-- 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.