I just want everybody to understand that there is a choice. And taking away this -- or putting through the smoking bill takes away a lot of people's choice. And just remember, those people chose to work in these industries. I'd like to talk to you on one other thing that came up earlier, was on these slot machine parlors and the gambling facilities, and things like that that is... Councilman Nutter says he doesn't work for the state. He doesn't legislate the state. And we understand that. But the point I want to make and 243 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 make sure everybody is clear about it, is that the state can supersede, I guess for lack of a better word -- I don't know how to describe it, but they can overturn it. And they will be able to pass legislation to allow smoking in these parlors which absolutely will affect business around those parlors. People will be able to go there. And if the state can do it, something must be done to disallow them to do that, to be fair. Everybody talks about being fair, being fair, and protecting people and being fair. Let's be fair. Let's put it to the people for a vote, number one. And number two, let's look into a statewide ban. It's not fair. I am on the verge of all three counties, Philadelphia, Bucks, and Montgomery. Within a five-mile radius, I have numerous bars that people can choose to go to. Is it possible that I may pick up some non-smoking business? Sure, it's possible. But being in this industry for so long, talking to my colleagues that 244 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 have been in this industry for so long, we don't see it likely to happen.
You can throw all the statistics around that you want. We have statistics; they have statistics. But they're all just like the gentleman here pointed out. They're all due to scrutiny. How did they come up with them? Did they cherry pick certain times of the year? Was it right after a recession when they compared New York? I know that for a fact, that, you know, the City of New York, let's compare that first-year smoking ban to three years prior. Let's not do the year before when the whole city was in a recession. Let's not do that. Let's be fair about it. Let's look at a real average and real numbers. I guess that's really it. Thank you. )
Any questions of the panel? 245 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 (No response.)
Okay. I made some notes earlier. The Fire Marshall was up here and went through all the statistics, and I didn't really write them down. But I just know, as I'm currently in a restaurant lounge in Old City, we are required to have a lot of either fire suppression systems, smoke alarms, fire alarms, which don't exist in somebody's house. And I would think as a choice, if smoking was to be allowed, whether it's at home -- (fire truck alarm sounds outside) -- probably a house right there -- whether it 246 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 was at home or in a business, I think you're probably safer in the City of Philadelphia because L & I has -- and probably through some of the measures in City Council -- made it very safe in all the public places. So, I know that if I was going to be in the place where somebody was smoking, I'd rather be in a public place, where early detection will happen and safety exits are available, as of somebody's house where that may or may not exist. Also, the second thing was, somebody made mention about the airport business, that it is up now that there's a smoking ban. And some of my colleagues actually run some businesses in the airport. And business in general of the airport is up, not because of the smoking ban, just because the airport has been expanding. And the business of the airport is up. That's what I know from my end of it. That's it. Thank you.
Thank you very much for taking the time. Do you have 247 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 something else to say, sir?
My name is John Jonik. Just speaking of the Fire Marshall and the Fire Marshall's testimony before about smoking-related fires, once again, this relates to my point about nobody being told, warned about, protected from or given compensation for the burn accelerants that are legally allowed to be in cigarettes. This is -- There are citrates. There are certain processes they use to make the paper porous so it burns down like a fuse. It will not go out unless you drown it in the bathtub. This is still legal. So, instead of doing anything about that, instead of the city asking the state or the Federal Government to please get rid of these burn accelerants from the cigarettes so the firefighters aren't endangered, so that the public doesn't have expensive property 248 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 loss, these things stay there and stay there. Why? Because it would make the cigarette companies have to pay a seriously bigger liability. We'd have to look at who the citrate industries -- the burn accelerant industries are. And they have insurers and investors also. So, we're not going to bother with them. We'll instead blame the person whose house burnt down. I think that's pretty bad stuff. A lot of the other things that happen with smoking-related illness are impossible to be caused by tobacco plants. They are known to be caused by some of the pesticides in cigarettes. What do we focus on? The tobacco. We don't focus on the pesticides. We don't focus on the burn accelerants. Even Tobacco-Free Kids which happen to have been founded by one of the biggest public relations pesticides moguls in the world, Mr. William Novelli, Tobacco-Free Kids hasn't said a word about the burn accelerants 249 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 yet in all their documents. They haven't said a word, no matter who how many kids die or are orphaned or injured. Burn accelerants is not on their search list. You cannot find any information. You will not find out about fetal damaging chemicals in cigarettes. And you will not find out about pesticides and chlorine. And you won't find about the Marlboro's 12.3 percent sugar in a Marlboro that attracts kids, you know, makes it nice and tasty. That's okay. We're going to arrest the kids, though.
And we're going to arrest bar owners and everything. I think it's an inappropriate law and should be rewritten.
Not a question, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. Just one 250 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 piece of information. Mr. Stanton and I have had an opportunity to talk on a number of occasions. I just wanted to share for the record that he had been good enough to put on his own web site for his establishment the question with regard to should Philadelphia go smoke free or not. And when I last checked it, I believe on Friday, of people accessing his businesses web site, 52 percent indicated support for the legislation. These are people who obviously are patrons or interested in that particular establishment. So, I thought it important to put that on the record. Thank you very much.
May I just respond. That's absolutely true, but there's also 42 percent that oppose it.
42 percent of the people oppose a smoking ban, so I definitely cannot afford to lose 42 percent of my 251 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 business. Will it turn into 42? Probably not. I can't afford to lose percent of my 5 business. I don't want to lose any of my 6 business. That's all. 7
Now, we'll have 11 the next panel will be Joe Mahoney, Bill 12 Slivka, Richard McClure, Bruce Nichols, John 13 Longacre, and Andrew Highland. 14 Good afternoon. 15
Good afternoon, 16 Chairwoman Tasco and members of the Committee 17 on Public Health and Human Services. 18 I am Joe Mahoney, Executive Vice 19 President of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber 20 of Commerce. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill 050063. (Applause.)
Which will prohibit smoking in public places. The Chamber's decision to support 252 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the smoking ban was not entered into lightly. Only a few years ago, we were among a group of businesses who actively opposed the idea of regulating smoking, based upon the costs that that legislation would impose on smaller businesses, particularly those in the hospitality industry. As they say, that was then and this is now. The world has changed, and there are now models that have demonstrated that the economic sky will not fall. This legislation is different. There are not the carve outs that were in the last bill, and many in the hospitality industry have recognized that this legislation will enhance, not hurt their businesses. The new models that I referred to are the example and experience of New York and Boston. There are many other examples as well. As a business advocacy organization, our concerns have revolved around the economic impact on businesses that implement 253 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 this policy. The health effects are undeniable, both on patrons and employees. But the economic impact was at the heart of our analysis. New York provides us with a stunning example. 7 percent. Employment had almost increased by more than 10,000 jobs. In the 2004 Zagat New York City Restaurant Survey, percent of respondents 16 said they are eating out more often because 17 of the smoking ban, while only 4 percent 18 indicated they are eating out less. 19 A September 10, 2003 story from 20 Boston University's Daily Free Press reports 21 that, quote, expected opposition to the law 22 has been almost non-existent, bar owners said 23 earlier this week, end quote. The story goes on to cite an establishment called Kinvara and states, 254 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 quote, it hasn't only been the air quality that has improved at Kinvara since the law was implemented, business at the bar has also picked up, end quote. Other cities have had similar results. C. analyzed sales tax and mixed beverage tax data during the years preceding and one year after the 11 smoking ban was implemented. 12 The results showed no statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues after the smoking ban took effect. Similar results were also reported in Toledo, Ohio. Our neighboring state of Delaware implemented Delaware's Clean Indoor Air Act on November 27, 2002. Despite some fears that the smoking ban would have dire economic effects in the hospitality sector, comparative data shows that business remains steady. Eating and drinking establishments have not gone out of business in Delaware. 255 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 In fact, data shows an increase in the number of restaurant and taproom licenses since the smoking ban took effect. In viewing areas as different as Boston, New York and El Paso, it is hard to imagine that the experience in Philadelphia will be different. Internationally the movement to ban or restrict smoking in public places is under way. Ireland went smoke free last year. And as of February 7, 2005, smoking in stores, theaters and other public places is prohibited in Havana, Cuba. Bans or restrictions are also in effect in Italy, Spain, Australia, South Korea, Norway, and a host of other countries. On February 27, 2005, a United Nations treaty went into effect that would put stronger warnings on cigarette packages and eventually ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship. 9 million people a year, and that number could grow to 10 million by 256 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 2020. In our deliberations on this issue, we noted that some establishments that were opposed to the ban when last proposed had also rethought their positions this time around. Museum Catering cited the competitive advantages of marketing to 78 percent of non-smokers in the suburbs. Others have told us quietly that they would accept the ban as long as it applied to all and that there were not exemptions for competing venues.
Besides the issue of dollars spent by patrons, the costs of health care for both smokers and those exposed to secondhand smoke are all issues that will weigh on the costs of doing business. Philadelphia is a world-class city that has long touted its rich medical and pharmaceutical history. By enacting this smoking ban we will demonstrate to the world that we are serious about creating a more healthy environment for 257 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 all of our citizens, while at the same time creating a hospitality environment that is truly in touch with a majority of visitors, not only from our own country but also from around the world. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Next. Identify yourself for the record, please.
Yes. My name is Bruce Nichols, and I am President of Museum Catering Company based in Philadelphia at the Penn Museum. Four years ago, as then President of the Greater Philadelphia Restaurant and Purveyors Association, I came before you to oppose smoke-free legislation. Because we were successful in helping block that bill in 2001, all of us are back here again today. I still serve on the board of the restaurant association, but I speak today on 258 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 my own behalf. Many of my colleagues from the restaurant, tavern, and catering end of the hospitality industry here still oppose smoke-free laws, and I understand their concerns firsthand. But I am one of the many others in our industry who have changed our minds and now support smoke-free legislation in the restaurants, bars and event sites of Philadelphia. I know that the leaders of the restaurant and tavern associations want to kill this bill again, even though it is substantially more comprehensive and fairer than the 2001 bill. At that time many leaders in my industry said that had that bill been fairer, they would have supported it. But here is that fairer bill, and they are still fighting a fight that essentially belongs to the last century. However, I can tell you today that the rank and file of our industry, the 259 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 restaurateurs and bar owners and caterers themselves, are much more open to smoke-free legislation this time than many were in 2001. Our trade associations continue to place the highest value on unlimited freedom of business owners to manage their own affairs. And we do need substantial freedom. But many of us believe that a smoke-free Philadelphia will serve the interests of our employees and businesses much more directly than a broad defense of freedom, that in the end comes down to nothing more than the freedom to maintain unhealthy smoke-filled public places and a workplace increasingly susceptible to health-related lawsuits. The real interest of all of our businesses lies in accommodating the 78 percent super majority of non-smokers, both in the city and among suburbanites, willing to patronize our newly smoke-free establishments. Just imagine the pleasure of walking into your favorite bar and smelling Hops and 260 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the bitterness of fresh beer instead of stale Marlboro Lights smoke. You've also heard many statistics from my colleagues -- not on health topics. They have been largely silent on that topic. But on the impact of smoke-free laws on business failure. While their data is more recent, the funders of the research remain the same as they were in 2001. Check the funding of virtually any research that is presented by the business community in their defense and it will come from the tobacco industry and their allies. There is nothing illegal or unusual about this. It's just the way it is. So, when reviewing the data, consider the source. And consider also, there are a thousand different ways a restaurant can go out of business. Some owners put themselves out of business. Some falter from poor cash flow. Some sprang from a faulty business plan. Others suffer or fail from the poor health or death of the owner. So much can 261 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 kill a restaurant, not to mention bad food. The more I am around the blame-it-on-the-smoke-ban research of the tobacco companies, the more I know what can sink a business, the more weird and obsessive this kind of one-track analysis really sounds. The future of our hospitality industry and of all of our great restaurants, bars and event sites do not lie with staying smoky. There were probably those in the early years of the 20th century that argued that business would dry up if we banned spitting in bars and restaurants, but we did. And people kept coming out to eat, drink and be merry anyway.
I ask members of Council to do the right thing here, not just ethically or politically or from the perspective of public health or even for future generations, but for the concrete interests of small businesses working and creating jobs here and now, for our entire hospitality industry, for 262 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 all of Philadelphia. Thank you for inviting me here today. )
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Slivka. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of the committee for having me here today. I also want to acknowledge Councilman Nutter's leadership on a bill that takes significant steps to address the critical public health issue of smoking. I'm here today representing GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Health Care. As you probably know, GlaxoSmithKline employs nearly 2,000 people in the City of Philadelphia and nearly 6,000 throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania. We have been a part of this community for many years. GSK Consumer Health Care is a global leader in smoking control and health, and a pioneer in helping smokers quit, by expanding access to a wide 263 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 range of safe and effective medications available without a prescription. A. approved medicinal nicotine product in 1996. Today GSK Consumer Health Care offers a variety of stop-smoking products including a gum, a patch, a lozenge, and we continue to develop new products that significantly increase a smoker's chance of quitting successfully. Our mission is to inspire and enable every smoker to quit and to reduce the enormous toll of tobacco use on this nation. GSK Consumer Health Care supports this legislation because we know that it will help save lives. We also know that it will save significant costs on health care for employees and their families. S. We know from compelling evidence that many smokers decide to make a quit attempt when smoke-free laws 264 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 are enacted. That's good for the public health. And we feel very strongly about this legislation because it is an opportunity to protect the people of Philadelphia. But we also care about how this bill 8 is implemented because we know what it takes for people to quit smoking. This law shouldn't be enacted in a vacuum. Based on our own experience, implementing a smoke-free workplace policy internally and our decades of experience in smoking control, we pledge to collaborate with this City Council and employers in the area to help ensure this law is implemented as smoothly as possible and to the greatest health benefit for Philadelphia. When we were still SmithKline Beecham, we went smoke free in all indoor workplaces in 1997 and then progressed to completely smoke-free properties in Pennsylvania in 2000. Based on our extensive work over the years with smokers, we knew that we had to 265 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 treat this new policy as a major transition for our employees, and help them adjust both physically and philosophically to the change. A. approved stop-smoking products in conjunction with a smoking cessation and counseling program. Both the medicine and the behavioral support were critical to helping our employees quit. Today only 6 percent of our employees worldwide smoke. This is significantly lower than the national average of approximately percent. 15 Interestingly, the majority of this 16 6 percent are new hires. We have found that 17 over time we are able to encourage our 18 employees to break the habit, if we provide 19 the support they need to quit successfully. 20 We have continued these practices to 21 this day, and have added additional 22 incentives in our benefit plan to encourage 23 employees to eat right and exercise daily. Going smoke free was a major step for us, but that decision was made in the 266 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 overall context of what made the most sense for employee health. We made the commitment to offer support for our employees because we knew it was the right thing to do. But make no 7 mistake, reducing the number of smoking employees is a sound business practice. Employees who smoke cost employers approximately $10,000 per year more than non-smoking employees. Smokers more frequent visits to health care professionals and higher medical care costs add up quickly.
Smokers have 7 to percent more 15 out-patient visits, 30 to 45 percent more hospital admissions, 70 to 100 percent more hospital days than smokers [sic]. Children of smokers use about four additional office visits to doctors per year than children of non-smokers. Additionally, studies have shown that smoking employees are less productive than non-smoking employees. 5 more days per year than non-smoking employees. 267 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Smokers are more likely to be injured while working. And something we can all see, smokers spend roughly percent of 5 their working hours on smoking breaks and 6 rituals. 7 We know that many employers are 8 getting more involved in adopting smoke-free policies for their employees. We are already working with other employers to share our learnings and help them help their employees, by providing the same kind of counseling programs and access to proven stop smoking products that we do. GSK Consumer Health Care strongly feels that given the health and business implications of smoking, smoke-free laws like the one under consideration today simply make sense. We are also ready to work with the City of Philadelphia to make sure that both employees and employers are as prepared as possible. The more we can help smokers quit now, the easier the transition will be for 268 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the city as a whole. As an employer in this city and as a worldwide industry leader in helping smokers quit, we look forward to working with our fellow businesses and the Council to make sure this law helps to make Philadelphia an even greater place to live and work. Thank you. MR. McCLURE: Madam Chair and other members of the Health and Human Services Committee, my name is Rich McClure. I'm the General Manager of ARAMARK tower, a 32-story office building in Center City. A. and as chair of the Codes and Legislative Committee to testify on behalf of ordinance number 050063. A. is a not-for-profit organization whose members provide within the city limits alone over 51 million square feet of office space 269 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 for over a half million office workers. Member buildings include virtually all major high rise office towers in the city, including One Liberty, Commerce Square, Bell Atlantic Tower, and the Wanamaker Building, just to name a few. A. fully supports ordinance 9 number 050063, insofar as it impacts commercial office space within the city. On behalf of our members and member buildings, we are affirming our stance from 2001 when the smoking ban was originally introduced. A. A. Philadelphia is affiliated, has a longstanding position regarding smoking; specifically, secondhand smoke does not belong in buildings. A. it is an indoor air contaminant as well as a group A carcinogen. Removing this health threat would protect building occupants, remove significant liability concern for owners and 270 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 tenants, and help improve overall air quality in commercial buildings. 's goal is to provide a safe and healthy work environment for our tenants and guests. I am not here today to testify about the effects of smoking and secondhand smoke. Statistics regarding the impact of smoking on public health have been well represented elsewhere today. Given the mountains of evidence, I doubt there's anyone here that would deny that smoking causes cancer. A. agrees that smoking is a health hazard and that secondhand smoke has no place in commercial office buildings. A. also recognizes that similar legislation has already been enacted in other cities, New York, and states, Delaware, Massachusetts and California around the country. A similar ban was also instituted for Federal buildings in 1997. Similarly, many private employers in Philadelphia and 271 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 elsewhere have already instituted their own no-smoking policies within their premises.
All this is to say that there is currently tremendous public support for this type of legislation. Ordinance number 050063 among other things would enhance common area smoking bans that already exist in office buildings throughout the city. It would also reduce the hazard of fires started by the inappropriate disposal of smoking materials, aid in the improvement of indoor air quality, potentially lead to lower health care costs for employers, and reduce cleaning costs for building owners and managers. Most important, however, this legislation would provide a uniform approach for all buildings throughout the city. A. supports ordinance 22 number 050063, we have approached its sponsor with two enhancements and one enforcement concern. A. 272 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 suggested that civil liability protection be incorporated into the ordinance. In today's litigious society, it's only a matter of time before civil litigation is undertaken against both employers and building owners and managers by individuals impacted by secondhand smoke. I would also suggest that the city might be opening itself up to exposure as well, given the known facts. This exposure could be two-fold, failing to enact appropriate legislation; and two, failing to enforce the legislation. A. would like to see additional provisions which would protect employers and building owners who comply with the ordinance. Proposed language was submitted to Councilman Nutter's office for review and consideration. I can only presume that the city would benefit from similar language. A. would also suggest that smoking be prohibited within a 20-foot, rather than the 273 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 currently proposed 10-foot radius, of any entrance to a facility where smoking is prohibited. Quite frankly, the single most frequent complaint heard by our members has to do with individuals smoking at entrances to our buildings. Walking through a haze of smoke does not make for a good first impression, nor is it healthy. The proper legislation enforcement tools are needed to address this situation. A. also recognizes that enforcement of the smoking ban in these areas presents some challenges. Placing the onus on building owners and managers could have economic consequences that are not necessarily contemplated by this ordinance. Furthermore, the ordinance does not detail the mechanism by which the city would enforce the ban on the exterior. Insofar as Center City is concerned, perhaps a cooperative effort could be 274 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 arranged between the Health Department and the Center City District, in order to arrive at a uniform means of addressing this issue and its enforcement. A. would certainly cooperate in this effort as well. , I thank you for your time and consideration of our comments regarding ordinance number 050063. We applaud City Council for undertaking this bold initiative on behalf of all who live and work in Philadelphia.
Hello. I know we're pushing our time limit, so I'll be brief. My name is John Longacre. I own a small neighborhood tavern in South Philadelphia. You know, I can absolutely understand my fellow bar owners here opposing this ban because we're in an industry that is just so overly regulated, it seems as though there's a regulation for everything we do. 275 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 But when the regulations are health related, employee health related or public health related, they are regulations that I can live with. Currently I have a bartender who's been with us since the day we opened. And she's absolutely one of our best employees. And she just handed me her resignation about two weeks ago. And the reason was because she found out she was pregnant. Her doctors advised her that working in a smoke-filled environment is just as dangerous as smoking while you're pregnant. So, I mean, I know that this is an extreme situation; and, you know, most of these tavern owners in Philadelphia do not have pregnant bartenders working for them. But I asked myself the question. And the underlying premise is still the same. If I'm feeling bad because she is leaving us because of health concerns based on indoor smoking air quality, then why should I subject my other employees to the same 276 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 situation. So, you know, do I think it will hurt business in the short run? Maybe, you know, but I'd like to think that our patrons come to our establishment for the product we provide and not necessarily because they can smoke there. (Applause.)
I do just want to say one thing, though. I am opposed to the part of the bill that extends the protected area outside of the entrance door. And the reason for that is, you know, if Council wants to protect the public health of employees that work in the restaurant business in Philadelphia, I completely understand that. But to extend that area outside of the actual workplace I just think is wrong. If patrons want to go outside and smoke and then come back in, I think that their rights should be acknowledged as well. I thank you for hearing me. Thank you very much. 277 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Highland. I'm an associate professor in the Department of Health Behavior at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York. And I've spent almost the last ten years working on many projects that access the economic impact of smoke-free regulations. I've published widely on the topic. I've provided expert testimony to numerous localities in the United States, most recently Indianapolis, Maryland and Louisville, Kentucky, in the last couple weeks, that are all having similar debates to what's happening here. And frankly, I've been doing this work about as long as anybody has been doing economic evaluations of smoke-free regulations. And I was asked to volunteer my time so I could share with you some of the key findings of my research. The first point I want to make is that clean indoor air regulations are a 278 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 growing movement observed nationally. The number of jurisdictions with smoke-free work site laws increased percent just in the 5 last year. 6 The reason is that people now 7 understand that you shouldn't have to be 8 exposed to a toxin in order to make a living 9 and earn a paycheck. 10 Today there's seven states that 11 represent about a quarter of the entire 12 population of the United States that now live 13 in a location with a smoke-free workplace, 14 smoke-free bar, smoke-free restaurant regulations. Hundreds of communities have passed similar regulations nationwide. More states and communities join the ranks on a weekly basis. A comment was made earlier that isn't this a little drastic, was the term. And I think it's quite the opposite. Smoke-free environments are growing to be the norm. And another point I wanted to make 279 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 with the Chamber of Commerce voicing their support. And I've been in many places that have debated these issues. And in just about every place that's been successful, a key element has been a business entity weighing in and either not opposing or voicing their support. In Delaware it was the Chamber of Commerce. In New York State, the New York State Restaurant Association -- not the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association that we heard. But the largest restaurant association, with over 8,000 members, support a comprehensive regulation in New York State. And that was a catalyst. And their mantra was, if it's going to happen -- they saw it happening -- they wanted to see it across the board, no 20 loopholes, no waivers, and have it be comprehensive. Now, details on several of the studies that we've done are in your handout. And then I also briefly want to touch on an air monitoring study that we did right here 280 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 in Philadelphia, as well as some comparison sites. I'm going to skip some of the details of the economic research because, frankly, you've actually heard it already, because a lot of the statistics that you've heard about what's happened when places go smoke free are actually derived from research that I've been involved with. But briefly, I'll share a little bit on the New York State experience. New York City adopted smoke-free restaurant regulations actually in April 1995 for larger restaurants. That covered all restaurants and bars by March 2003. And then the state followed suit four months later. And we looked at a wide array of sources, to try to determine what happened when places go smoke free: Taxable sales, employment. We did surveys of consumers and restaurant owners. We did inspections. We looked at licensure data. And the bottom line is, sales and employment are increased in New York City. 281 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 They've increased in New York State for the hospitality industry, for restaurants and bars. Now, one of the arguments that has been raised is bar regulations, things that focus just on drinking establishments are relatively new, and there's not as much data with those evaluation.
And what's happened in New York State is that the existing trends, secular trends, in the bar industry have continued which has been a decrease. And so, there are fewer employees in the standalone bar and tavern industry in New York State. However, the trend is exactly the same from what you observe before to what you observe after. And when we compare those data to what's observed in New Jersey, we see the exact same trends. So, in other words, there was no 22 change in the secular downward trends and the bar employment after the law. Industry wide, restaurants and bars combined, we see increases. 282 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 When we question about are people going to flee the city and dine in places and patronize places where smoking is allowed, and the research that we've done is that a few people will, perhaps five percent. But a few people from the neighboring areas will patronize smoke-free establishments in the smoke-free facility. So, basically a few people will do it. It's a small fraction. And it tends to wash out because it does go both ways. Most venues complied with the law. We heard about the smoke police and the smoking brigade. Generally speaking, these things are self enforcing and compliance is very high. So, in summary, the issues debated in Philadelphia here are very similar to issues that were being debated in New York City ten years ago and in other jurisdictions even before then. And data from multiple objective sources indicate that in New York City and New York State that the smoke-free law was 283 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 not bad for the hospitality economy. Now, similar stories can be told from California, Massachusetts. We heard about Texas, Arizona, Colorado. Even Lexington, Kentucky has passed a smoke-free restaurant, bar and workplace regulation. Now, another study was alluded to a couple of times that I was involved with, where we did a review of all the studies that have looked at economics related to smoke-free restaurant regulations. We've reviewed 97 studies from 31 states, 8 different countries. And the results were really striking. And they were summarized already. But pretty much when you sort them by the studies that are the most rigorous, look at objective data, and have data before and after the law, all of those studies, not a 21 single one of them concluded that smoke-free laws were bad for business. On the flip side, every single study that concluded a smoke-free law was bad for business was funded by the tobacco industry 284 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 or an agency with ties to the industry. And more importantly, it's not just where the funding comes from, but not a single one of those studies met the basic scientific rigor criteria that were there. So, basically, they were poorly-done studies. So, the evidence from the scientific literature is clear with regard to economics, is that they don't cause industry wide decreases in the hospitality economy. Because I feel compelled to do this, I want to turn to the indoor air quality study that we did. Now, smoke-free rules are passed for health reasons. And it's important to see, well, how effective are they at trying to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. We went into seven bars and restaurants in Philadelphia. We went into 54 other bars and restaurants in other cities around the country, including some in New York City. 5 microns in diameter. 285 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 What we found was that the level of indoor air pollution, as measured by these particles, was ten times greater in the Philadelphia bars where smoking was allowed, compared to the New York City bars where smoking is prohibited. So, in other words, a bar, restaurant, wait staff, cleaning staff are breathing air that's ten times more polluted in Philadelphia than those for their colleagues in New York City. And based on that, we heard about, you know, air quality, that that's the issue.
Well, basically all of the air quality issues are attributable to secondhand smoke in those facilities. And regulations that eliminate smoking from the indoor workplace are essentially the most effective way to protect workers from secondhand smoke. So, the bottom line from the scientific literature is that comprehensive smoke-free work site regulations remove a toxin from the air without devastating the 286 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 local hospitality economy. Thank you. )
Thank you very much. Any questions from any members of the panel? (No response.)
I think today we've just kind of listened to everybody. You've given us a lot of information. We certainly thank all of you for coming to testify, those of you who are here and near and far who are providing us with the wealth of information that we have heard today regarding this issue. We have four more people who are going to testify. I'd like to call them now to come to the table, and ask them to be brief. We have a o'clock hearing that we have to have, and it is now o'clock. Alex Nice, Brian Lawrence, Amy Britt and Steven Madotto. 287 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
My name is Alex Nice. And I'm not a scientist or an expert on anything. I'm just, like, a private citizen who earns less than $25,000 a year. And, you know, when I need a job, you know, I go fill out applications downtown. And when I heard about, you know... When I heard about this bill, this smoking-ban bill, it made me feel one thing. That was fear, fear that there's going to be less city jobs, fear that there's going to be less money in tips out there, there's going to be less jobs, that bars are going to close down. And, you know, you can't tell me that's not going to happen. You can't tell me that there's not going to be at least some kind of economic fluctuation period where that's going to happen, you know. And that scares me. And it should. And I can't help but think that this isn't about public health at all. You know, this is an opportunity for, you know, companies 288 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 like GlaxcSmithKline to come out looking like angels and talk about public health, when they're pushing Vicodin and Percodan and OxyContin and all kind of drugs on people. It's also an opportunity for Bowman and GlaxoSmithKline and those companies to cover themselves, CYA, because they're worried about being sued. They're worried about being sued on some kind of secondhand smoke thing. And do you know what? They're selling little guys like me down the river. And if Mayor Street allows them to do it, then I feel really bad that I ever voted for him, because he's selling out the people that take the bus from North Philadelphia into Center City and bus tables. Those are the people that this bill 20 is going to hurt. And people around here that are clapping so much for this, you know, those people have good jobs, man. And as far as public health for workers go, any job where you don't have a college education is going to hurt your 289 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 health. Right now I wash buses. I wash buses and trolleys, and I breathe in bus fumes all day. To me there's really not much of a difference between me busing tables in some busy restaurant and breathing in secondhand smoke. In other words, it doesn't matter whether I'm working demolition or whatever. It's going to hurt my public health because I don't have a college education. And to see all these college educated people coming up against me, right, trying to say that they're for my public health, that's not what it's about. That's bull. And it makes feel angry, you know. And...
You might want to say something at the next piece. Why don't we let the next gentlemen speak. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I'm a citizen of Philadelphia, taxpayer. I have three kids in the school system now. Oddly enough, I grew up in the 290 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 hospitality business. It's my family's business. Let put it in real perspective. Studies, not studies. The simple fact is, right now people have a choice. People who don't like smoking places go to non-smoking places. People who want to smell the bitterness in their beer go to bars that people don't smoke in. They have that option. They have that right. We're talking about the hospitality business. The only purpose of this business is for people to go out and enjoy themselves. And they spend money and give money to other people so that they can do that. Now, if you want to make money, you provide people with what they want so that they'll give you money. It's as simple as that. It's a matter of choice. Personally, I don't go to bars that are non-smoking, because even though I don't smoke that much, when I go to a bar I want to smoke. And you know what? I'll go out less and spend less money if I can't smoke in 291 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 bars. It's as simple as that. And that's the real truth. And people have pretended that's not the truth and that's not what happens. It's just not true. We know that because if the case was the opposite, then people would do it all by themselves. The bar owner who feels bad for his pregnant bartender, why doesn't he go non-smoking? Is there an ordinance that says he can't go non-smoking? No, there's not. He has the right to do so. He chooses not to do so because of the ramifications, knowing that he will lose business. What these people are hoping to do is by taking the rights away from everybody else, not give anybody the option of deciding what they want to do or not to do, and force you to only go to places that they want you to as they are. We don't want smoking places there, but we'll take your choice away. I want my choice. I'm a citizen of the city. I want my choice. 292 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Not only that. Unless you guys discovered an awful lot of money recently and haven't told the rest of us, this city has financial problems, big financial problems. You can't pay for a decent school system which we all know any of us who have kids in the Philadelphia School System. And frankly, I object to you doing things that are going to cut the taxes we're collecting so that we have a worse school system and a worse public transport system and worse every other system. If you can tell me where you're getting money to make that up from, then we'll talk about it. If you can guarantee me that we're not going to collect next taxes, then we can talk about it. If you can't do it, you have no 20 right to go out of your way to cut the income of this city, when we need it desperately. When we need it desperately. It's irresponsible that any member of this Council who does so and any Mayor who does so... Well, you know what? I think the 293 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 citizens of the city should think long and hard about allowing those people continuing their political careers, because basically they just gave it this big right up the butt. We're bankrupt, this city; very close to it. And unless you can find money to make up the money that you're throwing out the window, don't you dare pass this bill. First of all, you pay for my school system. First of all, you pay for the police and make sure that North Philadelphia and the bad neighborhoods become safe neighborhoods. First of all, you pay for programs that need to be paid for, and then you toss money out the window. (Applause.)
Sorry, guys. My name is Steve Mandatto. What I have to offer Council is 20 years of bartending at Woody's at 13th and Walnut which has been in business for 25 years. 294 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 As a bartender, I just want to say that I feel totally with you people with the smoking ban. I cannot get away from the smoke in my bar. I've been there for years. When 7 I'm sick, I have to take nights off work 8 because the doctor just says it's not a good 9 environment to be in. 10 I establish my own smoke-free areas 11 where I work, where I make the drinks. And I 12 find over time that people start crowding 13 toward my area because it's -- that's where 14 people are less likely to smoke. 15 And I'm telling you, you're doing 16 the right thing. I have worked there 20 17 years. I've worked with all of my fellow 18 employees. It's not going to hurt our 19 business. I can almost guarantee you that. 20 And I go to bars in New York City, and I feel -- I hear what everyone else, how much they love being up there, how nice it is. I come back to the City of Philadelphia and the complaints all start 295 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 again. You're doing the right thing. I applaud you. I applaud Michael Nutter. (Applause.)
Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. My name is Nicholas Jerrod. I told the clerk I wanted to speak, but I must have gotten dropped off. I'll make this brief because I have a 10-hour shift in two hours, and I got off of a 10-hour shift last night at 4:00 a.m. I work in a bar. And I think a lot of people have talked about the economics of this. I think this is secondarily an economic issue, but first of all it's an issue of public health versus liberty. I don't think that there's being any sort of calculus or mechanism proposed to 296 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 weigh the loss of liberty of the substantial minority of the population versus the health effects gained. I feel that we've heard a lot of numbers. And some of them may have been massaged, some of them might have been wrong about the dangers of smoking, secondhand smoke. And, you know, it's just not enough to railroad through something saying that 12 percent of the population of the city can't 13 go to a bar as a private citizen and smoke. 14 I work in a bar. I work with people 15 in the bar. Some of us smoke. Some of us 16 don't. Nobody at the bar I work with is in 17 favor of the smoking ban, and neither are any 18 of my other friends in the service industry. 19 And I just want to end on two brief 20 things. One, the British Medical Journal, 21 Volume 3296, May 2003, from the abstract, the 22 results do not support a causal relationship 23 between E.T.S. smoke and tobacco-related 24 mortality. 25 The association between E.T.S. and 297 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. The is the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study Number 1 that tracked 118,094 adults enrolled from 1959 to 1998 in California. The American Cancer Society wasn't able to prove a link. You have the American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 156, Number 6, titled Mortality From Cancer and Other Causes Among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960 through 1997, with 20,895 participants, where they conclude they found a remarkably low standardized mortality rate for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking exposure to secondhand smoke may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking was permitted on flights from the -- up until the mid '90s, and is still not banned on charter flights. And these are people who are in a small space surrounded by smoke for many, many years, and 298 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 there wasn't an increase found. So, I don't think that the evidence presented is enough to make acceptable stripping away so much liberty from such a large portion of the population, when there are non-smoking restaurants, there are restricted smoking restaurants. And people should have the right to choose both where they work and where they want to go and spend their free time. Thank you very much.
Greetings. I'm the last person. I was not on your list. And I handed in typed testimony with some appended documents. And I'm going to paraphrase it and also respond to some of the points that I just heard. My name is Robert B. D. And I have been testifying on tobacco-related issues since the effort that we made in 1978 in New York City to testify before the Board of Estimate against tobacco advertising on bus stop shelters. M. A. I've also been involved with American Cancer Society. E. O. And I do not speak on behalf of any of those organizations, but I can point out some key points related to their policies. For example, one of the appended documents relates to Dr. Elizabeth Whalen who runs the American Council for Science and Health, where I do the reviewing for the tobacco-related articles. 300 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 And she was misquoted widely, and has clarified that in the letter that I appended from the internet, courtesy of a guy named Cherner, Joseph Cherner, who has a blast list, keeps everybody up to date internationally on this issue. And basically what this article 9 pointed out is that Elizabeth Whalen has questions, some of the data you heard this morning from the various health related organizations. But bottom line point is that, if nothing else, that tobacco smoke is an irritant. And the key thing that people forget is that if you're going to protect the workers in the workplace, then the workers, as we just heard, include the bartenders who are forced to inhale that smoke. Now, one could argue that they could find another occupation, but if they choose to do that, they should not be penalized for doing so. Now, I heard a few comments regarding the motives of the people involved 301 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 in this process. And I think the key thing that people have to understand is that people such as myself have no vested interest in the outcome of the situation. I have no holdings in Glaxo, and so forth. And I think, if anything, lawsuits are militated against by such legislation in reference, for example, to the issue of smoking in airplanes. The stewardesses and other attendants now are protected because of national legislation. So, to whatever degree there was any kind of questioning in the articles cited, the general consensus obviously was in favor of this kind of legislation. Quoting from the other comments that were made, this is not a bill that's being railroaded through. To the contrary, many organizations have endorsed comparable legislation worldwide, and it has been accepted, adopted by countries, as well as states and cities. The issue of minority rights and choice has been raised as well. And I think 302 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 the key argument that people have to remember is that we're actually trying to protect the majority not the minority. And also, this country was indeed founded on majority rule but protecting minority rights. So, these are not inconsistent phenomena. Many of the other comments that were made, I felt, were tangential related to finances of the city. I would hope that you would feel comfortable, if nothing else, calling me. I have my phone number and demographics, if there are any questions that people have had on this. I also want to emphasize that there's an organization called ASHRAE, which is an organization that studies HVAC systems. And they have an annual conference in Atlantic City. And a friend of mine frequents it to monitor its activities. And they have had many sessions on this issue. And they've had a hard time deciding how to measure what is in the tobacco smoke, in terms of the exhaust fumes 303 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 from the smoker. And also even at what level: Ground level, table level, standing levels, ceiling level. And then the question is, how many times per hour is the air replaced in the room? And do you have to have a gust of wind at 30 miles an hour in order to protect people, and so forth.
There has been no scientific consensus on this issue. S. Secretary in the late 1970s under Carter when he said, there's no such thing as a safe cigarette. Similarly, when you have a tobacco-filled environment, there has been no 18 established minimum standard of safety in that regard; whereas, of course, maximum levels of safety or lack of safety have been established. Any questions, comments, thoughts, I'd be more than happy to respond thereto.
Thank you. I think we -- 304 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
I'd like to say something again. I haven't heard anything about alternatives for this kind of measure. There haven't been any talk about a non-smoking district or tax incentives for places that want to go non-smoking. There hasn't been anything about, you know, workers in the restaurant industry getting health care. There hasn't been any talk about any kind of alternatives to this. It's just this kind of extremist measure, ban on something city wide, ban it. And you know because... Why? Why? You can say it's not about lawsuits. You can say that. But why? You know, and then there's nuisance issue that no one address. People are going to be standing out in front of bars and smoking cigarettes. And you know what? They're going to get arrested by police for partaking of a legal substance.
Excuse me. 305 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 Excuse me. Excuse me. Thank you. We've heard from all of you. We've heard... Some of you might not have been here all day.
Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate your coming today. Thank you. Some of the issues you raised have been addressed. Okay. Is there anyone else to testify? Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
There being none, we would adjourn the public hearing and move into a public meeting.
Just while we're in the public hearing, and then there are a couple of technical amendments. Madam Chair, thank you and the entire committee, thank you for your 306 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 tremendous patience and diligence in this matter. Madam Chair, what's being handed out to the committee members and also to the stenographer, there are about 90 letters from a variety of individuals, groups and organizations, who wish to have their letters serve as their testimony. Obviously, we're not going to read that into the record. But with the Chair's approval, I would ask that these letters be entered into the record as if they had been read into the testimony.
Testimony has been given to the reporter and will be part of the public record. Anything else?
Not in the hearing, Madam Chair. There are some technical amendments. And those copies, I believe, we're recovering as we speak. 307 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05
We will now adjourn the public hearing and go into the public meeting. (Public hearing concluded at 3:23 p.m.) 308 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on March 7, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.) 309 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES PUBLIC MEETING - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 7, 2005, 3:35 p.m. - - - 050063 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 10-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Public Places -- Prohibited Conduct," by prohibiting smoking in public places and in the workplace, and providing for penalties, all under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 310 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
For your information, before you leave, we will have the public meeting. We will report -- We will take a vote on the bill, and then we will adjourn. So you might not want to leave. Do you have the amendment?
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter to present the amendments.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, if you go to in the proposed amendments, these are technical amendments. And then on another page you'll find a couple words were changed because we found better words. Specifically, in point number seven, as a part of today's discussion, there was 311 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 conversation with regard to the amount of feet from an entrance that smoking would be prohibited. The bill as introduced had 10. There have been recommendations with regard to upwards of 20. I would propose that we make the number 15. In the exceptions area, we found a slight conflict. We know from the definitions that there is a type of establishment called a specialty tobacco establishment. These establishments are not only in the food and beverage business, but would meet the legal threshold -- the proposed threshold here, 15 percent of their sales would be in tobacco, tobacco-related products or accessories. These establishments in some instances are standalone and some of these establishments are within other establishments. This particular amendment recognizes that these establishments may actually function within another type of establishment 312 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 and seeks to eliminate that inconsistency. With regard to number four, the smoking prohibitions in the workplace, again there was a conflict, in that we required all employers to provide the smoke-free workplace, but the specialty tobacco establishments and the tobacco products distribution businesses literally would not be able to comply with that particular provision because, again, that is their business. And that amendment takes care of those establishments. On at the top we found that apparently we did not include a word, the word "however." Later on in letter b we changed the word "at" to the word "in," and in that same paragraph the word "these" is proposed to be deleted, and "all such" to replace it. Finally, on , letter c, this addresses the issue with regard to establishments that comply with all of the provisions in the bill. We seek to not create any private right of action that 313 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 someone could take, if the owner of the establishment is in compliance with the legislation. We're trying to essentially prevent frivolous lawsuits. And that's the purpose of proposed amendment in letter c on .
Question? It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the amendments as presented. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
There being none, the amendments are accepted. Chair calls on Councilman O'Neill for a report out of Bill 050063 as amended.
Madam Chair, move that Bill Number 050063 as amended be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and also, I 314 050063 - Public Health - 3/7/05 understand a rule suspension to allow first reading at our next session.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill 050063 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the rules of Council be suspended so that this bill would be heard at its first reading on the next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
There being none, the motion and the bill will be reported out of committee. Thank you very much. (Applause.) (Public meeting concluded at 3:25 p.m.) 315 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public meeting of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on March 7, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)