m. - - - BILL 000314 - Bill No. 314, an ordinance amending Chapter 10-600 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "Public Places - Prohibited Conduct," by prohibiting smoking in certain public places and in the workplace, with certain exceptions, and by repealing current provisions set forth in Section 10-602, regulating smoking, all under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 I N D E X * Dr. Walter Tsou. . . . . . . . Philadelphia Health Dept. Commissioner 5 * Judith Katz, Director. . . . . . 14 6 Air Protection Division, US EPA, Region III 7 * Dr. , Health Physicist . 30 Secondhand Smoke Consultant * Bill Godshall, Founder, Executive Director 40 SmokeFree Pennsylvania * Dr. Robert Simmons, American Heart Assoc. 54 Pennsylvania and Delaware Reverend Jessie Brown. . . . . . . 70 Executive Director, National Association of African-Americans for Positive Imagery Member, Uptown Coalition for tobacco Control * Howard Kessler, MD, Board President. . . 75 American Cancer Society, Southeast Region Stephen Starr, Continental Partnership . . 84 Garth Weldon, The Prime Rib. . . . . 88 Bruce Cooper, Owner. . . . . . . 103 Jake's Restaurant, Novelty Restaurant Allen Newman, Main Street Restaurant Group 114 Andre Guillet, Director of Operations. . . 119 Le Bec Fin Georges Perrier, Le Bec Fin. . . . . C. VanMerkensteyn. . . . . . . 146 Van M's Music Bar & Grille Joseph Ruiz, Manager . . . . . . . ) Pamela Packard, Victor's Cafe. . . . . 157 Vicki Lachman. . . . . . . . . 159 Chestnut Hill Community Association Ken Weinstein, Chrisham Cottage Cafe . . . 166 Mike McGovern, Pennsylvania Restaurant Assoc. 171 Michael Driscoll, Philadelphia Business and 180 Restaurant Alliance Bruce Nichols, Incoming President. . . . 192 Greater Phila. Restaurant and Purveyor Assoc. Pat Coughlan, President and Business Manager 199 Hotel Employees/Restaurant Employees Local 274 Joe Mallamaci, President . . . . . . 209 Licensed Beverages Association Prince Gilliard. . . . . . . . 212 Philadelphia Licensed Tavern and Merchants Assoc. Wren Ingram, Fork Restaurant . . . . . 219 Terry McNally, London Grill. . . . . 226 Andrew Simpson, Director of Operations, TGIF 229 Ashley Andrus, Phila. Chamber of Commerce. . 242 Kirsten Houseknecht, Private Citizen . . . 245 William Dunn, Throat Cancer Victim . . . 258 Edward Emmett, MD, U of P School of Medicine 261 Mary Magaldo, Private Citizen. . . . . 266 * Mary Tracy, TEACH, Health Promotion Council 270 Robert Olivetti, Private Citizen . . . . ) Written Testimony Only By: - Edwin T. , COPA, TOO Restaurant - Patrick T. Whelan, The Bards Irish Restaurant Bar & Craft Shop - Rachael Milenbach, Health Promotion Council of South Eastern PA, Inc. and TEACH - Jeffrey Barg, Chairman, TEACH - Clarke Piatt, MD, Temple University Hospital Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine - Michael Smith, American Lung Association - Joseph Miott, Esquire, Executive Director Clean Air Council 5 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon. I'd like to call the Committee on Public Health and Human Services to order. I am Councilwoman Marian Tasco, the Chair of the Council Committee on Public Health and Human Services. And I'd like to state that a quorum is present in the persons of Councilman Goode, Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Nutter -- who has been appointed to this committee by the President, Councilman Nutter has -- Councilman Rizzo, and Councilman Ortiz. And Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown is here. This resolution was introduced by -- this ordinance was introduced by Councilman Michael Nutter, and they have prepared the witness list. If you have not added your name to the witness list and would like to address this body this afternoon, please see Brenda Frazier up here at the front, who will now read the bill.
Bill No. 000314, an ordinance amending Chapter 10-600 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "Public Places - Prohibited Conduct," by prohibiting smoking in certain public places and in the workplace, with 6 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 certain exceptions, and by repealing current provisions set forth in Section 10-602, regulating smoking, all under certain terms and conditions. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I hadn't really planned any, but this is a -- I believe this bill is trying to address a serious public health issue and, at the same time, balance the issue of commerce and economic development here in the City. I know that there are a variety of opinions on this particular matter. I respect the views and opinions of everyone who will come to the table, especially the concerns that will be articulated by various people from the business community. I expect that the Councilmembers, both on the committee and any members present or listening to these proceedings, will take all of this information seriously, take it into consideration. And where there are opportunity to work out some of the differences that people may 7 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 have, all of us, I believe, are certain amenable to that. And I look forward to the testimony that everyone has to present. I appreciate everyone's participation as well as the information that they have shared from either side of this debate or discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Are there any other comments from members of the committee before we ask our panelists to begin? (No comments from committee members.)
I'd like to call on Dr. Walter Tsou, the Commissioner of Public Health for the City of Philadelphia and Miss Judy Katz from the EPA. (Witnesses come forward.)
Councilwoman Tasco, thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. My name is Dr. Walter Tsou. I'm Health Commissioner for the City of Philadelphia. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Bill No. 314, introduced by Councilman Michael Nutter. On April 25, City Council Committee on 8 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Public Health and Human Services held hearings on the adverse effects of secondhand smoke. Many experts spoke on the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. The EPA has classified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen, based on several epidemiological various studies, and various studies have associated secondhand smoke with lung cancer heart disease, asthma, and lower- respiratory tract infections, especially in children. Serum cotinine, a biological marker for exposure to secondhand smoke has been found in 88 percent of nonsmokers over the age of 4. So this affects not just people who don't smoke, but particularly people who work in the restaurant industry. In a December 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, bartenders were examined for changes in their pulmonary and respiratory functions before and after California passed its smoke-free law. Bartenders actually noted a 59 percent improvement in respiratory symptoms and measurable improvements in their pulmonary function tests. In other studies, restaurant workers were 60 to 9 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 100 percent more likely to be exposed to tobacco smoke than other office workers. If it were not for the theatrical economic impact of creating smoke-free restaurants, there would be no question that we should support this bill. However, the literature actually supports the economic benefits of smoke-free environments. In the May 26, 1999 issue of JAMA, Glantz and Charlesworth published the most complete study examining the economic effect of the passage of smoke-free restaurant ordinances on tourism and hotel revenues. This study examined three states and six cities, including the major cities of New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The study showed that either no change or, in fact, increased revenue in all of the areas studied. Concern was raised that international visitors would be disinclined to visit because of their own countries' less restrictive smoking regulations. However, in this is the study, there was no change in the number of international visitors. 9 million, after going smoke-free. Previous public health studies have shown no effect on restaurant revenues for communities that have gone smoke-free. The non-economic impact of smoke-free ordinances has now been confirmed in studies in 89 cities across America. As of September '98, 212 communities and 3 states had enacted laws mandating smoke-free restaurants, and one state (California) and 31 communities had enacted local ordinances requiring smoke-free bars. These ordinances not only protect nonsmokers from the toxins of secondhand smoke, they also create an environment that encourages smokers to quit. The authors of the JAMA study concluded the following: "Food-service workers enjoy the least protection from secondhand smoke of any employee group. Legislators and government officials can enact such health and safety requirements to protect patrons and employees in restaurants from the toxins in secondhand smoke without the fear of adverse effects on tourism. " In short, going smoke-free is actually good for business and good for health -- a true win/win. We should not underestimate the challenge ahead of us. Despite decades of warnings about the dangers of smoking, percent 10 of Pennsylvanians continue to smoke. The Surgeon 11 General's national health objective for the year 12 2010 for the prevalence of smoking in adults over 13 age 18 is 12 percent, half of what our current 14 smoking rate is. Most disturbingly, between 35 to 15 40 percent of Pennsylvania 12th-graders have 16 smoked cigarettes in the past month.
Our year 17 2010 health objective is 16 percent. This is a 18 future generation of smokers, who will bear an 19 increasing burden on our health care system, and 20 we must view cigarette use as a serious health 21 risk. The time for action is now. 22 In 1997, our latest year for vital 23 statistics, 5,272 Philadelphians died of heart 24 disease, 1,272 Philadelphians died of lung cancer, 1,083 died of a stroke, 570 died of chronic 12 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 obstructive lung disease. All of these deaths could have been dramatically reduced if people simply did not smoke. It is said that statics are numbers without tears. Behind each of these deaths were careers disrupted, families devastated, and children left without a parent. We should never minimize the profound impact that change in the rules could have in improving these tragedies. City Council has a unique opportunity to clearly send a message to young people and Philadelphians: that cigarette-smoking is unhealthy and should be discouraged. Currently Section 10-602 of the Philadelphia Code currently prohibits smoking in a limited number of public places. This bill, No. 314, will further expand the prohibition of smoking to: 1. All enclosed places where the public has access. 2. Within 20 feet of any entrance of an enclosed place where smoking is prohibited. 3. All restaurants. 4. All workplaces. 5. Common areas of buildings, 13 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 including lobbies, hallways, elevators, and 75 percent of the rooms in hotels and motels. Our health department supports the passage of this important piece of legislation. We recognize the difficulty presented by City Council in weighing the choices of economics versus health. The City represents not only our own residents, but we pay for the medical expense of 24,000 employees and over 100,000 residents in our district health centers. We have a strong economic incentive to create smoke-free environments. The Surgeon General's national health objective for 2010 is for every state to pass legislation creating smoke-free restaurants and public and private workplaces. Philadelphia, with the passage of this legislation, can join other major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco in advancing smoke-free environments. Tobacco is the leading preventable risk factor for premature deaths in America. An estimated 420,00 tobacco-related deaths occur annually. Behind each of these deaths were 14 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 opportunities for those of us empowered with the responsibility to protect our citizens by creating an environment where we should do all we can to save lives. When doing the right thing in public health is also the correct economic choice, we should do it. Do it for our employees, do it for our restaurant workers, do it for our residents. Just do it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation, and I am happy to answer any questions.
We'll asks Miss Katz to make her presentation, then we'll come back for questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear here today. S. " My testimony today will focus on EPA's current information on secondhand smoke, the effects of children and adults to secondhand smoke, and our recommendations to reduce their exposure. The EPA firmly maintains that the bulk of the scientific evidence demonstrates that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other significant health threats to children and adults. EPA's report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking, Lung Cancer, and Other Disorders, was peer-reviewed by 18 eminent independent scientists, who unanimously endorsed the study's methodology and conclusions. Since EPA's 1993 report, which estimated the risks posed by secondhand smoke, numerous independent health 16 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 studies have presented an impressive accumulating body of evidence that confirms and strengthen's EPA's finding. The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen, which means there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only other pollutants, 10 including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only 11 secondhand smoke has actually been shown in 12 studies to cause cancer at typical environmental 13 levels. EPA estimates that approximately 3,000 14 American nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer 15 caused by secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke, or environmental tobacco smoke, is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe, or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. This mixture contains more than 4,000 substances, more than 40 of which are known to cause cancer in humans or animals, and many of which are strong irritants. It's a widely accepted scientific fact that secondhand tobacco smoke poses significant risks to public health. It is important to note 17 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 that Americans concerned about their health and the health of their children should continue to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is a serious health risk to children. The developing lungs of young children are affected by exposure to this kind of smoke. Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower-respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower-respiratory tract infections in infants and children under months of age annually. This 17 results in between 7,500 and 15,000 18 hospitalizations each year. Children exposed to passive smoke are also more likely to have reduced lung function and symptoms of respiratory irritation like cough, excess phlegm, and wheezing. Passive smoking can lead to buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization for children for an operation. 18 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Asthmatic children are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in hundreds of thousands of asthmatic children. EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1 million asthmatic children have their conditions made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Passive smoking may cause thousands of non-asthmatic children to develop the condition each year. Passive smoking irritates the lungs, leading to coughing, excess phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function. It may affect the cardiovascular system, and some studies have linked exposure to secondhand smoke with the onset of chest pain. There was a time when the decision to permit smoking in an enclosed public area was an issue of balancing smoker's convenience with the potential annoyance to the nonsmokers.
But today, we know from scientific research studies that secondhand smoke is more than an annoyance; it causes many deaths each year. Passive smoke exposure is the second leading preventable cause 19 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 of death among nonsmokers. Nonsmoking areas in restaurant one way to accommodate nonsmokers, although they did not completely eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke exposure. Despite smoke-free policies in many workplaces, close to a quarter of Americans who work indoors are exposed to secondhand smoke. In workplaces, the use of designated smoking areas was another way to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. The evidence is clear and consistent. Passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer in adults who don't smoke. Even though lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is small compared to the risk from direct smoking, unlike a smoker who chooses to smoke, the nonsmoker's risk is often involuntary. From the estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths in the US each year among nonsmokers, 800 are from exposure at home, and 2,200 from exposure in the workplace or social situations. In the workplace, EPA recommends that every company have a smoking policy that effectively protects nonsmokers from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. Many businesses and 20 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 organizations already have smoking policies in place, but these policies' effectiveness varies. Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same area may not be effective since re-circulated air will still expose nonsmokers. Some options include prohibiting smoking indoors or limiting smoking to rooms that have been specially designed to prevent smoke from escaping to other areas of the building. Air from the smoking room should be directly exhausted to the outside by an exhaust fan. The ventilation system should provide the smoking room with 60 cubic feet per minute of supply air per smoker. Nonsmokers should not have to use the smoking room 16 for any purpose. Employer-supported smoking cessation programs are also helpful. Designated smoking areas outside, where nonsmokers may have to pass through to enter the building, is discouraged. In restaurant and bars, separate smoking areas rely on simply separating nonsmokers from smokers. And this may reduce exposure, but it does not eliminate involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke. Placement of smoking areas 21 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 should be determined with some knowledge of the ventilation characteristics of the space to minimize nonsmoker exposure. In the absence of state or local laws restricting smoking in bars, restaurants, and other public places, one can encourage the proprietor to consider his or her nonsmoking clientele, and many places do. Federal laws now prohibit smoking on all airline flights of six hours or less within the US and on all interstate bus and train travel. Many states have laws prohibiting smoking in public facilities such as schools, hospitals, airports, bus terminals, and other public buildings. EPA recommends that in general, one not smoke in the presence of children, particularly infants and toddlers. Adults are just as susceptible to poor health problems from exposure to secondhand smoke. If smoking indoors cannot be avoided, increased ventilation in the area where smoking takes place and open windows or using exhaust fans can help. The best way to eliminate exposure to passive smoke is to designate areas as 22 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 smoke-free or to assign separate areas for smokers which exhaust directly to the outside. And I am happy to answer any questions from you. I brought one of my staff members, Mr. Fran Dougherty, and both of us are prepared to answer your questions.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee?
Thank you. My question is for the doctor. In your testimony, you cite a survey that was done by the Journal of the American Medical Association back in 1998, and you reference that in the study, the Journal examined three states and six cities, including New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. And then further in your statement, you indicate that as a result of that study, the Journal, or the people who conducted the study, said that there was an increase in revenues to the 23 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 hotel industry in those three cities, and it's anywhere from $47 million, up to $85 million. I guess I'm curious as to, how did they get to that number? do you have any knowledge of that? Did they question people, Is the reason you're coming to these three cities, has it encouraged you to come here now because there's a smoke-free, or there's nonsmoking legislation now that prohibits smoking in certain public places? Because the other night, I was watching television and I noticed that they were doing some reports on air pollution throughout the country. And those three cities were in the top ten cities that are recognized as the most unhealthiest cities when it comes to terms of air pollution. And I wonder if people really make that conscious decision to either go to a city or a state based on what the smoking laws are all about. And I'll use myself as an example. I've been to Rome 3 times in the last 24 months or less. And I don't know who doesn't smoke in Italy because in every restaurant, everyone is smoking. No matter where you go, it's smoke, smoke, smoke. And I'm not a smoker. I'm somewhat offended by 24 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 it, but I really like the fact -- I love Italy and I look forward to going there again, and I understand that that's part of what Italy's about, and that's the culture there. And I'll go, because by choice, I make the decision to go. I could obviously make the choice not to go. So I'm a little bit con -- I'm not familiar with the study, obviously. I wonder if you are more familiar with it. Tourism is up, generally. It has been for the last eight years or so, in this country and throughout the world. Every report that I've looked at, when look at doing things in Philadelphia to promote tourism, I see nothing in the reports that indicates anything that it may be a good economic tool to pass legislation that would prohibit smoking in public places and things like that, but tourism is up, I guess, because the economy is doing well. And they Philadelphia to New York -- Philadelphia which doesn't have the prohibition on smoking in public places, and compare it to New York to say, Well, Philadelphia, you're not doing as well as New York because people still can smoke 25 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 in your restaurants and hotels, but they can't smoke in restaurants and hotels in Los Angeles; therefore, you're not doing as much business. I'm just curious if you have any comments on that.
Well, let me try to answer that. I think -- first off, your experience in Italy and the experience of people who come to New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles clearly show that they come to those cities, or to those countries, based on what is available in tourism. And people will come to Philadelphia not because they have a smoke-free ordinance or because we have a smoke-free ordinance, they will come because of the Liberty Bell and Independence Mall, the Art Museum, and all the other wonderful attractions we have. And I believe that we ought to keep that in mind that, you know, what we're talking about -- and the reason why I believe tourism was not affected was because people come for the attractions that are available in those cities. Now, having said that, they did not 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 compare Philadelphia with Los Angeles because it probably -- for very good reasons. They have actually a better measure, which is the before and after study. They knew when the smoke-free ordinance was going in place, they knew what hotel revenues were before the ordinance happened, and they measured it after the ordinance. And they were able to document increases in tourism revenue. And the point that you pointed out, I think, is perfectly true. People come because they want to come to the attractions, the economy's doing better, and people are having more discretionary money to do tourism. I truly believe that if we were to pass a smoke-free ordinance, the more factor in terms of whether restaurants will succeed or not is the economy itself and whether we have a recession or times of prosperity.
Well, I guess the point I was making was that people do still have choices. So, I mean, you can make a choice to go to a restaurant that has a prohibition on smoking. I live on Eleventh and Federal, and 27 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 within a block of my house, there are two restaurants. One has always been a nonsmoking restaurant, and it's about three years old. A similar restaurant a block away serves the same kind of food, same kind of ambience, you're allowed to smoke there. Both of them do well. People make choices. Sometimes they go to Christian's -- I'm giving a plug for the nonsmoking restaurant -- and sometimes they go to Felicia's at the other end of the block. And there's the same people you'll see from time to time going to one restaurant one night and the other restaurant on the other night, knowing full well that in one restaurant, you can't smoke. And for the nonsmokers, they go outside. But the same nonsmokers go into Christian's eventually wind up in Christian's restaurant (sic), and they'll ask for a seat away from the smoking area. So I was just concerned. You know, again, I think it's choices. And people decide to go to Los Angeles, and the air is unhealthy, whether there's smoking or nonsmoking, and it doesn't discourage people. (Applause.) 28 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
I will relish that applause, because at 6:30, I'm meeting with folks 13th and Callow Hill who may have to be relocated for a stadium, and I think that's the last round of applause I'll get today, so I'll savor that for the rest of the night. (Laughter.)
Sure. If I can just add to the record and the question you raised, I'll be glad to give you a copy of the study that Dr. Tsou mentioned. It's entitled "Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinances, by a Dr. Stanton Glantz, which was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on May 26, 1999. Dr. Tsou is correct. That was the conclusion of that particular study. There are a number of others, which I'd be glad to share with you and any other Members or anyone else. There was a second one done, "An Analysis of Taxable Sales Receipts. Was New York 29 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 City's Smoke-Free Air Act Bad for the Restaurant Business?" The conclusion of that particular study is that the study found that real taxable sales from eating and drinking places increased and hotels in New York City increased by 2.1 percent and 36.9 percent, respectively, compared with levels two years before the smoke-free law took effect. During the same period, real taxable drinking sales for eating and drinking establishments and hotels in the rest of the state experienced a 3.8 percent decrease and a modest 2.4 increase in sales, respectively. And there are a number of other studies that are a part of the Journal of the American Medical Association, which those studies actually studied real taxable sales as opposed to just telephone surveys, asking people what they think over the phone.
Any other questions? 30 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 (No further questions.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. The Chair calls on Dr. James Repace and William Godshall. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Tasco and Mr. Nutter and members of the Council. I am James Repace, and I am a secondhand smoke consultant. I'm testifying here on this bill, in support of it. I've served 11 years at the United States Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC as a research physicist and for 19 years at the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a senior policy analyst in the Office of Air and Radiation. And I also served on loan for 18 months to the United States Department of Labor to help OSHA draft its rule to regulate secondhand smoke in the workplace. I hold a master's degree in physics. I've published more than 50 scientific papers on the hazards, exposure, dose, risk, and control of secondhand smoke. During my tenure at the 31 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Environment Protection Agency, I testified before both Houses of Congress, on the Health and Environment Subcommittee, the Aviation Subcommittee on behalf of federal workers regarding secondhand smoke. After retiring in 1998, I became an international secondhand smoke consultant, and I have provided advice to many national governments and to many states throughout the United States. I've testified also before several city councils, including New York, and I gave advice to the health boards in the cities of Montreal and Toronto. I'd like to amplify some key points in my written testimony, which you have there. The first is of these is that secondhand smoke is toxic waste. It contains six regulated hazardous air pollutants, 43 known carcinogens, 47 chemicals designated as hazardous waste by the EPA, and more than 100 other substance classified as toxic in handbooks on industrial toxicology. Every single major federal health occupational environmental health authority in this country, ranging from the Surgeon General to 32 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 the Environmental Protection Agency to the National Cancer Institute, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, have declared secondhand smoke to cause cancer and other diseases in nonsmokers. Respected medical and scientific authorities, ranging from the American Medical Association to National Academy of Sciences, have endorsed those findings. This year, the National Toxicology Program of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, in its ninth report on carcinogens, has listed environmental tobacco smoke as a known human carcinogens, along with asbestos, coke-oven emissions, and mustard gas. You are here today respectfully considering a measure to extend the protection of public and worker health against the toxic diseases caused by secondhand smoke in the workplace and institutional and hospitality industry venues. Decisions like this are widely faced by city councils in this country because massive lobbying by the tobacco industry has stymied federal and state regulatory efforts. And 33 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 so the battlegrounds for clean indoor air has become the cities and towns of this country. In arriving at a decision at the local level, legislators are faced with many risk benefit decisions. How serious is the risk? what control measures are viable? what will the economic impact be on the city? You've heard testimony from the Health Commissioner that 3,000 American die annually from lung cancer induced by secondhand smoke. Credible published estimates by Dr. Wells of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, placed total nonsmokers' mortality from passive smoking at 60,000 deaths a year, and those numbers have bee endorsed by the American Heart Association. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration itself, in its proposed rule in 1994, estimated that secondhand smoke caused as many as 700 nonsmoking workers to die every year from lung cancer from exposure to passive smoking on the job, and as many as 13,000 to die from heart disease.
Scaling these data to the City of Philadelphia, I estimate that 327 Philadelphians die annually from secondhand smoke exposure. 34 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Moreover, I've measured levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in the urine of restaurant workers in Montreal on a consulting job I did for the Montreal Regional Health Board in 1998, and we did a press conference up there in May 1998, and after that, the Province of Quebec voted to ban smoking in restaurants, and that ban went into effect this year. Now extrapolating from the levels that I measured in those restaurant workers in Canada and in taking into account the lower smoking prevalence here in Pennsylvania, I estimate that about 8 percent of Philadelphia hospitality workers would die from secondhand smoke exposure in their workplace during their working lifetime. This Council can act to prevent these deaths by voting to make hospitality venues smoke-free. Workers should not have to trade their health for a paycheck. Although public health should never be balanced against private profit, this Council will hear testimony that restaurant profits have deceased where smoking has been banned. But the record does not support this, as the Health 35 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Commissioner pointed out. In the Journal of Public Health and Management and Practice, between 1993 and 1997, New York City sustained an 5 percent increase in restaurant employment; whereas 6 the rest of the state experienced only a 5 percent 7 increase. This difference can be attributed to 8 the existence of the New York City Smoke-Free Air 9 Act. The record shows that New York suffered no 10 job losses in the restaurant industry. 11 In 1998, the City of Boston passed a 12 similar ban in smoking in restaurants, and 13 restaurant smoking bans have proliferated 14 throughout the United States and through the State 15 of Massachusetts. The States of California, 16 Vermont, Utah and Maine have all banned smoking in 17 restaurants, as did the State of Maryland, 18 although the state legislature forced us to capitulate on bars and restaurants with bars. Let's examine in particular the California experience. In my written testimony, in Appendix 3, I've shown data that are reported by the California Department of Health based on taxable sales of -- in the retail restaurant and bar business. Objective sales tax data show 36 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 conclusively that the California retail food and beverage industry experienced a significant surge in revenue after smoking was banned in restaurants in 1995, and another surge when they banned smoking in bars in 1998. And if you look at that figure, you'll see that up until the 1995 smoking ban, the sector of the industry which sold hard liquor, beer, and wine, as well as food -- that's the center graph line there -- was completely flat. In 1005, it went up, and that, you can attribute exactly to the smoking ban. Now, what happened was, the sector that included restaurant and bars and stand-alone bars had percent higher revenues in the first 16 quarter of 1999 than it did in the first quarter 17 of 1994, which was the last year when smoking was 18 permitted in all of those venues. The non-hard 19 liquor and non-alcohol sectors enjoyed even larger 20 increases in sales -- 29 percent and 35 percent, 21 respectively. 22 These are the most objective, most 23 recent, and definitive official data available. Moreover, the California State ban occurred only after 40 major cities and towns had already banned 37 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 smoking locally, showing that even when a city bans and the surrounding suburbs do not, the ban does not decrease revenue. Why don't smoking bans decrease revenue?
In the same issue of the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, Lois Biener at the University of Massachusetts, showed that in a study of Massachusetts adults, that a number of nonsmoking patrons who avoid smoking restaurants and bars in 1996 exceeded by 80,000 the total number of adult smokers in the state. The message is clear: nonsmokers don't like their meals and drinks with a secondhand smoke chaser. This Council will hear testimony claiming that secondhand smoke can be controlled by ventilation or air cleaning. I can assure you that this is totally bogus. OSHA stated flatly in 1994 that the carcinogenicity of secondhand smoke eliminates ventilation as an engineering control. OSHA proposed a smoking ban -- not ventilation or air cleaning. The American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) in its 1999 edition of the ASHRAE 38 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Standard, which represents accepted engineering practice in the ventilation profession, acknowledged that numerous cognizant authorities have determined that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health and has removed any mention of ventilation as a possible control measure for tobacco smoke. Those misguided individual in the tobacco and the hospitality industry, who propose ventilation, are really saying that you should take their word over the word of cognizant health authorities. When you need public health advice, it's always wiser to consult the Surgeon General rather than the trade association for booze or tobacco. The fact is that secondhand smoke is so toxic that it would take tornado-like levels of ventilation to control it to de minimus levels. The toxic waste of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars cannot be controlled by ventilation gimmicks, anymore than toxic waste in lakes and rivers can be controlled by filtering them or diluting them with extra water. The ventilation argument cited by the 39 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 license beverage industry do not give objective measures of smoker density or ventilation rates, measures of air quality or measure of risk from any of the diseases of secondhand smoke before and after ventilation upgrades. Without this, their statements are meaningless. They don't tell us how much toxic waste is okay to breathe. We don't drink tap water unless it tests safe. Who's going to test the air in restaurant so it's safe to breathe if we use ventilation. Is the City of Philadelphia going to set and indoor air quality standards for secondhand smoke in every restaurant and bar in the City? This Council is in the front line in the protection of worker health and public health against the diseases caused by secondhand smoke. This Council should vote accordingly to validate the trust that the people of Philadelphia have placed in new in protecting their health and welfare. Only smoke-free buildings can accomplish that goal. Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. ) 40 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to testify on this critical public health issue. My name is Bill Godshall. I founded and serve as the Executive Director of SmokeFree Pennsylvania. Our grassroots efforts were instrumental in the enactment of Pittsburgh's and Erie's Smoking Pollution Control ordinances and Pennsylvania's Clean Indoor Act more than a decade ago. And our organization has initiated and assisted with thousands of smoke-free policies across the Commonwealth. SmokeFree Pennsylvania thanks Councilman Nutter and the seven Councilmembers for sponsoring this paramount public health proposal and we strongly urge City Council to strengthen it and enact it into law. More than a decade, our efforts to protect people from involuntary exposure to poisonous tobacco smoke were among the first to be targeted for sabotage by the tobacco industry, which spent millions of dollars opposing enactment of Pittsburgh's ordinance, trying to preempt it 41 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 with state legislation, and then by trying to take over implementation of the city's new law, which was at the time, the most protective of cities in the northeast part of the country. Ironically, during the week of Pittsburgh's city council's vote on the ordinance, the tobacco industry released a push poll that appeared on the front page of the newspaper that it had conducted, claiming that if the smoke-free ordinance in Pittsburgh was enacted, it would cause economic devastation to the region. Since then, the tobacco industry has almost certainly almost spent more than a billion dollars to oppose smoke-free proposals in city after city and in state after state. Not only is secondhand smoke poisonous, but public opinion polls are finding that a growing majority of people support smoke-free workplaces and public places. In 1994, Zagat, one of the nation's leading restaurant and hotel guide publishers conducted a survey and found that 70 percent of New York diners, 79 of San Francisco diners, and 81 percent of Los Angeles diners agreed that smoking should be banned in 42 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 restaurants. And at the same time, the tobacco industry and restaurant associations in those cities were adamantly opposing the enactment of the smoke-free laws, which are now in place in all of those cities. A 1995 statewide random survey of adults conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health found that half of those surveyed said they would be more likely to eat in a totally smoke-free restaurant, while only percent said 12 that they would be less likely to eat in a totally 13 smoke-free restaurant. A statewide scientific in 14 New Jersey that was conducted by Rutgers University just this past March found that 83 percent of New Jerseyans want workplaces to be smoke-free, and 67 percent want restaurants to be smoke-free. This survey also found that 40 percent of nonsmokers and 11 percent of smokers avoid restaurants because of secondhand smoke exposure. Among the millions of secret tobacco industry documents made public two years ago by Minnesota's historic tobacco settlement, we have several dozen documents from different tobacco 43 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 companies that outline a highly sophisticated nationwide and even worldwide strategy to deceive owners of restaurants, bars and hotels into opposing smoke-free legislation. These documents also expose strategies to coalesce restaurants, bars and hotel into lobbying against the legislation. If the tobacco industry cannot convince the existing restaurant and tavern associations to oppose smoke-free legislation, the tobacco industry will invent its own phony restaurant association, as has occurred in Beverly Hills, California, and in Vermont, when they were considering smoke-free legislation.
Much of the tobacco industry's deception has occurred through the development of enormous databases and periodic bulk mailings that are sent to tens of thousands of restaurants, bars, and hotels across this country, as well as their trade associations. " and "Restaurants Shut Down After Smoking Ban," it is understandable why many restaurant and bar owners 44 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 fear clean air laws. Then, after spreading their propaganda, tobacco companies will conduct unscientific surveys and push polls of these very businesses and then widely publicize that a majority of restaurant owners they surveyed think that smoke-free policies will harm their business. This pattern has occurred in numerous cities in California; New York, NY; Boston, Massachusetts; Boulder, Colorado; Arlington, Texas; Madison, Wisconsin; various counties in North Carolina; as well as the entire states of the California, Vermont, Maryland and Maine. But restaurants in these locations have gone smoke-free, and there is no evidence that restaurants, or any other businesses, have suffered economically. In fact numerous studies that evaluated the tax returns of restaurants in many of these locations found that the revenues have increased, with no studies finding a decrease in restaurant revenues. The reality is that smokers continue eating out in restaurants; they just stop smoking in the restaurants. And many more nonsmokers who 45 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 currently boycott smoke-filled restaurants will go to restaurants when they know their smoke-free. And just as restaurants are required to abide by strict public health laws to provide safe food and water, they should also be required to provide safe are to breathe. Regarding other workplaces, while nearly every large employer, except tobacco companies, already are smoke-free, employees in many small companies continue to be involuntarily exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace. Our organization has received complaints from hundreds of these employees, many of whom have had to choose between a paycheck or suffering from a chronic illness caused by breathing in tobacco smoke all day at work. And many employees have been fired for simply requesting a smoke-free workplace. This proposed ordinance will provide tens of thousands of additional Philadelphia workers the same occupational health protection that is now enjoyed by the rest of us. And upon careful review of the proposed ordinance, SmokeFree Pennsylvania strongly urges an amendment to phase out the collective 46 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 bargaining exemption after existing contracts expire. Labor unions have been at the forefront of advocating workplace health safety standards, and it would be a mistake to exempt from this ordinance. Another amendment we urge you to consider require bars to fall into compliance with this ordinance after one or two years. Employees and patrons of bars deserve the same protection from secondhand smoke. This has successfully occurred in the State of California, and bars have not suffered economically, despite predictions by the tobacco industry to the contrary. Another issue I would like to bring up is the relationship between this proposed ordinance and the existing State law, which was amended to the Pennsylvania Fire and Panic Act in 1998. Although that bill was hijacked from health advocates by the tobacco lobbyists and was rewritten to preempt local governments from enacting more protective smoke-free laws, the local preemption doesn't apply to Philadelphia because it is a first-class city that is exempt from the Fire and Panic Act. A concurring legal 47 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 opinion was issued in 1994 by then-Acting City Solicitor Joseph Dworetzky. I would also like to briefly address the implementation of this ordinance. In city after city, experience has found that self-enforcement occurs in the overwhelming majority of businesses.
Following initial publicity of the law taking effect, the bulk of enforcement calls and complaints occurred during the law's first few weeks and months. Under Governor Ridge's tobacco settlement proposal, there will be settlement funds provided -- made available to the Philadelphia Health Department to fund what modest enforcement measures are necessary to ensure compliance with the ordinance. Thank you. And I'll be pleased to provide Councilmembers with any of the many documents that I've referenced, and I'll be pleased to answer any questions. )
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of 48 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 the committee?
Just one. Dr. Repace, can you share any information about a study that's been raised on a couple occasions out of a laboratory, I think, run by the U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge. Do you have any information about that?
Yes. The group that conducted that study did a 16-city study of exposures of people to tobacco smoke, and that work was funded by the tobacco industry. That group at Oak Ridge that does tobacco has been funded -- it was part of the Safe Cigarette Group in the 1970s. When the government stopped being interested in safe cigarettes, the tobacco industry picked up the funding. And it isn't a government lab; it's run by a university. And so, they can get contract money from wherever they want, and they've been picking up contract money first from the Council for tobacco Research, which was denounced by federal judges as a propaganda organ of the tobacco companies. And then later, when the Center for 49 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Indoor Air Research took over the funding of work and environmental tobacco smoke, that was also funded by the tobacco companies, and this was contract work carried out for the tobacco companies. It was pure and simple work that they commissioned and that they hoped would support their point of view.
Mr. Repace, when you state that there's no safe level of exposure, could you expand on that for me.
Sure. There has never been a safe level noted for induction of carcinogens -- of cancer. Any carcinogen can that's an initiator will initiate cancer and places you at risk. Obviously, there can be a level of risk from a carcinogens which could be trivial. It doesn't happen to be the case for exposures of people under typical conditions of smoking and ventilation in buildings. The exposures are 50 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 thousands of times the level of de minimis risk.
On the studies that you have in terms of the economic upsurge in terms of restaurants and bars in California and in other places, what is the data, really the empirical data that says that this is cause and effect that is involved? Or is it a part of the economic boom that the United States has enjoyed over the last five six years at the same time?
Well, obviously, in some cases, you can't tell whether it's the economic boom or not. If you look at the data that I've shown, it's remarkable that when the smoke-free restaurant ban went into effect, the retail industry was pretty flat in the liquor, wine and beer sector, and then it took off. What you can say for sure is that there's absolutely no evidence of a decline in revenues, and this is what people are afraid of. Well, where is the evidence around the United States that it's happened anywhere to decline? It hasn't happened. And as I mentioned, the reason it doesn't is because restaurants, and particularly bars, have lost an awful lot of 51 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 nonsmokers because they don't go there, they stay home, they find our places to go. And so when a ban comes into effect, a lot of these people come back because they now realize they can go a restaurant and not come away with their eyes burning or with their clothes smelling of tobacco smoke. So if you lose a few smokers, you pick up a lot more nonsmokers, and the reason for that is simple: nonsmokers outnumber smokers in this state to 1, and in California by to 1. In Massachusetts, it's the same as Pennsylvania. And when you ask people, do you avoid these places? they say, Yes, we do, we really do avoid them. We don't go. And that's really the reason that you won't find an effect. But even if there were an effect, even if industries did lose money, it has always been the case in this country when we regulate pollutants that can kill people, we do that irrespective of whether there's going to be an economic impact on industry or not. What we're saying is that despite the fact that there is no 25 economic impact in evidence anywhere in this 52 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 country, what we've got are fears by local restaurateurs and bar owners that they are going to lose money. Surely, if you go into any bar in the United States where smoking is allowed, you're going to find mostly smokers there. And that tells you something: the nonsmokers don't go there. And the California experience has shown -- and I've been there and I've experienced the smoke-free air in restaurant and bars in California, and it's wonderful. It's enough to make you want to go back.
And the technology today, you say that there's no technology that is efficient enough to be able to create areas within restaurants, through ventilation and other apparatus that may be installed, that it would be able to -- that people who smoke could avail themselves of that?
The issue, Councilman, is not the efficiency. You can make air cleaners with very high efficiency for particles -- not very high for gasses. And you can put in ventilation in a place and lower the concentration 53 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 of the tobacco smoke. The question is, how much is needed? You need so much that you will create a tornado inside of a building to lower the concentration to acceptable levels. It's just not possible to do that. And then you have to ask yourself a question, Why would you want to do that, why would you want to be exposed to toxic waste? Nobody wants to do that. The fact is, we've all grown up in homes and we've worked in businesses where smoking was common, and we're used to it. And we didn't know when we were young that it was harmful, but science marches on. We now know that it's very harmful and we need to get rid of it. And we know that engineering fixes won't work. The only thing that works with toxic waste is a total removal. Tobacco smoke, the only safe way of disposing of it is in a sealed container or by putting the smoker outdoors. There is no middle ground.
We'd like to call on Dr. Robert Simmons, Dr. Howard Kessler, and Reverend Jessie Brown. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Robert Simmons, and I am representing the American Heart Association of Pennsylvania and Delaware. I also want to mention that -- and would like to make a comment initially about that. Prior to coming to the Mid-Atlantic region -- I'm from California, and I was the coordinator of California's smoke-free law, Assembly Bill 13, so I have quite a bit of information about the acceptance of that in the restaurant industry, the implementation, the enforcement, etc. I'm not going to read from my --
Why don't you tell us about that because we already have this information. We've had two hearings on the 55 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 effects of secondhand smoke, and then this morning on the tobacco settlement.
I do not plan to say anything about that; that was just for the record. Let me just mention, and I want to make a couple points overall, but I do want to mention the experience from California because back in the early '90s, when this was proposed, we did work with the California Restaurant Association and with the various beverage association, etc., to pass the California law that took effect January 1, 1995. There was a two-year time period of allowing the bars to be exempted for that for a two-year period. It got extended for one additional year, so there was a three-year lag between when the restaurants became totally smoke-free and when bars became totally smoke-free. And, of course, we experienced all of the propaganda from the tobacco industry and the fears and the headlines in the Los Angeles Times about how this was going to destroy business in California, and people were going to leave the state because they were not going to be going to 56 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 bars and restaurants. The data clearly has shown -- first of all, the focus for the first year was predominantly in the area of education and less so on enforcement. But what was interesting is, the California Restaurant Association was a strong supporter of the ordinance. Remember, there had already been 40 city ordinances, and what they wanted was a level playing field and felt that the best thing to do was to make the entire state smoke-free as far as the restaurants are concerned. The data, which was already reported by Dr. Repace, indicated that if anything, there has been an economic upsurge in bars and restaurants in California, particularly in the restaurant industry. And not to say necessarily that it's attributed completely to environmental tobacco smoke, but certainly, compared to other states that do not have a statewide ban on that, the data has been very clearly. Within the bar industry that took effect in 1997, there was also a period, a significant period, of 6 to 12 months where it was 57 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 focused much more on education. There was a lot of reports of concern about bars, about that restriction. That has changed over the past two years, with the bar Industry in California. Generally, there's an acceptance of that. It's predominantly self-enforcing. The state legislature was very concerned about how much money, are we going to have police to police tobacco in our bars and restaurants? That has not been the case. There is some money allocated in the state level to help with education and enforcement of that, but it is predominantly a self-enforcing state law. Subsequent to that, there now are other states -- of course, Utah, Vermont and Maine and others -- that have now restricted smoking entirely in restaurants.
You mentioned that at the initial start of the implementation of the new law, education was the focus. What does that mean?
That meant that not only was there a lot of public education about that and the reason for the law, but there was a 58 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 significant amount of retailer education -- information about the law, what the enforcement is, what is expected of restaurants, what information could be provided by the state to assist them in the implementation. Some of the restaurant owners certainly initially had concern and bar owners about, What if you get a patron who refuses to leave or just says, No, I'm entitled to smoke, and I'm going to smoke here, and how do you deal with that type of enforcement, what agencies? They clearly were concerned about getting involved in the enforcement; that's not their business. So that's the type of education that occurred over time. And now one can say -- and I've talked with colleagues just last week in Denver at a national conference and with my colleagues in California, and their view of that from the state health agency is that there's been minimal problems of that over time.
Now, another factor of the movement of that bill, you indicated that the various worlds came together at the front end, the various dissenting worlds came together 59 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 at the front end to work through how those involved could speak to the needs of both sides.
Right. Let me mention some of those key players in that because I mentioned the California Restaurant Association, but let me mention a very powerful group, and that's the California League of Cities. That's 463 cities of the entire state. That was also a main supporter, and they were the leading educator of that law when that took effect. So there was that support. The alcohol industry did not support the initiative initially. It was the Restaurant Association of California that was the main supporter of that.
Completely, very much so. And the President of the Restaurant Association testified front of the State Assembly in California in 1994 for that law. I was there for that testimony. And what they basically reached -- the conclusion of the Restaurant Association was that 60 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 they did not feel that it was going to hurt their business. They wanted a level playing field across the state. They actually, when the initial studies from the University of California - San Francisco had reported that not only is it cost-neutral, but actually, you don't have to deal with smoking and nonsmoking, you have less expenses on your fire insurance, you have less expenses of cleaning bills, and that it actually would be a benefit to restaurants to not have to deal with those issues. So that was the arguments that the California Restaurant Association used to support that.
But would you say that implicit in the success of that bill was the universal application of the law?
I would say certainly that had, you know, significant impact on making it a state law. Again, there were already 40 local ordinances, local jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, that had certain restrictions on that.
Mm-hmm. What I do want to emphasize is just a key points very quickly. Number one, environmental tobacco smoke is no longer considered a public nuisance. We are basically about one generation to years in 8 the data on environmental tobacco smoke as we were 9 on cigarette-smoking from the first Surgeon 10 General's report. Initially, the discussions and 11 the Surgeon General's report talked about 12 environmental tobacco smoke as a public nuisance. 13 Well, it's bothersome to people. We now have very 14 different data, and Dr. Repace referred to that. 15 As the science has progressed now, in 16 the year 2000, it is no longer just a public 17 nuisance; it is a public health hazard. And from 18 the American Heart Association, we are very, very 19 concerned when we look at the estimates of the 20 cardiovascular deaths due to environmental tobacco 21 smoke. That means that these are people 22 controlled, who are not smokers. They either live 23 with smokers or, in most cases, they're in work 24 environments where there's smoking. That the 25 estimates are between 35,000 and 62,000 62 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 cardiovascular deaths in this country. That is astounding to us, and we are very concerned about us. So it is not just a nuisance anymore; it is a public health threat. That's the first point I wanted to make. Second of all, I wanted to emphasize that as far as the level of exposure, we have gotten much more sophisticated, as Dr. Repace referred to, in the level of exposure. Initially, the initial studies looked at spouses, nonsmoking spouses of spouses who smoke. The second level of studies looked at the workplace. In fact, a new study from the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health had just came out -- it was interesting, in California, because they actually showed with a study of over 4600 smokers in worksites in California, since the 1995 law, a significant number of those, compared to other workers in other states who don't have that law, have actually attempted to quit smoking and have been successful, looking at six months of complete abstinence. So that's an extra benefit to such laws, that a number of people, hopefully, smokers are going to make the decision "I'm going to make 63 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 that effort to quit," and hopefully, a lot of them will be successful in that activity. So that's the second thing. We're much more sophisticated. We now look at cotinine, which is that metabolite, a major metabolite of nicotine, and realize that cotinine exists in the blood of people who have a casual exposure. That may be a one-hour exposure at a restaurant for up to three days. Now, is that a health risk? We don't know if that's a pure health risk, but the fact that you can measure cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, in the blood of somebody who has had a casual -- this is not an eight-hour exposure daily, it's a casual exposure -- is very significant, and that's why we feel we have to take measures to protect the public's health in doing so. I want to finally mention that -- since it was already mentioned about not eliminating, I want to emphasize the aspect of smoking as a unique behavior. Smoking is like any other -- is unlike any other behavior. And when you hear of stories of, Well, if we're going to do this, then we're going to restrict people having sugar, and, 64 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 you know, they can't eat their Tasty Kakes, and they can't go and have Cokes and they can't do that and they can't add salt to their meat, that is totally different. This is a very unique behavior. The automatic use of this product by smoking -- not smokeless -- automatically pollutes the air of the individual smoker; but more importantly, it also pollutes the air of the people around them.
So what has happened now, in the year 2000, is that local jurisdictions, state governments, and federal governments, to their capability, have made the statement, that given the data we now know, as we didn't have and 30 16 years ago, the right to breathe clean air must 17 supercede the privilege for a smoker to pollute 18 the air. ) 20
And, I guess, in reference to you, sir, in your example, which -- Councilman, your example of -- I think it was a very good one. Two neighboring restaurants; one is currently smoke-free and the other is not. I understand where you said, Well, the person can 65 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 choose, they can go to the one that's smoke-free or they can go to the one that's smoking. I would like to rephrase that question and ask, why does the person that is a nonsmoker have to make that choice? why does a person have to put themselves at risk and being uncomfortable to that environment? Shouldn't that be the fact that the individual who's choosing, as a privilege, legally so and rightfully so, to smoke, shouldn't that individual go outside and do that and not pollute the air of the other person? So I want to just rephrase that because I think, in our feeling, we think it's the smoker who has to take that step to change rather than the individual who has no choice but to involuntarily breathe that smoke-filled air. Thank you very much, and I'm willing t take questions.
Doctor, I'm a nonsmoker, and I hate it vehemently, but there was one caveat in terms of choices as we speak that has to be taken into consideration, is that smoking although harmful, and everybody agrees to it, the harmful effects, it is not prohibited 66 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 conduct. Smoking and cigarettes are not prohibited narcotics within this society as we know it. So in terms of choices, when you have it, you're saying to the individual -- and this is a very, very hard situation here, because you are saying to the individual in essence, Your activity is legal. And if it is legal, then you should be able to perform it wherever you want -- (Applause.)
-- because it is legal. And I know what the health costs are because we suffer that, and we've been having hearings. And either as a society, I think we're going to have to come to grips with it. Just like we have to come to grips with the sales of guns in this society, we have to come to grips with this situation because you cannot -- I do not believe -- it hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court yet, but I think it will, that you can say to somebody that this is a legal activity, but that other person can prohibit you from exercising that right.
Well, if I could respond 67 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 to that. I fully understand what you're saying. What we're really saying and what you're hearing today and you're going to hear more of, is that this is a unique behavior. And let me separate the two. Smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco, let's take those two behaviors. One behavior is -- both are legal for people over 18. One behavior, the chewing tobacco, that individual is exercising their choice. It could be in any location. The only risk is where they spit that chewing tobacco out and what that means environmentally, but it does not impact on anybody else, except themselves. The difference is that this is a very unique behavior. The difference, sir, is that this behavior impacts on everybody else around them. We share the same air space. So that's the same difference here. If we were talking about chewing tobacco, we wouldn't be here today, but we're talking about a behavior that automatically pollutes the air of others. And when it comes down to that behavior, the public health must 68 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 supercede anybody's choice to smoke. (Applause.)
I don't disagree, I don't disagree, but then you have to -- then you have to put that into legislation that prohibits the conduct.
I would say this -- and that's always a challenge for City Council, is that, in general, those prohibitions -- you sort of make the distinction between indoor environments traditionally and outdoor environments. Is there a risk of outdoor exposure? Yes. Somebody sitting at a baseball game or whatever at an outdoor environment, a concert, and the person next to them smoking they are inhaling secondhand smoke, but generally, the distinction that government make is that I can't control every place, I can't control all environment, but we can control indoor public environment. And that's the difference and that's 69 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 the choice to make. (Applause.)
If I could just also add that it's not like we're examining the prospect of prohibiting smoking in certain places for the first time. There are currently laws on the books, passed in the late '40s, that prohibit smoking in certain places today. Mayor Rendell signed an executive order in 1993 prohibiting smoking in all public facilities. This is not new. And just like cigarettes are a legal product, and if people want to smoke, that is their choice, that is their business. I'm not against smokers. But what I am for is clean air and the ability to inhale it and not be injured by someone else's choice. Alcohol is a legal product, but we do not let people consume the legal product and then drive their car. They are a danger to themselves and to everyone else around them, so what we are talking about is making the distinction between if you want to smoke, fine, smoke to your heart's 70 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 content but don't do it in such a way that you injure someone else's health. And I think that is really the only issue. (Applause.)
I'm Reverend Jessie Brown, Executive Director of the National Association of African-Americans for Positive Imagery, but more to home, I'm one of the members of the Uptown Coalition for tobacco Control and Public Health that stopped R.J. Reynolds ten years ago from coming in and trying to diminish the quality of life of Philadelphians by introducing a new cigarette, and we're going to stop R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris this time from stopping us to trying to improve the quality of life in Philadelphia. I've been listening to a number of the experts in this matter, and they've very adequately and eloquently talked about the secondhand smoke and its effects in our community. I want to take this issue -- well, to 71 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 be quite frankly, to take it home with us about this issue, because it's really about looking at our own families and our own communities and our own friends and making sure that we are doing everything we can to protect their lives. I was concerned when the Philadelphia restaurant business community even put up any squabble, because I saw this as a great opportunity to target 80 percent of the population to come and participate in their business by promoting it as a family-friendly, family-safe, and a healthy environment. This to me would be a great opportunity for the business community to promote this city, as we've been trying to do, as a first-class city, not only in its facilities but in its quality of life in this community, particularly in our restaurants, making sure that they're smoke-free. I was also thinking about the fact that they might consider the notion that the potential of lost productivity by having a fairly unhealthy environment and their employees losing time on the job, having to take care of illnesses that they may have picked up in their own business 72 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 environment, and I thought about the fact that maybe they could use this opportunity to attract even more workers in a tight labor market by advertising the fact that this environment they would be working in is even healthier than the ones that they might have worked in before. I could see these advertising campaign saying to families, "Come on in. You can bring your child in who may have asthma because we have clean air here, just like we've got good food." I could see all of those kinds of opportunities. So I was a little taken aback that the restaurant community would even challenge something that put them on equal footing with their competitors. Since everybody would have to do it, nobody would have any advantage. And certainly I didn't think that they would be duped into believing in any way, shape, or form that somehow, they were going to lose business, when we've already heard time and time again that across this nation, when these bans have been put in place, businesses increase 'cause people came back to eat in their places. I suspect that if they're going to lose business, 73 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 it's probably because they have bad food, not because they didn't have any smoke in there. (Applause.)
Philadelphia is a mecca of good eating all the way around, and I want us to continue to promote this in our tourism business and in our communities and in our families. But then I thought about it even more at home. A restaurant was where I had my first job. Just like many young people, we find that the restaurant community is very open to opening their doors to training us and educating us and teaching us as young people how to be leaders in our community, and that's where we get some of our first experience on how to become productive citizens in this community. I would think that their participation in making sure that this ordinance passed would be the same kind of leadership that they demonstrated when they taught me not only how to count but how to give good personal service across the counter. Those things are important in our community, that builds our community. 74 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 But if we continue to support that and -- and this is one of those pieces of legislation that I can't always say we have that, but this is one of the best common-sense and good-sense pieces of legislation that we've put out here, and you can't always say that about some of the bills that come around these days. But I would see that this would be an opportunity to promote us positively, promote our businesses positively, and to make sure that we take one more step in promoting and improving the quality of life in the neighborhoods. When all of this is said and done, I think City Council and the City Councilmembers will be voting for this ordinance because it makes good sense, it makes good economic sense, it makes good family sense, it makes good community sense. And I know that all of us want to do the right thing. And to me, this piece of legislation will do that. I have one last thing I wanted to do. To help others know, help our restaurant community know that we really do care about this, we're going to be distributing these little cards that 75 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 they can leave at the restaurant that says, "Please give us a chance to breathe smoke-free." (Audience cheers and jeers.)
And we want the community to know that people would like to have that kind of atmosphere, so we are going to be distributing those, and they will then have an opportunity to gauge for themselves how we feel in the neighborhood and in our own homes. Thank you, City Council, for this opportunity. (Applause.)
Thank you, thank you very much, Reverend Brown. Could we have your attention, please. Everyone will have an opportunity to express their feelings about this legislation. Dr. Kessler?
Madam Chairperson, distinguished members of Council and those who are both opponents and proponents of the bill, I always have this -- or I seem to have the habit of being the last to speak, and what it usually does is steals my thunder and doesn't give me a lot to 76 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 talk about. And I certainly cannot speak as eloquently as the people who have come before me,. But there are a couple things I'd like to say, and one of them is an observation on what I've been listening to for the last hour and ten minutes. And where I came from and where I grew up, we used to have this game of football, and we used to pile on, and people used to say, "It's time to stop piling on." I think more than enough has been said about this as a restaurant or beverage issue. And I would actually like to completely divorce myself from that. People are entitled to be employed and to run their business the way they want, and I have great respect for people who do that. But I want to address the other issues in this bill brought by Congressman Nutter. (Laughter.)
I apologize for that. 77 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 But I would like to remind everybody here that we're not just talking about restaurants; we're talking about enclosed public places, we're talking about access within feet 6 of any enclosed place where smoking is 7 prohibited. We're talking about the workplace, 8 we're talking about common areas in buildings -- 9 lobbies, hallways, elevators, and hotel rooms. 10 And to make this -- or to have this 11 degenerate into an issue of restaurant business, 12 beverage business, I think, misses the point. And 13 I think the point is that the vast majority of 14 people in this room and the vast majority of 15 Philadelphians and people who come to Philadelphia 16 spend more time in the workplace and common areas 17 than they do in some of the other venues. 18 And so I would like to bring this back 19 to the middle ground, which is we need to look at 20 ways to limit smoking in all of these areas, where our children go, where we go to seek support, where we go to be entertained, where we go to provide ourselves with the sustenance that gives us the feeling that this is a great place to live. And from that standpoint, I'd really 78 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 like just to close by saying just a couple things. The first thing is that City Council has, since 1940 or the early '40s, had a very important role in limiting smoking in a variety of places. Our work isn't done, and it's not done for a couple of reasons. It's not done because we know more than we used to know. We know there's clear and incontrovertible evidence in the literature, in the medical legal literature, in the literature that has been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services, through the National Institutes of Health. There is enormous incontrovertible evidence that smoking is a problem. And I think we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to our children and we owe it those who work in the City and live in the City to be focused on appropriate legislation that will limit those who have a choice and would like to go places from suffering the ravages of smoking. Secondhand smoke is a clear and present danger. It's a danger to us, but I think, more importantly, it's a danger to children, as individuals have spoken before. It's a danger to 79 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 children who suffer from asthma, who suffer a higher incidence of infection. It's a danger to anybody who's around smoking. And so my charge, again, is to get off of piling on. My charge is to remind the people in this room that this bill is designed to limit smoking in a variety of venues, and I would encourage City Council, both as a physician and as a volunteer for the American Cancer Society, to look at this legislation and look favorably upon it. We owe it not only to ourselves, but we owe it to our children. And if we want to make this a better city for ourselves and for those who come here, it's incumbent upon us to look at that legislation in a favorable light and pass this so that public areas are a more pleasant place for all of us.
I thank you for bringing us back to point. It does cover many, many areas, and we thank you for that. 80 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Any questions? Yes Councilman?
You said you were president of the aspect of the development of the California legislation in L.A.
I was not a president of the ordinance. I was the state -- I worked for the California Department of Health Services Tobacco Control branch responsible for implementation of Assembly Bill 13, the state law.
And I think Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown asked you as to the extent of the period of education that was involved and the involvement of all of the parties that were interested and that were affected by the legislation in terms of the development of it and then the promulgation and application of it. And how was that process, if you can describe it for us now.
It's hard to give you an exact date as to when that started, but I would estimate that it was about a -- before the law passed, it was probably a two- to three-year period at the state level, as more and more local 81 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 cities were passing their own ordinances, that a number of groups, and the League of California Cities, the Restaurant Association, as I mentioned, and a number of health organizations. So there was a number of -- there was some education that occurred beforehand. A significant part of the education occurred after the bill was passed. There were brochures, a whole sorts of -- a phone number that businesses and the public could call for information. But it was after the bill actually passed and took effect that a number of people, because -- it wasn't -- and I also want to mention, it was not just restaurants and bars; it affected a whole variety of public places of access, very similar to the ordinance that is in front of you.
And that was at the local level or at the statewide level?
Well, this was statewide, because there already had been 40 cities in the state who had had their own local ordinances restricting smoking in restaurants and in other public places. 82 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
Dr. Simmons, I wanted to go back to that same point, as raised by Councilwoman Reynolds Brown and by Councilman Ortiz. So that the record is very clear, by the time the State of California got into this issue, many cities of California had already taken the issue and then it raised to the state level; isn't that correct?
That is correct. And, frankly, the reason why it was not addressed earlier at the state level -- one of the reasons, I might say -- is that the tobacco industry had put a lot of efforts in Sacramento with the State Assembly to prevent any type of statewide ordinance. So subsequently, the cities, starting -- Los Angeles's ordinance started in 1985. The individual cities decided that they were going to take initiatives, starting in the '80s and through the early 1990s, and eventually, with enough cities doing so, the Restaurant Association, the California League of Cities, and many other 83 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 players at the statewide level then decided that this should be a statewide law and not just levying it up to individual cities.
I guess part of the theory there was that it was more difficult for those various constituencies to try to effect or manipulate the legislative activities at the local level, as opposed to the state level?
That is correct. The efforts actually started back in the late '80s in Sacramento, at the State Assembly level, but after several years of trying to get some type of state law passed, the decision -- it was not able to do so, and subsequently, individual cities took it upon themselves to do so.
Thank you all very much. We appreciate your testimony. (Applause.)
Our next panel will consist of Bruce Cooper, Garth Weldon, Andre Guillet, Allen Newman, and Stephen Starr. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Would you please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Steven Starr. I don't have something written, it's in my head, so please forgive me if I sometimes stumble a bit. I own several restaurants in Philadelphia: Buddakan, The Continental, Blue Angel and Tangerine, and we're soon to open two more -- one at the University of Pennsylvania which, is called "Pod," and we're working on a new one that I have not yet told anyone about. So our plans are to continue to grow and, hopefully, prosper here in Philadelphia. I wanted to say that I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that smoking is bad for you, I don't think we could look you straight in the eye and not agree with that -- it's good for you. However, we are by no means manipulated by the tobacco industry. I think I have the same mistrust and disdain for the tobacco industry as all of you do, or any giant corporation with that much money invested into something. However, we are interested in our own businesses and the 85 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 future of this city also. I do not believe that some sort of smoking ban or prohibition will destroy life as we once knew it in Philadelphia, but I do believe that you must be very careful on how far you go at this time. I think I would urge Councilman Nutter to be careful with this and not go too far too soon. Eventually, some day, I believe there will be no smoking in the world, there will be no 12 drinking of alcohol, maybe just a safe little pill to take the edge off, but we have to be careful.
Okay, but I'm not trying to be funny, I really mean it. I believe, however, we must be careful here. Philadelphia has started to catch up with the rest of the big cities in the United States. I don't believe we're quite there yet, but we're getting there. We're getting nationally known for our political leaders, we're getting known now for our restaurants, for our tourist attractions, and I just want you to be careful. 86 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Most of my restaurants have no smoking in the dining rooms. I believe most restaurants can exist with no smoking in their dining rooms. I do believe that, like New York City, however, you must give people the option to smoke at the bar area. Again, it's me cautioning everyone: not too much too soon. Let's watch and be careful. Once we get to that point, then maybe the next step could happen somewhere down the line. I also believe, by the way, that ultimately, the political movement in this country is such that there will be smoking bans in the workplace, as there are now in restaurants, in bars, in nightclubs, but I just want to take it a little bit slower. I also am a firm believer that the market will dictate. I believe that you could have smoking in every restaurant and that the market will put those restaurants out of business. If I had smoking in Buddakan, for instance, and throughout the dining room, we couldn't stay open. Our customers would demand to have no smoking. 87 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 So, technically, I think that the market will dictate what will happen, but since I don't think that's the direction you're all going in, I just urge you to be careful and take it a little slow and let's have some compromises here. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Madam Chair, I need to be excused, and I'd like to be recorded as voting in favor of Bill 314, along with any amendments adopted by a majority of this committee.
Councilman Nutter, may I say one other thing that I forgot to say? Everyone uses Los Angeles and California as an example. The one thing I want to remind you in terms of it not hurting business, in California, it's usually 65, 70 degrees, and people are able to go outside in the midst of their dinner and smoke. If they wish to. In Philadelphia, and in New York, of course, it's cold, our climate is not 88 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 really as good, and I believe that would that would create a problem.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the Council. My name is Garth Weldon, and I operate the Prime Rib restaurant at the Warwick, on Locust and 17th Street, and thank you for your interest in my views on this matter. My today, I also represent the Rittenhouse Row Association, which is a group of about 200 merchants in Center City. I represent the Rittenhouse -- did you hear that?
Okay. I have never smoked cigarettes, but I have served many, many customers who do. I've been in the hospitality business long enough to remember the days when no 20 restrictions on smoking was the norm. In fact, in the 1970s, I was a waiter at the Prime Rib in Washington, DC, and I remember waiting on Speaker Tip O'Neal, and as a waiter, I'd tried to gauge how to serve that (unintelligible) because the cigar was going throughout the meal, no matter 89 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 where he sat, anywhere he wanted to sit. I think we've come a good way since then, though, toward offering a choice for people who want to smoke and those who do not. However, I'd hate to see us go to the extreme of having no 7 place for our customers who smoke. In Washington for many years now, our customers has for smoking or nonsmoking tables, and we accommodate them. The same is true for our place in Baltimore. The nonsmoking sections have grown from just a few tables to the majority of tables over the years. It seems now that a peaceful accommodation has been achieved. I believe that both nonsmokers and smokers have grown more considerate of one another -- and this is without the tornado being used on the air systems either. There is a county just outside of DC, Montgomery County, where recently, a ban was put into place. The Washington Post reported that a lot of people are crossing over the line into the District to dine now from that county. Now, when I came to Philadelphia almost three years ago, we spent $2 million to build a 90 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 250-seat steakhouse in the Warrick Hotel, and $200,000 of that budget went toward installation of a state-of-the-art HVAC system or air handlers that would provide 100 percent outside air to separate parts of the dining room and bar. By 100 percent, I mean the air is never re-circulated or mixed with the return air. Since we've opened, we've accommodated the smokers and the nonsmokers in these areas. The nonsmoking area is about 75 percent of the dining room. The smoking area in the dining room 13 is located next to the bar, and, of course, the bar allows smoking. We seat parties in the smoking session every shift we're open -- lunch and dinner. Also, very often, a patron will sit with their party in nonsmoking but excuse themselves during or after dinner to go to the bar for a smoke, and sometimes entire parties will leave the nonsmoking area, then retire to the bar for an after-dinner drink, a cigarette, or a cigar, which are sold in the bar. This smoking has not resulted in any complaints from our nonsmoking customers -- or the wait staff, for that matter. 91 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 On the matter of employee complaints, I've supervised hundreds of employees. Some are not shy at all about complaining, but I've never had one instance of an employee complaining of smoke exposure. If the ventilation systems are adequate and designed with this in mind or, redesigned, there should be no problem. If the percent of my establishment 10 that permits smoking were to be abolished, I'd 11 expect the following. Number one, a decline in 12 business at the bar and the tables that make up 13 the smoking area. Any claims to the contrary that 14 I heard, 11 percent of smokers prefer a nonsmoking 15 restaurant and that there's that a number of 16 people hiding in their homes, waiting for a 17 smoking ban before they'll come out to eat, I 18 think, are ludicrous. 19 I don't think there would be any impact 20 on employee health other than anxiety caused by 21 layoffs due to the decline in business. 22 (Applause.) 23
Rather than protected 24 employees, you'd have unemployed smokers, because 25 a majority of restaurant employees are smokers. 92 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Just simple figures here: Sales tax revenue, we've paid about $255,000 since we opened in 1998 and 140,000 on the liquor and spirits taxes. (Applause.)
These numbers would go down if we lose that part of our trade, and I think the City would lose a lot of money. Why give people a reason not to come to Center City when you're spending money to try to get them here? We're not talking here about a statewide ban; we're talking about a --
Excuse me. Could you substantiate that more fully. I mean --
Well, I was just about to say --'cause we're not talking about a statewide ban here.
Right. In my opinion, I believe that people will go elsewhere. It's unlike California, where they can't go elsewhere; 93 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 they're -- in the entire state, it's evenly applied. Here, I believe -- and this is what I'm getting to, my next statement. I think you'll have people --
But you're not proposing a statewide ban here; you're proposing a ban for the City.
I don't work for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 94 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Your statement is that in California, they had no choice. All we're trying to make sure is we keep the record straight. It did not start at the state level; it started at the city level. Where do you think all of these people are going?
Well, here, I believe -- and this is what I'm getting to now -- right across the bridge, about a ten-minute drive.
They would go to New Jersey and up to the Main Line, absolutely.
I think people who enjoy drinking and going out enjoy smoking, a lot of the trade, and it goes hand in hand, absolutely, with a segment of my clientele.
When they call for reservations, they ask for the smoking area.
Could I do a follow-up on that? Not to interrupt your testimony, but do you happen to know what percentage of your clientele comes from the suburbs into the City of Philadelphia that are --
I can tell you that the majority of the clientele comes from the suburbs. I mean, I don't know exactly, but I'd say clearly that it's 80 percent. Because the population, as you well know, of Center City is small. The majority of our customers are from the Main Line, parts of South Jersey, Northeast Philadelphia. It's not the City.
If I could just share with you, at least for the record, that the -- and I don't know, obviously, exactly where your clientele lives. But in the past day or so, I've received inquiries from suburban legislators in counties and townships around Philadelphia asking for copies of the legislation, as their legislative bodies contemplate what they're going to do on this particular issue. 96 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Just thought you might want to know about that.
Until a state ban is in effect, these would be my conclusions: that you would see people going out of Philadelphia, absolutely, to dine and smoke. Because they will not stop smoking; they will just spend their money elsewhere, and they'll take their friends and their visitors with them. I'm talking about this segment of the market. It's percent for us, 12 it's less for other establishments, and maybe more 13 for other places. 14 But there ought to be a way to write 15 legislation to protect the children from smoking 16 without banning it in the bars. Because I'll tell 17 you what, the children are safe at our bar because 18 children aren't served at our bar. 19 (Applause.) 20
Well, I mean, as a 21 good proprietor, I'm certainly glad to hear that 22 you're not serving any children at the bar, but 23 I've been to your establishment on one occasion, 24 had a great time. Do you serve children in the 25 restaurant? 97 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
Okay. Don't they have to walk through the bar area to get to the restaurant.
No, they go through the dining room. The bar is actually off to the left.
Right, okay. You know, at the risk of -- and I -- this is a very, very sensitive topic in this community. And at another time, under different circumstances, hopefully we could have a different kind of discussion about -- and you raised it earlier -- about the liquor tax, which I've given a lot of thought over the years to that. And as we try to figure out what is going to happen with the future of the school system, and you may know that I have a resolution right now in City Council looking at the entire tax structure of the City. I've come to call the business privilege tax, rather, "the business challenge tax," and if you can get through the challenge of dealing with our 98 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 tax structure in this city, you should get special, you know, dispensation. But, certainly, as a part of that review of our tax structure, I think we need to take a serious hard look and a reevaluation of the situation with the liquor-by-the-drink tax, but, I mean, you kind of raised that. People are sill still drinking at Prime Rib and have been for sometime, I assume?
Bar sales are up, liquor sales are up, liquor sales are down over the past couple years?
The only reason I would again raise it, and the reason I raised it today, is because, again, you've got a situation where only just a few minutes away, people aren't paying a 10 percent.
All right, but have 99 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 people stopped drinking in your establishment because of that?
But then, again, I've never opened an establishment here without the 10 percent tax. That's been in effect before I got here, so I really can't speak to that.
I understand. We've interrupted you enough times in your testimony. Please continue.
The only actual experience I've had with a smoking ban would be with what happened to me next door, on 18th and Locust Street. A placed named "The Square Bar" opened a year or so ago, with 100 percent no smoking, in the Sheraton Rittenhouse. Now if you walk by, you see the windows covered with paper because they've gone out of business. 100 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 (Applause.)
Not that there could necessarily be any comparison to the Prime Rib, but, I mean, is it a comparable type of menu?
A very plush bar, brand new, but they went the total-ban route.
Okay. I mean, you're obviously drawing some conclusion to that.
It's the only experience that I have -- that I know that's. Why I brought it up.
The other points I wanted to make were the international visitor market. 101 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 Especially the European an Asian enjoy smoking. I doubt they will enjoy stopping smoking just because they're dining in Philadelphia. The Convention and Visitors Bureau spends a great deal to bring us these markets, and I believe we should accommodate the tastes and desires of our visitors.
Mr. Weldon, I have been informed that the black paper that you see at the establishment that you referred to is apparently up because it's under renovation. (Laughter.)
Right. Well, actually, it's closed. The bar is closed and someone else is coming in to take over it.
Places open, places close, and hopefully, more stay open than stay closed, but go ahead.
But that's a bar that had a 100 percent ban. It's only a year old, and it's 102 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 a lively, thriving area. It's 18th Street, there's several places thriving on either side of it. What happened here?
And the point was raised about California being a statewide ban, as opposed to this, which this -- the unfairness of having the other places where you can go to smoke is what my point was there. In summary, I would say that a total ban is overkill, a solution to a problem that at least in my establishment does not exist. I would say, number two, enforce the choice if you feel the need for enforcement in this area. (Applause.)
Require restaurants to have smoking and nonsmoking areas. Either physically separate the areas by law or, as we did at the Prime Rib, totally separate the air-conditioning supply without recycling or mixing the return air. It's not rocket science. And, number three, we've got a difficult situation here in Center City with 103 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 parking. Our customers pay an extra percent for spirits and wine just by coming into the City. In addition, our purchases of spirits and wine in the controlled State of Pennsylvania, leave us less competitive than neighboring states. All these three things are against us. I would say, please don't give people another reason not to come into Philadelphia. (Applause.)
My name is Bruce Cooper. As a Philadelphia business owner, I appreciate the opportunity to present my view on the proposed Bill 314, which bans smoking in restaurants, outdoor cafes and certain bars. For the record, I am a lifelong nonsmoker and the owner of two fine-dining establishments -- Jake's Restaurant in Manayunk, and Novelty Restaurant in Old City. I would like to state that I have the highest regard for Councilman Nutter, who has assisted me in various issues over the years, and despite my admiration and friendship for the Councilman, I strongly oppose any government- mandated regulation which removes the ability of 104 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 business owners to make decisions based on market forces. It is my position that the marketplace forces -- and not the government decrees -- should be the determination in which a hospitality establishment decides its environment. What we are deciding here is the freedom of choice for the Philadelphia business owners and patrons. My reason for being here today is to reason protect the interests of business owners like myself who seek to continue to have the freedom to meet the very needs and desires of our patrons. Banning smoking in restaurants would dictate to private business owners how they serve their customers. I believe that business owners are the best judges of how to satisfy their clientele. Both of my restaurants have completely smoke-free dining areas. I choose to have my dining areas smoke-free because the market on which my restaurants rely on dictate that they be smoke-free. The same marketplace which led me to establish a smoke-free dining area requires that smoking be permitted in the lounge area. These accommodations were not made because the 105 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 government mandated I do this, but because the marketplace forces determined our policies. The impact of this smoking ban is being neglected in this debate. Based on my estimates, I would lose revenues in the low six figures at each of my restaurants. If Philadelphia adopts the proposed smoking ban, I will lose my customer base to other counties. And in addition, if my lounges go smoke-free, I will lose a good portion of my drinking customers to establishments who are exempt under this bill. Members of Council, this one-size-fits- all approach to tobacco use in restaurants simply doesn't work. This will be costly to restaurant employees in the form of lost hours, wages, and tips. It will be costly to owners in the form of lower sales, and it's costly to you in the form of lower sales taxes and employment taxes and lost economic development. Once again, this puts us at a disadvantage when compared to our neighboring counties and across the river. We simply want to be on the same playing field. I'd like to also know what -- 106 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314
Excuse me, if I may, Madam Chair. Again, you make a very clear statement that this will have this detrimental impact. And I ask you, what do you base that upon? What evidence do you have that if this legislation goes into place, that the events that you're describing will occur? Because we don't know. We're not restaurateurs, we don't know any of that, and we'd like you to explain that to us.
I have six small seats at Jake's Restaurant in the bar. I have an extraordinary regular clientele that comes and eats at the bar. They're not allowed to sit in the dining room and smoke, they prefer to eat and smoke at the same time. These people have told me that they will not come from the Main Line, which is about 70 percent of my business, to this area to eat. Very simple. It's hundreds of dollars a night. Last night, at Novelty, when I was working, 8 out of 120 people ate in the bar specifically so they could smoke. Where do they 107 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 go? I think what we're looking -- also, when we're looking at these different --
So the people that will come into your restaurant, the things that you offer in terms of the ambience, the food, everything else, plus the setting of your restaurants in the different area of Philadelphia, maybe it's for the attraction and not just the reason that they can smoke.
Well, I'd like to think that my food is a drug, but I think that the nicotine is a little bit stronger of a pull.
Bruce, may I interrupt you to say something? I don't think that we have an answer for that. We have no money to do studies and present to you statistics on what the outcome would be. I think it's more commons sense. I don't agree with some of the arguments that some of my fellow restaurateurs have. I think we lose credibility when they say certain things 'cause, you know, as -- people will come to our restaurants, they're not going to stop 108 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 coming in total. And I think to say that, we are losing some credibility with you. But I believe that we will lose revenue in the bar areas, as my experience dictates that people will, instead of maybe coming twice a week, maybe they'll come once a week. Instead of coming five times a month, maybe it will be three times a month. There will be an effect. Now, you can this argument to absurd proportions and say, only people with straight hair can come to Buddakan, in which case, a lot of people will straighten their hair because they really like the food. I mean, there's a certain point where it --
What I'm trying to say is, we don't have the statistics, we don't have the research to tell you that, yes, percent of our 22 business stop will because of the smoking ban. 23
Well, then given 24 that there is no empirical evidence, what is the 25 reaction or your feelings to the fact that now all 109 5/24/00 PUBLIC HEALTH - BILL 000314 the research shows that, and I quote, that secondhand smoke is "a public health hazard." As businessmen, what is your response, reactions, sentiments regarding that fact that is based on empirical evidence?