Well, I think that there are lots of restaurants that are members of mine who have, because of their customer base, decided to go smoke-free because they think that's what the public in their particular area wants, and 52 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 these people probably had some similar effect, even though they didn't know they would get it.
Are there any further questions? (No further questions.)
Please allow me to extend my gratitude to this committee for allowing the Philadelphia Hospitality and Business Alliance this opportunity to relay our up-to-the-minute concerns about Council Bill 314. My name is Mike Driscoll, and I am the Chairman of the Alliance Executive Committee. The Alliance represents the largest industry in Philadelphia. That industry is the hospitality industry. With over 400 business-establishment members, the Alliance represents both large and small businesses, taverns, restaurants, hotels, 53 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 purveyors, merchants, distributors, newsstands throughout this city. The Alliance strongly opposes Bill 314, even as amended by City Council on March 24, 2000 because of its negative impact on the economic viability of the City of Philadelphia and the thousands of businesses in the hospitality industry. First, the Alliance views Council Bill 11 314 as a major piece of legislation because of its wide-range impact on Philadelphia beyond the simple issue of smoking. Because this is a major wide impact and piece of legislation, we, the business community, do not understand the urgency at which this committee is moving Council Bill 314 through the legislative process. As the impact of this legislation on the business community and the economy of Philadelphia is reaching an extreme, it is the Alliance position that a reasonable method of proceeding with this legislation is through the establishment of a public-private sector working committee on smoking. A working committee is needed because the Alliance firmly believes that Council Bill 314 54 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 is anti-freedom of choice. The bill limits the freedom of choice of both establishment owners and patrons. Council Bill 314 is anti-free market. The marketplace should dictate what the market will tolerate and not an artificial government decree. This means marketplace forces, which allows the hospitality establishment owners and operators a choice, should be the determination on which a hospitality establishment decides its environment. Council Bill 314 is discriminatory. The very fabric of the hospitality industry is the notion of accommodation. This means that all segments of the marketplace are provided for, including smoking as well as nonsmoking patrons. Discriminating directives and regulations such as Council Bill 314 contradict the policy of inclusion and accommodation, which is essential to our industry. Council Bill 314 is unnecessary and extreme. As business people, the hospital industry has long been concerned about its clients and employees. Being concerned and responsive to concerns is what the hospitality industry is all 55 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 about. As a result, the Philadelphia hospitality market has long required that establishments cater to both smoking and nonsmoking patrons. In Philadelphia, there are establishments where the dining area is smoke-free, where smoking is allowed only in the lounge or bar, or where the entire restaurant -- like Bridges in Fairmount -- is smoke-free. Again, the important point to keep in mind is that these accommodations were made not because of a government-mandated regulation but, rather, on the basis of a business choice and marketplace forces in the hospitality industry. Council Bill 314 is unworkable and will result in an economic disaster. If the ordinance 17 were to be enacted based on the experiences of those regions which have enacted smoking bans, the economy of the City will be severely impacted. Yesterday, the Alliance distributed to the Council a number of studies outlining the negative impact that such bans has had on a number of cities, including the State of California. We, the business community, encourage you to take time and review this material. The bottom line is, smoking 56 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 bans are bad economic policy.
Council Bill 314 will impact Philadelphia's fragile socioeconomic foundation. Philadelphia's vast multi-ethnic, multicultural melting pot represents all that is unique and great about our nation, its government, and our society. Tolerance of diversity, respect for others, and compromise is a method by which Philadelphia is able to maintain tranquility among such a diverse population. While the intentions of this legislation may have been good at the outset, it is, at best, intolerant and discriminatory and will have the opposite effect of its -- the opposite of its intended effect, with the result of causing more economic and social problems than it resolves. As stated in a number of conversations and communications with Council, this alliance clearly recognizes the need to work with Council to bring about reasonable solutions that safeguard the health and safety of those living in or visiting Philadelphia. Reasonableness requires that smoking 57 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 legislation be evenhanded, reasonableness requires that smoking legislation be fair to the hospitality industry, the hospital marketplace, and its customers; Reasonableness requires that smoking legislation be at least market-driven and at least market-sensitive; Reasonableness requires that smoking legislation not be arbitrary; Reasonableness requires that smoking legislation establishes solutions that make good business sense and are enforceable; Reasonableness requires that smoking legislation be tolerant and inclusive but not discriminatory. The Alliance urges this committee and Council to commit its good offices towards working together with the business community of Philadelphia to find a reasonable compromise on the smoking issue as it relates to the hospitality and restaurant industries and to the health and welfare of residents and visitors to our great city. The Alliance is confident that we can reach agreements on the issue of assigns confident that 58 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 reach on smoking in public places and that the result will be reasonable legislation that promotes a healthy, clean, environmentally-safe hospitality industry in Philadelphia. The Alliance is again asking that Council Bill 314, which is now before this committee, be withdrawn and that a public-private sector working committee on smoking be created that has as its objective the development of an indoor public smoking policy which will have broad-based support. The proposed Council Bill 314, as amended on May 24, 2000, should be the starting point of the working committee. The Alliance respectfully asks that we set at the earliest possible time a meeting whereby the logistics and details of the working committee may be established with the goals being the creation of consensus legislation that will have the support of public and private sectors and the City's health community. In closing, on behalf of the over 400 business-establishment members of this alliance, I would like to thank the Council and this committee 59 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 for accommodating our group and for reaching out over the last week to understand our position and concerns. Be assured that the Alliance is eager to work with this committee and the Council in the weeks ahead. Thank you. )
Are there any questions from members of the committee? Councilman Nutter?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Driscoll. Thank you very much for your testimony and your continued relationship as the general representative of the Alliance, but certainly there are many other people involved. I thought that the meeting yesterday morning was a good meeting that we had, yourself and Miss Bat and a number of other people who participated in that. And I wanted to do a couple things. One, just ask a couple questions; and, two, get some reaction and some response to other ideas that might be helpful in this particular process. 60 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 One of the things that I have wondered for sometime is, in any of the restaurants that you are familiar with, do you -- do they normally allow any smoking in the kitchen?
I can speak to our restaurant. We do not allow that. I can't speak for the others.
We don't allow a lot of things in a kitchen. Anything that could potentially be a contaminant to food in the preparatory phase, you know, we take what I would call extreme precautions that might not ordinarily be taken in other areas of our restaurant.
Okay. And is that then different when the food is out in the -- what do we call it? -- I guess the eating phase?
Well, there's no 23 smoking. There would be -- we require the chef to wear certain clothing and we require --
No. My question 61 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 was, the food is now moved out in the kitchen -- I'm glad there's no smoking in the kitchen. You expressed that you don't allow that because you're worried that the smoke, whether it's the actual smoke or, I guess, particulates or ash might actually get into the food. I assume that that's the concern. You said it would interfere with the --
Okay. And then I said, but it's different when out in the eating phase, when it's now out of the kitchen and out where the diner's going to enjoy it?
To a certain level. For instance, we wouldn't have a waitress with a cigarette in her hand delivering the food for fear of -- first of all, not knowing what the customers at that particular table preference might be, but also, as you indicated, perhaps a cigarette butt or an ash would fall into a shepherd's pie at Finnegan's Wake.
And the problem with that is. . . ? I mean, suppose the person was a 62 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 smoker; I mean, would it make any difference?
No, the recipient of the meals, suppose they were a smoker. I mean, do you think they would be concerned about anything getting in their food as well, even if the person is a smoker?
All right. And what about cigars and pipes in the establishment; do you allow that?
Okay, all right. What about many of the other restaurants; do they allow cigars and pipes?
It's the choice by the 63 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 owner and/or operator as to what the marketplace would tolerate or accept.
Mm-hmm. So even in some places where they allow smoking, either cigar or pipe smoke, is potentially even more offensive? Is that -- do you think that's the problem?
I think it's fair to say that some view it as more offensive.
So, therefore, they may have smoking sections, but it may be -- they may have more extreme policies and procedures within certain restaurants.
Okay. Tell me a little bit about, based on your experience as the representative of the Alliance, what the view or position of the restaurant community might be toward a prohibition on smoking restricted to the dining area.
Well, I think the -- the hospitality industry is prepared to analyze all aspects of your legislation. It really is asking for time to analyze how it may impact their 64 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 individual establishments.
I understand that but, I mean, you must have some perspective just on that fairly simple, somewhat narrow question. I mean, what's the -- you represent an organization; I assume you have some level of knowledge about what many people may do or what some segments of the community may do in terms of the operation of their establishments. Do most allow smoking in the dining area? do most not allow smoking in the dining area? Is it 50/50?
Smoking in the 65 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 dining areas.
And I would say that a higher majority would have designated smoking areas within the dining area.
What would be your reaction to any proposal that said you could continue smoking at the bar, if it's kind of a classic bar -- a restaurant-bar establishment, where the place is really a restaurant but they have a bar, it's all on the same premises. What would be your reaction to any proposal that said you could have smoking still at the bar but no 14 smoking in the dining area?
We would look to our members to see how that might affect an individual member. That may be -- I think, generally speaking, that would make some sense, but in practical -- in a practical sense, whether or not that can be done would have to be looked at.
The question was, as a representative of the industry, what do you 66 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 think the general reaction would be to a proposal that there would be no smoking in the dining area, and smoking would still be allowed at the bar or in the bar area? In most places, those are generally two somewhat distinct and separate rooms.
Generally, it would be met with some acceptance. And we would have to define -- when you say "bar area," I'm assuming you're including some tables in that area, just not --
I mean, you've got a bar, you've got bar stools, there might be an aisle, there might be some tables across from that area.
But for most places, I mean, the bar is usually a relatively defined area, and then the dining area is usually another relatively defined area.
Okay. And you made 67 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 mention of the work group, which, again, I certainly believe is a good idea, and I would expect that that kind of group would be headed up probably by our Health Commissioner and other agencies or departments, boards or commissions of the government as well as representatives of restaurant and hospitality industry, and then there's the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration and Air-conditioning, engineers, and the EPA and OSHA and a number of other people who are qualified in the area of mechanical engineering and ventilation. Do you think that that would be a good combination to try to put together for this?
I think an equal number of selected members by each side would be fair.
What do you think is a reasonable amount of time for that group of people to seriously and legitimately work together to try to come up with a proposal on how to deal with this going forward?
I'm prepared to speak on the Alliance. We're prepared to go to work immediately. How long that would take is a 68 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 difficult proposition. Certainly months; I don't think years.
All right, that narrows it down to some extent. I mean, I'm glad you didn't say "forever." Three, four, five months do you think it would take for people seriously working and reading and studying and taking information?
Tomorrow's June 1st so the year is already half over, so I would say till the end of the year.
And we had some discussion. There are various proposals out -- whether it's in the ventilation area, you know the deal has been amended to deal with the creation of a smoking area or a smoking lounge, which would be a designated area specifically for smoking. I recognize that that particular proposal may help some in the industry; it may not help others. But it would seem to me that that kind of proposal, if people agree that it's helpful to some probably would need some phase-in time period or some amount of time if someone wanted to pursue that. I mean, you have to get building permits, you have 69 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 to start, you know, some work if they decide to go that particular route. So we should probably try to establish some time parameters within which you would know there could be a starting point and an ending point to some effort to respond to that particular provision?
Okay. I think in our conversation, either yesterday or in the previous conversation, I raised the issue of, given the health issues that have been raised, I think that there could be a legitimate discussion, if not argument, that if we are asking people from a public health perspective to possibly make some improvements to improve air quality and overall indoor air quality in their establishment, as we have assisted other businesses with security rebate programs and a wide variety of other programs and policies, what do you think the reaction would be to a discussion around possible assistance from the City to help people if they want to pursue those kind of improvements to their 70 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 establishment?
Councilwoman Reynolds Brown didn't hear your answer to that question.
Okay. If there were a study group -- maybe this will be the last question for you. If there were a study group, we would expect that the group, I guess, would come up with a report or a set of recommendations and, more than likely, either to the Council, full Council, or to this committee, to the Chair. Would it be your expectation that upon completion of the study group's work that some action could or should be taken by Council to further address this particular issue?
I think that would be the conclusion, a logical conclusion.
Okay. And with 71 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 regard to the smoking-at-the-bar issue --
Although, Councilman, I do think that this committee -- and I don't want to give this committee more work, but secondhand smoke within a facility is one aspect, and we ought to narrow it so we can get something accomplished, but indoor air quality is a larger issue.
For instance, the Council should know that many of our restaurants have voluntarily put in smoke-eaters, filters, different kind of air processing, and it's not simply because of smoking issues, but because -- to purify the air, get more oxygen. And there's a movement afoot in a lot of industries right now to create better work environments by increased oxygen, aromatic scents, that sort of thing. Anything that could be added to this discussion that would improve air quality in the restaurants I think would be welcomed as well.
So, lastly -- I mean, in kind of wrapping up our discussion, is it your feeling that if there were set time 72 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 parameters for the study group, any final action to be taken on this particular issue, as well as a timeframe established around when people would have to be in full compliance with what, in essence, is an effort to establish some minimal standards for indoor air quality, if that was some reasonable amount of time of a year, a year and a half, I mean, do you think that that's workable and realistic and respectful to people who are trying to work and function in a constantly changing business environment?
I think that would be a quick -- I think we'll get a better understanding real quickly with that work study of what would be reasonable there. See, one thing I just want to make the Council aware of, and maybe you already are, the reason there's a lot of sensitivity here is, you see a lot of successful restaurant owners, and my hat's off to them because I've only been in this business going on 4 years, and I understand the 24/7 effort that goes into making a successful restaurant. But we see these names that have been around in Philadelphia for a long time, but what 73 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 we don't see is that 8 out of 10 restaurants nationwide go out of business within the first 3 years. So we've all chosen a high-risk business venture, and we've all -- most of us have put a great deal of our personal capital on the line. So facing the odds when we went into this business and then looking at increased odds that changed after we're already in the business but we've already signed that loan make us very sensitive to anything that spends more money in our facilities. So I just want the Council as a whole to understand that, that each month we're writing out these mortgage checks, we're thinking about our employees. And at the same time, pre-mandated, many of us have taken provisions to already better our indoor air qualities. So having a better understanding of those sensitivities may influence your decision a bit in today's hearings. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. 74 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 Mr. Driscoll, I think what Councilman Nutter -- at least for me anyway, what I'd like to see when we keep talking about this working committee and something I had suggested, I think, last week, is that we have to have a target date, at least initially to shoot for. Because if you don't, you wind up with a situation like I've wound up -- I have found myself in with the carriage bill. It's two years, and even though I set up a committee, we never really established some dates in which to look to bring some closure to this. I suspect that whatever the Councilman decides to do, that he'll probably not look to do it immediately. And by "immediately," I would suspect that he doesn't mean to do it over the summer months. You know, we recess June 22nd, and I think we reconvene on September 14th. End of September, beginning of October, from now to then, do you think that would be a reasonable amount of time that this working committee could work? I think it gives everybody an incentive to really sit down and say, We really got to get this done. Because if you say, Well, 75 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 you know, maybe by the end of the year -- although we're talking years, we're only talking months -- it just kind of leaves it rather open-ended. And I think if you determine that by -- and I'm just using September 30th of this year that the committee report would come back to this Council Committee for its recommendation, I think you'd get a lot more done that way. And I know everybody's going to be busy with the convention coming and the summer but, you know, hey, I'm here, we're willing to put our time in. But I'm looking for some more definitive date or dates to look at. And I think if we use the end of the September, it will give us -- July, August, September -- the better part of three months. And, again, I'm not suggesting that that's acceptable to the rest of the folks up here, but I'd like to start talking about that.
I'd like to survey our members and get back to you in short order.
Short order, see that's -- we won't be here much lung longer, and we are under a very busy time schedule right now 76 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 with all of the bills that are coming out. So, I mean, maybe we could make a suggestion then we can talk about that suggestion.
I think the end of the year is reasonable. And I say that because you've hit the nail on the head in that we hope -- and this is very fluid right now but there are --
My point is, I think that the foundation has been laid. Basically everybody understands what is being attempted to be accomplished here. I don't know if you really need six months. I mean, three months, you don't think that would be sufficient? Because then you're going to wind up, you're going to have the issue of, Well, the holidays are on us, it's Thanksgiving, and then it's the Christmas holidays. And you're really not going to get anything done November through December. So that would take us into the next year, and I'd like to close that window a little bit more somewhere between now and shortly there after the time we reconvene, in late September, early October at the latest. And if you have to go back and survey 77 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 them, fine, but I'm offering that as a suggestion. But the end of the year, I think that we run into too many other issues 'cause then we get back into the business towards the December calendar of getting bills out and all the other things we have to deal with and budget, and it really gets tight around here so --
Thank you, thank you. I'm going to hold my question because I see on the witness list that there's a -- is there a represent of the HVAC industry here? Are they here? Okay, 'cause I wanted to point out that I spoke with an HVAC contractor that tells me that you have to be real careful, and guys have tried to accommodate the smoking/nonsmoking by changing ventilation. But you have to be careful; there's some safety and fire code requirements that have to be followed. You just can't start changing the 78 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 way duct work flows without it really being carefully considered. So I'm going to hold that question since there's someone here representing that industry, just to make sure that these changes that are being made aren't jeopardizing the facility.
Paul Geissler Enron Energy Services. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Excuse me, Councilpeople. I have a statement here from --
Could we have Paul Geissler first. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: All right. Well, this is in response to Councilman Nutter's statement about Roger Jenkins. 79 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2
Are you on the list to testify? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: But not for this.
You can testify about whatever you want to testify about. We just need to get your name and information. If you could see the tall gentleman in the blue shirt there and at least get him your information, then you can come up and talk about whatever you want to talk about. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: But this is in response to your --
I understand that. I will be here, I will listen. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Paul Geissler I'm a member of the American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers, the local Philadelphia chapter. Michael Nutter asked me to join this committee session today after a 80 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 brief conversation yesterday in relationship to HVAC impact for the proposed amendment and the bill at the table. My experience is years of design and 6 engineering of HVAC systems, heating, ventilation, 7 or air-conditioning systems, for institutional, 8 hospital, office buildings, and commercial 9 applications. 10 Basically, I'm just here to answer 11 questions more so than give testimony.
Are you aware -- maybe I should be, but I'm not. When a person wants to remodel or build a building and they submit their building plan to the appropriate department within government, they also have to submit the HVAC plan; is that correct?
To my knowledge, yes, 81 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 that is correct.
Now, if one of these establishments would want to make alterations using the existing HVAC system to accommodate a nonsmoking area, would they have to resubmit the plan to allow changes to that system? And I'll continue my comment, my question. Is it safe to say that an improper or a change in the system could adversely affect the safety and fire facility and also the residence? Because I've heard many times where a fire has actually used the duct work to move through a particular building. And in many cases, it was duct work that was not installed properly or with good design criteria. So could you just comment on that?
Well, I guess the best way to comment on that is, there are codes in place in the City of Philadelphia, primarily the BOCA codes, which all engineers need to adhere to in the planned specifications of their system. Now, whether they are adhered to or not in application is -- you can make a law but if nobody follows it, you're in violation of the law. 82 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 Now, yes, there is the possibility that alterations or installations that are not per code can create a hazardous situation. Do all good installations prevent fires and mishaps? No. Obviously, that's not the case. Now, I don't know if that answers your question in terms of --
Aren't there some requirements -- when you submit an HVAC plan to a municipality and they review it, aren't there requirements for fire dampers and things like that that make a building and the occupants of that building a safer place?
In my experience, the primary concern of the building officials inspecting plans is the proper application of fire dampers, smoke partitions, smoke dampers, smoke detectors to shut down air systems in the event of an incident. That's basically their primary focus.
So I think that before this conversation is over, our Licenses and Inspections people really need to be here to 83 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 explain what interaction they're going to have in the event that we go forward and more changes to existing systems occur.
Great. Thanks for coming, and I don't know if anybody else has a question.
Mr. Geissler, I'm sorry. Your basic testimony was that from an engineering standpoint, you believe that there are either existing systems or technology that can significantly improve indoor air quality by a variety of either mechanical or aerodynamic techniques?
Yes. You can improve air quality with good HVAC designs and utilizing good practice and good engineering.
Yes. It's not the only issue with indoor air quality, but it is a contributing issue.
Okay, all right. 84 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Our next panel will be Riyad Marahra, Mary Tracy and Neil Stein. (Witness comes forward.)
Would you state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Riyad Marahra. I am a business owner, a restaurant owner here in Philadelphia, and I was invited to testify, to voice my opinion for the smoking ban bill. I strongly support it because the nonsmoker does not have to suffer from any secondhand smoking. We all heard what dangers of the secondhand smoking. On top of that, I don't think that will have any impact whatsoever on the gross revenue. We all go to restaurants to eat, we go to the lawyer to discuss our business, we go to lawyer -- we don't have to smoke at that time. I don't see anybody here smoking. 85 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 And this is all thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Mary Tracy, and I am from the Health Promotion Council of Southeastern Pennsylvania. It's a nonprofit corporation organized in 1981, with the mission to promote health and prevent disease, especially among those at greatest risk, through education and outreach and advocacy. The Health Promotion Council strongly supports a public health policy aimed at protecting the rights of all workers to breathe clean air. In an effort to learn about the smoking policies in the Philadelphia community, HPC conducted an informal survey of 231 Center City Philadelphia businesses. It was during that survey that I met Riyad, who is the owner of Riyad's Restaurant. We found that 77 percent or 177 out of 231 workplaces that we visited were already smoke-free. And of the 55 workplaces that allowed smoking, 85 percent, or 47, are connected to the restaurant or hospitality industry. 86 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 Employees in these restaurants work long hours and breathe contaminated air, which contains over 4700 chemicals, 43 which we know are carcinogens. We learned from the survey that if you work in a hair salon or in a shoe repair place, for a law or accounting firm, if you work in a school, you'll breathe smoke-free air. If you sell computers or books or clothing, even women's lingerie, you breathe smoke-free air. If you work for City Hall or in any of the publicly-owned buildings, you breathe clean. Air travel agencies, employment agencies, church offices, airline offices -- I mean, you name it, every single one of them, there is no smoking. And several of them looked at me like, Well, isn't that the law isn't, that already the law? And they were pretty shocked to find out that it wasn't. I think for one reason we heard today, that a lot of business owners have established policies, and that has made it easier for the businesses to say no smoking in this workplace, because there has been a policy already set up. And we know. I mean, I've been in this 87 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 tobacco business for about four years now. I know many of you because I'm a person who's interested in the Philadelphia community. I'm an activist in my own neighborhood, and I have become very involved in issues that I think are important for the public health and safety. And we did not enter into this, I guess, campaign because we wanted to hurt the restaurants in this city. Quite the contrary. As a Philadelphian, I am very proud of the restaurants and I admire all of the entrepreneurs that are having businesses, hiring people, and serving food, because there's nothing I like more than going out to eat. And it's not even about me going out to eat and getting annoyed when I've spent my hard-earned dollars on a meal and someone ruins it with smoke. You know, I will make a mental note and not return to that restaurant, and sometimes it makes sad because it's a restaurant where the food has been great. But I can understand the choice issue there. Yet I know that I don't get deathly sick. There are people -- 8 percent of Philadelphians have asthma, and so for them, they have to 88 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 actually send somebody into the restaurant before they can even venture in there. And there's a whole world of eateries that they're deprived from enjoying. And I think what I've learned in this tobacco business, because we've studied California and we've studied Boston, we've studied New York, and the same tactics are implemented every time: the doom and gloom, that our industry will collapse, that no one will eat at these restaurants and that everyone will go over to City Line. Well, let me tell you, I live on the edge of City Line, and I always come into Center City because there is no place like the City, there is no place out in the suburbs that I would ever want to go to that would surpass what I find in my city.
And I think we'll find a lot of people from the suburbs coming into the City because they'll know that no matter where they go, it will be smoke-free. That's my personal opinion. Now, I've heard the argument of choice. I know, you guys are entrepreneurs, and 89 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 you hate anybody -- particularly the government -- telling you what to do. But already the government is there to ensure that the food is clean and safe, that everybody washes their hands, that there are smoke detectors. I mean, because it's a public place, there are certain things we already to have the government in to make sure we feel safe in there. And I think, you know, in a few years, this will be a no-brainer and people will say, I can't imagine what it was like when we were allowed smoking. " And just randomly asking people if they would sign this petition, and I have a copy for each Councilmember, because you can see they're from South Philadelphia, North Philadelphia, West Philadelphia, Northeast Philadelphia, Germany. I said to the German people, You're tourists here, and we're really worried that tourists won't come here if we have a smoke-free restaurant policy. And they said, That's not a problem for us, we 90 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 don't mind. Then I talked to someone from New York, who said, You know what, we have the smoke-free restaurants in New York, and I think it's very backwards when I come to Philadelphia. So the whole perception of Philadelphia, you know, not having a smoke-free restaurant law, a smoke-free workplace law, making the world a safer place for everybody, it's time. It's time, and maybe we did rush into it and maybe the restaurant industry got their backs up because they felt like we're trying to tell them what to do. But it really isn't about that. I think we really thought that if everybody does it, no one's going to be hurt. And that's what Mr. Riyad says. When I went and talked to him randomly, he had his pregnant wife there working and another -- it looked like another relative. He said, I would love to have smoke-free, but if I do it and nobody else does it, I will lose business. And we don't want you to lose business. This is not what this is about, believe that. One thing I would just like to hand up with the testimony. You know, we had this fellow 91 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 from Washington that came up here and sort of quoted -- let me see, what did he say, something about -- oh, yeah, Mr. Berman. I think he said, I don't want to appear -- you know, I don't want to -- what was the word? Something about the EPA being intellectually dishonest. Well, we know the EPA would never be intellectually dishonest. What they do, their studies are valid. But we do know the tobacco industry has been dishonest. And if you would just turn back to some testimony, there was a quote from an employee of Philip Morris, an executive named David Laufer, in 1994, when they were discussing their strategy to override the bills in California. And, basically -- basically -- maybe Councilman Nutter, you could help me out here, if someone could just read on the second page. It's only three lines there.
It was Mr. Laufer. What Mr. Laufer said -- I apologize. I'll have to get that to you, but he admitted that the economic impact arguments -- "dire predictions," he called 92 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 them -- used to generate oppositions to smoking bans rarely come true. And I think we'll find that here in Philadelphia, that these economic impact arguments will not come true, that we will be perceived as a progressive city that cares not only about the public health -- this is the Public Health Committee. You are the folks who have listened to hour after hour and hour of testimony by the public health experts, by the doctors who treat patients. The people who really know about secondhand smoke knows what it does, not the restaurant industry. I think it's our duty to do some action to make our Philadelphia workplaces safer, our public places safer, and our restaurant more conducive to those of us who would like to attend them. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Andy Simpson, Bruce Cooper, and Bill 23 Pawliczek. (Witnesses come forward.) The Chair recognizes Councilwoman 93 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 Brown.
I'd like to go on the record by first saying that I was very, very encouraged by Mr. Driscoll's comment. Is he still here? Mr. Driscoll? And having heard his willingness to sit down with the Chair and members of the committee, I want to go on record to support any amendments that come forward before the committee that reflect the dialogue, as well as going on record to support the bill moving out of committee, with the understanding that there will be a working group and there will be a date certain that we will get recommendations back on how to proceed from that point forward.
Thank you very much. Is Antonio Schiavone here? Okay, would you all please proceed with your testimony. Identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Yes. My name is Andy Simpson, I'm the Area Director for TGI Friday's in the City of Philadelphia, and I -- 94 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2
You testified before. Do you have a significant different testimony than you had before?
It is very similar, but the last time I spoke, there was very few here, so I think it was very late.
Well, it's all been made a part of the record, which is very important, but we can't deny you the right to speak so you can go ahead.
Well, the only real significant issues were during the course of this week, I had done some research into how some of the amendments to Councilman Nutter's bill would affect our restaurants, and in consultation with some facilities people, it would be a significant financial impact for us to adhere to some of these amendments, as far as separate rooms and separate ventilation systems. And, you know, something that wasn't in my first testimony was that over the past two years, we've built five restaurants in the suburbs of Philadelphia and South Jersey. And that's mostly because it's tough to do business in the 95 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 City, financially and otherwise. And if this bill goes through, it's going to make it even more financially difficult for us, and that trend will probably continue where, instead of building restaurants and supplying jobs to the people of Philadelphia, we will be forced to build those restaurant outside of the City. The rest of my testimony is pretty much the same. I would just urge you not to pass this bill. And in reference to one of the Councilman's comments earlier about how it will affect our employees, I have one of my employees, Laura Payne here, who would also like to testify very briefly, who wasn't here last week, but was standing listening how it would affect her as an employee of Friday's.
How many restaurants do you have in the City of Philadelphia?
City Line Avenue, Second 96 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 and South, 18th and the Parkway, and the Philadelphia Airport.
Good afternoon. My name is Laura Payne. I'm a waitress at TGI Friday's on South Street. I'm also a single mother working to raise my son and put myself through college. I am not here for a pat on the back or for you all to feel sorry for me but to give the Councilmembers an opportunity to put a face to those that this ban will have the greatest effect on. I started working in this industry five years ago. I never once considered my job to be hazardous. After hearing the testimony of last week, frankly, I still do not. Waiting tables is my choice. If I had problems with cigarette smoke, my managers would make arrangements for me to work in other stations. It is my choice, just as it is my choice what job I take or what health risks are involved in it. When a customer comes into my restaurant, they are given a choice: smoking or 97 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 nonsmoking, or first available. Oftentimes, it isn't their smoking preference that dictates where they sit; it is how close they are to the bar or how close they are to a television. From our older patrons to our families with small children, when there is a game on the television or there is a good song on the radio, it doesn't seem to matter where they sit. For those that it does matter, our restaurant offers three times more nonsmoking tables than it does smoking ones. Only six of those nonsmoking tables are located behind the smoking stations, where they would have to walk through the smoking stations to get to the restrooms. I love my job. But more importantly, I need it. I work for tips, tips that are given based on the amount of the guest bill. If this ban takes away 20 to 30 percent of the sales in our store, the only ones that would lose out here are the servers, bartenders, hosts, and busers that work depend on these tips. Even if the percentage is not so drastic, I cannot afford for sales to go down even percent. 98 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 The bottom line is that it has always been always been my customers' choice whether or not to smoke, whether or not to sit in a smoking station, or patronize a restaurant that allows people to smoke inside. The notion that someone would have to drive an hour to find a nonsmoking restaurant is simply not true. I'm fairly new to the Philadelphia area, and I've managed to find quite a few nonsmoking restaurants. And the thought that anyone would be forced to work in a hazardous environment is also unreal. Again, it is my choice. I'm asking the Council to take a real look at who the ban going is going to affect. Please let my customers continue to exercise their right of choice. If they decide to come in and dine with us, great. And if they don't, we won't be happy, but it will still be their choice. Thank you.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to 99 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 testify today. My name is William Pawliczek. I am the owner of Cavanaugh's Restaurant, located at 39th and Sansom, in University City. I come before you today in strong opposition of Council Bill 314. It is often said that the devil is in the details, and such is the case with this proposed smoking ban, as outlined in Council Bill 10 314 and its amendments. First and foremost, in the time when government and organizations around the world are attempting to establish programs which reward responsible alcohol service and management, Philadelphia is moving in the opposite direction. Allow me to explain. Organizations such as MADD, SADD, NOBA, and the Department of Transportation have established programs to increase food consumption while drinking alcoholic beverages. The notion behind this program is to lower the blood alcohol content and lessen the effect of alcohol upon the consumer. By penalizing Philadelphia restaurants, Council Bill 314 is contrary to the national trends designed to control DWIs. 100 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 Then there's the question of equality. Everyone is treated differently in this bill. The ordinance essentially bans smoking in many of the City's larger, better ventilated restaurant, which currently accommodates smokers and nonsmokers, while it exempts gentlemen's club, private clubs, union halls, veteran service organizations like the VFW, small corner restaurants, and most taverns. How absurd that the result of an ordinance to allow smoking in small establishments while banning it in larger establishments like mine, who have made an effort to improve ventilation and accommodate both smokers and nonsmokers. The ordinance is elitist in its resolve to allow people who want to accommodate their smoking family and friends and afford to have their family reunion or wedding day rehearsal at a private club, then precludes those who must have their function at a more affordable restaurant from doing so. The ordinance is hypocritical. If the smoking ban is a good idea, then why isn't it applied everywhere, including bars, union halls, 101 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 private clubs, and start-up establishments. My opposition to this ordinance is almost entirely due to its --
We don't want to be rude and not listen to you. Excuse us. (Break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
Thank you. We're sorry. We didn't mean to disrespect so please continue with your testimony.
My opposition to this ordinance is almost entirely due to its unfairness to restaurants doing business side by side. How can the heavy hand of local government create such an unfair playing field among businesses who compete. As a restaurant owner and a prospective developer of new restaurants in the future, there is not a scintilla of a chance of me ever developing a mid-scale or a fine-dining restaurant in Philadelphia with more restrictive regulations 102 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 than my competition in Bucks, Delaware, or Montgomery Counties. This is a fairness issue, a property rights issue, and a individual responsibility issue. The other fundamental issue here is freedom of choice. Customers are free to choose a smoking or a nonsmoking restaurant. Virtually all of the restaurants affected by the ordinance have a separate smoking area and room. No one is ever forced to go to a smoking restaurant. People vote with their feet every day in choosing where to dine. This is how it works in America. I am a nonsmoker who believes this ordinance is way out of line for Philadelphia. As a restaurant owner, I feel I am a responsible business person who is capable of evaluating the needs and the well-being of my customers and employees and resent government placing artificial limitations on who I may serve, especially when some segments of the competition do not have to operate under the same rules. I have devoted my hospitality career to be inclusive and welcome and serve all customers. For the City of Philadelphia to prohibit my 103 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 ability to accommodate smokers is grossly unfair. Remember, the people get to choose where they eat and where they work. The message this ordinance sends is, the end justifies the means, even if it's unfair. The message this ordinance sends is tolerance and respect of the individual doesn't extend to smokers. The message the ordinance sends is, it's okay for an adult to smoke if you're able to do it in a private club or in a room in bar that serves 60 percent food or can afford to joy a join a country club. I have worked hundreds of hours to be a responsible member of my community and to build a respectable business in Philadelphia, a business that is responsive to market forces and changes, a business that embraces a policy of diversity and inclusion. I have always found willingness on the part of our community to address problems in a reasonable, caring manner. As a restaurant owner and a member of Philadelphia's business community, I implore the committee and the Council to invoke a sense of reasonableness into this debate. What is 104 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 reasonable is the establishment of a working group of Philadelphians from both the public service center and the impacted business community working together to establish a policy and a plan which is pro-health, pro-business, pro-consumer, inclusive, nondiscriminatory, reasonable, evenhanded, and enforceable, all of which Council Bill 314 is not. Thank you. (Applause.)
Excuse me. I have an employee here, Monica Gangolf (ph.), from Finnegan's Wake, that would like to testify also.
My name is Monica Gangolf. I'm not here because anybody asked me to be here; I'm here because I want to be here. I'm 66 years old, I have four children that I raised, and I have seven grandchildren. I retired from nursing a year ago. For 15 years, I worked in a nonsmoking facility. A year ago, I retired, and 105 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 guess what? I chose to work at Finnegan's Wake, full of smoke. It was my choice. When all of these things started, these hearings started, nobody came to me. Nobody said to me, "Monica, what do you think? You're an employee. How do you feel about it?" I can back to the hospital any day, I can go back to the nursing home. I don't want to do that. I'm working where I choose to work. I'm very insulted that people say that employees need to be told, they need to be protected. You don't have to protect me. I've been protecting myself for 66 years, and I certainly don't need anybody now to tell me what's good for me and what isn't good for me. (Applause.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. Michael Smith, Fred Nichols. Fred, you want to testify? Is Antonio Schiavone here? (Witnesses come forward.) 106 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania appreciates the opportunity to --
Would you wait a moment, please, so Mr. Nichols can testify. He's in that past group.
My name is Fred Nichols, and I am with the Philadelphia Unified Minority Beverage Association. And I wish to thank the Committee on Public Health and Human Services for the opportunity to testify today about the 107 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 proposed smoking ban. First, I would like to say that I am not personally a smoker. But like the vast majority of people, I support the right of those who wish to smoke. In my 45 years in the business, I've had virtually no complaints from nonsmokers about smoking in my lounge. I am not a scientist, but I do know there's disagreement between scientific studies concerning secondhand smoke and bars and restaurant around the country. The point is that the issue is most certainly not clear-cut regarding its health of effects. An example: The EPA study used to ban smoking in the State of California was deemed flawed by Federal Judge Osteen (ph.). The Court ruled that the EPA wrongly classified secondhand smoke as a group A known human carcinogens, among numerous other flaws. Nevertheless, based on this erroneous information, the law was passed and the California bars and restaurants were penalized and lost business. The federal court confirmed that it may be politically correct to attack secondhand smoke, but it is not scientifically correct; nor, 108 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 in the Federal Court's opinion, legally correct. A few Sundays ago, as I always do, I was watching the Sunday morning show, "Inside Edition," where they have six panelists who are broken down into so-called conservatives, liberals, and independents, and these guys never agree on any single one issue. This was the first time that they were unanimous. They all agreed that this bill was not good or necessary for our hospitality industry. Everyone on the panel, as we do in the industry, felt that the marketplace should determine whether or not an establishment should be smoking or nonsmoking. Also today, we'd like to point out that smoke ventilation are far more efficient than they were in the past. When you go into a restaurant, there are few smoke-filled rooms in the smoking section of these restaurants, bars, and diners. And you can make it mandatory that restaurants have high-performance smoke ventilators in the smoking sections of their lounges, restaurants, or diners. Believe me, as a businessman, if smoking was causing us to lose customers, we 109 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 ourselves would initiate a smoking ban, but such is not the case. Also, we who live in the City of Philadelphia are aware of the millions of dollars raised from the percent liquor tax for the 7 Philadelphia School Board. This legislation could 8 be hurt from -- this legislation could hurt that 9 particular source of revenue. 10 And we also must be aware that there are many fine restaurants and clubs in Delaware, Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties as well as just across the bridge, in New Jersey. There are no smoking bans in those establishments. That one factor alone could determine whether the business stays in Philadelphia or goes to a non- Philadelphia eating or drinking place. I feel that we will absolutely lose business to out-of-city competitors as well as the City of Philadelphia will lose valuable tax revenue. We humbly ask you to reconsider this current proposed legislation and permit a work study group -- you've heard a lot about that in previous testimony today -- and permit a work study group with our hospitality coalition. I am 110 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 confident that together, City Council and the hospitality coalition -- I think it's officially called "the Hospitality and Business Alliance" -- that working together, we would be able to come up with a proposal to the mutual benefit of both the City of Philadelphia and our industry. I thank you for your consideration.
Could we have Josh Mitteldorf come up also. (Witness comes forward.)
And Sterling Barr. What we would like for you gentlemen to do, if you have testimony, present it, and would you summarize your testimony. I think we have documented, with this hearing and the last one, the adverse health effects from secondhand smoke. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Councilmembers. The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania appreciates the opportunity to 111 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 present comments to the City of Philadelphia. My name is Michael Smith, and I serve as the Communications Director for the five-county region Southeastern Pennsylvania. The American Lung Association is here today to support Councilman Michael Nutter's bill 8 proposing an ordinance that would further protect the public health and welfare from the dangerous, unnecessary, and involuntary health risks associated with secondhand tobacco smoke. We thank those members of City Council who have chosen to cosponsor this bill and encourage all members of this Committee on Public Health and Human Services, and, indeed, all members of Council and Mayor Street, to support it as well. The American Lung Association is dedicated to the prevention of lung disease and the promotion of lung health. I am here today not only to represent the Lung Association, but the interests of everyone who breathes indoor air, and especially the interests of the in Pennsylvanians who struggle with chronic lung disease, the people most at risk for health problems precipitated by secondhand smoke. 112 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 On April the 25th, this committee heard irrefutable testimony on the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke from the best medical authorities on the subject at area hospital and universities. In summary, these health professionals testified that: Secondhand smoke is bad for infants before and after birth; Secondhand smoke is bad for children; Secondhand smoke is bad for adolescents and adults; And secondhand smoke is bad for workers. In short, it is a major public health problem. We're not talking about a minor inconvenience that should be tolerated or accommodated; we're talking about a serious public health concern. Secondhand smoke contains a mixture of thousands of chemicals, including dozens of carcinogens, dozens of chemicals regulated as hazardous in the air or in waste, and a couple hundred poisons. S. Every year, including 113 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 lung cancer and heart disease. Right now, many workers are forced by their economic situations to choose between having their health and having a job. We ask how many of the establishments opposing Councilman Nutter's bill and arguing so strongly for freedom and choice are equally willing to uphold their employees' rights to their freedom and choice not to be exposed to the deadly carcinogens and poisons in secondhand smoke. Some witnesses may contend that better ventilation may solve the problem. This simply is not true. Better ventilation may reduce exposure, but it doesn't eliminate it, and there is no known safe exposure level to cancer-causing secondhand smoke. It is simply not enough. The Lung Association would ask Council to remember that this is not, at its heart, a public health issue, it is not a business issue; exposing people to secondhand smoke does kill and is not necessary for the accomplishment of any legitimate business purpose. Public health policy must be based on the scientific evidence and not dictated by tobacco industry-funded and -supported 114 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 fund groups. We know from experience throughout the country that the tobacco industry tries to protect its bottom line at the expense of public health. Tobacco companies are not here because they care about Philadelphia; they are here to protect their own interests, they are trying to instill in business owners by spreading misinformation. In conclusion, Councilman Nutter's bill 11 makes great strides to protect Philadelphians and those who work and visit here. This bill is reasonable and doable. It is past time to put into place common-sense measures that protect the rights of nonsmokers to be free from the assault of known irritants, toxicants, and carcinogens in public places and in the workplace.
By voting in favor of Councilman Nutter's bill, the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania is satisfied that the City of Philadelphia is acting within its rights, indeed it's duties, to protect the health of its own citizens. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 115 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 (Applause.)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of City Council. Thank you for allowing me to testify. My name is Joshua Mitteldorf, and I'm a researcher in the Biology Department of the University of Pennsylvania. As a volunteer, I also work on issues of public health and the environment. I've been a board member of the Clean Air Council for years and 12 at the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Pennsylvania 13 for 9 years. I'm a father and a teacher and, like many of you, I'm busy with many concerns. I have to ration my time, so I come where I feel I can do the most good, and that's why I'm a tobacco activist. Compared with any other hazard that we face in our lives, compared with things that we study and obsess about, that you pass laws to address, compared to any of these things, tobacco is a scourge of proportions far beyond any of those other problems that you deal. An epidemiologist is somebody who 116 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 studies health and safety from statistical point of view, a correlating various activities, environmental hazards, with the health consequences for some percentage of the people who are at risk. Every person who studies epidemiology is struck by the enormity of the risk of smoking compared to everything else. The total numbers of people, the number of victims crippled and disabled is so huge, that every epidemiologist has to ask himself, What is the sense of working on any other public health issue? The magnitude of the devastation is such that even if we restrict our attention to nonsmokers who are exposed in their homes and workplaces to secondhand smoke, we find that secondhand smoke is far and away the biggest environmental hazard in our lives, hands down. Part of what I do as a researcher and teacher is to make numbers palpable to people who aren't used to dealing with them, who have sound and good, reliable qualitative methods of reasoning, but to whom numbers don't have the visceral sense that they have to me. Many of us are informed by TV and newspaper accounts in which 117 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 we see violence, we see murders, we see terrorism. And we assume that these are the big threats to our lives, that these are the things that we need to concern ourselves with. And so much misdirected attention is focused on how to regulate these things, how to minimize them, how to organize our society so that we can get rid of them. But how little attention do we pay to the things that are right under our noses that have a much, much, much greater impact on our health. Last week, we were privileged to have here James Repace, who's probably the foremost national expert on the epidemiology of secondhand smoke. He reported to us his calculation that 8 percent of Philadelphia nonsmoking restaurant workers will die a premature death as a result of a career-long exposure to secondhand smoke. Now, I gasped when I heard that number. I'm enured to hearing these numbers, but that just hit me in the gut. How can I make it similarly real for you? I could talk about a hundred employees at a typical Philadelphia high-end restaurant, a large restaurant. And of those hundred employees, a hundred of them will have health problems, a 118 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 hundred of them will have their health affected -- they'll have more colds, they'll have more flus, they'll have a greater risk of serious complications. And at the very tail-end, of 6 them, 8 out of 100 are going to die as a result of 7 their involuntary exposure to other people's 8 tobacco smoke. These are not subtle effects that it takes a statistician to measure. Any large employer can tell you there's more absenteeism, there's more disease in the workplace when smoking is permitted than when it is not. As an occupational risk, second hand tobacco is just off the charts. We in the United States don't permit our employers to put employees' lives at risk in this way. Compare it -- what would you like to compare it with?
You can compare it to mine workers, you can compare it to welders who walk on those high beams high above the construction site, you can compare it to the police special forces who take their lives in their hands to battle dangerous criminals or to -- people who defuse bombs every day for a living. None of these occupations would tolerate a 119 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 mortality rate of 8 percent. This is a lifetime risk that every waitress in a smoky diner is exposed to. If you want a comparable, you can't look at occupations; you have to look at war. Americans went off to die in Vietnam several decades ago, and 4 percent of those came back in body bags. This was devastating. The lifetime risk among Philadelphia's waiters and waitresses is twice as high. Another comparison with the Vietnam War. Every months, as many Americans die of 14 somebody else's tobacco smoke as died in the 15 entire Vietnam War. This is a scourge. This is something we need to fight -- not with -- not by compromise, not by taking economic issues and balancing them against health. We just need to take the action in our own hands and put tobacco regulations on the same footing as every other hazard in our lives. I've been asked, If this is such a big problem, why isn't it being addressed by the federal government? Well, after years of political interference by the cigarette companies, 120 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 the EPA was finally able to release its report in 1992 and officially concluded for the first time that cigarette smoke is a Class A carcinogen. After that, by its own rules, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had no choice but to move toward elimination of smoking in the workplace. But then what happened? The tobacco industry came in with litigation. This is the most aggressive litigation in the history of environmental health. The tobacco industry knows well what's at stake. They've dedicated a bottomless fund to legal battles against this regulation by OSHA. And as a result, it will be years before the smoke clears and we have smoke-free workplaces in the United States as a nation. So now you know why I come before you today.
Sir, could you please kind of summarize this, summarize your statement, come to a conclusion, please. Thank you.
When the FAA proposed 121 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 to ban smoking on domestic flights, the tobacco companies were right there telling us that people wouldn't fly anymore. Before smoking was banned in retail stores, we were told that shopping was going to decline. When smoking was still permitted in theaters, tobacco companies broadcast their fear that people would just stop going to the movies. And when smoking wasn't allowed at sports event a few years ago, we heard that sports attendance would plummet the moment the tobacco was outlawed at these sites. And, of course, none of these catastrophes came to pass. And common sense tells us that it's easier for smokers to refrain in restaurants than in theaters or in sports arenas. It seems an anomaly, doesn't it, that restaurants should be the last place to fall? Why is it, why is it that restaurants are the last place left? Well, I suggest that it has something to do with the fact that the tobacco industry has been involved in trade groups representing this industry for years. Tobacco companies have generously funded these groups for decades, provided disinformation in exchange for their 122 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 economic support. When the Restaurant Owners Association's experts from out of town come to talk to you about the importance of smoking for restaurant business receipts, I suggest that you ask them if they, like me, are taking an unpaid day to come and speak out of their convictions. If they're being paid for their testimony here, perhaps you can trace their paychecks through the laundry, back to Philip Morris. By my memory, the last time a bill like the present one came before City Council was in 1986. According to the talk that was on the street, on the morning of the committee's vote, every committee member awoke to find a $1,000 check from the Tobacco Institute on his desk. Now, the cigarette companies have grown a good deal more sophisticated since then and a lot more subtle, but their role is the same, and so is their willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve their ends. Before I close, I want to say a few words about smokers. Think of a cigarette not as a pinch of dried tobacco leaf rolled in paper. A 123 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 cigarette is a high-tech product containing hundreds of ingredients, the result of decades of research. And all of this research is directed towards just one thing, and that is to make the person who smokes that cigarette want another one. Nicotine is the core addictive ingredient, but the nicotine delivery system has been optimized and enhanced in every way known to science, with the sole aim to defeat the smoker's own will. So the next time you hear smokers being described as "people who choose to smoke," think differently. Smokers are victims of the tobacco industry, seduced at a tender age into an addiction that they cannot give up. The average smoker has tried to quit every two years, since he was in high school. But for people who live and work among smokers, the decision is difficult to hold to. A smoke-free workplace is the best gift that we can give to a smoker. It offers him the support that he needs to make the choice that he's wanted to make for a long, long time. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 124 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 Mr. Barr, could you give a brief testimony, please.
My name is Sterling Barr, and I'm working with the Tobacco-Free Education and Action Coalition for Health. I'm primarily responsible for educating thousands of youths and adults around the issue of drugs and alcohol abuse. I just want to testify just to say that I'm not a smoker but I grew up in a household of pretty much all smokers, and I know how smoking has affected my family. My grandmother has a boarding home and was affected by secondhand smoke. She had gone through many tests and it showed that she had tar lungs from, you know, having this boarding home. And each year, she would lose a client to lung cancer. And as a result of that, she changed the policy in her own home, where she no longer allows smoking there. And then each year, year after year, more and more of her clients were living a lot longer. I have a eight-month-old son, and I recently just, you know, from working in the 125 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 tobacco education field over the years, I've gained a lot of knowledge. I think people who, you know, go to restaurants and go into the nonsmoking section, they look at that as a safe heaven. They think because it's nonsmoking, they -- really, many of the folks who visit the restaurants have no idea of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke and how it travels. I think, over the years, just going around and visiting restaurants and eating in restaurants, you know, I too, was one to always ask for the nonsmoking section but now knowing harmful effects of the secondhand smoke. If many of these restaurants don't have nonsmoking, I choose not to eat at them. I just visited a restaurant in the last week and it was a Chinese buffet restaurant, and the waitress asked me if I wanted smoking or nonsmoking. I said, Is there a nonsmoking section in this restaurant? But the only thing that separated the smoking from the nonsmoking was a rail, and it was all one big room. So, I mean the smoke, travels where it wants. I just think it's very, very important 126 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 that we look not only at the health of the citizens in Philadelphia but of our children. We can't go out and dine with our kids because we don't want to expose our children, you know, to secondhand smoke. So I think it's very, very important, you know, that the bill go into effect, not only for the lives of the people who are the nonsmokers but also for the people who smoke. I think people who go into restaurants and smoke, they don't have the intentions in harming other folks. Many people are just now learning of the harmful effects of tobacco, and we hear over and over again that it's the number-one preventable cause of death. Now, people have a choice to do what they want to do, I think that's true as well as people have the right to choose to breathe clean air, and I definitely don't want to expose children to secondhand smoke because, you know, they can't speak up and say, Is this nonsmoking or smoking? They have to go with what I choose for them. As adult, we need to set better examples for our youth. I work in a middle school where I run 127 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 smoking cessation programs for 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th-grade students who currently smoke, trying to get them to quit smoking. Many of them have parents who smoke. In addition to that, some of students I work with, I had them sign a petition in reference to this bill, and over 200 students at this middle school signed it. And even the smokers who signed the petition said they'd rather eat in a nonsmoking restaurant. So I think that passing this bill is really something that would do justice for both the smokers, you know, and the nonsmokers if this bill goes into effect because it will help clean the air.
Thank you all very much. Next is the panel of views of citizens: Michael Sklaroff, Dr. Robert Sklaroff, Edna Dirkson, Michael McFadden, and Pete Salometo. (Witnesses come forward.)
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a statement.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 128 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 Madam Chair, at the appropriate time, but certainly very shortly, I would like to put forward a number of amendments to the bill, based on today's testimony and discussion, on the record with regard to a variety of provisions affecting Bill No. 314. I would only ask -- and I don't want to limit anyone's testimony, but I would only ask members of the public if they could get through their testimony, I'd like to have that opportunity to put those amendments forward. I think they're important elements to the bill. And I would greatly appreciate your cooperation. Thank you.
I'm one of the parties that's here as a citizen's voice citizen.
I'm Peter Salometo, and I'm here to testify in opposition to House Bill 22 314. The other citizen voices apparently don't want to share the table with me because they're in favor of the bill under consideration.