Committee Hearing, March 7, 2005

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 When the bill was repealed, the incidence of heart attack increased to its former levels. 40 percent reduction in heart attacks is a sobering statistic.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.

Yes. We have them here.

I will only point out that every year in Philadelphia there are approximately 200 people who go through what Jack Kopko goes through.

Could you speak up? Is your mike on?

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.)

Mr. Savar.

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.)

I have copies of my testimony here.

Thank you. The gentleman in the middle.

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. )

Thank You.

Good morning.

Afternoon.

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.)

Okay.

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.)

Thank you.

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.)

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman.

Mike. I'm sorry. Councilman Nutter.

Is there one more speaker?

Can I make an additional comment?

You sure can.

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?

Thank you for bringing up the issue of the Fire Marshall.

Say your name for the record.

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.

Thank you very much.

And we're going to arrest bar owners and everything. I think it's an inappropriate law and should be rewritten.

Thank you. Comments? Questions?

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.

I understand.

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

Thank you very 8 much. 9

Thank you. 10

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. )

Thank you.

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.

Thank you very much.

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.)

Thank you very much. Gentlemen.

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.)

Thank you.

Madam Chairwoman, ladies and gentlemen of the City Council.

Is your microphone on?

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.

No, they're not going to be arrested. I'm a taxpayer...

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.

Less jobs, more arrests...

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.

Madam Chair?

Before we go to --

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.

We will do that.

Thank you.

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 copies are coming in now. Sorry.

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 .

Could I have a motion to accept the amendments?

So moved.

Question? It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the amendments as presented. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")

Any opposition? (No response.)

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.

Second.

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.")

Any opposition? (No response.)

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.)