That's okay. 129 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2
In any event, I'm one of 50 million adult smokers who choose to smoke, and I sometimes think in today's politically correct environment as regards tobacco use, my views and those of others similarly situated are not heard or given the same weight afforded of those anti-smoking zealots who have as their agenda a total ban on the use of tobacco. They skillfully use understandable concern over the use of tobacco by minors as well as questionable statistics in research on secondhand smoke to advance this total ban agenda. As an example of questionable studies, last Wednesday, both Dr.'s Walter Tsou and Robert Simmons cited a May '99 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which reported absolutely no adverse economic effects on local economies as a result of smoking restrictions in six cities and three states.
Sir, could you please summarize statement. It seems that you have a long statement.
I have about a five-minute presentation. Can -- 130 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2
Essentially, the study that was cited used only hotel revenues and tourist rates and not restaurant attendance, so the author's study, Mr. Glass, was mixing apples with oranges. We find with the 1998 Congressional attempt to raise a pack of cigarettes by $1.10 tax amounted to a $500 billion tax scheme that would fall on the people who could least afford it, those making $30,000 per year or less. The same would apply to a lot of these changes to one's restaurants based on ventilating them and so forth. They would, again, fall on the smaller restaurants that have the least amount of wherewithal to take care of that.
I don't want to be disrespectful to you in any way, shape, or form. 131 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 We can take your statement and add it to the record as if it was read in the record.
I assure you of that. Would you like to hand it forward?
But the previous three speakers who were speaking in support of your bill 9 were given a fairly lengthy time.
All right. I appreciate that, but I will also admit to you that we've been waiting for some amendments to come, and the Councilmembers are now prepared to try to take some action, so --
Very well. I'll read the last paragraph, sir, if that's all right.
Thank you. I'm not trying to cut off what you're trying to say.
I'm an independent businessman and investor and have no connection to the tobacco industry whatsoever. What I'm trying 132 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 to do here today is to bring all points of view to the table and to the attention of this honorable committee. I'm confident that the Council and the committee will do the right thing, bearing in mind the rights of smokers and nonsmokers alike and the needs of Philadelphia's business community who have stuck it out here through thick and thin. Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much. Miss Dirkson, we would ask you to limit your testimony to two minutes.
My name is Edna Dirkson. All I want to say is, my daughter was diagnosed that she had lung cancer in the year of 1998. And she passed last June -- I mean, June of '99. And the effect was of secondhand smoke. She had lung cancer.
Thank you very much. 133 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2
I'm Bob Sklaroff, and I submitted my written testimony already. I represent a union. I'm a physician and Mrs. Dirkson's daughter, who died, was a nonsmoker and she lived in a smoking environment, and we're still working through the condolence period. And very often, when I see patients, I try to point out the fact that they should not blame themselves for having gotten addicted. This one was a little more difficult to do because she was not in any way addicted to tobacco; and yet, she suffered its side effects. One of the things that hadn't been emphasized in the prior testimony by the representative for the Surgeon General was the fact that it's not just cancer, but also heart that's disease caused by cigarette smoking. And now my son would like to make a fast comment, and then I'll summarize my critique of what you just heard from the other people, and I will be terse as well. MICHAEL SKLAROFF: I am Michael 134 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 Sklaroff. And, well, first of all, you shouldn't even be smoking in the first place. I don't know why that's even being a allowed. But few month ago months ago, we went to -- we were going to a children's concert -- or an adult concert. And, well, we were trying to eat dinner beforehand because the concert ended really late, so we went to a nearby restaurant. The restaurant was, like, totally smoke, no air, kind of, and it made my eyes hurt and it made me cough. I really don't like cig -- I just don't want cigarette smoke in public places where nonsmokers go. That's all.
A couple fast points. We listened earlier to the citation of the Jenkins study. So I called a friend of mine in Pittsburgh, who knows all this stuff, who testified last week, and he told me a couple of the arguments debunking it. The key point that I would want to make 135 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 is in the paper, in the New York Times yesterday, there was a little small letter written by Cliff Douglas, and he pointed out a distinction with a difference every time you hear people who are functioning on behalf of the tobacco industry, and they'll say they're new, they're changed, and they'll admit that there are studies out there that claim health effects, but they won't quite say whether they believe them here. Same thing here. We listened to this man Rick Berman quoting information but not quite saying whether or not he believes it, just putting it out there as testimony, which was effectively debunked by Councilman Nutter, but yet the conclusion that these people have been making, and I've been arguing with them for years in 18 various venues, is the jury is out, respectful 19 people can disagree and so forth. And I would 20 propose that sometimes it's not the case, you have to come to conclusions. And I would respond to the nurse who also spoke earlier as an employee of a restaurant by saying she has a choice to do whatever she wants by suggesting that some people don't have 136 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 that choice, and that's one of the reasons why there are certain laws to protect workers in the workplace. I would say to talk against hype, that I've been talking about this issue for years, 7 and I've often been interviewed, like, by Herb 8 Deninberg, and all my arguments would be ending up 9 on the floor of the editing room because I was not 10 strongly enough asserting with sound bites that 11 tobacco smoke is evil, even when it's inhaled, 12 fourth term involuntary smoking, and so forth. 13 There are studies showing that the 14 side-stream smoke actually has more carcinogens 15 than mainstream smoke but it's really hard to come to a conclusion that when you're breathing most of the time without a smoke-filled room that's it's going to make any difference empirically. So I've always simply argued that the right to smoke and the right to swing your fists has always ended at the tip of my nose, and that kind of, I think, common-sense argument may very well ultimately drive some of the decision-making that you may wish to pursue in this situation. And thank you for your time. 137 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? Would you come forward please? You have two minutes.
My name is Chris Mullins, I own the Gillen's Old Ale House in Center City Philadelphia. It is the oldest tavern and continuous operation in the City of Philadelphia and one of the oldest in the country. The only reason testifying today is that I do resent the fact that some people are indicating that my colleagues and the members of my profession are paid off by the cigarette companies. I want to ask this committee to respectfully to consider a delay on any kind of vote today. Gillen's has been around for 140 years, we'll survive another 140 years whether you make the rule or not. I have a 30-year mortgage on my home, I have a 15-year mortgage on my business, so I hope to be around for a bit. Last 138 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 year, I spent $2,000 to improve the ventilation in my kitchen for the health benefit of my employees. And this year, last year, we attempted to invest, and have invested, $35,000 in a new air-conditioning system. It took the City of Philadelphia almost five months to grant us a permit to install this ventilation and this air-conditioning. I'm asking you for time. Just like I was denied the right to put this air-conditioning in last September until February so that the City could consider the impacts of my air-conditioning system, which I did to improve the quality of air in my business at great personal expense, I'm asking you for time. Please study this a little bit more thoroughly and see what the unintended consequences of such legislation will be. Thank you.
My name is John Jonik. I'm 139 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 not a doctor or a scientist, as I'm sure I'll be asked later, but I've been a health care activist for a long time and an environmental activist for at long time. I've been sitting through these hearings and I, even though I'm just a cartoonist and a member of the National Writers Union as a writer, I notice more word irregularities than I have time to write down. The very basis of the whole entire hearings, I think, might be invalidated by the fact that there isn't one single expert who can come forward with any evidence about harms of tobacco smoke. They may have lots of evidence about pesticide-saturated cigarettes, cigarettes with chlorine elements in it, cigarettes with, you know, adhesives and plastics. And going back through the years, asbestos even, which, finally, they got rid of. So what I'm saying is that the wording of this legislation should be accurate for the sake of justice and law and for science. What's happening is, a lot of people are using cigarette industry marketing language. They're calling it "tobacco" when there are U.S. 140 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 patents from Philip Morris, you know, of ways to make cigarettes out of industrial waste of all different kinds -- municipal paper waste, agricultural waste, food processing waste, and so forth, to which they add a little bit of nicotine. This is in U.S. Documents. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has documents about the harms of dioxins, which come from the chlorine elements in cigarettes. It also points out the presence of these things in cigarettes. At the same time, it has laws outside forbidding the release of these kind of dioxins for health reasons from incinerators. They don't somehow notice that they have these records when they come to talk about indoor tobacco smoke. You have to put quotes around almost every single word here, and I think that's invalid in the case of law, medicine, and science. And I hope that this thing will be stalled enough to go back and look at the wording to make sure the right people are being targeted, not the victims. The bar owners and restaurant owners and the victims should not be responsible 141 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 for putting these in-secret chemicals in cigarettes. There's a law, the 1984 Comprehensive Smoking Education Act, which forbids educating anybody about what's in cigarettes. A public health commissioner could go to jail for revealing what's in a cigarette. Trade secrets or liability, we have to decide this. Other cities and other municipalities have started laws about the fire-starting chemicals that are still legal in cigarettes in spite of all the concerns. Children are dying, houses, firefighters, property loss. The fire- starting chemicals are still legal in cigarettes, which makes me doubt the intentions of some of the health concern people. There's a lot to go into. I've presented some documents from Health and Human Services, from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. These are not whacko documents. They're from the government. The have the information. Calling this a tobacco problem is a scapegoating situation and the bar and restaurant people are being a part of the scapegoat scene, and so are 142 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 store owners who have to do I.D.'s and all that sort of things. That will be enough for now. I have a lot of it here, and there's a lot more if anybody cares to see my 8-foot pile of information at home.
My name is Michael McFadden. I was on the program right near the end, but I didn't hear my name called. I would like to apologize and explain earlier. Councilman Nutter had been making some very direct comments about a study by someone named Roger Jenkins, and I had an e-mail from Roger Jenkins this morning that would have responded directly to Councilman Nutter's comments.
I only have the one copy, which would have been good for the people who heard Dr. Jenkins' integrity questioned, if they could have heard defense as well. 143 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 I have my own testimony, which is short and will be about four minutes, not two.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Michael McFadden, and I'm a long-term resident of West Philadelphia. I have no connection to any bars, restaurant, or tobacco companies, other than being a good customer. Last Wednesday, you heard from anti-smoking advocates that environmental tobacco smoke had been added to the National Toxicology Register as a carcinogen. What you didn't here was that alcohol and sunlight were also added at the same time. What the anti-smoking choose to ignore when presenting their arguments for bans like this one is the clear and simple fact that there has never been, and very likely never will be, any level of threat at all from the microscopic levels of exposure to smoke that one would get in a well designed nonsmoking section. If you refer back to the testimony that started off today's session, you'll note that the advisor to the Surgeon General referred several 144 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 times to the health effects of smoky and smoke-filled rooms. At no point did she indicate that well-ventilated smoking and nonsmoking sections could be a problem. Even a mild movement of air pushes smoke quite effectively in the direction of the air movement. Smoke does not travel where it wants. I'm going to skip the whole middle of the presentation which dealt with studies on secondhand smoke.
Yes. I'll skip to the last two paragraphs here, short ones. Councilpeople, I do not believe we are here today because of a real concern about the health of nonsmokers; we are here because smoking bans are seen as one of the most effective weapons in the arsenal of social engineering when it comes to reducing smoking and getting smokers to quit smoking. At least three of the anti-smoking advocates testifying last Wednesday mentioned such a point in their testimony, and it was mentioned again today. 145 /00 PUB. HEALTH & HUM. SVCS. - BILL 2 I am here today, Councilpeople, because this is not George Orwell's 1984. Our government should not be in the business of making laws designed to press for citizens into thinking in proper ways or conforming to a politically correct healthy lifestyle. Education about the dangers of smoking is fine; social engineering and behavioral modification is not. That's not what the government of the United States is supposed to be abdomen and by voting for (unintelligible) like this one, I believe you will actually be hurting our country and its people a lot more than you will be helping it. Thank you.
There being no 20 further testimony, this hearing is -- the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. We'll go into a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter to present the amendments, which have been circulated to the committee. He will be brief. 146 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Madam Chair. As instructed I will be brief. I have additional copies of additional proposed amendments to Bill No. 000314. Madam Chair, I will be making reference to the bill as currently amended primarily by number or section number, as appropriate. On of the bill -- I'm sorry, this is the first amendment. On of the bill, re-number Section 1 as Section 2; and add a new section to read as follows: Section 1. Declaration of Legislative Findings and Intent. S. Surgeon General") and nine medical professionals. That the health risks attributable to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") (also known as secondhand smoke, passive smoke, or involuntary smoke) are well established. S. Surgeon General have concluded exposure to ETS is a cause of lung cancer. Further, the EPA has found that ETS is 147 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING responsible for the lung cancer deaths of approximately 3,000 nonsmokers in the United States each year, and is a deadly carcinogens which belongs in the category of Group A (known human) carcinogens. S. Surgeon General have also concluded that exposure to ETS causes other significant health problems in adults, including reduced lung function, coughing, excessive phlegm production, and chest discomfort. In addition, the EPA testified that ETS has been linked to heart disease and the onset of chest pain. The EPA has also concluded that exposure to ETS is a substantial health risk to children, as it is causally linked with, among other things, an increase in the prevalence of childhood respiratory illnesses, an increase in the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear of children (the most common cause of hospitalization of children in need of an operation), and a significant reduction in the lung function of children. Moreover, the EPA has found that exposure to ETS increases the number of episodes and increases the severity of symptoms in 148 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING asthmatic children and causes non-asthmatic children to develop this condition each year. The EPA also reports that percent of 5 the United States are smokers. 6 In order to protect against the dangers 7 associated with ETS, over 800 jurisdictions in the 8 United States, including cities such as Boston, 9 Massachusetts, and New York, New York, have 10 enacted local laws which restrict smoking in 11 public places. 12 The Council of the City of Philadelphia 13 finds that many Americans, including the citizens 14 of Philadelphia, are likely to be exposed to ETS 15 due to its current widespread presence in public 16 places and in the workplace. The Council further 17 finds that exposure to ETS presents a substantial 18 health risk to nonsmokers. It is, therefore, 19 Council's intention to strengthen existing local 20 laws which limit the areas in which smoking is 21 permissible. In order to protect and promote the 22 public's health, safety, and welfare, Council is 23 enacting further restrictions on smoking in public 24 places and in the workplace to protect children 25 and nonsmoking adults from the health hazards 149 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING presented by exposure to ETS. The second amendment is on the bill. " A contiguous area in a restaurant containing a counter and which is primarily devoted to the selling and serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption by patrons on the premises and in which the serving of food, if served at all, is only incidental to the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverage in such restaurant bar. Amendment No. 3. 8) to read as follows.
8) Through March 31, 2001, within a Restaurant Bar, as long as either (i) the perimeter of the Restaurant Bar is located at least 10 feet from the perimeter of any indoor dining area (other than the seating area within the Restaurant Bar) of the restaurant; or (ii) the Restaurant Bar is separated by a solid floor-to-ceiling partition from any indoor dining area (other than the seating area within the 150 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING Restaurant Bar) of the restaurant; and provided that the Restaurant Bar is not the sole indoor patron waiting area of the restaurant. This exception permitting smoking in Restaurant Bars shall not apply after March 31, 2001. Amendment No. 4. On of the Bill, in subsection 10-602(3)(a), replace the word "section" with the phrase "this subsection 10-602(3)," so that the subsection reads in its entirety as follows: (a) Within 90 days after this subsection 10-602(3) takes effect, all employers with a workplace within the City shall adopt, implement, make known, and maintain a written policy that prohibits smoking within any workplace. This requirement shall not apply to any workplace covered by a collective bargaining agreement or similar bonding agreement between labor and management that includes provisions regarding smoking in the workplace. Amendment No. 5. 1) Post"No Smoking" signs and other signs relating to smoking on the premises in compliance with regulations to be promulgated by the Health Department. Amendment No. 6. 1) Post "No Smoking" signs and other signs relation to smoking on the premises in compliance with regulations to be promulgated by the Health Department; Amendment No. 7. On of the Bill, re-number subsection 10-602(6) as 10-602(7), and insert a new subsection 10-602(6) to read as follows: (6) Study and Report on Restaurant Bars. (a) The Health Commissioner ("Commissioner") shall form a Study Group consisting of the members of City Council's Committee on Public Health and Human Services, representatives of any other City departments, boards, commissions, or other agencies of the City government the Commissioner deems appropriate, and 153 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING representatives of the restaurant and hospitality industry in Philadelphia. The Study Group shall study methods of and, if deemed appropriate, develop recommendations with respect to preventing, t o the greatest extent practicable, secondhand smoke from drifting or recirculating from Restaurant Bars to indoor smoke-free areas of restaurants. (b) the study and any recommendations of the Commissioner and the Study Group shall include, but not be limited to, the advisability of requiring Restaurant Bars to construct or implement any of the following: separate smoking rooms; enclosed rooms; ventilation systems; separation of a Restaurant Bar from indoor smoke-free areas by means of a partition; and spatial separation of a Restaurant Bar from indoor smoke-free areas by a specific distance. (c) In determining the advisability of requiring that certain protections from secondhand smoke be provided in Restaurant Bars, the Commissioner and Study Group shall consider any applicable standards or recommendations of representatives of the restaurant and hospitality 154 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING industry in Philadelphia, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor with respect to indoor air quality relating to secondhand smoke, the impact on public health of exposure to secondhand smoke, and any other factors which the Commissioner and the Study Group deem appropriate. (d) The Commissioner and the Study Group shall submit a written report to Council by November 1, 2000 as to the results of their study and any recommendations. 8) permitting smoking in Restaurant Bars under certain terms and conditions until March 31, 2001.
Amendment No. 8. On of the Bill, add a new Section 3 to read as follows: SECTION 3. Effective Dates. (a) Except as set forth in subsections 155 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING (b), (c), and (d) below, this ordinance shall take effect 90 days after it becomes law, provided that any City agency is authorized to promulgate any regulations and take any other actions needed to prepare for implementation of this ordinance 7 immediately after this ordinance becomes law. (b) The provisions of subsection 10-602(3) of the Philadelphia Code, as added by Section 1, shall take effect immediately. (c) The provisions of subsection 10-602(2)( a) of the Philadelphia Code shall take effect with respect to restaurants 210 days after this ordinance becomes law (the "Initial Restaurant Effective Date"). 6) shall have until 150 days after the Initial Restaurant Effective Date to apply for any permits necessary to perform such construction, and until such time, these prohibitions or subsection 10-602(2)(a) of the Philadelphia Code shall continue not to apply within such restaurant. If such owner has applied 156 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING for such permits during such 150-day period, then the provisions of subsection 10-602(2)(a) shall first apply to such restaurant at the earlier of (i) the date of completion of any physical alteration of premises necessary to provide the separate smoking area or lounge; or (ii) 180 days after the issuance of the final permits necessary to perform construction. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, all restaurants shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 10-602(2)(a) of the Philadelphia Code on and after December 31, 2001. Amendment No. 9. 7) Outdoors within 10 feet of any entrance to any Enclosed Area in which smoking is prohibited under this Section, except for any sidewalk cafe licensed under Section 9-208 or otherwise permitted by special ordinance, or any outdoor deck, patio, or similar outdoor service area which is part of a restaurant establishment. 157 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING Amendment No. 10. 6)(iv).
Thank you very much. The Chair calls on Councilman DiCicco to accept the amendments as read.
Madam Chair, just two other statement, if I can put them into the record. A concern has been raised with regard to the composition of the study group that is referenced in the appropriate section. The concern was that the study group should be balanced to represent the interests of not only the Council and any governmental agencies, whether City or federal, but also representatives of the restaurant and hospitality community. I would like to state for the record, Madam Chair, and to my colleagues that I will certainly work to ensure and make a commitment to balance on this committee. Obviously, we cannot 158 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING have a tremendously large committee nor a tremendously small committee, but it will certainly be a balanced committee, and I make that commitment to the members of the restaurant and hospitality community as well as my colleagues. Secondly, it is certainly my intention, Madam Chair, to have the work of the study group proceed as soon as possible, and either by way of a phone call from myself as the sponsor of bill or you as Chair of the committee, we would ask the Health Commissioner to begin putting the study committee together. Lastly, should the committee decide to not only amend the bill but vote it out of committee, I do not expect, nor anticipate, nor would I ask that any action be taken on this bill 18 prior to our legislative recess by the entire Council.
Councilman, on that same note, would you agree that, assuming that the study group continues to work through the process, that you would not anticipate calling on 159 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING a vote on this until -- not before November 1st of 2000?
I would not expect that, Councilman. And I would think that only under the most unique of circumstances, with consensus and the various interested parties to this, including the restaurant and hospitality community, if for some reason there was a request for a vote by agreement with the community prior to the study group's work, which, again, I think would be an extraordinary circumstance, that would be a decision to be made by the entire body.
So I hope it's clear to all the parties and the stakeholders that a study group will be convened by the Health Commissioner, that they will have until November 1st to try to get some consensus on whatever, and that nothing will take place until -- we don't know, whenever.
But no action will be taken on this bill unless the committee comes 160 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING back to this Council and say that we have reached some consensus or agreement.
They may possibly come back at an earlier point in time before the deadline that we've established in the bill. That certainly would be the discretion of the committee.
Is that clear? Thank you very much. All in favor will signify -- I call on Councilman DiCicco to move for the adoption of the amendments.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move for the adoption of the amendments -- I move for the adoption of the amendments to Bill No. 314, as just read into the record by Councilman Nutter.
All in favor will signify by saying aye. The amendments have been adopted.
One opposed. 161 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING
Can I get a motion for the adoption of the bill as amended?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move for the adoption of Bill 314, as amended.
I'm sorry. Is this a motion to try to report it out of committee? Is that what you're --
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 000314, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. 162 5/31/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - PUBLIC MEETING Opposition?
One opposition, Mariano. Thank you very much. This ends the public meeting. We're adjourned. (Adjourned at 6:15 p.m.) - - - 163 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, May 31, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BILL NO. 000314 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter