HomeMy Public PortalAbout2003 - Other Side of the Coin - Opponents of Smoking Ban �T�J ri-r—Wr -CC- .rcrirrJ r:017J`JJ`JJ'�JJJnn�)
ki
b[ U
1 • U
u
i6
u
l
c
u
k6
? THE OTHER ,/
k.,
,t,
,a,„ ,
it 1 SIDE OF ,u
. • u
at..„
, THE COIN ,
,,
,„
Iit', „c6L, ,,
,,,
c1 l4
v 1.
Da, .
1.
1 lUyr
l5
l.,
VA
ri J's-_5'J�'-GJJEGJ�G�GJ 1 GiaJ'GJ'J'sGzG�GJJJ�GI�GJ�CJizio2iiCJ_CJJ'GJ'o-G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Facts at a Glance
Second Hand Smoke: Myth vs. Fact
> "Hype and Hysteria About Secondary Smoke"— Timeline
> "The Big Lie of Secondhand Smoke",
The San Francisco Examiner
> "Warning: Secondhand Smoke May NOT Kill You",
Brills Content
> "Please Don't Poop in My Salad"
The Heartland Institute is a genuinely independent source of research and commentary
founded in Chicago, Illinois in 1984. It is not affiliated with any political party, business,
or foundation. Its activities are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
> "The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
The Cato Institute
Economic Impacts of Anti-Smoking Bans
> "His Dreams Go Up in Smoke"
FreeRepublic
FreeRepublic is "a conservative news forum"
> "Smoking Ban Puts Restaurant Profits Up In Smoke/They Finally Admit
It!"
Boston
> Smoking Ban Impact Nationwide
Geocities
> "Smoking Ban Accomplishes Little, other Than Burdening Businesses"
> "Smoking Ban Impact on California Restaurants"
> "Tempe (Arizona) Bar Revenue Down 20 Percent After Smoking Ban"
FreeRepublic
> "Restaurant Sales Taxes in Tempe Tumble in June"
The Arizona Republic
> "Smoking Ban "Disaster"For Ottawa Bars"
Edmonton Sun
Litigation Due to Anti-Smoking Bans
• Lexington Smoking Ban On Hold
The Courier-Journal
> Smoking Ban Delay is Sought
The News Journal — Delaware
• Court To decide Who Has Power to Enforce Local Smoking Bans
West Virginia
Comments and Testimony of Restaurant and Bar Owners
Studies and Findings of Interest
> Exposures to Second-Hand Smoke Lower than Believed
Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
> Toxic Toxicology
> British Medical Journal
> Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in
prospective study of Californians, 1960-68.
School of Public Health, University of California
CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI - 1997
SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI - PRESENT
INTRODUCTION
MORE THAN 3,000 PEOPLE EACH YEAR DIE OF LUNG CANCER
DUE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE: FALSE
In, 1992, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report "Respiratory Health
Effects of Passive Smoking," based on a meta analysis of 11 separate studies,
uses 3,000 deaths per year attributable to environmental tobacco smoke.
Federal judge William Osteen, the very same judge who had earlier ruled that
the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) should control tobacco, overturned the
EPA's fraudulent report. He said that the EPA "publicly committed to a
conclusion before research had begun...disregarded information and
made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant
epidemiologic information; deviated from its own Risk Assessment
Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning's; left
significant questions without answers....produced limited evidence, then
claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS
causes cancer."
IN SHORT, THE REPORT WAS FALSE.
In 1995 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) (a 741 person, $62 million
per year think tank that works exclusively for Congress) rejects EPA and three
other studies as not statistically significant and tainted by poor research and
analysis. After 20 months and several million dollars, the CRS stated:
"It is very possible that no deaths have been caused by
environmental tobacco smoke." It found no basis for a proposed
OSHA smoking ban in federal workplaces.
In 1998, the World Health Organization study on environmental tobacco smoke,
purportedly the largest such undertaken, comprising 20 years in 38 centers in
21 countries was denounced by anti-smoking activists because it minimized the
allegedly detrimental effects of environmental tobacco smoke. It actually
showed no statistically significant increase (1 .16) in lung cancer in non-smokers
who had lived and worked with smokers for 40-50 years. WHO didn't release
the study at all until it was leaked to a newspaper, and when they did release
the study, it was accompanied by a press release whose headline screamed:
"Passive Smoke Does Cause Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You," which was
published verbatim by the popular press here and abroad. Apparently not one
of the journalists took the trouble to read the actual study.
FACTS ATA GLANCE
1. Proponents of the Smoking Ban Say: The Environmental Protection
Agency has classified eight substances as Group A carcinogens. One
of them is tobacco smoke. The other seven, including asbestos,
benzene, arsenic, and radon are illegal in the workplace. Tobacco
smoke kills more than the other seven combined.
IN FACT: Federal Judge William O'Steen threw out the EPA's
classification of tobacco smoke and criticized the agency for
falsifying data and lying to the public. Here is what the studies
really say:
"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with
passive smoke exposure in the workplace... ." Brownson et.aL, 1992,
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol 82, No. 11
"...an odds ratio of 0.91 ...indicating no evidence of an adverse effect of
environmental tobacco smoke in the work-place." Jenerich et at, 1990
New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990
"...the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small
and not statistically significant." Kalandidi et at, 1990 Cancer Causes
and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990
"Among women exposed only at work, the multivariate relative risks of
total CHD were 1 .49...among those occasionally exposed and
1 .92...among those regularly exposed to second-hand smoke [neither
of which is statistically significant according to commonly accepted
scientific standards]." Kawachi et aL, 1997 Circulation, Vol. 95, No. 10,
May 20, 1997
"No association was observed between the risk of lung cancer and
smoking of husband or passive smoke exposure at work." Shimizu et
at, 1988 Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 154.389.397
"We did not generally find an increase in CHD ([coronary heart
disease] risk associated with ETS exposure at work or in other
settings." Steenland et at, 1996 Circulation, Vol. 94, No. R, August 15,
1996
"...no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure
to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities..."
Stockwell et al., 1992 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84. 1417-
1422, 1992
`There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace
and risk of lung cancer." Zaridze at aid, 1998 International Journal of
Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338
2. Proponents of the Smoking Ban Say: Secondhand smoke is a public
health issue. Secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, and
serious breathing problems. It aggravates respiratory illnesses in children.
There is no known safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
IN FACT: Every major study whose parameters were not changed
to bolster a preconceived result shows little or no statistical risk
from secondhand smoke. In 2001, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administrations (OSHA) decided to drop plans for setting up
federal rules for indoor smoking. OSHA said it was because there is
no evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful.
3. Proponents of the Smoking Ban Say: Waitresses have the highest lung
cancer rate of any female profession.
IN FACT: If this is true (no study is noted to prove it),
economic status, poor medical care, stress, and diet are more likely
reasons than secondhand smoke.
4. Proponents of the Smoking Ban Say: People with asthma and other
breathing difficulties should be able to enjoy all eating and drinking
establishment.
IN FACT: In 1970, 44.1% of all males in the US smoked, 33.9% of
females smoked. That year the number of hospital discharges for asthma
in the under 15 age group was 33,000 (5.8%)
In 1980, 37.5% of males smoked, 29,3% of females smoked. The
number of under 15 hospital discharges for asthma was 124,000 (24.2%).
In 1990, 28.4%, of males smoked and 22.8% females smoked.
The number of under 15 hospital discharges was 169,000 (30.8%).
So, while smoking decreased to nearly half the smoking rates
of 1970, the number of children with asthma attacks severe enough
for hospitalization skyrocketed six times from 5% to 30%.
5. Proponents of the Smoking Ban Say: Every study using sales tax data
shows that smoke-free restaurant legislation is good for business.
IN FACT: Only one study using sales tax data shows the above, and it
was done by Stanton Glantz, an anti-tobacco guru. His study was shown
to be false by economist Michael Evans and others, and Glantz later
admitted using inaccurate data. The most recent study shows the
opposite, and recent research in San Francisco shows its hospitality
down to 1994 levels!
6. Proponents of the Smoking Ban Say: Our youth are exposed to this
when they work or play in places where smoking is allowed indoors.
Non-smokers have the right to breathe clean, hazard-free air.
IN FACT: There are many hazards in the air, both indoors and out.
For instance, the air in LA is 450 times more hazardous than government
regulations allow. If the free market is allowed to decide, non- and
anti-smokers-both customers and workers — will have access to
smoke-free restaurants, bars and workplaces, just as smokers — both
customers and workers - will have access to smoking —allowed
restaurants, bars and workplaces. That's the American way.
7. Proponents of the Smoking Ban Say: Most smokers want to quit, but
find it very difficult due to the addictive power of nicotine. Creating a
smoke-free workplace is one of the most effective ways to assist adults in
their efforts to quit smoking. According to experts, implementation of a
smoke-free workplace policy brings a 25% reduction of workers' tobacco
consumption.
IN FACT: No studies prove this statement. Notice that the
"experts" are not mentioned by name. More Americans have quit
smoking than currently smoke, with no help from anyone. People
who want to quit, quit.
8. Proponents of the Smoking Ban Say: Local efforts are required to
deal with this Problem; we can't count on state or national government to
solve it for us. Our elected officials should pass smoke-free workplace
ordinances which protect workers from having to breathe poisonous
smoky air.
IN FACT: This is not an issue for national, state or local
government. Governments should stay out of it entirely. The
owners of these establishments should have the right to cater to
those customers who want to engage in a LEGAL activity in their
places of business. And, it should be the staffs CHOICE whether or
not to work there, and the customers' CHOICE whether or not to
patronize the place. These ordinances are brought to the table, not
by the local people who have a problem with local smokers, either in
public or in the workplace, restaurants, bars, etc., but by national
professional anti-tobacco groups who get a tremendous amount of
money for their efforts.
Banning smoking in any specific municipality which does not apply
to neighboring communities, creates an economic imbalance, an
uneven playing field. The neighboring communities have an unfair
advantage: they can cater to all the people: "smokers and non-
smokers," while the "banned community" cannot.
HYSTERIA ABOUT SECONDARY SMOKE--TIMELINE Page 1 of 3
HYPE AND HYSTERIA ABOUT SECONDARY SMOKE
MORE THAN 50,000 PEOPLE DIE EACH YEAR FROM HEART DISEASE DUE TO
SECONDHAND SMOKE -- FALSE
At the Seventh World Conference on Tobacco and Health held in Perth, Australia in 1990, anti-smoker
crusader Stanton Glantz gave the keynote address in which he said, among other things: "The main thing
the science has done on the issue of ETS, in addition to help people like me pay mortgages, is it has
legitimized the concerns that people have that they don't like cigarette smoke. And that is a strong
emotional force that needs to be harnessed and used. We're on a roll, and the bastards are on the run.
And I urge you to keep chasing them."
But the public was not terribly incensed about the alleged "3000" deaths each year blamed on secondary
smoke. So to create a problem of epidemic proportions that could be used in the war on smokers, and
using several disparate epidemiological "studies," Stanton Glantz performed a meta-analysis which was
published in the journal Circulation in 1991, and republished in JAMA in 1995. (Of the 12 studies on
fatal myocardial events used by Glantz in this review, 8 showed NO statistically significant risk for ets
exposure in non-smokers; of the 11 studies covering non-fatal myocardial events, 10 failed to show a
significant link.) Relying heavily on questionable research about a tiny increase in arterial deposits,
Glantz came to the conclusion that if a non-smoker exposed to secondary smoke had 20% increase in
arterial deposits, then 20% of the 1,000,000 heart disease deaths each year must be attributed to
secondary smoke. Disregarding the concept of"threshold," he wrote a massive paper on it and his
conclusions have been used since to claim more than 50,000 deaths due to secondary smoke each year.
Realizing the flimsy basis for such a claim, no agency of the U.S. government--including the EPA and
the CDC--has officially endorsed Glantz's misrepresentation of the facts. However, even with this most
blatant misuse of science, the American Heart Association still uses Glantz's biased figure of 50,000
deaths a year as does the anti-smoker cartel of NGOs, pharmaceutical companies, once-respected
charities, and paid professional anti-smoking activists.
MORE THAN 3,000 PEOPLE EACH YEAR DIE OF LUNG CANCER DUE TO SECONDHAND
SMOKE -- FALSE
In 1992, the EPA report "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," based on a meta analysis of
11 separate studies, uses 3,000 deaths per year attributable to environmental tobacco smoke. Federal
judge William Osteen, the very same judge who had earlier ruled that the FDA should control tobacco,
overturned the EPA's fraudulent report. He said that the EPA "ptiblicly committed to a conclusion before
research had begun... disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not
disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its own Risk Assessment Guidelines;
failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; left significant questions without answers...
produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated
ETS causes cancer." In short, the report was faked.
In 1995 the Congressional Research Service (a 741 person, $62 million per year think tank that works
exclusively for Congress) rejects EPA and 3 other studies as not statistically significant and tainted by
poor research and analysis. After 20 months and several million dollars, the CRS stated: "It is very
possible that no deaths have been caused by environmental tobacco smoke." It found no basis for a
proposed OSHA smoking ban in federal workplaces.
In 1998, the World Health Organization study on environmental tobacco smoke, purportedly the largest
http://www.geocities.corn/madmaxmcearrity/Mvth2.htm 10/14/M
HYSTERIA ABOUT SECONDARY SMOKE--TIMELINE Page 2 of 3
such ever undertaken, comprising 20 years in 38 centers in 21 countries was denounced by anti-smoking
activists because it minimized the allegedly detrimental effects of environmental tobacco smoke. It
actually showed no statistically significant increase (1.16) in lung cancer in non-smokers who had lived
and worked with smokers for 40-50 years. WHO didn't release the study at all until it was leaked to a
newspaper, and when they did release the study, it was accompanied by a press release whose headline
screamed: "Passive Smoke Does Cause Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You," which was published
verbatim by the popular press here and abroad. Apparently not one of the journalists took the trouble to
read the actual study.
ASTHMA IN CHILDREN IS CAUSED BY SECONDHAND SMOKE -- FALSE
Dr. Fernando Martinez, director of respiratory sciences at the University of Arizona and co-author of
Chapter 8 of the 1993 EPA Report on environmental tobacco smoke, the chapter that dealt with asthma
and other respiratory diseases, is among those specialists who believe that improved hygiene and
overuse of antibiotics are at the heart of the problem. "Like most people," he says, "I assumed tobacco
smoke and pollution were the problem -- this was the politically correct way to think. But these factors
turned out not to play a major role."
In 1970, 44.1% of all males in the US smoked, 33.9% of females smoked. That year the number of
hospital discharges for asthma in the under 15 age group was 33,000 (5.8%).
In 1980, 37.6% of males smoked, 29.3% of females smoked. The number of under 15 hospital
discharges for asthma was 124,000 (24.2%).
In 1990, 28.4%, 22.8% females smoked. The number of under 15 hospital discharges was 169,000
(30.8%).
So while smoking decreased to nearly half the smoking rates of 1970, the number of children with
asthma attacks severe enough for hospitalization skyrocketed six times from 5% to 30%. While other
respiratory illnesses do not show such a monotronic curve, they too are on the increase as smoking
decreases. According to the CDC, adult and childhood asthma cases have increased from approximately
6.7 million in 1980 when people smoked virtually everywhere to 17.3 million in 1998 when smokers
seldom even smoke in their own homes. Blaming secondary smoke for asthma is nothing more than an
emotion-laden gimmick in the war on smokers.
SIDS IS CAUSED BY SECONDHAND SMOKE -- FALSE
No one knows what causes SIDS. Ask any pediatrician.
SMOKING BANS ARE GOOD FOR BUSINESS
When the hospitality industry in California claimed that business was down due to the harsh smoking
restrictions, and that claim began to effect other areas of the country in which ANR(Americans for
Nonsmokers Rights, founded by Stanton Glantz) was attempting to enact similar laws, Glantz produced
a "study" that showed business was up.
Dr. Michael K. Evans, a respected economist, accused Glantz of misrepresenting data in a study that was
apparently designed to mislead elected officials. A Sacramento court issued a restraining order against
http:// www.aeocities.com/madmaxmcearrity/Mvth2.htm 10/14/03
•
HYSTERIA ABOUT SECONDARY SMOKE--TIMELINE Page 3 of 3
Glantz for destroying documents in the above case and required him to show why he should not be held
in contempt of court. It also charged him with unauthorized use of University of California resources for
political lobbying, electioneering and private political activities, and of using his time on the University
payroll to do so.
Until recently, Glantz's "study" was the only one ever done and anti-tobacco crusaders conveniently
ignored the questions brought up by Dr. Evans. Early in 2001 another study was completed, a study that
-cost no taxpayer dollars, a study performed by a non=smoker, a study that took into account all the
things that Glantz's "study" didn't, and it came to a very different conclusion. With the growth rate of
California since the smoking bans were enacted, it would be expected that there would be 1036 MORE
dine-in restaurants than there are. The anti-smoker crusaders set out to change society and they have
indeed done so, to the detriment of society.
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/Myth2.htm 10/14/03
The San Francisco Examiner Page 1 of 2
SAN FR ANCISCO
e ?]Txa miner.
Publication date: 11/29/2002
The Big Lie of secondhand smoke
BY SIDNEY ZION
Special To The Examiner
NEW YORK--Once upon a time in America, it was non-negotiable that the two boldest towns in the country
were San Francisco and New York. The Barbary Coast and Hell's Kitchen were bound together thumb-to-nose
against prohibitionists,who were described by our patron saint H.L. Mencken as those who feared that
"somewhere, someone is having a good time."
Then, nine years ago, San Francisco left our hearts smoldering in an empty ashtray. Of all the gin joints in all
the world, San Francisco was the first to ban smoking.And guess who wants to come to that smoke-free
dinner--the reformed smoker, the billionaire mayor of New York, Michael M. Bloomberg.
All the time in his testimony to the City Council and his bombardment in the media, Mayor Mike cites San
Francisco, in a turn on Sinatra's anthem: "If they could kill it there we can kill it everywhere, it's up to you, New
York, New York."
So it's time to talk turkey about this secondhand smoke craze to my once-upon-a-time second city, and let
you know just how bonkers you are and just how you began the greatest brainwashing of the 20th century.
Because despite the rantings of the lung and heart"experts"(the former claim 3,000 deaths a year from
secondhand smoke; the latter, centered at UC San Francisco, claim 30,000 to 60,000 a year, and without
blushing state that a half-hour exposure in a smoke-filled bar can cause heart disease), the second you take
these"studies"out in the sunlight they give junk science a bad name.
The Big Lie,to be fair, didn't originate in San Francisco. It opened in Washington in the first year of the
Clinton administration, 1993,with an Environmental Protection Agency report that began the civil war in
saloons and restaurants. Denounced eventually in Federal Court as"corrupt science,"the EPA gave the
number of dead each year of lung cancer due to passive smoke as 3,000. So now it wasn't a question of
choosing your own poison, you were poisoning me.
Two years later, the Congressional Research Service, an independent arm of Congress, found that there
was no scientific basis for the notion that secondhand smoke endangers health. This study was demanded by
Rep. Henry Waxman ,D-L.A.., the leading anti-smoking advocate in Congress. When it came out the way he
didn't want it to come out, he stuffed it--and the media censored it.
In March 1998, the World Health Organization found that secondhand smoke was a zero. The WHO, the
very SS of the Nicotine Nazi world, deep-sixed this extraordinary report based on a study that covered 21
countries over 10 years, costing millions of dollars.
Today, the WHO cites dozens of statistical studies "proving"that passive smoke kills, but never mentions its
own report! Par for the course for the zealots who live on the line that the end justifies the means.
But there's another but-- impossible as it may seem, the negative has been proved, not simply by WHO
statistics.
http://www.examiner.coin/sfx/templates/printer.jsp?story=n.zion.1 129w 12/2/2002
The San Francisco Examiner Page 2 of 2
The U.S. Energy Department conducted a six-year study in 17 cities during the 1990s. Nonsmoking
bartenders and waiters were wired up to determine whether secondhand smoke was a danger to their health.
The result across the board: nothing, nada. The amount of smoke inhalation was eons below the danger line.
And last year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration decided to drop plans for setting up federal
rules for indoor smoking. OSHA said it was because there is no evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful.
And yet against all this--which bet me you didn't know, given the censorship of the anti-smoking media--
we go like lemmings to the sea, the ship of fools, buying into the lie that we are protecting bartenders and
waiters from the fumes of guys and dolls like you and me.
It's a sick joke, spreading now across the world. If 1 percent of it were true, Mike Bloomberg and the city
fathers of San Francisco wouldn't have the breath to tell us we were the walking dead.
Sidney Zion, a former New York City newspaper columnist, is a freelance writer.
Printer-friendly version
•
•
•
•
•
•
http://www.examiner.com/sfx/templates/printer.jsp?story=n.zion.1129w 12/2/2002
1
■ •f�_ Xpi71.=- fe-z,
•
em . :
s : _ .
i _ _ ___ }�
..,_yTS
E
ND
...:SMOKE mAy
N
A N.
D
•
._ . . .. .
•. .
. . ... . .At :
� r .
rfisF v
Y _
i.
I: __1 f
F _
Virtually nobody doubts that smoking causes cancer.
But the press has created the impression that the science n
is as certain on the issue of secondhand smoke. It isn't.
n
•i
m
7.
HEN FEDERAL JUDGE WILLIAM OSTEEN THREW.13 UT tobacco blows smoke—again,"the St.Louis Port-Disparnccorn-
6 the Environmental Protection Agency s.1993 report plained.The De!eret News in Salt Lake City dismissed the deci- Ste'
113 finding that secondhand tobacco smoke causes lung -cion 25"Another tobacco smokescreen."And The Morning Cal! c
cancer, the reaction was swift and strong.Editorials in of Allentown,Pennsylvania.pleaded,"Don't abandon the non- t
newspapers big and small,north and south,blasted the July 17, smokers."Even the minority that praised the judge,such as the —
199R. decision. The headlines cold the story: "Thb ruling Boston Herald weren't overwhelming in their endorsements:
_" stinks,"wrote The Herald in Rock Hill, South Carolina. "Big "Smoke is still irritating,"the tabloid groused. 87
I
• - cancer has been a tricky business fur scientists,reporting on the
• issue has been even harder for the media,which have tended to
dee the grays that often charaitc.h.< the scientific process and
portray them in strong blacks and whites -
- � 'Nobody goes and looks at these studies? says Richard
- Klugcr,who won the Pulitzer Prize Br his 1996 book Asher to
Atha-Aanenca i Hundred-Year Cigarette War,the Public Health,
and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris The majority of
'-. journalists, Kluger says, merely"took what they were given?
Federal judge Instead of trying to assess the quality of the studies, most
. William Osteen reporters merely repeated their conclusions.That was impor-
. - overturned the .: rant because, as Kiuger's book noted, the only dement more
EPA's findings than "the inconsistency of the results' in the
on secondhand
smoke_ L ' decades of secondhand-smoke studies was"she weakness of
_ Nt _ the associations (between passive smoke and cancer),
4-p� `. v'! where they were found to exist at all?
laiQ i ...st:,,, Despite their flaws,the secondhand-smoke stud-
• . x„ f re:,.,t its have helped change the social consensus.In par-
.t;. y:3?r't :- ,'s<'tk X : titular,says Kluger,the EPA report was a watershed
Theud e'accused the EPA of "adjust[ing] event. Hundreds of companies,organizations,and
J I; cities issued smoking bans. "The secondhand-
established procedure and scientific-norms . smoke issue, more than any ofthe surgeon general
reports fon direct smoking),has changed the political
to:validate" its predetermined conclusion that debate," Kluger says.Where once tobacco was seen as
- - an issue of personal choice,now Witten as an infringe-
: � "`- $ecendhand smol(e causes cancer ' mem on others'health. - g
`_ '" ,y„ ¢ Anti-tobacco activists pooh-pooh the importance of
Ostem's decision,asserting that subsequent studies,including
Most of the editorials expressed a mix of anger and betrayal. recent ones by the California stare EPA and the British Medical
that the judge had gutted the EPA findings—which he did not Journal, have confirmed the link between what is officially
only for procedural legal reasons but also because of what he termed environmental tobacco smoke(hi s) and cancer."In
concluded was faulty science. Bur beneath that was a funda- many ways, the issue is moor scientifically,'says Dr Stanton
mental surprise,a sense that a judge—a nonscientist,after all— Glantz,a professor of medicine ar the Universityof California,
-
was questioning the unquestionable. Most editorials dismissed San Francisco,and coauthor of The Cigarette Papers"A lot of
-- • Osteen as they would a medieval religious figure blindly cling- water has gone under the bridge.'According to an article ear-
- - ing to his belief that the earth is Pat.The Deseret News,for exam- her this year in the Journal of the American Medical Auociation,
•- plc, branded the judge's findings as ludicrous; and wrote, 1 o6 studies have now been published on secondhand smoke,
"The danger is that Osteen's ruling will be taken seriously?The with 63 percent ending that passive smoking causes canter or
editorial implied chat the judge was callous about the human has other negative effects on health.
consequences of his action: "Fortunately, his profession allows it's true that the vast majority of scientists consider second-
:
for appeals--something not available to the estimated 3,000 who • hand smoke a carcinogen. But the difficulties of testing expo-
die annually from ingesting exhaled smoke." sure co secondhand smoke means there are still doubts on the
But the media shouldn't have been shocked by the judge's subject.With scientific proof lacking,the questions loom:.Why
criticisms.If news organizations had made more of an effort to did it take a court decision rendered five years after the fact to
look at the EPA study, they wouldn't have been surprised by raise doubts about the EPA's study?And where was the press?
Osteen's.icws.The judge was merely expressing doubts about 'Same people tend to talk about passive smoking as if it's
& ' - the EPA study that had been raised repeatedly by credible critics as certain an association(with cancer!as active smoking,'-says
in the five years following the reports release—doubts that had Dr.Geoffrey Kabat,an associate professor of preventive-med-
been ignored by most news outlets. icine at the Stare University of New York at Stony Brook.Even
_ In fact, members of the public can be excused if they still if you accept the EPA numbers, a male faces too times more
w harbor the certain belief that, like smoking itself, exposure to risk of cancer if he smokes than he would from passive smok-
F secondhand smoke can kill you-After all,for the most part,the ing. That makes active smoking perilous indeed. But what
media—with ample reason to be skeptical of any tobacco indus- does that mean for the cancer risk of secondhand smoke?
o try claims—have downplayed any doubts about the dangers of According to a 1995 Congressional Research Service study,
- 1 secondhand smoke,while parroting the scariest available sratis- the odds that a nonsmoker will die from secondhand-smok-
p tics about its effects. ing-induced lung cancer are about the same as those for dying
2 . The fact is,while proving a link between passive smoke and from electrocution or by drowning. Even nonsmokers who
; live with smoking spouses arc more likely to be killed in a
Smear wenn-Nirbo/ar zea-hater amine ehoerTime',coverage efa TLG»r homicide than they arc to die from lung cancer caused by
88 Unite/lig medicalpmfrari algedfa.keddeath in the dkraber rine somebody else's smoking.
cas
n f - �1I ) i�_N 1Fis 'I S - aNsecondhand
c ndh rd son -c, i worth t a env th e rs et he r �r \��\ , > N
didn't da t.i l,t ruling: nlicngn. EPA.; Im-ti ;Ivor sec- � ,
ti .fit ? `
rtodhand smoke iresponsible 4ot t,n,am on 'w os t-sbt o tett' 1 \� �\
ivory Irltirons year n children o disagreewith ;Ix :'Cs : ra �ti -
y „ `
•
findings :hat p t' n lei n v e s the asha.a sT_,a by . fiy� r , )� \ :
hundreds m th rsani o i Ido r And he certainly didn't s - \ `_\
question what is now can 9t„rd itr mutable truth by all hut a 3t. '-n. • --,
h:n!tr of people on b re_o company payrolls: So-called I F -1,'4. a' '.a._`�•• _ v.`
tins[ >moki: s opposed ro secondhand snukm_, cams i --,__' ' biTi .�_o +�.�` \
icing cancer cancer anis art disease. L4,often happens to anything a „ I Veils 9 ---tt.,.-..s”
(dice CO tubae o Ostern's backgtound has been an issue r,�.,,;�y � _ '�.?
Owen tits as a ;U:1'6-2 in North Carolina and u r;pr-_dly - .,� _ i-_
described in news articles a a orreaole tobacco lobbyist in"clic -y t j:_ - ' - "i
hear or:oh eco court..'Cha::sof conflict of interest,host- e +__r - �
ever,were blunted in .99;.when Oscar.ru'.e:in anotia case �.gep, - - -
chat the federal food and Drug Administration could regulate .� ar♦ •
•
tobacep as-a alto„a critically important.mt:.mbactm decision f_ - UNITED _
that has since been overturned on appeal. Ostah declined to ' - 'iil�;� STATES - -
be interviewed for this.story.; ' ' - - -
But,to put it mildly,when Osteon:brined the EPA's con- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
�,` v
clusions on the link bedwear passive smoking and lung cancer— cTIQN AGE�1C`t
the element of the EPA.study that has been moot often:ire!by -
die press over the years—he seas app:dled. His criticisms were - -pointed and and varied. • -
Ostccen Found that the EPA had"publicly committed to
a conclusion bel are research had begun;excluded industry by chance. After the authors found themselves unable to obtain The E ninon.encl
violating the Act's procedural requirements: adjusted estab- statistically sig:nfiunt evidence that secondhand smoke causes Protection?gen
ey
lishcd procedure and scientific norms to validate the cancer within a pi percent confidence interval(i.e.,a;percent drew the wrath
enc.'spublic conclusion. and aggressively utilized :he possibilitychat the resat¢were due to chine), the scientists olo.'edc.l j.dge.
S who found its
dues authority to disseminate fin dings...to influence-public rejiggcred the confidence interval.Thar maneuver gave them a nepor.on
opinion. hi conducting the ETS Risk Assessr.mot, EPA tis- statistically significant Erie.but=ailed:he likelihood of a ran- seaondha-d smoke
regarded information and made Findings on selective jefor- dam result to w percent. ' deep'Ilawec-
maauu;did not disseminate significant epidemwiugic:cior- 'That seemed like a chea:, an uncoovenaoral thing co
mason;deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines;failed du.' says Kabac, who 'erred on the panel that reviewed the
to disclose important findings and reasoning;and left sienif- EPA risk aasessrren: lard who has never been paid by the
•
Rant questions without answer.` tobacco industry). 'And it made the difference between the
The 93-page opinion charged the EPA with statistical summary relative risk being significant and not significant.' .
(hanky-panky. The EPA did not conduct-original research; (A senior scientist on the team that put the report together - -
instead the agency used'meta-analysis,"which involved blend- notes char the review p;rel approved numerous revisions,in-
ing the results from 30 previously completed studies, each of ' eluding'the changed confidence inter.-al.He asserts chat it was
•
•
Which tracked nonsmoking wives of smoking husbands. appropriate to ase the lower confidence interval given that the
Though controversial, the use of meta-analysis is generally EPA hypothesis—that secondhand smoke was carcino- .
accepted among statisticians. But the methods used by the EPA genic—procluded the possibilin"that;he smoke would have a
to'select and combine the studies.which had been conducted positive effect on health.) - -
indecendendy,were found by the judge to be lacking.For even- The adjusted confidence interval may have helped the -
plc, :he authors of the EPA study had lowered their so-tiled results pass muster, be:only hard'. Fewer than one third of o.n
confidence inrerrd,a statistical term that assigns a rexeMage the 30 studies used by the EPA were statistically significant.Of O
value to represent how likely it is that a result ochured pureiv by the II studies conducted in the United States that were used -
to reach the EPA's conclusion that paeive smoking increases o
Editor's Note: Boil!:' Content accepts paid advertising from one i risk of lung cancer by 19 percent,just one reached the r n
tobacco companies. But the controversy surrounding this statistical threshold even using the lower 95 percent confi-
ii
practice prompts us to state our position clearlvt We recognize dente intern!. In other words,the margin was razor thin. - .
that smoking causes cancer.a Fact that tobacco companies lied Finally,the judge assailed the EPA group for'cherry pick- -
about for decades.Our policy is to accept advertising for legal Mg" studies. For example, three;urge—but uncompleted—
products.as long as the ads do not make claims we perceive to new studies were submitted to the EPA while the risk assess- c
be false. Our rationale,or rationalization. is that we hclieve mcnt was being prepared.(8:lnsc of the studies already being
that cigarette advertising in publications read by adults is considered were solar:Er.size and tins lea statistically power-
ti
meant co affect: market share and brand loyalty and that in ash)The EPA scientists decided to use the one tnar support-
p all event adults have had fair Will[ling the shouldn't smoke. :d their theory. and excluded the other nvo ne of which 89
THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE
19 South LaSalle Street#903
Chicago, IL 60603
phone 312/377-4000 • fax 312/377-5000
http://www.heartland.org
Please Don't Poop in My Salad
Author:Joseph L. Bast
Published:The Heartland Institute 03/01/2003
Anti-smoking advocates may not know much about the science, economics, or social justice of their neoprohibitionist
campaign,but they sure do know how to hurl insults at those who do.
In response to a recent opinion piece of mine that ran in the Chicago Tribune,we received an email from "Harry"in
Milwaukee saying if Bast"promises not to smoke within ten feet of me, I promise not to poop on his salad bowl while
he's eating."Only he didn't say"poop."
Gee,thanks.
Once or twice a year I devote a Heartlender essay to defending smokers. I know some readers don't like it when I do
this, but if you care about fair taxation,tort reform and the Rule of Law, the rise of the Nanny State, and the use of
junk science in public policy,you just can't look the other way when smoker abuse occurs.
(For those of you concerned for my health, allow me to report that I smoke cigars, not cigarettes, and due to the
winter cold I'm down to fewer than one a week.The wine and cheese consumed by typical anti-smoking activists
probably pose a greater threat to their health than my occasional smoking does to mine.)
No More Chicago Fire?
On January 7, the City Council of Chicago held a hearing on proposed legislation to ban smoking in restaurants and
bars. For the better part of a day,a stream of restaurateurs, bar owners and managers,waiters and waitresses,
experts on ventilation, community leaders, and at least one public health expert(Michael Fumento,whom I invited)
testified that a ban is unwanted,unnecessary,would destroy jobs and hurt tourism, and would violate rights.
When it was over,Ald. Ed Smith,chairman of the Health Committee, told the Chicago Tribune, "there was nothing
said in the hearing today that we had not heard all along. It's the same old soup just warmed over."
Ald.Smith apparently slept through some pretty compelling testimony. Here's a brief reprise.
Little Public Support
The general public does not support smoking bans in restaurants.According to a 2001 Gallup poll, 52 percent
of survey respondents believe restaurants should set aside space for smokers, while 44 percent support a total ban.
Support for a ban would have been even lower if respondents were informed that bans on smoking could cause the
loss of jobs or closure of small businesses, or that all restaurants already make accommodations for smokers.
. Most seats in most restaurants are already designated nonsmoking. Current statutes in Chicago (and most
towns and cities nationwide)require one-third of seats in restaurants to be designated nonsmoking. Most restaurants
http://www.heartland.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?theType=artld&theID=11718 10/14/2003
Printer Friendly - Please Don't Poop in My Salad Page 2 of J
set aside more, and a growing number are entirely nonsmoking. At least half of all seats in Chicago restaurants are
already reserved for nonsmokers. Most restaurants connected to bars have invested heavily in ventilation and air
cleaning systems to ensure smoke doesn't travel from the bar to the restaurant.
Nonsmokers who visit restaurants and bars are not complaining. The Public Health Department of the City of
Chicago received just 16 complaints about cigarette smoke in restaurants and bars in 2001. If nonsmokers are
dissatisfied with current accommodations, why aren't they complaining?
Lost Jobs
A smoking ban would have a severe negative effect on local businesses.According to restaurant and bar
owners, smokers spend more, on average,than nonsmokers on alcohol,food, and tips. Consequently, a ban on
smoking in restaurants and bars would reduce business and sales by 50 percent or more. Chicago-area restaurants,
bars, and hotels employ more than 118,000 people (with wages of more than $1.85 billion).A smoking ban means
fewer jobs, less tourism business, and the loss of millions of dollars in sales and property taxes.
Smoking bans elsewhere have reduced employment in restaurants, bars, and nightclubs.A survey of owners
and managers of California restaurants, bars, and nightclubs affected by that state's smoking ban found 59 percent
experienced a decrease in business since the ban. The average decline in sales was 26 percent. Nearly 30 percent
reported laying off employees or cutting hours or shifts. From 1994 to 1999, during a time when the rest of
California's economy was booming, 1,039 restaurants or bars went out of business.
Violating Rights
Bar and restaurant owners should be allowed to make the right decisions. No one is forced to eat or work at
establishments that allow smoking. Bars and restaurants are privately owned businesses that earn a profit by giving
customers what they want. The owners of these establishments are in the best position to know what their customers
want and how to deliver it. Since they own the property, their right to set the rules of conduct concerning guests
should be respected.
No Public Health Benefit
The threat of secondhand smoke has been greatly exaggerated. Claims that secondhand smoke causes as
many as 65,000 early deaths in the U.S. each year have been widely debunked as "junk science."Studies by the
Congressional Research Service,World Health Organization, and U.S. Department of Energy all failed to find
secondhand smoke to be a significant health risk. In 1998, a U.S. District Court ruled against the Environmental
Protection Agency's attempt to classify secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen.
Smoking bans move noisy and potentially dangerous crowds onto sidewalks. Smokers go outside when bars
and nightclubs disallow smoking inside, resulting in noise and activity that can annoy and even endanger
neighborhood residents. Drinking and smoking on sidewalks is likely to be louder and more often lead to violence,
crime, or injury-causing accidents than drinking and smoking inside a privately owned establishment.
Smokers Don't Deserve This
Yes, long-term heavy smoking is hazardous to your health. But surveys of smokers show they over-estimate the
actual risk. They continue to smoke because they decide the enjoyment is worth the risk,just as long-distance
runners, bicyclists, race car drivers, and countless other pursuers of pleasure willingly accept risk.
Smokers already pay more,through taxes,than the cost their habits impose on the rest of society.The cost to
society of smoking has been ridiculously exaggerated. Current excise taxes paid on cigarettes exceed the net
medical expenses caused by smoking. (Grossly inflated figures circulated by the Centers for Disease Control assume
smokers would live forever and never need medical care if they didn't smoke!) Since the average smoker lives a
shorter life than the average nonsmoker,smokers cost the rest of society less in nursing home and pension costs.
http://www.heartland.org/PrinterFri endly.cfm?theType=artId&theID=11718 10/14/2003
Printer Friendly -Please Don't Poop in My Salad Page 3 of 3
Why Wage War on Smokers?
Why is Chicago's City Council debating a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants when the public doesn't want it,the
public health benefits would be nonexistent, and the costs in terms of jobs and our rights would be so heavy? Part of
the answer lies in the corps of tax-financed professional anti-taxpayer activists. Lobbying for this legislation is how
they earn a paycheck.
But I think there's another reason.There are far more bars and restaurants in Chicago than there are cops to enforce
a smoking ban. Deciding which establishments to ticket would provide many opportunities for corruption,favoritism,
and harassment. I think Chicago's crafty aldermen are looking for another way to shake down bar and restaurant
owners,what we Chicagoans call "payola."
With 60 murders in 2002, Chicago barely missed repeating its title as "murder capital of the U.S."Diverting scarce
law enforcement resources from fighting real crime to harassing smokers just so some alderman can line his pocket
with bribes is disgusting, irresponsible, and could be downright deadly.
And that's why I write about smokers' rights.
Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute.
•
•
•
•
•
http://www.heartland.org/PrinterFriendl y.cfm?theType=artId&theID=11718 10/14/2003
I „\ .,1.0nal-,lulu Page I of 3
•
'L• ,r iii ` .-it` -I.•I,.•<.
46me1Wiali llt5 !Nowsrbmrl`1 1
r
.a_t, September 28, 1998 October 8,2003
• :i11l �Qllhi(:ItfI�
The Second-Hand- • hum... in flan&
of Private Company
!HI Smoke Charade by Edward Hudgins
_... _ [Archives]
• ^,I.� ,•;•ltl by Dominick Armentano
• rnrir' `Iud6rc Dominick Armentano is professor emeritus in economics at •
the University of Hartford and an adjunct scholar at the Cato
' I Inst:, In Vista,
t ':,e, Pnlin Davis!
u,.lt„r Institute. He lives in Vero Beach, Florida. SchwnnciicKKcr
• I ti ,.lnurn:,l Wins Recall
Smoking tobacco products over a long period of time may
nl❑lino entail significant health risks. Acknowledging those risks, • Afghanistan Envoy
Otago/hie millions of Americans have quit smoking because they - Warns of Taliban
' I 'a"t I hind i , ,, estimate that the possible costs exceed any possible benefits. and Al Qacda
*""u'ecs That's their right. Alternatively, millions of other Americans Attacks
• tgiicci„n:,l have voluntarily assumed the risks of smoking and they
I cc,inumv continue to puff away. And that's their right, too. • Bush May Shelve
I.rt!al ItrirlF Request for U.N.
•
t 'atn .l rutin
•
Or is it?One of the important arguments for restricting All in Iraq
nq
I ,u t c smoking is that it can endanger innocent nonsmokers who [Archives]
inhale environmental tobacco smoke(ETS). Indeed,many •
” Be (;0%Pilled— states(led by California and Florida)have decided over the
• I ,nth Archive last few years to severely restrict smoking in commercial
establishments on the basis of a 1993 Environmental •
i rF = Protection Agency report that classified ETS as a "Group A
• nlnla' ,, Carcinogen," that is,as a significant risk to health.
t Incl r'ihu t iau
Lout It now turns out that the influential 1993 EPA report
spnncnrship "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung
Cancer and Other Disorders"was as phony as a three-dollar
-\11".n1tivr (;ivint; bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that
Methods ETS was a public health danger(and not just a nuisance)
• I.r,els and were completely misled by the EPA. And, of course,so was
Brnelils main street American public opinion.
•.1r.9Ji )iJrJ/111:—!S! Are those the views of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hardly.
113 I',,ckei t ,nr:li t i inn They are the sober conclusions of a gutsy federal district .
court judge in North Carolina named William Osteen, whose
I m:,il I!pilaw` recent ruling invalidated the very foundation of the EPA
Audio • report.Judge Osteen's views coincide with a Congressional
Research Service analysis released in late 1995 that had
•I :"" Sir.,': serious reservations about the EPA report.
to I :,i,.,nt Vow r I'll;\
I__J r at'. Huh
You don't have to be a fan of smoking to agree
hitp://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html 10/8/03
I Ile ,,ccunu-rland Jmoke l.Llarade Page 2 of 3
t1 I I r .m' that the EPA is a regulatory renegade spinning
wildly out of control on this issue. Even
several veteran career employees of the agency
have gone public recently to protest its"junk
science" and its irrational environmental
zealotry.
Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had "cherry picked"
its data and had grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and
scientific norms" in order to rationalize the agency's own
preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000
lung cancer deaths a year. In addition,Osteen ruled that the
EPA had violated the Radon Act,which was the agency's
authority for disseminating its "de facto regulatory scheme"
that intended to prohibit passive smoking.The agency
responded,embarrassingly,with an ad hominem attack on the
judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments.
As a result of the EPA report,many bans on smoking in
public places have been introduced.One would think that any
such ban would be based solidly on scientific studies of ETS
exposure in public places. In fact,the EPA did not even
evaluate the studies on smoking in public places. Instead,the
EPA's analysis was based on II U.S. studies that examined
the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses
married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of
the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative
cancer risk associated with ETS.
Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a
serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation.To do
that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30
ETS studies and then,defying all scientific standards,simply .
changed the "confidence levels" in the statistical analysis
from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated
smaller sample finally"confessed"that passive smoking was
a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had "proven" its
preconceived conclusions.
And the sordid tale gets worse.The EPA chose to omit
entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had
determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically
significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those
studies with the "cherry-picked" I I produces a result that
shows no statistically significant health risks associated with
passive smoking,even at reduced confidence levels. In short,
even employing the EPA's own corrupt methodology, ETS
was simply not a"Group A Carcinogen,"as the agency had
boldly asserted.
You don't have to be a fan of smoking to agree that the EPA
is a regulatory renegade spinning wildly out of control on this
issue. Even several veteran career employees of the agency
have gone public recently to protest its "junk science"and its
irrational environmental zealotry.Congress should pull the
plug on any EPA regulation that cannot be justified by
evidence that is demonstrable,compelling,unequivocal and
hup://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html 10/8/03
I he Second-Hand Smoke Charade Page 3 of 3'
significant. None yet exists with respect to passive smoking.
Support the Cala Institute
O Send This page to a friend
®Printer friendly Version
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-
5403
Phone(202)842-0200 Fax(202) 842-3490
All Rights Reserved 02003 Cato Institute
•
http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html • 10/8/03
His Dreams Go Up In Smoke Page 1 or s
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum" -
1 Browse I Search I Topics 1
Click to scroll to commentary.
His Dreams Go Up In Smoke
• Newsday A 112 October 2003 I Merle English -
Posted on 10/12/2003 9:24 PM PDT by VermiciousKnid
His Dreams Go Up in Smoke Smoking ban forces tavern owner to sell a family institution
By Merle English STAFF WRITER
October 12, 2003
In the horse-and-buggy days of the early 19th century, when a tavern was the mainstay of many a man's
social life, men tied up their rides outside Petersen's, then a two- story saloon at the intersection of what
is now 20th Avenue and College Point Boulevard in College Point.
Petersen's was a place for drinking, eating, smoking and camaraderie, and so it remained when Theodore
Lauterbom's stepgrandfather, Otto Roesch, bought the establishment in 1902 and changed its name to
Roesch's Tavern. It was passed down to Lauterborn's stepfather, William Roesch, in the 1930s, and to
Lauterbom in 1975, after William Roesch died.
The business - which has been a popular gathering spot and the scene of many social events from the
days when neighborhood residents were largely German and Irish - flourished.
•
On June 18, however, Lauterborn received a $250 ticket because a patron coming to the bar for 30 years
defied a barmaid's order and smoked on the premises, also defying the citywide ban on smoking in
restaurants, bars and some other public places that Mayor Michael Bloomberg championed. The ticket,
and one $100 ticket he received for cigarette butts in the street, would contribute to the tavern's doom.
A business in the family for more than a century, Roesch's closed its doors on Aug. 31, and the building
was put up for sale. Lauterborn, 59, said business at the 178-seat restaurant and bar declined
precipitously after the smoking ban was instituted in March •
-
"Even at 11:30 a.m. on Friday you had 12 to 13 people in here," he said. "Saturday was bigger, but due
to this situation, it's all over." The tickets were the "straw that broke the camel's back."
Excerpted - click for full article ^
Source:http://www.nynewsday.corn%features/printedition/queenslifeJny-gldiary3490253octl2,0,5769603.story?coll=ny-
queenslife-print
TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: SMOKING; SMOKINGBANS
Another triumph for Bloomberg, Pataki and Bruno.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1000095/posts?page=4 10/14/2003
Smoking Ban Puts Restaurant Profits Up In Smoke/They Finally Admit It! Page 1 of 12
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[Browse I Search I Topics ]
Click to scroll to commentalL
Smoking Ban Puts Restaurant Profits Up In Smoke/They Finally Admit It!
Boston.com A !June 18,2002 I Unknown
Posted on 06/19/2002 7:11 AM PDT by SheLion
Some Haverhill restaurant owners are complaining about a city ban on smoking.
•
NewsCenter 5's Kelley Tuthill said that they claim the smoking ban is driving customers away and they
say they're ready to fight to get it overturned.
Restaurant owners said that they've lived with these new regulations for three months with
devastating consequences. They plan to speak out Tuesday night at a meeting at City Hall.
In Haverhill, the bar banter has moved outside. Three months ago, the city banned smoking in most
restaurants. The ashtrays may be gone, but so are the customers.
"I would say we lost 30 to 40 percent of our business right off top since March 1, and it happened
that day," restaurant owner Mike Difeo said.
It was a similar story at Benny's farther north on Route 125.
"It's a struggle. I've lost $49,000 as of today, and I can see I lost my main base of customers
because of non-smoking. I am losing help. My people are not making money. I went from 58
employees to 44 employees," restaurant owner Ben Brienza said.
Workers and some customers may be heading across the border to New Hampshire.
"I think it's a ridiculous law. Little by little, we are Jawing ourselves right out of freedom," one customer
said.
"A lot of people we don't see anymore. It's sad," another customer said.
Before the regulations, nonsmoking customer could dine in a separate section of the restaurant.
So is Haverhill fixing something that wasn't broken?Not according to a member of the board of health.
"You can't drive over 65 on the highway —that is a health issue because of accidents, and there are
many different rules in that regard," board of health member Dr. Carl Rosenbloom said. "I think(the
government) has an obligation to protect certain aspects of public health that an individual cannot
protect themselves."
The board of health does not expect to make any decision at Tuesday night's meeting. It will take
public comment for at least a week. Then, board members will either keep the regulations as is, go to a
citywide ban in all establislunents or chose something in between.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/702491/posts?page=6 10/14/2003
Smoking Ban Bad For Business Page 8 of 10
• NUTSHELL TAVERN, Rte 1, Biddeford, Maine closes its doors due to smoking bans.
•
• Press Herald News, January 6, 2000 * MINGLES COFFEE SHOP, Kitchener, closes after non-
smoking bylaw passed--45% drop in business Kitchener-Waterloo Record, July 31, 2000
•
• * TWELVE RESTAURANTS CLOSE in Brookline, MA, after smoking ban decimates business
Lowell Sun, March 28, 2001
•
• * In British Columbia, 200 WORKERS in 46 establishments have lost their jobs because of the
smoking ban National Post, March 3, 2000
•
• * Hotelier Don Ritaller, Victoria, fired his entire staff of 12
•
• * J. P. MALONE'S PUB in Richmond, laid off eight of its 20 employees
•
• * CLYDE'S RESTAURANT GROUP, one of the most popular and successful restaurants chains-ib
the Washington DC area since 1963, suffered a staggering loss of sales after smoking was
banned
•
• * A survey of 300 alcoholic beverage serving operations in California, selected at random from
a list of 7,216 shows that 60% experienced a decrease in business averaging more than 30%;
7% showed increased business averaging 8%. Guest Choice Network + 50.4% of the
respondents indicated an increase in customer complaints/fights; + 65.0% indicated a loss of
regular customers; + 59.0% indicated a loss of tips/gratuities for the bar and/or serving
staff.
•
• * THE DULUTH GRILL has closed after 16 years due to the smoking ban Duluth News
•
• * 130 TOBACCONISTS in California have been forced to close since the 1998 smoking bans
and punitive tax increases SF Gate,July 1, 2001
•
• *Thousands of employees have had their hours cut, and hundreds have lost their jobs
because of the loss of the smoking customers who form a majority of their customer base.
•
• " Dread, pink slips greet smoking ban ," Globe and Mail, December 29, 2000
•
• * A recent study from British Columbia pointed out major economic and job losses after a
provincial smoking ban took effect in January: After 80 days of the bylaw, 730 EMPLOYEES
were let go , 9 BUSINESSES CLOSED and more than $16 MILLION was lost . The Ottawa
Citizen Online,August 27, 2001
•
• * Letter from a waitress in BC: " My livelihood is being jeopardized for my own protection,
and I never asked to be saved ."
•
http://www.geocities.com/shelionessBan.html 10/14/2003
Smoking Ban Bad For Business Page 9 of 1u
• * A hotel-industry study released this week shows that San Francisco's hotel-occupancy rates
have shrunk to 1994 levels. City hotels are operating at 74% capacity. Rooms priced at more
than $160 are about 69% full. While those numbers aren't disastrous,they are a far cry from
the stuffed hostelries we've been used to the last few years. San Francisco Examiner, April 19,
2001
•
• * TWO MORE RESTAURANTS have closed in Weymouth, MA : J.C. Grear's in South Weymouth
and the Aloha in Hingham. A fourth restaurant said business is way off. Weymouth News
•
• * Corvallis, OR: Employment at the Peacock has dropped from 50 to 14. Owner John Carter
says the business has lost 38 percent of its lottery income and more than half of its basic bar
revenue since the law took effect State records support Carter's lament about lost business.
The Register-Guard, September 24, 2000
•
• * Clergymen complain that 40 BINGO HALLS have closed because of the smoking ban. These
halls supported local charities. Sun-News, February 7, 2001
•
• * BUD'S PLACE in Cambridge and said his sales have fallen 23 per cent since the smoking ban
was implemented. His staff has shrunk to 12 from 17 and a full-time employee he's had on
staff for 10 years has been cut back to three shifts a week " Restaurateurs rebel against
smoking bans "The New-Standard, December 10, 2000
•
• * Wareham rescinds smoking ban when restaurant owners prove business decreased 25-
40%. "We knew it would hurt," Board of Health Chairman Ralph R. Thompson said of the
board's decision to implement the ban, adding that he and his fellow board members weren't
aware of just how devastating the ban's impact would prove to be on area businesses.
Representatives from Wareham's Elks club said the ban had cut the attendance at their
weekly bingo nights in half, crippling their ability to raise funds for scholarships and other
civic endeavors . Standard-Times, 12/20/2000
•
• Last Spring (just in time for tourist season), the same three anti-smoker members of
Wareham's Board of Health put the smoking ban back in place. Wareham is now smoker
UNfriendly and
restaurants, bars, and clubs and organizations are suffering. :-(
•
• * In Washington State a smoking ban at the Spokane Interstate Fair went down in flames
Monday after attendance dropped by roughly 22% (despite perfect weather) and county
commissioners were deluged with calls and letters of protest. "Fair policy up in smoke," Dan
Hansen, Spokesman-Review, 9/14/99
•
• * Susan Barnes of the WATERWORKS RESTAURANT in Rockland ( Maine ) said she has lost
more than $8,000 a month in liquor sales to other establishments since the restaurant
smoking ban went into effect. Bangor Daily News, February 5, 2000
•
• * Peter Martin, owner of John Martin's MANOR RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE in Waterville, said
he proclaimed all Sundays in January to be no-smoking. Food and beverage sales dropped 25
percent and off-track betting revenue dropped 30 percent, he said Bangor Daily News ,
February 5, 2000
•
• * "On Saturday night, we had a band, two bartenders, two waitresses, a doorman, a floor
man, and we grossed $33," said Dorsey Carey, manager of HANDLEBAR HARRY'S
bar/restaurant in Cordage Park, after smoking was banned.. Boston Globe Online, September
9, 2001
•
http://www.geocities.com/shelioness/Ban.html 10/14/2003
Smoking Ban Bad For Business Page 10 of 10
• * Owner of the CHATEAU LAFAYETTE, Jill Scott, said: "People can't say this isn't hurting us.
I've closed down my kitchen and cut five shifts . I don't know where people are going, but
they aren't here." Ottawa Sun, Tuesday, October 2, 2001
•
• * After smoking bans were implemented, the number of Buffalo BINGO ESTABLISHMENTS
dropped by about 20 percent, while city bingo fee revenues declined by 36 percent, according
to officials. The Buffalo News, By BRIAN MEYER, News Staff Reporter, 7/24/01
•
• * Mesa, AZ, banned most restaurant smoking in 1996. THE MARQUEE,the ZUR-KATE and
ARIZONA JACK'S are the exceptions. They demonstrated that they lost so much business as a
result of the ban that they were allowed to permit smoking. The Washington Post, Monday,
February 19, 2001; Page A03
•
• * The most recent Gallup poll on smoking, November 13-15, shows that even in the current
climate more than half of Americans, 53%, still want to allow smoking sections in
restaurants; a solid majority still favors the preservation of smoking areas in the workplace,
63%, as well as in hotels and motels, 72%. "...it really comes down to whether or not we
have a right to tell private business owners what they can do in their own business." Arkansas
Gov. Mike Huckabee, The Cabin, September 6, 2001
LETTER: Smoking ban still the bane of Salem's hospitality industry
Email Forces Maine
Back to Forces Maine
http://www.geocities.com/shelioness/Ban.html 10/14/2003
SMOKING BAN ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE, OTHER THAN BURDENING BUSINES... Page 1 of 15
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[Browse I Search I Topics]
Click to scroll to commentary.
SMOKING BAN ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE, OTHER THAN BURDENING
BUSINESSES
Niagara Falls Reporter A I August 26 2003 I David Staba
Posted on 09/30/2003 6:09 AM PDT by CSM
One month into "Smoke-Free New York," a few things are clear.
The non-smokers who were supposedly going to flood restaurants and bars once they weren't exposed to
the honors of second-hand smoke aren't going to such establishments any more than they did before
July 24, when the nation's strictest indoor smoking ban took effect.
The idea that people who didn't enjoy the occasional cocktail would start doing so was preposterous
from the get-go. Not to mention hypocritical, since it implied that one of the benefits of preventing
people from smoking was to induce others to drink alcohol, the most devastating drug known to man.
The Big Lie propagated by anti-smoking activists was a cynical ruse used to sway the simple folk who
populate the New York State Legislature, who become particularly gullible when their leaders get their
pockets stuffed with lobbyist cash. They, in turn, used it as a feeble defense to ward off the ire of
constituents furious that such a massive intrusion on private business owners was quietly rushed into law
last spring.
Anyone who bought the Big Lie then was a sucker. Anyone who still expounds'it is something far
worse.
Scores of the service employees supporters of the ban claimed they want to protect are looking for jobs,
because their old ones don't exist.
Some Niagara Falls establishments have laid off bartenders and waitresses due to flagging business.
Others have cut back their hours of operation, meaning fewer hours of employment for their remaining
workers.
Supporters of the ban change their rationale as often as George Bush alters his stated motivation for
invading Iraq. But a pamphlet distributed by the state health department, "A Guide for Restaurants and
Bars to New York State's Clean Indoor Air Act," makes the reasoning clear, at least at the moment it
was printed:
"Why was the state clean indoor air act amended to include restaurants and bars?" one header asics.
"Waitresses have higher rates of lung and heart disease than any other traditionally female occupational
group, according to a study published by the 'Journal of the American Medical Association,"' reads the
answer. "According to the same report, one shift in a smoky bar is equivalent to smoking 16 cigarettes in
a day."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/992160/posts?page=4 10/14/2003
SMOKING BAN ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE, OTHER THAN BURDENING BUSINES... Page 2 of 15
Talk about wildly flawed logic. The AMA's findings regarding lung and heart disease rates may well be
true, but blaming it on their jobs ignores how many waitresses smoke away from work in comparison
with other "traditionally female occupational groups," whatever that means.
The only places around Niagara Falls even treading water since the ban are those with outdoor patio
areas. But after Labor Day, when sitting outside without shelter -- and the law expressly forbids any sort
of roof over any outdoor smoking area --becomes much less appealing, the ban's true impact will be
exponentially felt.
The ban has actually helped some businesses. Unfortunately for local entrepreneurs, they're located in.
neighboring states and on Seneca Nation land in downtown Niagara Falls.
An Associated Press report earlier this month detailed the spike in bar and restaurant business in the
border areas of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Meanwhile, many local smokers report
visiting the Seneca Niagara Casino more frequently, since the smoking police haven't attempted to
extend the ban there. Yet.
People still smoke in bars where the owners are willing to take their chances.
And the odds of getting fined aren't nearly as short as the state would have you believe.
While no Niagara County business has yet been fined, the county Health Department, saddled by the
state legislature with enforcing the law, isn't completely ignoring it, either.
One bar owner said a health inspector visited the establishment and said some snitch had called to
complain about smoking in the place.
No one was smoking in the bar when the inspector got there, so she couldn't cite the bar owner, but said
another complaint would mean another visit, and so on.
The law allows local health departments to provide hardship waivers, but Niagara County has yet to
come up with guidelines for even applying for such an exemption, much less receiving it.
The state-printed pamphlet is equally vague on what to do if a customer insists on smoking.
"You or your staff must remind them of the Act and you may politely explain that they must step outside
to smoke. If a customer refuses to comply with the Act, use common sense. The purpose of the Act is to
protect others from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. DO NOT CALL the police unless the •
violator is threatening physical harm or is belligerent."
Use common sense? What does that mean? Let them smoke and risk a fine? Throw water on them?
Make sure you get in the first punch?
Note the stress placed on not calling the police.
The message from state lawmakers couldn't be clearer -- we're going to make you chase away some of
your best customers, we're not going to spend one penny to help enforce the law we claim is so crucial
to the health of you and your employees, and you'd better like it.
David Staba is the sports editor of the
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/992160/posts?page=4 10/14/2003
FORCES -Evidence - Smoking Ban Impact On California Restaurants Page I of I
SMOKING BAN
Forces International IMPACT ON
Back to The evidence CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANTS Back to main page
After obtaining data on "Taxable Sales in California" (Sales and Use Tax), I analyzed the
Periods of 1989 to 1993 (Pre-smoking ban year), and 1994 to 1999 (Post smoking ban).The
media,with furnished information from the anti-smoking industry, wants to tell us that
everything is fine,there is NO damage to the restaurant industry. In fact they tell us that
the restaurants are doing better than ever since the ban and there is no cause for alarm.
When you look at those two periods, you also have to consider the overall economic
tendencies 1989 to 1993 was at the tail end of a recessionary period,with ZERO growth.
The"Eating and Drinking" group contains eating places where no alcoholic beverages are
sold; eating places where beer and wine is served; and eating places where all types of
liquor is served. I call the first group FAST FOOD or FF, and combine the two remaining
groups into RESTAURANTS AND BARS or RB.
The analysis I conducted shows the following:
Even though there was Zero growth,the FF sector showed an increase in sales of 11.7%
Whereas the RB showed a modest gain of 1.2%.Another interesting feature of the report
issued by the Board of Equalization is the number of permits issued in the various
categories. The permits for the FF sector increased during this period by 15.7%,while the
permits for the RB group declined by .9%, or 293 fewer RB.
Looking at the period from 1994 to 1999,the overall economy(taxable sales statewide)
increased by an incredible 31.9%. Looking at the sales for FF and RB I found that they
increased also,with FF sales outpacing the overall figure at 38.4%,while the RB sales were
below the overall economy figures, at 28.6%. However, the clincher,and what the Media
and the anti-smoking industry does NOT tell you, is that the number of permits issued for
FF rose by 12.7%,whereas the number of permits for RB DECREASED by 3.3%, which
means that there were 1,039 fewer RB's in California. In other words, during a period in
which we saw a tremendous increase in the overall economy, 1,039 restaurants or bars
went out of business.
That is the real impact of the smoking ban. So if you hear of anyone saying that the
smoking ban in restaurants and bars does not hurt anybody, you can quote my figures,
which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of Equalization here in
California.
Otto J. Mueksch
President, Californians For Smokers Rights
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/ban-csr.htm 10/14/2003
Tempe (Arizona)bar revenue down 20 percent after smoking ban Page 1 of 7
FreeRepubliC.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[Browse I Search I Topics ]
Click to scroll to commentary.
Tempe (Arizona) bar,revenue down 20 percent after smoking ban
azfamily ^
Posted on 10/27/2002 5:13 PM PST by chance33 98
Tempe bar revenue down 20 percent 10/26/2002
The Associated Press
TEMPE — City tax records show the 5-month-old smoking ban in Tempe has had little effect on tax
revenue coming from bars.
New data compiled by Tempe finance director Rich Oesterle shows that bars were submitting
significantly less tax revenue to the city as early as April. •
The smoking ban took effect in May and taxes collected for the month were reported to the city in July.
According to Oesterle, April collections were 21.7 percent below the previous year and May's
collections were down 20.2 percent.
The recently reported sales for August show that bars suffered a 20.4 percent decline and July's
collections were off 33.2 percent.
TOPICS: Government; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS:
1 posted on 10/27/2002 5:13 PM PST by chance33 98
[Post Reply I Private Reply I View Replies]
To: *puff list;Just another Joe; Great Dane;Max McGarrity;Tumbleweed_Connection; maxwell;SheLion
Puff and Ping
2 posted on 10/27/2002 5:14 PM PST by chance33 98
[Post Reply I Private Reply I To 1 I View Replies l
To: chance3398
unintended consequences strike again
3 posted on 10/27/2002 5:16 PM PST by taflake
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/776995/posts?page=1 10/14/2003
.QBE GiE= ,4 M.PL AN E
Restaurant sales taxes in Tempe tumble in June
Bob Petrie and Emily Bittner
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 13, 2002
TEMPE - Restaurant sales taxes in Tempe fell 7.4 percent in June, the first full month
since city voters enacted the state's toughest public indoor smoking ban. The drop is
compared to June 2001.
"One month does not make a trend," said Rich Oesterle, the city's budget director. "I
think we need to see additional months before we see any trends develop."
Bar owners say they continue to be hit hard, with sales down 20 percent to 40 percent
since Tempe went smoke-free.
"We don't get any new customers saying, 'We're thrilled because there's no smoking,' "
said Michael Cuneo, owner of Ball Park Pub.
He said bar and restaurant owners are considering a petition drive to put a less
restrictive ban on the ballot.
Non-smoker Armando Kiyama, 29, a Tempe artist, said he is ambivalent about the
ban."I'm glad I don't go home and smell like smoke anymore," he said, adding, "I don't
think that it's right for businesses to have their choice taken away from them in their
own facilities."
Overall, sales taxes In Tempe were down 6 percent from last June.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0813EVsmoking0813.html
Return to Forces Maine
http://www.geocities.com/shelioness/tempe.html 10/14/2003
Smoking Ban Disaster In Ottawa Page 1 of 1
Y/GeoC
AIIPc
foswis
Smoking ban 'disaster' for Ottawa bars
By SHANE HOLLADAY, EDMONTON SUN ' 26 October 2002
After the first anniversary of Ottawa's blanket ban on public smoking, owners of drinking establishments
there say butting out in bars was an "unmitigated disaster."
Ottawa's Dave O'Connor, who successfully ran Ottawa's Beacon Hill Arms pub for nine years, said the
ban forced him out of business.
"From September to February, we lost close to $80,000 in sales,"said O'Connor, who now operates as a
consultant in the hospitality industry. "I wasn't going to be a millionaire, but everyone enjoyed the place."
Ottawa's ban went into effect Aug. 1, 2001. Edmonton city council is now considering modifying its
smoking bylaw to prohibit lighting up in all city bars.
It won't-for the time being -go as far as Ottawa's ban on smoking in casinos, bingos or legion halls, says
council.
O'Connor closed his doors after St. Patrick's Day sales -normally his busiest day of the year-bombed.
"1 decided to fold, and I'm glad I did, considering what's going on in other places," he said, adding the ban
has nearly eradicated neighborhood pubs there.
Large franchise bars and those along trendy tourist strips are the only establishments in a position to eke
out a meager living in the days after the ban, he said.
"I would say it's been an unmitigated disaster," added Barry McKay, general manager of the Pub and Bar.
coalition of Ontario. The coalition, better known as Pubco,formed to fight the Ottawa ban.
"It was disastrous. People stopped going out, and they still haven't come back. I don't think they ever
will."
Edmonton's city administration is to report Jan. 6 on steps needed to eliminate smoking in local bars.
http://www.geocities.com/shelioness/ottawaban.html 10/14/2003
Judges delay smoking ban Page 1 of 3
courierjom'nal.4. starry night" Prove to your kids
("WS Software and DVDs ; they're not the center
ebt*kituttratraa1 Loulsville,Kentucky EXPLORE NOW! of the UnIVEPSE. �
Home • News ' Sports • Business - Features - Louisville Scene - Classifieds • Jobs • Cars • Homes • Marketplace • Conta
Local/Regional n News Item Saturday, September 27, 2003
Judges delay smoking ban
Lexington curbs won't take effect Monday; 'status quo' remains until ' `1 Mail this page subscrl
suits heard Click he
get the I
delivers
By MARK PITSCH your dor
mpitsch C courier-journa I.com
The Courier-Journal
FRANKFORT,Ky. —A Kentucky Court of Appeals panel VII
yesterday blocked enforcement of Lexington's smoking ban that To Jobs +2v
was scheduled to go into effect Monday, and late in the day Chief Top.Jobs Shop
Justice Joseph E. Lambert declined to overturn the order blocking courierrUrnal.c.c
the ban. POWERED BY , c
eareerhvdder •
In a three-page ruling yesterday, the appeals panel cited a Fayette FII
County Circuit Court finding that bar and restaurant owners in EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT The
TO THE PROVOST 8.VP
Lexington would be harmed by the ban, which would prohibit FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS OtC�
smoking in nearly all public buildings. "It is equitable and judicious Bellarmine University
to preserve the current status quo" while it studies the issue, the click
panel said. SALES REP. .
SALES REP.WANTED...
The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council and its health
department immediately asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to Professional Services
overturn the lower court's order. But Lambert refused, saying the C OREDINATOR To help
order "maintains the status quo" until the case can be heard. find...
The Lexington-Fayette County Food and Beverage Association has PSYCHIATRIST
filed a lawsuit challenging the ban. COMMUNICARE, INC.
Earlier this week, Fayette Circuit Judge Laurence Van Meter denied DIETARY SUPERVISOR
a temporary injunction to block enforcement of the ban, so the PARKWAY MEDICAL
association asked the Court of Appeals to intervene. CENTER •
The appeals court did so, citing Van Meter's opinion that bars and All Top Jobs
restaurants would be harmed if the ban went into effect, and ordered About Top Jobs
a halt to its enforcement.
The appeals court also set an Oct.6 hearing on whether to allow the smoking ban to take effect
until Van Meter issues a ruling in the lawsuit.
"We're happy with the decision, very pleased, but it's a very small step from our ultimate goal
of getting the ban eliminated," John Walters, a lawyer for the association, said.
http://www.courier journal.com/localnews/2003/09/27ky/wir-front-ban0927-5639.html 10/14/2003
Judges delay smoking ban Page 2 of 3
Frank Montgomery, 29, a Lexington mechanic who was having a drink and a smoke
yesterday in McCarthy's Irish Pub in Lexington, also applauded the appeals court's order.
"I think it's wonderful, not necessarily so that we can go out and smoke, but for all the small-
business owners who would be affected," Montgomery said.
What's Next He said he knows several owners of small businesses that
A Kentucky Court of Appeals panel serve alcohol but not food who would be affected by the ban.
will hear arguments in the lawsuit
challenging the ban on Oct.6.
Proponents of the smoking ban said they were disappointed
by the appeals court's order.
"I think that every day this ordinance gets delayed, more people are exposed to the toxins of
secondhand smoke," said Ellen Hahn, a University of Kentucky nursing professor who studies
smoking and has advocated the Lexington ordinance.
Phil Scott, a lawyer for the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department, said that there was
no merit to the bar and restaurant association's appeal and that the appeals court should not
have issued the injunction.
Scott noted that the appeals court said in its order that Van Meter didn't issue an injunction
because he concluded that the association had failed to show that the smoking ordinance—
which would apply to most public buildings and is the first enacted in the state—was pre-
empted by state law.
"We couldn't find any precedent to refer to in cases or certainly in any rules of the court" for
the appeals court's decision, Scott said.
The Lexington council approved the smoking ban in July by an 11-3 vote.
In Louisville, a group composed of the heart, lung and cancer associations is pushing for a
smoking ban as well.
But in an effort to kill the idea, Metro Councilman Doug Hawkins, R-25th, has introduced a
smoking ban that is so severe he anticipates it won't pass. If it is voted on and doesn't pass, the
council would not be able to consider a ban again until 2005.
Meanwhile, state Sen. Dan Seum, R-Louisville, has filed legislation for the 2004 General
Assembly session that would prohibit local communities from enacting smoking bans.
Charles Gorton, deputy commissioner for administration with the Lexington health
department, said the city has been distributing information packets about the smoking ban to
businesses and educating residents about the ordinance.
Mike Kuntz, chairman of Smoke Free Louisville, said his group will continue to push for a
smoke-free ordinance in Louisville regardless of the outcome of the Lexington case.
"I think it's fair to say that elected leaders are watching what's going on in Lexington, but to
be really honest I don't think it affects us," Kuntz said.
http://www.courier-joumal.com/localnews/2003/09/27ky/wir-front-ban0927-5639.htm1 10/19/2003
www.delawareonline.com : The News Jouinal : LOCAL : Smoking ban delay is sought Page ( of 3
bUmB Newjoufnal entertainment homes: eels jobs classifieds . ees6
1 dElas ann m Don't let his
hero's smile oldey-Beau
• The NewsJ ournal fool you a is all business! (302)225-6248
, aMamr stgrce or Man=al-aai.,v..f4nime,wiati
/////�� Non TL�r�1--.` TODAY IS Tuesday, October 14, 2003 Reg
g
HOME ■��Y� f DY from 11feNeWSJO R g ' 1i
The News Journal keg
YfY lY
V
Local Smoking ban delay is sought SMOKING BAN E
Business PREVIOUS ARTI(
Sports By MARY ALLEN View continuing coveragr
High School Sports Staff reporter
Life &Leisure 06/21/2002 it ON THE W E B
Opinion •Vote on House Bill 1$C
U.S./World A group of state legislators wants to postpone the start date for the state's • Summary information I
Technology new anti-smoking law by two months so a group of Delaware officials can • Complete text of Senat
-- - -- study the law's potential impact. 9 FORUM
Obituaries
Celebrations • Join a discussion about
Rep..Pam Thornburg, R-Dover West, said Thursday she will Introduce House places
Traffic Bill 599 when the General Assembly convenes Tuesday.The bill would
Weather require the seven-member study group to submit a report to Gov. Ruth Ann
School closings Minner and the Legislature by Dec. 15.The report would detail the amended
Government peen Indoor Air Act's expected "economic, financial and enforcement impact
upon the state," according to a copy of the bill. AI Wed Ativs >>
Births •
updated every 30 minutes
Lottery The new anti-smoking law, which came through Senate Bill 99, Is set to take
Police news effect Nov. 27. It bans smoking In almost every Indoor public place, Including
Archive bowling alleys, restaurants, arenas, casinos, bars, home-based day-care SPONSORS
Delaware Info centers and smoking rooms in offices.
•
Forums
Entertainment Thornburg's bill doesn't propose changing the ban, but It does seek to delay
its implementation until Jan. 31. She said that would give the Legislature
Homes time to react to the study group's report. She also said it would allow small
Cars business owners to get through the holidays before the ban goes into effect. -
Jobs
Classifieds Thornburg's 11 co-sponsors Include representatives and senators from both
Delaware Directory parties in both chambers,.including Senate President Pro Tem Thomas Sharp,
Help D-Pinecrest.
L. Delaware does not know what the new smoking prohibitions will do to small
businesses or the budgets of the state agencies responsible for enforcing
_ them, Thornburg said.The study group would Include the state budget
I _Searcfi '+ director, controller general, chair and vice-chair of the Joint Finance
Advanced search Committee, the state auditor, a member of the Delaware Economic and
Financial Advisory Council and a person appointed by Minner.
Rep. Deborah Hudson, R-Fairthorne, one of the lead House sponsors of the
anti-smoking law, said she thought the study group idea Insulted the report
that state workers just made to the Delaware Economic and Financial
• Advisory Council.That report estimated Delaware slot machine revenues
Subscribe now would dip by about$11.9 million in 2003.
Auctions
Bookstore "It's as comprehensive as you can get," Hudson said.
Coupons
Contests State Auditor R.Thomas Wagner also published a report this month gauging
Interact the law's potential impact on Delaware gambling. Denis McGlynn, president •
and chief executive officer of Dover Downs motorsports and gaming
Feedback companies, has said Delaware's annual revenue losses could reach $57
million if smokers abandon the state's three casinos.
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjoumal/local/2002/06/21 smokingbandelay.html 10/14/2003
www.delawareonline.com : The News Journal : LOCAL : Smoking ban delay is sought Page 2 of 3
House Speaker Terry Spence, R-Stratford, said Thornburg's bill likely would
be heard in the House Health and Human Development Committee
Wednesday along with House Bill 560, sponsored by Rep. George "Bobby"
Quillen, R-Harrington. Quillen's bill would exempt casinos, bars and taprooms .,
from the smoking ban.
Spence said he sensed a majority of House Republicans would be more A.$ 47"-
comfortable waiting until January if they are to tinker with the smoking .
prohibitions. Minner said Thursday she didn't think Thornburg's bill would .fi . -"
make it to her desk. _;k
"I just don't think we need to study it anymore. The way we'll find out what F. {{ _ .01
the Impact will be is to implement it," she said. 1
Staff reporter Patrick Jackson contributed to this article. Reach Mary Allen at It 1 f
678-4275 or mallen(Wdelawareonline.com. - i�Y 111 a .
(Rof
BO)
Famous for11
(888) 33
Order24 ho
Delivery 7 dr
Norm Wlb
mss
•
Wilmin!
Premier
Since•
To send I
click I
ESSENTIALS
• Weather
• Traffic
• Obituaries
• • Celebrations
• Government
• Births
• Lottery
• Police news
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjoumal/local/2002/06/21 smokingbandelay.html 10/14/2003
Court To Decide Who Has Power To Enforce Local Smoking Bans Page 1 of •
1
} JOIN TOGETHER ONL
Suiiiiort
Take Action News Issues Resources Find Help
LL! L'_hrt'LL
Home > Substance Abuse > News > News SummariesTopIZ'.
����:g Related Articl es
News Summaries •Ireland To Ban
Workplace Smoking
Court To Decide Who Has Power To Enforce Local Smoking •Groups Spread Good
Bans News About NYC's
Smoking Ban
10/14/2003 • •EU Health Commission(
Calls for Smoking Ban
The West Virginia Supreme Court will determine •Chicago Beach Smokinc
whether the state legislature gave the authority to am Email Ban Proposed
county health boards to regulate secondhand smoke, Print
the Charleston Daily Mail reported Oct. 8.
Subscribe S -r-fh. �j'
Currently, 46 counties in West Virginia have some form �� g `,
.of an indoor smoking ban. Most Emailed r�1
"If they're allowed to stay in place, health boards will kk
ist—
begin trying to regulate how many drinks a person can consume at a bar oru x y • n,'
what kind of sweetener people use in their coffee," said Ed ReBrook, the 1.
lawyer for smoker David Dryden of St. Albans, who is challenging Kanawha AlcoholScreening.org
County's ban. "This is only the beginning if you let them have this ban."
ReBrook said that counties must obtain permission from the state legislature Related Repurces
before enacting smoking bans. "This is a legislative decision," he said. "Six
unelected members of the county board of health cannot do or undo what •Altria Means Tobacco:
134 elected members of the legislature have chosen not to do." Philip Morris's Identity
Crisis
According to Kanawha-Charleston Board of Health lawyer Victor Flanagan, •The Surgeon General's
state law is broadly written to allow county health boards to ban indoor Report for Kids about
smoking. Smoking
Although the law doesn't specifically mention smoking bans, Flanagan said Did you knew?
the intent of the legislature was to defer "to the boards of health who have One to 9 months after
the expertise to deal with the matter." quitting smoking,
coughing, sinus
County health boards said the indoor smoking regulations are paramount to congestion, fatigue, and
protecting the general public from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. shortnesscar
decreasee;; cilia reg
h
egain
normal function in the
This is the first time that the state Supreme Court has considered the legality lungs, increasing the
of smoking bans. ability to handle mucus,
clean the a lungs, and
More News Summaries reduce infection. more
Contact I Privacy I Reprints I Submissions
httm//www inintnoether nro/ca/npure/enmmaricc/rearlar/fl I RSd GA-791G (10 html 10/1 sun
STLtoday - News - St. Louis City / County Page 1 of 3
rSTL'TODDYcom s
1
'HOME` ;NWS;. BUS NINESS SPORTS' 'ENTERTAINMENT: .1 LIFE&STYLE"- -'J085' AUTOS` REAL ESTATE? SHOPPING'
•,,
(Wednesday.Oct.8.2003) SITE SEARCH»I • GoV,
News> St. Louis City/County > Story
a a a t
e:�'artl- Restaurateur says smoking ban would snuff YESTERDAY'S MOST
Jai BoE-MAILED STORIES
G � out his business
•�r?- YBy KATHIE SUTIN . • Grocery workers vote to ,
\ `r'"' ,.,a-^'♦ Post-Dispatch strike '
10/022003 • Oh,the thinks Bush can
NEWS SUBSECTIONS think from his perch in
Seuss'world
ST.LOUIS CITY/ Restaurateur says banCOUNTY • Video horse play
,, on smoking would bud • Overseer of stadium
METRO
METRO EAST
ST.CHARLES project covers all the
JEFFERSON COUNTY He saycustomers bases
• Boeing spinout applies
MISSOURI STATE NEWS would leave Ballwin
JSF breakthrough to 3D
ILLINOIS STATE NEWS
NATION video game +
• Webster Groves alums
WORLD correct prank that failed in
NEWSWATCH 1976
EDUCATION A Ballwin restaurant owner has suggested that the • Kurt can go, but we need
SCIENCE&MEDICINE municipality ban the sale of cigarettes instead of Brenda to stay
OBITUARIES banning smoking in restaurants. • Holden announces ban on
COLUMNISTS guns in state buildings
EDITORIAL 1 Speaking in the public-comment portion of the meeting • Great Plains aircraft is
COMMENTARY of the Board of Aldermen last week, Frank Nehmen,co- temporarily grounded in
SPECIAL REPORTS owner of Frick's Restaurant,told aldermen that a - Chicago
PHOTO GALLERIES proposal by Alderman Charles Galton,4th Ward,to ban • Go Tino. . . and take J.D.
CORRECTIONS smoking in restaurants could put him out of business. with you
.. ...
NEWS OF THE WEIRDr ,
"If Ballwin really believes that they're bad for people, ...
y
SUBSCRIBE TO THE go after the source:the cigarette people,"he said."I
POST-DISPATCH g FEATURED JOBS —
P-D ARCHIVES would rather see Ballwin stop selling them and making BANKING
-- , -z, ,„t.• ,_.— money off of them.” Jefferson Bank and Trust
TELLER Jefferson Bank and
Nehmen also challenged Gatton's statement that Trust in Creve Coeur has
Suburban Journals Clayton and Chesterfield had banned smoking in immediate opening for a
restaurants. Nehmen said those municipalities had FULL...
NEIGHBORHOODS restricted smoking but not banned it. TRANSPORTATION/
---nr.—--_—.— DELIVERY
ALL-STAR Transportation
He said he wouldn't mind a ALL-STAR Transportation,Inc.
countywide or statewide ban has the following positions
INTERACT Real Estate& on smoking in restaurants that available for drivers that are
Rentals (205) would put all eateries on a wanting to...
CONTESTS_ CIVIL PERSONNEL
COUPONS Medical (183) level playing field. City of Hermann
"I'd have no problem with the
EVENT CALENDAR . Home Improvement POLICE CHIEF City of
FORUMS &Gardening (173) whole county going Hermann 1800's Historic
MAPS&DIRECTIONS Services(160) nonsmoking,"he said."I'd German Community of 2754
love for my restaurant to be citizens is seeking to...
PHOTO GALLERIES
Dining& nonsmoking, but for me to do ACCOUNTING
SIGN UP FOR EMAIL Entertainment(152) it in my restaurant and have Stereotaxis
ALERTS the leader in the
people go across t ,he street to geld of Magnetic Surgery
Vehicles(144) Manchester or Ellisville would Human Resources Specialist.
. Finance(100) just hurt our business an Hands-on generalist to...
incredible amount. I'd have to SOCIAL SERVICES
Furniture(70) close up." MINK Youth Service Network
Grocery(61) Executive Director of MINK
Movies(56) Nehmen said in an interview Youth Service Network a 4-
after the meeting that he had state regional association of
. service...
httm//newhnmecctltnrlay.rnm/ctltndnv/news/.ctnries ncffNews/St.+1.nnis+Citv+/+County/54... 10/15/03
•
STLtoday - News - St. Louis City / County Page 2 of 3
...more on Ad Zone to give his customers what RESTAURANT/CLUBS/
they wanted. BARS/FOOD
-- T The Elephant Bar Restaurant
The Elephant Bar Restaurant is`- "I ran a restaurant in Chicago opening soon at the West
AD ZONE which was 99 percent County Mall.Now hiring...
nonsmoking because those HEALTHCARE
were the reservations we got," Brooking Park
he said."It was strictly a reservation restaurant, and Med RN-FT 3P-11P LPN-FT
nobody asked for smoking, so the restaurant became 3P-11P/6:30P-7A Brooking
nonsmoking." Park is a Prestgious...
INFORMATION
"Most businesses only want to take care of their • SYSTEMS
customers,"he added."We don't make judgments. It's OPEN HOUSE!WALK-INS
WELCOMEI Wednesday,
America. People do what they want to do." October 8th 8AM-11AM A41
Village Square(1-270&...
Mayor Robert Jones told Nehmen that the health and TRUCK
publicsafetycommittee would conduct a survey,and DRIVER/DELIVERY
that the council would consider the results before Cl TRUCK DRIVER TRAINING
making a decision on the proposal. Need a stable career with no
layoffs?Train in 3 Weeks for
On another matter,the board gave City Administrator jr bsr CDL for Regional&OTR
Robert Kuntz the go-ahead to negotiate with the West
HEALTHCARE
County Chamber of Commerce,which has expressed Kim Cambridge Dental Care
interest in renting space in the lower level of Ballwin's DENTAL ASSISTANT$1,000
government center. Signing Bonus Our state of the
art O'Fallon dental office Is
Kuntz said that in his preliminary talks with the chamber, `seeking...
he had suggested that the rent be$525 a month.
Top of page
IX9E-mail this story to a friend
Printer friendly
• ,Find more stories like this.
® 3 O'Clock Stir e-mail alerts. Details here.
•
r Get the news delivered to your home for just 50
cents a day. Click here to subscribe to the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch.
Related Advertising Links What's this?
Asian_Developing.Nations
Invest in education for girls in Nepal,Vietnam. India& •
Cambodia.
www.roomtoread.org
Endangered Species
We protect threatened animals&educate people
worldwide.Join us!
www.wildAid.org
Are You a New Dad?
She might be having the baby,but there is a lot for dad to
do!
www.marchofdimes.com
1
//nr.mbrwnp.o ctlrndnv rnm/critnrlav/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+/+County/54... 10/15/03
Hot Off the Griddle Page 13 of 15
Reach Theresa Cha at 473-7228 or tcha@journalstar.com.
Federal Issues
What Up on Capital Hill?
- government affairs & public policies -
Letter presented to the Health & Human Services Committee
-Brian Magee President& Founder Upstream Brewing Company
Dear Senators:
My name is Brian Magee. I am the president and founder of the Upstream Brewing Company, a multi-
level restaurant,
brewery and bar located in OmahaOs Historic Old Market district. I am writing this letter regarding
Legislative Bill 227 which is being discussed today.
I started my business nearly five years ago. I purchased an historic firehouse building in the Old Market
and obtained loans and investors to pay for considerable renovation,furnishings, equipment and other
costs associated with opening my
business. I and many others have worked very hard to make our restaurant what it is today. We have a
thriving restaurant and bar that is one of the busiest places in Omaha. Upstream Brewing Company
currently employs 130 people.
The first floor of my business is a restaurant and bar seating 250 persons. Approximately 80%of my
dining room is
designated as a non-smoking area. On the second level, we have an upscale pool hall and bar. The area
is used primarily for bar business but we also accommodate dining, especially large parties. There are
no non-smoking areas on the second level. •
I am married and have four young boys. My wife and I are not smokers. When we take our family out to
eat, we avoid restaurants that are smoky. We are offended and irritated by smoke and donOt like the
odor left by smoke on our clothes afterward. We CHOOSE to go to restaurants that maintain good air
quality.
As a business owner, I know that this is also important to my customers, many of whom are like me and
my wife. Therefore, even though the air quality at Upstream Brewing Company is good, we have begun
the process offurther upgrading our air handling systems to improve the quality of air throughout the
establishment. I know that if my customers are offended by smoke and my building is smoky, they wonOt
come back, no matter how good our food and service are.
Air quality is becoming a more paramount preference to guests than ever before. And because there are
so many dining options available to consumers today, they can demand better air quality or they'll go
elsewhere.
Legislative Bill 227 would have dramatic negative effect on the restaurant business in this state.Many
http://www.nebraska-dining.org/hotfr.htm 10/14/2003
Hot Off the Griddle
restaurateurs could not afford to make the physical changes in their restaurants(to accommodate
smokers as well as non-smokers) that this bill would mandate. Additionally, in many cases it may be
physically impossible (due to required aisle space) to make the physical changes required by this bill.
I can name at least a dozen good quality restaurants in this town, all extremely popular, that would be
devastated by this bill. These restaurants do not have separate bar OroomsO and the mandates
proposed by this bill would make it impossible to make the physical changes to accommodate smokers
and non-smokers in these restaurants. Why would you do this to them?If this bill is so important and
consumers are demanding these changes, why are these restaurants so popular?
Furthermore, it would be unfair that bar and lounge operati ns-t at ser at-79%of
their total sales would be ('xempt from this bill. Why would this bill discriminate restaurants and allow
bars to serve up food without the restrictions? Upon reflection IOm sure that you would realize that you
may end up forcing some of the smaller restaurant operators to choose to become bars. Is this what you
want?Do you want to force such a dramatic change on hardworking small business owners who have
everything invested in their own restaurants.
It is also important to consider that if this bill becomes law in Nebraska, it will send more customers to
Council Bluffs increasing the flow of Nebraska money to Iowa's casinos and restaurants. 'e
•
Personally, I know that this bill has the possibility of devastating my business and the livelihood of 130
people.
Let the market drive this issue. Let consumers decide where they want to go. Why should government
add more restrictions on the free enterprise system when consumers will do it themselves?
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this matter.
Respectfully,
Brian Magee
President &Founder
Upstream Brewing Company, Omaha NE •
Position Paper
LB 166 - .08 BAC Legislation
Nebraska Restaurant Association
The following is a copy of the Nebraska Restaurant Association's Position and Hearing testimony as
presented to the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee.
Rather than focusing on the .08% or .10% debate, the Nebraska Restaurant Association would rather
look to find a solution to the problem of drunk driving and the associated fatalities.
We agree with the U. S. General Accounting Office, that there is no evidence that .08% BAC laws save
lives. As the study points out, states first need to know the attitude on drinking in their area and already
have in.place ongoing education on the effect of alcohol, stiffer enforcement and treatment programs,
LB 166 does not!
http:/hvww.nebraska-dining.org/hotfr.htm 10/14/2003
Produced by '�.���•I E'$
n - tl mes.com tiear as o
Your Information source tor Northwest Indiana lobs hone cart personals
NEWS ? SPORTS: BUSINESS' "FEATURES, OPINION-,: COMMUNITY _OBITUARIES. DISCUSSION BOARDS ARCHIVES CSASSIFIEI
Lake:County -Porter county Local-IIIinois Reglon?a6d'State >Com
munity ``CoRns �ectlo
Nati on.and::world �
Don't restrict my right to permit smoking at my
business
Letter to the Editor
Nelda Elder
St. John
For those of you who think smoke-free environments should be regulated by the
government, let me tell you my side. I have owned a bar/restaurant. If the
government wants to pay the payment, taxes, insurance, maintenance and cleaning, -
repairs, wages, license fees, permit fees and inspection fees, then by all means tell
my customers they cannot smoke in my business.
People who are asking private owners to provide a smoke-free environment to aid in
your rights as a free citizen, then remember you are asking me to give up my rights. I
am paying for that right. Are you? If your tax dollars are supporting a government
building that you must frequent (courthouses, school buildings, etc.) then you have a
right to expect them to be smoke-free, and when they are privately owned, you still
have a choice not to patronize them.
There is a choice for you and a choice for me. Is that not what our country is-based on
-- the freedom of choice for everyone, not just nonsmokers? Remember, those who
are overweight might have to order off the low-fat menu. Or the heart patient might not
be allowed to eat at McDonald's because of the fat content. It's bad for their health.
Please be carefuL.wbat you ask for. You might get it: communism.
Nelda Elder
St. John
HOUSE BILL #567 STATEWIDE SMOKING BAN
back to top
IRA POSITION
The Illinois Restaurant Association has always opposed a government mandated smoking ban.
The decision should be available for the individual restaurant operators and customers who
patronize a restaurant,to be smoke free or allow smoking in specific areas.
Banning smoking in restaurant establishments would have a negative financial impact on Illinois
restaurants. New York and California restaurants, where a state-wide smoking ban has been
passed, have seen a large loss of revenue.
In an effort to accommodate all restaurant customers, restaurateurs create a balance in their
individual establishments. We oppose HB567, as it would ban smoking in all bars and restaurants
in Illinois, without even an exemption for private parties. Illinois restaurants continue to update
and incorporate advanced ventilation systems in their establishments, and provide a large portion
of non-smoking sections to customers.
BACKGROUND In 1991, the state passed the clean indoor air act, which protects citizens from
public smoking. This bill bans smoking in restaurants with 25 seats and over, except in
designated areas. Each establishment has the right to ban smoking in their individual
establishment. We believe it is the customers right to choose an establishment, as well as the
operators.
STUDIES AND FINDINGS
OF INTEREST
Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed,ORNL study finds Page I of 2
Oak Rid , a National Laboratory
r:... •F_ Gummi*:: Bringing Science to Life
Home:Newsdesk: Headline News:Media Release
MEDIA CONTACT:Ron Walli
Communications&Public Affairs
(865)576-0226
Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds
OAK RIDGE,Term.,Feb.2,2000-Exposures to environmental tobacco smoke may be lower than earlier studies indicated
for bartenders,waiters and waitresses,according to a study conducted by researchers at the Department of Energy's Oak
Ridge National Laboratory(ORNL).
While people who work as wait staff and bartenders may generally be considered to be
- ._.. more highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke,data from our study suggests
• _ that the situation is more complex,"said Roger Jenkins of the Chemical and Analytical
as Chemistry Division.
IN!
The study,which involved 173 people employed at restaurants or taverns of varying
a -; }--•x :.�. sizes in the Knoxville area,concluded that exposures to respirable suspended
., .y {{ r particulate matter(RSP),for example,were considerably below limits established by the
• "zyi Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA)for the workplace.
`i .
u
Subjects,who were non-smokers,wore pumps that sampled the air they were breathing
while at work for a minimum of four hours.Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of
:., •° 768 micrograms per cubic meter.The OSHA standard for RSP is 5,000 micrograms per
cubic meter over eight hours.Samples from the subjects were analyzed for ultraviolet
? �: . �.:=�'I ,, absorbing s. absorbing and fluorescing particulate matter,solanesol,3-ethenyl pyridine,nicotine and
RSP.
Roger Jenkins inspects filters Other constituents of environmental tobacco smoke,sometimes called second-hand
designed to collect particles of smoke,also were not present in the levels previously thought,Jenkins said.For
environmental tobacco smoke. example,a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1993
(ORNL photo by Curtis Boles) concluded that average RSP levels were 117 and 348 micrograms per cubic meter for
bars and restaurants,respectively,while the ORNL study found those levels to be 67
and 135,respectively.
While the higher estimates in earlier studies may be explained by the choice of the establishments in which the studies
were conducted,another reason for the difference could be that today's ventilation systems are more efficient,Jenkins
said.
The Knoxville study also showed that for bartenders who live with smokers,the away-from-work exposure is at least as
important as the at-work exposure.And people who are highly exposed at home tend to be more highly exposed at work,
probably because they don't avoid it as much,Jenkins said.
Jenkins'paper,"Determination of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Restaurants and Tavem Workers in One
U.S.City,"is scheduled to be published in this month's issue of Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental
Epidemiology.
http://www.oml.gov/Press_Releases/archive/mr20000203-00.html 1/62003
Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed,ORNL study finds Page 2 of 2
The"Restaurant and Tavern Workers"study builds upon findings of an earlier ORNL study involving 16 cities and more
than 1,500 subjects nationwide. In that study,test subjects wore separate air sampling devices at work and away from
work over a 24-hour period.Results from this approach differ dramatically from stationary air sampling,which does not
take into account the constantly changing conditions as people move from place to place throughout the day,Jenkins
said.
"The fact is that while individuals may live or work in environments where there is smoke,stationary monitors cannot take
into account changes in smoke exposure resulting from changes in a person's micro-environment,"Jenkins said. "In these
micro-environments,a person may be closer to or farther away from various sources of environmental tobacco smoke."
Over the last six or seven years,more data on personal exposure to tobacco smoke has become available and the methods
for measuring and analyzing the smoke have become more sophisticated.
The 16-cities study,the largest of its kind ever conducted in a single country, found the highest levels of environmental
tobacco smoke nicotine levels in workplaces where smoking is permitted to be between 9.41 and 14.9 micrograms per cubic
meter,far lower than the numbers assumed by EPA and OSHA.
"A well-known toxicological principle is that the poison is in the dose,"Jenkins said. "It's pretty clear that the
environmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low for most people."
Extensive controls were employed in collecting and analyzing the air samples collected by the 1,564 participants in the
study,Jenkins said.Test subjects also submitted to saliva tests that would reveal cotinine,a constituent of tobacco
smoke. Smokers were excluded from the study.
Cities used for the study were Baltimore;Boise,Idaho;Buffalo;Columbus,Ohio;Daytona Beach,Fla.;Fresno,Calif.;
Grand Rapids,Mich.;Indianapolis;Knoxville;New Orleans;Philadelphia;Phoenix;Portland,Maine; San Antonio,Texas;
Seattle and St.Louis.
A book that delves into this work,"The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke:Composition and Measurement:
Second Edition,"is expected to be released in March.Co-writers are Jenkins,Mike Guerin and Bruce Tomkins of the
Chemical and Analytical Sciences Division.
Authors of the restaurants and tavern workers study are Jenkins,Mike Maskarinec and Amy Dindal of the Chemical and
Analytical Sciences Division and Richard Counts of the Computer Science and Mathematics Division.
The research was funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research.ORNL is a DOE multiprogram research facility managed
by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation.
•
[About ORNI I Search I index I Contacts I Comment,I Disclaimers]
•
A service of the Netanrkingand Conrnuring Technologies.Division
Rev:Friday;30-Jun-2000 09:13:31 EDT
http://www.oml.gov/Press_Releases/archive/mr20000203-00.html 1/6/2003
Deja.com: Independent assessment Page 1 of 9
TOXIC TOXICOLOGY
PLACING SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY AT RISK
Review procedures and listing criteria used in the preparation of the DHHS Report on Carcinogens (RoC)
September 15, 1999
Washington, D.C.
Littlewood & Fennell
Independent Public& health Policy Research
Austin, TX
Michael R. Fox, PH.D.
Chemist
Richland, WA
Independent assessment and remarks
Littlewood& Fennell is an independent public and health policy research group, with no ties
whatsoever to industry or any government agency. 1 am here today on my own time and at my own
expense to address the clear possibility that the National Toxicology Program has actively undermined
the process by which risk assessments should be conducted NTP overlooked a substantial body of
evidence showing uncertainty, vagueness, and lack of statistical support of what is and is not
carcinogenic. In addition, NTP conducted its assessments in a manner reminiscent of a rubber stamp
proceeding, which favored politics over science.
I have included a history of our involvement with the NTP carcinogen listing process as an addendum to
this paper. Briefly, we became interested in the topic of environmental tobacco smoke (or ETS) during
an ongoing study of increasing rates of asthma in the U.S. Because a review of the literature indicates a
negative correlation between ETS and asthma, and because ETS is physically and chemically quite
different from mainstream tobacco smoke, we were curious about NTP's decision to list ETS as a
carcinogen. We requested background materials from them in order to review this listing process. It
was during this review that we unearthed a number of gross scientific improprieties in both procedure
and conduct by a number of federal agencies. NTP is simply the latest chapter in the same sad story.
Since the topic of today's meeting is NTP's review process and procedure for listing substances as
human carcinogens, I will limit most of my discussion to these matters.
There are three areas I believe are critical to the process of listing human carcinogens, none of which are
addressed by NTP:
One: Inclusion of a reasonably expected real-life exposure to toxic or carcinogenic substances.
•
Exaggerated estimates of risk can themselves be toxic; inasmuch as these exaggerated estimates of risk
create confusion, misunderstanding, anxiety and, inevitably, utter disdain by the general public. We call
this phenomenon Toxic Toxicology for, in the end, it does far more harm than good.
Two: Assessment of scientific research and commentsbased on substance, merit and quality
irrespective of source -- industry, academia or government. I contend that if you are unable to determine
what is sound science without knowing the antecedents of the researcher then you are not competent to
assess risk.
Three: Animal studies must be put in perspective. Rats and mice are not little people. Nothing could
make this more clear than Dr. Robert A. Weinberg's very recent success at finally inducing malignant
transformation in human cells. As Gilbert L. Ross, M.D., Medical Director of the American Council on
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicology.htm 10/14/03
Deja.com: Independent assessment Page 2 of 9
Science and Health, noted in a letter to the New York Times this past August: Scientists induced such
cancerous changes in rodents 15 years ago. The fact that it took so many years to accomplish this feat in
humans illustrates how differently carcinogens affect rodents than humans. Rodents are far more
susceptible to cancer induction than humans. Merely because chemicals produce tumors in rodents does
not mean that humans will be harmed.
Real-life exposure levels.
Each substance proposed for listing as a human carcinogen must be subjected to a careful and unbiased
process of assessment for real-life exposures.
The compilers of reports from the National Academy of Sciences, the US Surgeon General, and the
Environmental Protection Agency have simply inferred the presence of ETS components by proxy,
based on the composition of the highly diffuse sidestream smoke from which ETS derives. Still, even
CDC concludes, ETS contains higher amounts of some of the components of cigarette smoke in general
only when it is obtained in its undiluted form under laboratory conditions (CDC/DHSS 1989).
I would propose that only those chemicals present in significant amounts - perhaps 10% of the
maximum tolerated dose in rodents -- be considered. Independent laboratories could then conduct
personal air monitoring for these chemicals under realistic conditions, rather than in laboratory
conditions designed to exaggerate exposure risk.
•
CDC notes that ETS is diluted in the air before it is inhaled and thus is less concentrated than MS
(mainstream smoke). Further; ... on the basis of urinary cotinine concentrations, the NRC [1986]
concluded that non-smokers exposed to ETS absorb the equivalent of 0.1 to 1.0 cigarettes a day. On the
basis of 1985 data, NIOSH estimates that each cigarette smoker in the US smokes an average of about
21 cigarettes a day. Blood and urine samples analyzed for vapor phase nicotine indicate that
nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb about 1% of the tobacco combustion products absorbed by active
smokers [NRC 1986: DHHS 1986]. If these urine and blood samples were accurate, that would indicate
that, at most, ETS would account for only 0.021 cigarette over exposure to 21 cigarettes on average.
In his RoC subcommittee testimony last December, Dr. Philips reported that, based on actual personal
monitoring, average ETS exposure is as little as five to six cigarettes per year. I would tend to think
these figures more accurate than our extrapolations from NIOSH data.
In the case of environmental tobacco smoke, such simple and rigorous personal air monitoring would
have eliminated any possibility of listing ETS as a carcinogen. Most ETS components are far below the
sensitivity of current analytical capabilities.
Of those chemicals present in ETS, only a very few can even be classified as toxins or carcinogens.
Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that
exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to
be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels.
Calculating the non-existent risks of ETS
We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained - very few, of
course, because it is difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS. We posit a
100m3 sealed and unventilated enclosure. For those of us who are metrically challenged, that is a room
approximately 20-feet square with a 9-foot ceiling clearance. Taking the figures for ETS yields per
cigarette directly from EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicolocv.htm 10/14/03
Deja.com: Independent assessment Page 3 of 9
lowest published threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact,
it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.
Our chart (see Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, about which we heard so much last year, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to
reach the lowest published danger threshold. For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required. At the
lower end of the scale - in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would
need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach a threshold limit. Toluene would require
50,000 packs of smoldering cigarettes - given 20 cigarettes per pack.
For Hydroquinone only 1,250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-
foot square room to 300 rather tightly packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?
Of course, the moment we introduce real world factors to the room - a door, an open window or two, or
a healthy level of mechanical air exchange - achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.
It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS, as well as other spurious indoor substances such as
asbestos and radon, are political rather than scientific scapegoats for poorly ventilated, hermetically
sealed, energy-efficient buildings, with endlessly re-circulated and poorly filtered air. „
Table 1
CALCULATED NUMBER OF CIGARETTES REQUIRED TO REACH A THRESHOLD
LIMIT FROM ETS IN A SEALED, UNVENTILATED 100m3 ENCLOSURE AT STP
ETS CAS Molecular ETS Output Threshold Threshold Cigarettes
Component Number Weight (mg/cigarette)(2) Limit (ppm) (mW�3) Required
(3
2-Toluidine isomers) 107.15 0.003 2 8.7 290,000
(3)
Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 44.05 1.26 111 180 (4) 14,285
Acetic acid 64-19-7 60.05 1.5 10 25 1,666
Acetone 67-64-1 58.05 1 500 1187 118,700
Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 0.24 1 3.1 (5) 1,290
Benzo[a] 50-32-8 252.30 0.00009 0.02 0.2 (6) 222,000
Pyrene
-
Cadmium 9440-43- 112.40 0.0007 0.002 0.01 1,430
Catechol 120-80-9 110.11 10.14 5 22 15,700
Dimetbylamine 124-40-3 45.08 0.036 10 (7) 9.2 25,555
Formic acid 64-18-6 46.02 0.525 _ 5 on 9.4 1,790
Hydrazine 302-01-2 32.05 0.00009 0.01 0.013 14,444
Hydroquinone 123-31-9 110.11 0.16 0.4 2 1,250
http:// www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicoloev.htm 10/14/03
Deja.com: Independent assessment Page 4 of 9
1Methylamine 1174-89-5 1131.09 II0.1 115 J113 1113,000 1
Methylchloride 74-87-3 50.49 0.88 50 103.0 11,170
Nickel 70440-02- 58.71 0.0025 0.4 1 40,000
Phenol 108-95-2 94.11 0.25 5 19 7,600
Polonium 210 210 0.4pCi na 3pCi/liter no) 750,000
(9)
Pyridine 110-86-1 70.01 0.39 5 16 4,100
Toluene 108-88-3 92.13 0.000035 50 375 1,000,000
These calculations are not complex. They assume a 100m3 enclosed and unventilated space at Standard
Temperature and Pressure. STP assumes 24.45 = molar volume of air in liters at STP conditions (25oC.
and 760 ton). Conversion equations are as follow:
(TLV in ppm)(gram mol wt of substance)
(TLV in mg/m3)(24.45)
TLV in mg/m3 = TLV in ppm =
24.45
gram mol wt of substance
Assessment of scientific research and comments based on substance, merit and quality irrespective of
source -- industry, academia or government.
The tobacco industry's interest in the basic science and epidemiology of ETS may be a vested interest,
but their research should be judged on its own merits -- not suppressed or ignored because thee results
are politically inconvenient. When scrutiny of research -- both during peer review and post-publication -
- is objective and scientific it is valuable. NTP's thinly veiled hostility toward presenters finding no
convincing evidence of ETS carcinogenicity is unacceptable. We found the presentations last December
of varying quality, but were generally impressed with their factual and substantive nature.
As we prepared our comments earlier this year on the 9th RoC subcommittee's decision regarding ETS,
we dug into the original risk assessment proceedings of the EPA. It became abundantly clear that the
so-called independent scientific bodies were not independent at all.
. . . the integrity of research sponsored by governmental or other private organizations is rarely•
questioned. Ignoring the possibility that the granting agencies may have specific agendas for the
research they sponsor, there are substantial pressures on scientists to publish and a well-known bias
against publication of negative data. ( Letter, JAMA, 1998; 280:1141)
Rather, these groups - Scientific Advisory Boards -- were pressured by a wide variety of political and
procedural forces to cast their weight (quite reluctantly in several cases) on the side of ETS as a
carcinogen.
After reviewing the NTP materials forwarded to us, as well as what source documents we could acquire
during the response period, we conclude that government and institutional bias far exceeds industry bias
in the issue of ETS.
Biological gradient (exposure or dose-response consistently exhibited over the range of the studies) is a
critical factor in establishing cause and effect. There is no clear pattern of dose/response in the majority
of epidemiological studies tracking ETS and lung cancer where quantity of exposure is measured.
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicoloey.htm 10/14/03
Deja.com: Independent assessment Page 5 of 9
We had determined that only 16.6% of the papers used in the EPA report included the odds ratios
necessary to conduct a trend analysis. There was no correlation between dose increase and odds or risk
increase across the range of studies. Of the 24 trend tests reported by the EPA, only 11, or 41.6%
showed any evidence of upward trend - thus 58.4% of the tests for trend were non-monotonic.
Time after time we encountered actual human measurements of ETS exposure. For example: Urine
cotinine measurements between ETS exposed and non-exposed women, which showed no difference.
Or, in the matter of DNA adducts, personal air monitoring of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) showed no significant difference in DNA adduct levels between non-smokers and
smokers for RSPs of<2.5 microns after controlling for exposure to ETS via urine cotinine. More
recently we found that ETS- subjects had levels of carbon monoxide (CO) in expired air similar to that
of the non-ETS nonsmokers, and significantly lower than the smokers (p<= 0.05), their actual exposure
(>=4 hr/day) to ETS may not have been sufficient enough to have the adverse effect. While CO is not a
carcinogen, it is an absolute bell cow for indoor air quality.
The fact that NTP's RoC subcommittee overlooked so much information is disturbing. It suggests
extreme bias. We strongly urge that NTP's supervisory agency insist that future subcommittees employ
the services of independent specialists, untainted by bureaucratic pressure, past or potential,grant
seeking or advocacy/activist status.
Animal studies must be put in perspective.
All substances are toxic in quantity. Many therapeutic medications are acutely toxic, but beneficial
when used at a therapeutic level. Water, oxygen, and table salt are tOxic in large enough doses. The
mere presence of a substance does not imply toxicity.
The National Research Council and the USEPA have both recommended improvements in the risk
assessment process that involve incorporating consideration of dose to the target tissue, mechanism of
action, and biologically based dose-response models, including a possible threshold of dose below
which effects will not occur.
Testing for carcinogenicity at near-toxic doses in rodents does not provide enough information to predict
the excess number of human cancers that might occur at low-dose exposures. Testing at the maximum
tolerated dose (MTD) frequently can cause chronic cell killing and consequent cell replacement (a risk
factor for cancer that can be limited to high doses), and ignoring this effect in risk assessment greatly
exaggerates the risks.
...rodent bioassays provide little information about mechanisms of carcinogenesis and low-dose risk.
( Gold LS et al )
Animal studies cited during the 9th RoC process (Witschi et al, various) used injectable concentrates of
carcinogens, intense concentrations of tobacco smoke and skin application of tobacco smoke
condensate. Not only do these studies bear no relation to inhalation of ETS; they also use •
concentrations that are so high that nearly any substance in these concentrations could be expected to
cause deleterious effects.
In addition, Volume II of the NTP materials included animal study results (heavily relied upon
according to the transcript) using concentrations of tobacco smoke that far exceed any exposure that
humans could reasonably be expected to experience. Even then, despite the intense concentrations of
condensates Exposure to tobacco smoke had no effect on pulmonary tumor incidence or tumor
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicology.htm 10/14/03
Deja.com: Independent assessment Page 6 of 9
multiplicity. Vol. II (p 47).
• Animal studies can be useful in identifying gross cause and effect relationships between substances and
animal cancers. They should play only a minor role in the assessment of carcinogenicity in humans.
The dose makes the poison
A basic tenet in toxicology is the dose makes the poison. Cooking food generates thousands of
chemicals. There are over 1,000 chemicals reported in a cup of coffee - 19 of them are rodent
carcinogens, but this does not mean that coffee is dangerous. At some level, every chemical becomes
toxic, but there are levels below which no adverse health effects are observed.
In addition, cancer is largely a disease of aging. Carcinogenic effects on a short-lived species such as
rodents can hardly be expected to offer realistic estimates for effects in a long-lived species such as
humans. High dose animal cancer testing and exaggerated risk assessmentcannot be considered
measures of true risks. Data on high doses in rodents simply cannot be extrapolated to low doses in
humans without information on the precise mechanism of mutagenesis or carcinogenesis.
Indeed, the carcinogenic mechanisms of tobacco smoking are not well understood. What is more,
cancers once associated with smoking are being quietly removed from the official lists. Stomach cancer
- which is likely caused by undetected H. pylori, is one example; cervical cancer - in which fresh
evidence suggests that human papillomavirus (HPV) may be the sole cause -- should soon meet the
same fate.
How many hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted on senseless, useless - and quite possibly
harmful -- Blame ETTS research?How much time and talent is being diverted from useful research into
chronic infections from bacteria and viruses that are major causes of cancer worldwide? How many
more absurd risk alerts will it take before the public laughs scientists out of a position of trust
altogether?
Even the best of epidemiological studies conclude only a very slight and easily confounded risk for
lifetime exposure to ETS. Clearly NTP is not able to distinguish a cancer risk for the occasional
exposures most of us experience during our daily activities. And just as clearly NTP must incorporate
truly scientific standards and procedures before its reports deserve to be given even marginal credence.
A history of our involvement
Earlier this year, we undertook a review of the National Toxicology Program's 9th Report on
Carcinogens regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). Our interest in ETS is an outgrowth of an
ongoing project involving increased asthma rates in the U.S. What we have found is an negative
correlation - smoking rates and exposure to ETS havee markedly decreased while the incidence of
asthma has dramatically increased.
Unconvincing background materials.
We were somewhat surprised at the background materials we received from NTP. With the exception of
one study, (Bofetta et al., which showed a tiny and easily confounded 1.14 RR for lung cancer and ETS
and no consistent dose-response trend) there was nothing new. The two volumes we received consisted
almost exclusively of the same inadequate and tortured data used by the USEPA and CaIEPA to reach
the conclusion that a lifetime of exposure to ETS confers only a statistically marginal correlation with
increased risk of lung cancer. As you know, such tiny expressions of risk are easily confounded by
htto://www.aeocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicology.htm 10/14/03
Deja.com: Independent assessment Page 7 of 9
myriad variables.
The single animal study presented, in the words of its own authors (Witschi et al), may not serve as a
valid model to assess
carcinogenicity in human.
RoC meeting transcript
After expressing our disappointment with these background materials, we received a verbatim transcript
of the RoC subcommittee's discussion on ETS's possible listing as a human carcinogen. This was a most
illuminating document. It included several informative and sound presentations from outside
researchers who had made direct air measurements of ETS exposure, analyzed a variety of animal
studies and assessed the raw data from several significant studies upon which the USEPA based its
decision on ETS. This complete transcript is markedly different from the publicly posted, abridged
version of the meeting available at the NTP website -- which completely conceals any of the twisted
reasoning and political maneuvering that actually took place and ignores nearly every salient point made
by the outside presenters. I will be happy to provide a copy of the entire transcript to anyone who is
interested in the contorted and illogical process by which the subcommittee reached its questionable
conclusions.
Unwarranted bias
During the actual meeting, subcommittee members routinely ignored convincing, well-documented
presentations by outside sources - making it abundantly clear that current or past associations with
industry rendered these presentations null. Several of these same subcommittee members then
proceeded to base their final vote on a rather bizarre suggestion by a self-avowed anti-smoker activist
(Repace) -- who proposed that a hypothetically pure control group be used to assess exposures. This is
an appalling suggestion to those of us who understand quite clearly that case and control groups should
be as alike as possible except for specific exposure to the substance being studied. One subcommittee
member went so far as to say that she was comforted by this suggestion since it enabled her to vote on
ETS as a carcinogen despite the fact that relative risks in this for ETS were (from her perspective)quite
low.
Another sub-committee member stated that he hoped when we get to diesel we will get the same
generous interpretation of epidemiology enjoyed by the ETS-as-carcinogen faction. This is science?
No. It is politics. And it is insupportable, unacceptable - and, quite possibly, legally actionable.
Bias and a priori conclusions are not sound science
In our public comments, we raised several substantive issues and found serious faults not only in the
data used to reach a decision, but also with the decision making process itself. I would be pleased to
provide copies of this document as well. We concluded that:
It is the result of our careful review of the NTP process regarding ETS that brings me here today - at my
own time and expense. Dr. Michael R. Fox, a nationally recognized and highly respected chemist,
generously assisted me in establishing and verifying real-life exposure levels for various components of
ETS. I sincerely wish he were able to join us today to express his own concerns about NTP's risk
assessment process.
Inadequate ventilation, not ETS, is the danger
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicology.htm 10/14/03
Deja.com: Independent assessment Page 8 of 9
We find continuing evidence that energy-efficient building techniques and increasingly limited
ventilation - not ETS - adversely influence asthma and other upper respiratory problems - especially in
children. There is an old maxim in the engineering world: The solution to pollution is dilution. Yet
building ventilation rates continue to decrease -- replaced by inadequate filtering and re-filtering systems
-- and exposing and re-exposing us via re-circulated, undiluted air to contaminants strongly associated
with asthma and allergies: bacteria, fungi, viruses, algae, amoebae, dust mite and cockroach feces,
pollen, etc.
Since ventilation rate recommendations for buildings accommodating smokers are high enough to
promote dilution of all indoor air contaminants, we have been quite careful in our assessment of risks
presented by ETS. Our conclusions may be politically incorrect, but they are scientifically sound: ETS
poses little if any risk to non-smokers. Indeed, it is entirely possible that buildings ventilated to a level
to comfortably accommodate smokers would promote higher indoor air quality overall.
Technology, not toxic toxicology, is the solution
Rather than desperately attempting to sustain the myth that ETS is some mysteriously lethal substance,
we urge an honest, open-minded look at real risk factors and real solutions for respiratory health. Rather
than accepting the incremental lowering of ventilation rates for indoor air, we would insist that energy
efficiency take a back seat to respiratory health.
If buildings were designed to accommodate smokers, air quality would inevitably improve for us all,
since fresh air exchanges would be increased and biocontaminants such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, algae,
amoebae, dust mite and cockroach feces, pollen, would be diluted. Potential toxins -- from building
materials, office chemicals, cleansers, cooking, etc. could be exhausted rather than inadequately filtered
and re-circulated.
NTPs Investment in Toxic Toxicology
The National Toxicology Program has become a willing and enthusiastic participant in the disturbing
trend toward Toxic Toxicology. In doing so, it undermines scientific credibility and contributes to the
increasing skepticism and disdain with which the public views science in general and health warnings in
particular.
NTP does so by implying that even the tiniest exposure to toxic or carcinogenic substances somehow
constitutes a life threatening risk. This is patently absurd - contravening a basic tenet of toxicoloogy: the
dose makes the poison.
Animal cancer tests and worst-case risk assessment should not be considered true risks. And regulatory
policy aimed at reducing minute exposures to rodent carcinogens confuses and unnecessarily alarms the
public about what factors are truly important for preventing cancers.
Data torturing of epidemiological studies concerns the many responsible scientists and public health
researchers who work honestly, openly and willingly in the service of sound science. We are seeing an
enormous diversion of funds and talent from truly important health risks - and the real possibility that
anxiety raised by false health scares is in itself a risk factor. Thus the term Toxic Toxicology.
It is obvious that by straining at gnats, exaggerating risks and supporting researchers who are willing to
do the same, the National Toxicology Program perpetuates its own existence. There is certainly nothing
new about this type of metastasizing bureaucracy and empire building. What is new, is the public's
increasing tendency to ignore this sound-bite science. Warning labels have become subjects of comics
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicology.htm 10/14/03
Deja.com: Independent assessment Page 9 of 9
and late-night talk show hosts. Editorial cartoons poke fun at the Health Scare of the Day. Yet
irresponsible risk assessment continues to be a growth industry. It is time to call a halt.
The financial and social costs of biased risk assessment are receiving increased scrutiny at both the
Federal and State level. The Open Science Freedom of Information Act - making data from Federally
funded studies available for independent review- is a good start. It should be followed immediately by
GAO investigation of the shoddy standards and political pressures that have undermined the integrity of
our nations health research programs.
//
http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc9.html Ninth Report of Carcinogens
•
•
•
•
. • T innnmz
)niJcorn - PSYCHIATRY SOURCE I FOR THE RESOURCES YOU NEED
y
Home Help Search/Archive Feedback Search Result
BMJ 2003;327:504-505 (30 August)
Email this article to a friend
Letter Respond to this article
0. Read responses to this article
Passive smoking •• Download to Citation Manager
Search Medline for articles by:
Authors' reply Enstrom,J. E p Kabat, G. C
fr Alert me when:
Editor—Owing to the charged atmosphere surrounding the issue of New articles cite this article
passive smoking, our paper provoked strong reactions on bmj.com.
The most disturbing reactions have come from the enforcers of political correctness who pose as
disinterested scientists but are willing to use base means to trash a study whose results they,dislike.
They have no qualms about engaging in personal attacks and unfounded insinuations of dishonesty
rather than judging research on its merits.' The resulting confusion has misled many readers and
diverted attention from the facts of the study.
View this table: Self reported total exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among female
[in this window] never smokers in the California cohort of the cancer prevention study I by
[in a new window] smoking status of spouse (taken mainly from tables 4 and 5 of full paper)
Since 15 May Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society has led a campaign to discredit our
study, including his letter above. However, almost every sentence in his letter it misleading,and he
disregards key information in the full version of our paper. Contrary to the title of his letter, we have
presented an accurate analysis of the California cohort of the cancer prevention study I (CPS I), not
disinformation, and it comes from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the State University
of New York, Stony Brook, not the tobacco industry.
Anyone who reads the full version of the paper and our response to the reviewers of 9 January will
see that in fact we provided detailed evidence that refutes the claim that our study is "fatally flawed
because of misclassification of exposure." Contrary to Thun's unsubstantiated assertion that "tobacco
smoke was so pervasive in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s that virtually everyone was
exposed, at home, work, or in other settings," the table shows that most female never smokers
married to never smokers were not exposed. It also shows that 1959 spousal smoking was strongly
related to self reported total exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as of 1999, in spite of the
misclassification of exposure that occurred over 40 years.
.../504?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=l0&RESULTFORMAT=1&authorI enstrom&searchid=10/14/03
Thun also attempts to minimise our recontact of survivors in 1999. Instead of the 2% and 5% he cites,
we obtained 1999 responses from 8.7% (3094/35561) of the subjects alive on 1 January 1960, from
35.6% (3094/8693) of the subjects known to be alive as of 31 December 1998, and from about 45%
of the subjects who actually received the questionnaire (see table 1 and text of full paper). In addition,
we have shown in tables 2 and 3 that the 1999 respondents were reasonably representative of the 1959
subjects. Thun claims that "misclassification of exposure is compounded because no information was
collected on the smoking status of the spouse between 1972 and 1999," but he completely ignores
table 9. This table clearly shows that results for coronary heart disease for follow up periods of 6, 7,
and 13 years, when exposure misclassification would be minimised,were the same as the results in
tables 7 and 8 for follow-up periods of 26 and 39 years.
Furthermore, although Thun is in a position to check our results by analysing the data from CPS I, he
has yet to identify a single error. His attack should be seen for what it is—an attempt to discredit work
that is at variance with the position he is committed to. However, the evidence for the health effects
of passive smoking is neither as consistent nor as iron clad as Thun wants to portray it. Rather, the ,
widely accepted evidence is the result of selective reporting of data and, when necessary,attempts to
. suppress divergent data. Our paper provides a prime example of these tactics.
Horton has posed serious questions regarding the issues of conflict of interest and the difficulty of
determining the credibility of research findings, particularly those that involve tobacco industry
funding. We suggest four things be done for controversial papers such as ours. Firstly, the integrity of
the authors should be thoroughly and fairly investigated. In our case, we both have a substantial
record of accomplishment in conducting relevant epidemiologic studies and, until now, we have
never had our professional integrity challenged. Secondly, full disclosure should be made regarding
conflicts of interest, as has been done with our paper. We want to make clear that the tobacco industry
played no part in our paper other than providing the final portion of the funding. The tobacco industry
never saw any version of our paper before it was published, never attempted to;nfluence the writing
of the paper in any way, and did not even know the paper was being published until it became public.
In addition, we have never testified on behalf of the tobacco industry, never owned any stock in the
tobacco industry, never been employees of the tobacco industry, and would never have accepted
tobacco industry funds if there had been any other way to conduct this study. However, full disclosure •
must be required of all authors and organisations. In particular, what are the competing interests of
Thun, and where does the American Cancer Society get its funds?Thirdly, and most importantly,the
integrity of the underlying data must be thoroughly and fairly investigated. The best way to resolve
questions about the validity of research findings is through independent examination of the
underlying data, something that is now required in principle by the Data Quality Act for US studies
with public policy implications? Fourthly,journals must be willing to publish and discuss
controversial findings, as long as they meet the criteria of good science.
Regarding the comments of the working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer
.../504?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&authorl=enstrom&searchid 10/14/03
(IARC), we have not claimed that our study changes the weight of the worldwide evidence on
environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer, but it does change the US evidence. When our results
are included, meta-analysis of US results on environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer among
both men and women yields a summary relative risk of about 1.10 for ever/never exposure, which is
just on the border of statistical significance. Our results have an even greater impact with regard to
environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease,where meta-analysis of US results, which
constititute most of the evidence, yields summary relative risks of about 1.05 for current/never and
ever/never exposure. The end of our response to the reviewers summarises the relative risks for
environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease by exposure status for all US cohort
studies.2 Because of our findings, we conclude that "the association between exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably
weaker than generally believed." Finally, we do not think the weak association with lung cancer
means that environmental tobacco smoke "causes" lung cancer, and we certainly do not think that this
issue is "resolved scientifically."
In response to Glaser and Milne, we have used a standard method of analysis for prospective cohort
data: Cox proportional hazards regression based on the SAS PHREG program.4 All results have been
properly adjusted for age at entry, which is by far the strongest risk factor for death. Tables 7 and 8
show that confounding variables such as education have virtually no effect on the relative risks. Too
much is being made of statistical fluctuations in tables 2 and 3: For a fair evaluation of our study, it
must be put in perspective with all other similar studies, which has not yet been done.
Finally, we too are in favour of the strongest possible protections for non-smokers. However, the
attempt to suppress any divergent results because of their possible effect on public policy can only
harm science in the long run. In a rational society, there are ample grounds for regulating involuntary
exposure to tobacco smoke without manipulating scientific results. What is most dangerous is the
willingness to distort the truth to defend one's position, claiming all along that science and
righteousness are on one's side.
James E Enstrom; researcher
School of Public Health,University of California, Los Angeles,CA 90095-1772,USA jenktrom@ucla.edu
ucla.edu
Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor
Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook,NY 11794-8036,USA
References
1. Rothman KJ. Conflict of interest: the new McCarthyism in science. JAMA 1993;269: 2782-4.
[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
2. Enstrom JE, Kabat GC. Response to BMJ/2002/011163 Manuscript Decision. BMJ2003.
bmj.con/cgi/content/fulU326/7398/1057/DC1/7 (accessed 16 Aug 2003).
.../504?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&authorl=ensirom&searchid 10/14/03
3. Data Quality Act and OMB Guidelines. Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies; notice;
republication. 2002;67(36):8451-60. (Friday, Federal Register 22 February.)
www.isrLuittc.edu/qrd/iq/public/data-quality-guidelines.html (accessed 16 Aug 2003).
4. So Y. The PHREG procedure. In: SAS/STAT software. SAS technical report P-229. Cary, NC:
SAS Institute, 1992. support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/index.html (accessed 19 Aug
2003).
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
What about science?
Radu Leca
bmj.com, 31 Aug 2003 [Full text]
Email this article to a friend
I. Respond to this article
Read responses to this article
Download to Citation Manager
Search Medline for articles by:
• Enstrom.,J. E li Kabat, G. C
Alert me when:
New articles cite this article
Home Help Search/Archive Feedback Search Result
bnli e0M. •
n 1<tex�iiawinnll
02003 1301J Publishing Group Lid
•
.../504?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&authorl=enstrom&searchid 10/14/03
Papers
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related
mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrorn,Geoffrey C Rabat
Abstract Association, the California Environmental Pnotcwun tleo:v b
Objective To measure the relation between Agency,and the US surgeon general have concluded Dairy Ardis,
environmental tobacco smoke,as estimated by that the increase in coronary heart disease risk due to
smoking in spouses,and long term mortality from enironnnenal tobacco smoke is 3096 (relative risk
tobacco related disease. 130)." Meta-analyses of epidemiological stupes have s`}1"4P'
reported summary relative risks(95%confidence inter of car,f,„ia
-
Design Adult opo cohort study covering 39 yeas vim)of 130(122 to 138),1.25(1.17 to 132),and 125 Angr e
Setting Adult population of en,ollrnia,United Sates [;,s Boos t^,
Paniapants 118 099 adults enrolled m late 1959 in
(1.17 m 133)for coronary heart disease"and 1.23(1.13
USA ;,
the American Cancer Society cancer prevention midi. to 135)and 123(1.13 to 134)for lung cancer,"similar lane,E F ian
(CPS I),who were fofowed until 1998 Particular focus to the 120 found by the California Environmental Pro- m.mra:
is on the 35 561 neva smokers who had a spouse in terlmn Agency and tee US nmgernh general"The US Dcpwrierx err
Environmental Protectionhas classified emi- Prnentbr
the study with known smoking habits. Agency my .Sine •
mtmrantatobacco bacco smoke as anown human caneso-k
Main outcome meas res Relative risks and 95% Undress.,d
confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart Bent'Ch onnic obstructive pnbnotnry disease,prinharily sew York
disease,lung cancer,and chronic obstructive
asthma bronchitis,and emphysema,has been associated i taiBrookru6.
"2
disease related to smokin ins anwithIIx m emaormenal tobacco smoke,but the uia
pulmonaryg- pouscs
evidence for increased moncdCounti[y is sparse' Count c I:>tm
active cigarette smoking.
Although these reviews come to similar condo-Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998m�uaa p q4,w
tine age adjusted relative risk(95%confidence untenal) siotu,the association between environmental tobacco Caresp dace ax
for never smokers married to nen smokers mmpa nt smoke and tobacco related diseases is sell controversial )p F'f16w1ermebr
with tines-smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 owing to several linutadoru in the epidemiologied
(0.25 to 1.05)for COI urar y heart disease,0.75(0.42 to studies'"Exposure 10 environmental tobacco smoke Imilcum 20333116.to57
135)for lung cancer,and 127(0.78 to 208)for is difficult to measure quantitatively and therefore has
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 been approximated by self reported estimates,
men,and 1.01(094 to 1.08),0.99(0.72 to 137),and primarily smoking history in spouses.Confounding by
1.13(0.80 to 158),rolntivvdy,among 25 942 women t cigarette smoking is so strong that the
No significant associations were found for amara or association with em ironmenal tobacco smoke can
former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke only be evaluated among never smokers.The relation
before or after adjusting for seven confounders and between tobacco related diseases ard�oanal
before or after excluding participants with prcrosting tobacco smokeinfluenced may be by n
disease Nosignificant associations west found during of some smokers as never smoker,misclassification of
the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5,1966-72, exposure status to environmental tobacco smoke,and
1973-85,and 1973-98 several potential confounders.It is also unclear how
Conclusions The results do not support a causal the reported increased risk of coronary heart disease
relation between environmental tobacco smoke and due to environmental tobacco smoke could be so dose
tobacco related mortality,although they do not rule to the increased risk due to active smoking(30%and
out a small circa_The association between exposure 70%,respectively),since environmental tobacco smoke
to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart is much more dilute than actively inhaled smoke.
dives and lung cancer may be considerably weaker Mon epidemiological studio have found that envi-
than generally believed. ronmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statis-
tically significant relation to coronary heart disease
Introductionand lung cancer.Meta-analyses have combined these
inconclusive results to produce statistically significant
Several major reviews have determined that exposure to summary relative risks."However,there are problems
erwuonme ntal tobacco smoke increase the relative risk inherent in using meta-analysis to establish a causal
of coronary heart disease,based primarily on canpar- relation.'"The epidemioiogial data arc subject to the
''mg neva smokers married to smokers with nevrsmok- limitation described above They have not been
ens married to never yokes.The American Heart collected in a standardised way,and some relative risks
page 1 of 10 mug Voanr325 17 MAY 2003 r qwm
Papers
Table 1 Follow up details of 51 343 men and 66 751 women in California cancer prevention study(CPS I)cohort
Soli eat *nes seteen"
F-at ewe Ile Wee Nee Wears
1 Jan lel
Dead.eled Ine It(1 Da to 31 Dec 1%9) a 14 -
Nee,arneed 1959 See It CM 1959 b 31 4411 1950) 51 am 66 737 9619 25 942
al Dec 1955:
Dead.ICO cecIes(I Jan 1960 to 31 Dec 1%5) 4 907 3 5(6 665 869
,- Dad.no ICII ades(1 Jai 1910 b 31 Dec 1%5) 45 47 1 13
*Them(I Jai l b 3)Sep 19ron 718 974 79 257
1
LW 11 Jai 1%0 lo 31 Dix 196551 31 49 13
ale.careered Se 19%nudiden*l 44 757 51 079 6574 24 611
Alma leine up b 31 Dec 1993 1373 1 092 270 714
31 Dec 1972:
Dead.CD(ve(l Jai 1960 13 31 Dec 1977) 112% 9 146 1865 2(04
Dead ro CD core(1 Jai l lo 31 Dec 1972) 146 1613 19 41
Weed(1 Im 190310 XI Sep 197131 Sm 7 825 164 9134
le(1 An 1960 In 31 Der 117) 1 525 3757 esti 110]
Mc.camped Sep 1972 spreorree 26 0713 37 926 5155 16 171
AWL lam 342 lo 31 1m IS% 101353 13 613 1847 5 CO9
31 Dec 19643
Cead 1CD codes(1 Jai 1960 b 31 Dec 1935) 37 554 36 669 173 13 103
Dead no KZ codes(1 Jai 1%0 lo 31 Dec 1996) 2 455 flfl 464 1 133
Wedren(1 Jan 1993 lo 30 Sep 1972)1 '2% 5 450 197 2 1(6
Los!(1 Jai 1960 lo 31 Dec 1998) 2 98? 6 953 593 2 579
*a.ccatc11(ozmpleted 1933 peewee 2 290 4 369 681 2 413
Paa,made en Calionia drivers ere and in blown dearg 4 664 10 074 1044 4 555
'Ore seers It had Wee ii ode with Moe smoke lets.
1feter Meow up rot esible bete of here*or esio nee on 1972 mese teen
aloe 9311 co 1577 maser fie aid ro mitt wan Caesarea Myers ire De.CatIVTil de bit et social secure del Wale 1993.
glaze en 19901 wen lei Cana Amts erre lie e1 na fee math win Canis den ft a sae smarty deb ine durinp 193966.
•
have been inappropriately combined. Because it is analysed the relation between environmental tobacco
more likely that positive associations get published, smoke and tobacco related diseases, and addressed
unpublished negative results could reduce the sum- concerns about this study.
marl relative risks Also,the meta-analyses of coronary
heart disease omitted the published negative results methods
from the large American Cancer Society cancer
.prevention study(CPS T).''"We have extended the fol- CPS I is a prospective cohort study begun by the
low up for the California participants in this cohort, American Cancer Society in °cuter 1959 and
Table 2 Personal and lifestyle characteristics 01 male 1959 never smokers in Catalonia cancer prevention study(CPS I)cohort by smoking status of spouse
Sect*states al see.1959 1955.
Came IcisaneTheee)
Charadereic iitVa Fere 1-19 MA 241 Zoe 1959 nue ries an
ku DI FalitipanIs ii 1959 itsa 624 925 5147 45 9619
Pio ol parecipais es 119 495 59 59 514 651 • 681 681
Mean as al 1972(%) 23(346) 1_2,4(15) LI(19) 2.7(15) 22(1) 20(19n 1
lee 113 lobe he as.4 1999 r4) 59(441) 4.6(71) 5.4(49) 63(37) 5,9(4) 51(560)
Veen cuss
of dee(5.) 6.6(311) 6.1(26) 11(0) 54(72) 81(3) 63(464)
Weed as of 1999
212(1649) 25.1124) . MI(231) 311(174) 33.4(13) 29.0(2191)
Meal ade(years)6 menet 56.5(7456) 51.9(624) 521(905) 511(5/7) 526(45) 555(5519) 453(681) 453(681)
ele pecee(%) 911(1702) 55.6(515) 553(847) 9)1(571) 113(45) 972(9416) 9)1(572)
Etkaalion 212 years(5.) 67.3(5017) 916(403) 711(645) 742(435) 545(35) 69D(6639) MD(5E6) VS(133)
Mee larte(e5) 1751(73213) 176.3(611) 1752(69e) 1755(152) 1762(43) 1751(9465) 1770(651) 175.3(11)
54461 eke Pal 751(7137) 79.7(502) 725(840) 919(573) 622(44) 79.1(9237) 71.6(661) 742(681)
- Hee al sexes deism(54 t31( ) 000(59) 112(907) 112(0]) 123(5) 133(11%) 41(25)
Cancer 53(359) 4,7(29) 53 PO 41(77) 22(1) 53(476) 29(23) 399(772)
Head&OW 70(el) 41(71) &4(44) 51(29) 71(2) 11(574) 11(7).
See 01(13) 03(3) ID(S) 11 19) 26(7) 11(116) 02(1)
Eck al prteSen1 tine(%) 5,4(415) 41(33) 63(57) - 56(31) 4.4(2) 62(597) 42(29) V.2(050)
.Peessetel occupalie(6) 143 0065) 141 ma) III nob tos(d) 17.8(6) 131(0m) 171(121)
Ude nen=(6) as$(S404) 9)2(568) 55.7(103) 93.0(523) 849(46) 96.7(8342) 10(156)
Mee a tan nese(9) 762(513) 702 1438) 723(565) 71.1(415) 51.3(25) 710(1221) 197(451) 19.9(453)
Eat
atm ses imam dassetnel) 41(72171) 49(617) 50(841) 53(513) 19(45) 41(9323) 5.1(WI) 45(SA)
61 lets or ere hut ea(mean dayeeek) 6.0(17Z) 6.0(514) 51 WM) 53(574) 52(43) 52(9343) &9(W) 51(561)
Olen tea vire es(17) 35.1(2241) 33.7(245) 31.2(303) 217(10]) Cl(19) 372(3517) 342(237) 792(533)
Some vale do toe agree et eercwwwwca die wrany b anissio die
Oat)vokusa 5e6 17 MAY 2003 brtliCOLO page 2 el 10
- .
Papers
described in detail elsewhere.'"A total of 1078 894 ;old 1972.surviving cohort rnemben completed brief
adults from 25 states were enrolled on the basis of a quatiorulaire3 The American Cancer Society ascer-
detailed four page questionnaire.In 1961, 1963. 1965. tabled the vital status and current address for most of
Table 3 Personal aud lifestyle characteristics of female 1959 never smokers in California cancer prevention study(CPS I)cohort by smobiop status of
spouse
6tl11 mess el spent,Ie56 1919 rsnuklt
' trier mss•
nsadeist etre Forma 91pe a des 1-19 2F99 246 Total 1959 also 1999 obs
_
No al RrRann1959 7>99 666 161 3549-1991 161 611 5912
No of tvhitva n 1� 785 573 2R 237 479 R 2112 2412 2412
9919..
We'traa'adl9a til _......._..-61(502) 0.1(556) 8.1(719) U(265) ].T fi80) 96 R1) 61(2105)
(
lndm loin, a
'gd196(5) 9.6(/22) 1816 91.7 1290 101 101 f.Q1) 10.1(513) 10.5(91) 99(2519)
t96wen ranea hurt(x) 76 1324) 7.)(335) 22 11111" m 154 6] -'----- -'---
( ) (n3) 75.1(43) 60(1147)
wdpeedad196 RI 59]P461) 652 p5213) 61211 66 m1_._n1 9999_-9999. __. 9999_-1191
_. _.1(_ ). (2859)34 45.1(541) 53.1(13 473)
Yam age bens)s smitten, 53.1(1199) .515(666) SIA(2631) SlT(3219) 5(19(4934) 495(011) 53.1 lE 9/21 MS 81121 MS 81121
1191 Rot(1) .__ 975(7225) 939(6759) 972(2631)-939(3116) 97.9(4828) 962(691) 912(E 367) 960(2364)
.__ -9999
ERrmm 212 tis(Y) 73.7 I54521 6821/567 691(1853) 626 Rice) 1111(3176) PI(650) ]0.2118 Td7 61.9 81X0 60 82431
Me _____ ........ ....... ..1_7_._...16__ . 3
�h6Vi tool 1621(1272) 161.6(6106) 1612(2610) 161311)®) 1612(4846) 1653(hal 1612(E 111) 1626(2412) 1613 8112)
_.__ _-9199.9999-0691__..-__-_..._.. 521) _-_ 512(24 __.
Ito'sdgi fb1 6.9(Tp61 63.816596) 61.0 8561) 8535 13199371 8513(17799 6361(621) 6D(21 9431) 851_4 81121 623(2412)
)is4ry Sterns Neo my 11.3 9334) 12.8(657) 113(26) 102(315) 191(463) 102(6) 11.4(2 667) 52(143) '
Cantor _ 52(427) 6.7(465) 53(156)...._.51(161) -._.51(233) 72(61) 6.0(1 599) 4.1(6) 36.4(576)
Hart&ass 51(347) 51(030) 4.7(117) 42(123) 3.1(154) 29(73) 45(1 974) 13(36)
Striae 99(60) 10(E2)_ 02(20) --- 02(25) 02(36) 0.1(1) 09(204) 02(5)
Sid at proal nee(Y) _._____ 7.9(566) 6315x1 6.6 8311 62 8 (13)61) 6D(4 66(7I) 63 8 163) fit(154) 192 p15)
Rvttmr om9tip"(Y) ---14.6(1eHI) 121(61) 130115% lig(414) 106(523) 10.9(92) 129(3 340) 1311(1 --------
Urbnra@s¢(;) 35.E(649) 661 X0 •°
(5949 1 6 62261 621P76) BSl(1229) 852(111) 859(22 332) 912(21343)
Wink or terry tan=(Y(5) -._RS(667) 625(564 5393(2242)---R!RE66) 623(4156) 610(601) 625(71 392) CO2 11934) 63(190)
Er brei abds(vis byvese) .-_5.11219) 50(6701) 5.1(2616) 49(3122) 51(4635) 5.1(125) 52(25 Ten) 54(2112) 4A(2412)
EA 0e6 a hie MA leo 6.4(TIP) 63(6727) 63(2621) 6.1(3132) 6.0(4545) 62(625) 62(E 379) 6.1(1112) 52 9417f
Iowan days/41o*
Crb see Kim Das(5.) 40A(2965) 316(7720 362(109) 352(1183) 35.3(1739) 342(266) 364(9 949) 363(924) 812(1956)
'RPr pie or neuter d uprrdta Lemncd Pn dn.
Some num do not same eel mmam`r5 OC prkally m ITCIiC Ma.
Table 4 Percentage of cabal exposed to three measures of environmental tobacco smoke in 1999 by smoking status of spouse among 1959 never smokers
•
who responded to 1999 ldlaw up questionnaire.Subgroup of 1959 never smokers aged 250 years at entry(born before 1910)also shown.Values are
percentage(number)exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in 1999.except for data on marital status
Re9ehr epos Y cigarse♦She her saes
Y work or bat et alsesd eery to IS S INN
Lied 199 Lind so %alma
LS*em S apo i 1959 Sae tea*gent este 0kyi re but db Fa
1%9 male see meets
Neva(496) ----_--- 24.0(1ta) ---- 32(18) O.(16) 315(150) 221(95) 62(319) R2 pus)
(Dena In-59) 535131) nA(1�___ 20.6111) 43.1(a) 35.9091 623(6) 48.6(1Q
Omni 11K1211 893 1111) ]5.01931__- 22.1------
811 365 1451 3e3(45) __-ai(55) 71/5 1851
1>811>o1e a tar
Mat 'c76) 323(253) -----33,77(3) 612(398) 213(157) 1�0(90) ,, 395(306) 62(666)
Forma(n-573) ---- 735(421) 552(316) 113(1%) 263(126) 322(153) f 356(187) 612(474)
ant
6114 u Caen('k212) 54.7(711) 69(114) 319(73) 302(65) 351(77) 301(75) 822(196)
1-19 cxpiefMptl(r-733) 69(212) 533(193) ES(53) 252(6) 452(6) 22.0(50) 80.4(16) -
XF39 rpma4by 01.479) 967(467) 91.1(431) 19.7(54) 209(89) 59.4(753) 164(76) 765(365)
213 that*(0.57) 962(84 813(71) 162(13) 125(10) 713(57) 142(33) 739(65)
Tml of anent wets(1991) 94.1(914) 814(66) 24.0(223) 24.1(724) 519(482) 202(216) 744(605)
1959 ria aye meas sed 251 tears S mina
•
Nese(nr94) 113(13) 23(2) 562(46) 24.1(19) 172(17) 471(43) 6.0(72)
Forma(n-11) 361(4) 182(2) 50.0(5) 200(I) 310(3) 453(5) 909(10)
Corm'(rrl7) 652(15) 70.6(12) 192(3) 433(7) 375(6) 12.5(2) 553(9)
12591m4 um mem and 251 fess 5 eadner -
Ikea(' 1C0) 2.0(263 40(4) 712(52) 21.9(16) 69(5) 163(16) 927(6)
Fame(n=99) 53.0(T3) 6.1(&) 40.7(143 747(29) 316(23) 172(17) WA(73)
Gwent ._-- _.
RDs er drys 03)) 71_4(30) 595(25) 425(14) 242(8) 333(11) 149(6) 771 RD)
1-19 sitceef>a.14y(ne29) 963(26) 852(3) 299(5) 282(7) 520(13) 6.9(7) 845(22)
2939 umdksttn'(99.75) 97.1(72) 57.7(67) 142(7) Z19(13) 633(4 79(6) 6.4(53)
240 e54rdts8 y(m9) 100.0(6) 752(6) 0 0 1(0.0(7) 11.1(1) 889(3)
Total d runes nes 0456) 933(136) 602(121) 203(26) 549(24) 572(14) 91(15) 81.7(115)
Some flee do m use eel deosnawors Os Ramiy b missies as
page 3 of 10 91143 yammer/6 17 MAY 7003 Waxers
Papers
Takla 5 One measure of exposure to envirormieotaito0acco smoke as of 1999 by smoking 6slory of spouse in 1999 among
1959'1999 neer smokers who responded to 1999 follow up Questionnaire.Yalues are percentage(number)exposed to environmental
tobacco smoke in 1999
titer mosso to dwelt sari Ina tear b owl or dairy fele
net aw4 wM•vai11 grow Yea l9W OeMreb - Horn
I lml lm de rat-
._--_
W(na39) 3333_ SOD ItmI 2190141 119150) 12 N)
Y2
onto
Pb a,mo nut6r ln.231 334(7)
522 UA 3333 124I41 ----- ----0
---9--
Eraaod,-ly
rear17.6(3I -.. ...-19..(5) n201 11.8(2)
3333___
Exposed 20-39lv
>g was 3r-35) 20
25) 2n.O(!) 416(1T) 20.0(!) 111/1
Egmnt 4o-Eo leas( 6.1 12) 27.3(9) 57.5(19) 9.1(3)
149(1999 leak arta vela
No(n )____. 26.I Iss0 ....___._...1611921 _....___.__..SJ -3333___ 191111
Yrs 3333
nnmMaV loran x16213333_. _._..._.29.9(45)-__..__.__.__369(63)3_.__...____.a2(44) 3333-3333__ 45(8)
Egmn11-19wan(ml� 290 NO 339(63) 122(44) 49(8)
Exposed 2639 Karr Im3651 19.2 00 2.5(61) w5119a) 115(40
Exposed 4151 fin(mea) 14.1(46) 20.5 1661 44.3 043) 21.1(ra)
1966'1991 m ona ordain mad 26111m r saaiaeel
lb 1m101 ---- ---_ 629(44)----- iia 02) ----- 11.4(6)---- 1.4(1)
Yersmoli
reay(�) DJ(1'._._.___._._- (1) 332(I)-3333__. 0-3333._
_- ---___/
EaDmeE 1-19 yeas(n-2)In0 SOD(1) 0 50.0(1)
EQosed 2639 years(155). 20.0(1) _......_f9.0 PI - --_.20.010__.___ 0
boars 40B0years(Ik$) 20.00 11) 0 m0(3) 200(1)
1159/1993 Wale a talon aas 256 Kae ai mama
Po(rJ3) 390(65) 56(2� _._ 0 1.4(1)
Yew -__----
lbsocket;reaWOn20) 33333333___- _ 0O 60A02) 110(2) --- 50(1)
E>p -._
,
ma 1-19 l-19 Kar( ail SSD 111) qD(3) SD h) -_-_-_U
biased 2639 fors(t'40) 32(4) 162(a) ._-_-US 13))--- 125 @1
Fmmod 4009 fns(o=66) 152(10) 132(12) - 45.4(31) 212(14)
Same Mugs Eo ml ata w113 mmmiNms dm prima),10 cnmkq data
the adults up to September 1972 and obtained death height on the questionnaire confirmed that over 99%
certificates for most of those knot n dead of the respondents had been accurately located
Follow u The follow up period was from time of envy to the
p study (I January to 31 March 1960) until death,
Long term follow up was undertaken at the University withdrawal(date last known alive),or end of follow up
of California at Los Angeles on all 118094 (31 December 1999).The were ed 30-96
participants from California This is described in detail participants aged
•
years at enrolment.We excluded the few person years
elsewhere and summarised
in table 1."The parva- of observation and the 36 deaths during 1959.The
pants were matched several arra with the California underlying cause of each death was assigned according
death file and the social security death index on the to the intenenjonal ch, sification of diseases(seventh,
basis of their name and other identifying variables"" eighth,or ninth revisions).Coronary heart disease was
Overall, 79 437 deaths were identified up to 31 defined as 420(ICD-7)during 1960-7,4104(ICD-8)
December 1998and the underling cause was during 1968-78,and 410-4(ICD-9) daring 1979.9$
obtained from the California death file and death ca- lung cancer was defined as 1 412-3(ICD-7),162(ICD-8),
fifarates for 93%(73 876)of these deann
Putiripan6 wait also matched with information and 162(ICD-9}and chronic and obstructive (IC
soy
given on thea Cal forma driver's lister,based prima- disease was defined as 241,500-2,and 527.1 (ICD-7),
rely on name,date ofbii birth,and height We obtained the 490-3(ICD-8),and 490-6(ICD-9}For the analysis of
e vronmental tobacco smoke we selected the 35 561
address given during the 1990s for 21 897 participantsparticipants who had never smoked as of 1959 and
who were not known as dead as of 1999,and these par- who had a spouse in the study with known smoking
ticipants were assumed to be alive in 1999. Of the habits
renaming participants in the study's master database,
6845 were withdrawn from firrthe,-follow up as of Sep- Statistical analysis
[timber 1972 because their complete name was not The independent variable used for analysis was
retained and 9915 were lost to follow up as of 1999 exposure to environmental tobacco smoke based on
because their vital status was unknown. smoking status of the spouse in 1959,1965,and 1972.
To assess the current status of surviving cohort Never smokers married to current or former smokers
members, in mid-1999 we sent out a two page were compared with neve smokers married to never
questionnaire on smoking and lifestyle to those smokers. The 1959 never smokers were defined as
participants with an address for 1995 or later on their those who had never smoked any form of tobacco as of
drills licence e Overall, 2290 of 5275 men (43.4%) 1959.The 1965 never smokers were defined as 1959
and 4869 of 10 738 women (453%) completed the never smokers who did not smoke cigarettes as of
questionnaire Responses to name,date of birth,and 1965.The 1972 never smokers were defined as 1959
Nag'Ot.0 E326 r MAY 2O29 b j® page 4 of 10
Papers
never smokers who did not smoke cigarettes as of 1965 Results
and 1972.The 1959/1999 never smokers were defined
as 1959 never smokers who had never smoked The personal and lifestyle characteristics and follow up
cigarettes as of 1999.Never smokers married to a CUT- status for 1959 never smokers were relatively
rent smoker were subdivided into categories according uldepenMu of thea spouse's smoking status(lathes 2
to the smoking status of their spouse: 1-9, 10.19,20, and 3).Also, the baseline characteristics of the 1999
21-39, 240 cigarettes consumed per day for men and respondents in 1959 were similar to those for all
women.with the addition of pipe or cigar usage for participants in 1959,accept for a younger age al aiml-
womrn. Forma smokers were considered as an men_ Although heavily censored by age, the 1999
additional category respondents seemed reasonably representative of
We calculated the age adjusted relative risk of death survhvrs-Race,education,cute.height,weight.and
and 95%confrdaxe interval as a function of smoking fruit intake had also remained largely unchanged
status of the spouse by using Cox proportioned hazards among the 1999 respondents since 1959. The
regression."'' A fully adjusted relative risk was proportion of participants who had withdrawn as of
calculated by using a model that included age and 1972.were last as of 1999.or had an unknown cause of
seven potential conjoin-4m at baseline:rete(white, death was not related to the shaking sans of spras.-s
non-white),education kvel(<12,12,>12 years),aer- However,widowhood(widowed as of 1999)increased
rise(none or slight,moderate.heavy),body mass indot substantially with the level of smoking in the spouse.
(<20.20-22.99,23-25.99,26-29.99,230),urbanisation The smoking sams of spouses as of 1959 was
(five population sizes),fruit or fruit juice intake(0.2 related to three self reported measures of exposure to
3-4. 5-7 days a week), and health stars (good, fair, emvwunenal tobacco smoke as of 1999(table 4).Par-
poor, sick). Analyses were carried out for all titularly for women,there was a dear relation between
participants and for healthy participants(those with no smoking status of spouses as of 1959 and self reported
history of cancer,heart disease,or smoke at baseline). measures in 1999 of having lived with a smoker,having
The relative risk was also calculated for current lived with a smoking spouse,and a positive answer to
cigarette smokers (cigarettes only) as a function of the question'In your work or daily life,are(were)you
number of cigarettes consumed per day for the entire regularly exposed to cigarette smoke from others?'
cohort_"For reference,the age adjusted death rate has Also,the percentage of participants currently married
been calculated by cause of death for all never as of 1999 declined substantially with the smoking sa •
-
smokers" tis of the spouse, owing to increased widowhood. •
Table 6 Percentage of anent smokers by Cigarettes consumed per day as of 1%5,1972,and 1999,and bonnet smokers by year of cessati0n as 011999
among 1959 never smokers by smoking status of spun.Values are percentages(numbers)of cigarette smokers
terry alma as I 1165 fl aeebae at el 1972
Its (tt614ba161) 01Pdta air n r 1999
1156 gams cepa 1-6 2Ii la all cess Farmer beep
1461 ver a MAUI 11961) IS alai)
-
_. (rue 602) (ns 4]9) -__--_- ('
--
Neva
Neve 03(15) OA 1367 03151 0/(5) 02 11) 52(24) 0.1(1)
Forme 0.4(2) 12(5) ---0 01(2) 0 152(5) 0
Greta 0.7 161 20 25) 02(3) 03(4) U 65(% ..__1.6(2) ._
1959 Vote sat ma
(r21112) (xlfi 237) (x.2412)
xwa 03115) 0.4(19) _-_03(9)-_-__-0.4(12)_..-. 03(2) 26(16) lA(3)
rome 0.5(24) 0.4(15) 02(9) 02(9) 02 11) 53(22) 09 p)
Canal):
f51e a Cigar 0.6(15) - 0.4(9) 01(7) OA(4) 0.4(1) x 1A(3) 11(3)
1-14 SagtgOktry OS(71) 03(22) 01(9) 05 2) 0 1.7(4) 22(5)
2A39 Sagasttry 11)(41) 12(52) 05(13) 01(15) 02(1) 1.4(6) 12(7)
240 SAM:as/dry 14(10) 1.6(11) 01(3) 02(1) 1.1(1) 64(5) 33(3) •
]opt d pane anolvs 03(87) 09(94) 01(32) • 05 29 03(3) 20(15) 20(16)
164 sale a secs aged ze5/ea at setaed -
__ (r5 571) (x.3306) 044127)
a03(10) 01(23) 0,1(1) 02(4) 0 53(5) 0
Fame 0 1.4(4) 00 0 9.1(1) 0
Orme 01(4) 2.5(16) 0 01(3) 0 111(2) 0
1154 kids sew swans aged gill eras i scary
_ ('.14014) 0148 S57) -- 0255)
Mew 02(5) 0.3(5) 03(4) 02(4) 0 1.0(1) 0
Forger0.1(4) 05(13) 02(q 0 0 7.1 2) 0
Gane
NA ed eq _ 02(3) 02(4) 0.4(1) 0 0 23(1) 0
1-19 d0 resest4y 0.4(5) OA(12) 03(2) 01(4) 0 14(1) 0
2039 dwttb,W' 01(14) 03(20) 0.5(5) 05(4) 13(1) 0 i7(2)
AO Samtbergry OS(2) 11(5) 010 0 0 0 0
Tod of a,ne awakes 0.4(24) O1(41) 0.4(10) OA(8) 0.6(1) 1.3(2) 13(7) .
&era cars do cod arm M cicrontalers da gnarly m mesas)at
page 5 of10
nil VOLUME 326 17 MAY 40O lar)®
Papers
Tally 7 Level of smoking in spouse and deaths from selected causes among male never smokers in California cancer prevention study(CPS I)cohort,as at
1%9 and 1972.Relative risk(95%confidence interval)comparing indMduals with each level of emosure to those wilhbm exposure.Proportional tisane
linear models adjusted for age and for age and seven confounders.For reference,196098 death rate in deaths pet 1000 person years adjusted 20 1960 US
population or attained ages 35-84 is given'
1151 panpipe aped 259. Participate ad b 1972
AO 11541 aides_tiev 1%1!1 bland I16446 lelased 117311biased _
M PPM idly a4abd M Pa AP POPP
PPY*IN awn la e dot i# r Sas Pk Sallee rfd a at drollci,ir i train PI No d YabAo r Salm rid
ed m r dam participles (SL m (%s a) PNdpan (15%0) ',nad atla (65%e)
Carman len ars Iden rale 326Aa1
Ike(1)' 196'7456 120 1133 15345201 1.40 ----- 8059404 8181--- 1-00
Fonts m' 12684 094(OM 91.12) 094(0.11 b 1.14) 32W3 093(01411.16) 114573 094(0.77 b 1.14)
Cat( n :
'8181-8181---8181---- 8181 8181--- -
...19(3)' ...__.._. 111) 1.7810124) 50730 1-----3)0.7-8181--20419 .---8181--)'
19(3)' 9113th O9)(019 b lz1) 096(0.]e b 121) 59x0 lm p.n b 120 219® 112 1724 b 206)
014) .951196._70lo
10-19 14)• 99513 OG610.1Db lm) 08(0.6101@) ryffi 091(0.810 t15) S3AS3 LOL 6/.11bL45)
870.92(014
2)
A 151' 61/159 092(0.11 b 1.15) 029(002 b 1.1]) 56215 122(Oz1 b/S) 1V15 094(0.67 b 132)
211.]939(6)' 271129 1.16(0.)9911 113(0.1641$) 19162 130(11210211) 1451 119(17010203)
240(7)' 1145 129107510222) 124 am to 2.19) 126 125(0.6 10241) 4/36 16(024 91.73)
Tod at anal 20101537 8181 094 1013 9 117) 092(02191.(6) 215845 1m(01711.15) 105525 114(025 10 127)
snxders
Ewer
Ewa 121/11611 091(085 b 116) 09:)10.9:1 b 1.04) 301/110 096(026 b 1.11) 220'1096 099(025 b 1.15)
7 k9d in= 2287/1519 09910.%101.02) 010(0.94 b 1.02) 16354059 110 0/95 10 105) 1026/4502 16(995 to 1.6)
lam ma lb rag illA
.___....-0081..._______._-1111__--_-
Nev 6 lm 1m 6 1001 27 n 1.6
En 1111_ 5 092(037 to 233) 012109 lo 226) 3 029(02310226) 3 0.63(0.1910209)
Met 9 093(0319139) 057(0269 125) 5 0.54(024 la 152) 1 023(0%11$)
Ever )
Ever 14 075(0810135) 0$(03110 IZ2) 8 O6(13101.16) 4 0.1](01510 129
-111.7__.._.._.._.._. bill) 18111__--_-1181_8181 --1111--_--
1kdiisv 79 091(On 91.11) 0$(9.70b1,10) 58 091(071101111 31 0.6(011b1.13)
6:imam Ow dans*via to 11.17111111) .
to 6 D) 112 59 1.00 30 143
Fauna 3 _-_-095(0319237) 120(0.401250) -- _ - 4 120(040103@) 1181_4 -__ 08(03110250).
Quart 17 1.40(91210 240) ISG(072b227) 13 151(0$102]01 7 121(0.7510 4.17)
Esta V 127(07/10 224) 120(0.72 b 203) 17 139(021102.41) 11 19(0141261)
7 tvd it 8181--- 91 126(09110125) 1.6(0$1124) 76 119(19111.33) 41 11%(02611.36)
'Vita in paretic¢are We it d girt nasal tobacco smoke.
• Smoking history of the spouse as assessed in 1999 was smoking in spouses This bias produces a measured
strongly related to exposure to environmental tobacco relative risk Ila is greater than the true relative risk,
smoke as of 1999 for both men and women(table 5). but by a negligible amount for this level of bias!a
Misclassification of exposure and smoking status
Although there was substantial misclassification of Effect of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
environmental tobacco smoke exposure status from Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke was not
1959 to 1999,it was less for those never smokers aged significantly associated with the death rate for coronary
50 or over at enrolment(see table 9),never smoker heart disease, lung cancer, or chronic obstructive
defined in 1972(data not shown),and never smokers pulmonary disease in men or women(tables 7 and 8).
defined in 1999(see table 5).Misclassification of ezpe. This was true for all 1959 never smokers and 1959.
sure status produces a measured relative risk that is never smokers aged 50 or over at enrolment followed
closer to 1.0 than the true relative risk"The extent of during 1960-98 and for 1972 never smokers followed
misclassification from 1959 to 1999 could not obscure during 1973-9& The relalive risks were slightly
a true association with a relative risk of about 13,if it reduced after. adjustment or seven c°nfarnden
ems,among women,but it could largely obscure this Results were essentially unchanged among the healthy
association among men Howc..J,this level of miselas- par'apant3 Only(data not shown).The relative risks .
.- sification,which is based on the changes that occurred were consistent with 1.0 for virtually every level of
Over 40 years among the younger than average 1999 apostre to environmental tobacco smoke,current or
respondents,exaggerates the true level of mhisclassdfa. former.Only the relative risks for chronic obstructive
tion that occurred among the cohort as a whole, pulmonary disease suggested an An .
particularly during shoo follow up periods cavuoinmet al mtharrn smoke indent based on seven or
Essentially all 1959 never smokers reed never eight levels of smoking in a spouse yielded a relative
smokers on the basis of smoking status reported in risk of about 1.0 for each level of change and no
1965.1972,and 1999(table 6).Of those who reported suggestion of a dose-response trend
a history of smoking in 1999,most had smoked no In addition, analysts for coronary heart disease
more than 10 cigarettes per day for a few years,and were performed for three short follow up periods with
most had quit smoking before 1960.This indicates presumably smaller misdassification errors All relative
only a small degree of misclassification of smoking sta- risks for coronary heart divan was consistent with
tus Some bias exists in the misclassification of smoking 1.0 for the follow up periods of 1960-5,1966-72,and .
sans among the 1959 never smokers,because the 1973-85 for neva-smokers defined as of 1959, 1965,
. percentage who smoked in the 1965 and 1972 surveys and 1972(table 9).In particular,the relative risk for
was,greatest among those with the highest levels of cimnit smoking in a spouse was not increased,and
naq VOLUME326 17 MAY 2003 e.ey® page 6 of 10
Papers
there were no trends baud on the environmental ease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than
tobacco smoke index_ generally believed.Although participants in CPS I are
As expected, there was a strung, positive dose- not a representative sample of the US population.
response relation between active cigarette smoking never smokers in this cohort had a total death rate that
and deaths from coronary heart disci-ace,lung cancer, was dose to that of US white never smokers"Further-
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during more, the relative risks were based on comparisons '
1960-98 (table 10"). These relative risks were within the cohort and should be valid Although the
consistent with those for the full CPS 1 cohort until participants'total exposure to smoking in a sponse was
1972.'"'As it is generally considered that exposure to affected by the substantial extent of smoking cessation
environmxntul tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to since 1959," this did not affect the relative compani-
smoknmg one cigarette per day,' we extrapolated the sons Also, the relative risks during short follow up
relative risk due to exposure to environmental tobacco periods,with limited cessation.were similar to the long
smoke from the relative risks for smoking 1-9 term risks
cigarettes per day. These extrapolated relative risks
were about 1.03 for coronary heart disease and about Strengths of study
1.20 for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmo CPS I has several important strengths:long established
nary disease. Rand on these findings, exposure to value as a prospective epidemiological study,large size,
environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly extensive baseline data on smoking and potandal con-
cause a 30%increase in risk of coronary heart disease founders,extensive follow up data,and excellent long
in this cohort,although a 20%increase in risk of lung term follow up None of the other cohort studies on
cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease environmental tobacco smoke has more strengths,and
could not be ruled out none has presented as many detailed results Consider-
ing these strengths as a whole,the CPS I cohort is one
Discussionof the most valuable samples for studying the relation
between environmental tobacco smoke and mortality.
Oli the basis of our findings from the long term follow Concern has been expressed that smoking snow of
up of the California cohort of the cancer prevention the spouse as of 1959 does not accurately reflect total
study (CPS I), the association between exposure to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke because
environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart dis- there was so much exposure to non-residential
•
Table 8 Level 01 smelting in spouse and deaths from selected causes among female never smokers in California cancer prevention study(CPS I)cohort.as
of 1959 and 1972.For relerense,1960-8 death rate in deaths per 1000 person years adjusted to 1960 US population(or attained apes 35-84 is given`
1959 p.Ntim wed 251 eatdpr doted is 1972,
x01959,afld %Mad 196191 bleed 19a-98 bowel 1473-98
Fan+✓m
Seat b spine r d leatSo d Pp Nedra tan Map ink r al elsb d Fp SSW Sad No of dorst at Ap abed neap
r an el dor pbisarn rm(95%CO 05%Cl) papas ad(95%Of poldaar tin(95%0)
Gawp Aad tea(ilea tar 126,1191)
Neer(1)' 1053739 100 IW 891/4230 110 423/3093 1.03
lure(2) 1059646.8 1112(051 to 1.11) tin(0.91 b 1.13) 9QY1Q/ 098(929 to Ins) T72/509 lm(091 b 1.15)
Cant
Ebe a Mer 0)' 3992691 0.93(OM to 1.11) 037(026 b 1.10) 152/1735 057(026 b 1.10) ---24113 09(056 41.49)
1-9 Marna/02Y 1631102 1.13(097 b 133) 1.03(026 b 123) 10/119 1.15(091 b 1.35) 24200 029(059 b 1.1)
(4)'
10-19-------3102117--- 1m 1091 4 117) 09910.86 to 1 11) 212/1301--- 1.03(0.90 to 1.18) 42/314 090(026 to 121)
dpmemky 157
20 dprr$Wy 1127.E 104 9192 in 1.16) 151(020 b 116) 3091736 096(034 to 1.10) 09616 130(114 to 121)
01'
21-39 167116/6 095(080 b 1.12) 028(074 b 106) 127/792 055(079 b }1.15) 2 1.14(076 b 1.71)
trent by(7)-
240 d Sterak y 72/541 023(0.0)b 156) 020(051 to 1.03) 9799 074(056 b 093) 20111 020(057 b 1.40)
Told d ant 15241169.5 101(051 b 119) 097(01 b 106) 12515531 093 015010 107) 214/1733 116(090 b 126)
smokers
Eva 2592/12543 191(091 to 106) 099(092 b 108) 2162/11105 0.98(391 b 156) 996668 UN(193 b 1.16)
8 bed ins 3645/2E942 110(054 b 101) 099(0.97 b lig) 3156/15335 099(037 to 111) 104W 1.02(098 b 1.05)
Lai mar(der Mr toning'
lbrer. 51 lie 120 31 lm 25 120
roars 51 1515(073 b 120) 101(OM b 1.57) n 1.02 0051 b l l6) 39 092(0.56 b 133)
Qtred 75 0511015 b 133) 028(020 b 126) 44 0.96(031 b 136) 11 120(04 b 192)
Ern 126 099(0.72 b 132) 094(026 b 133) 71 093(061 b 141) 53 09(0.5910 113)
8 ked it 177 097(091 b 109 091(0.90 b 19) 108 0.90(029 b 107) 73 099(021 b 1.13)
Ona aoaa pelo8 Qom pea tab 8.9V18Y)
lien 45 1m 120 35 tin 21 120
roma 50 1.17(078 b 175) 124(02010 193) 31 1.01(021 b 156) 38 120(019 b 172)
Char 73 1.11(0.77 b 110) 1.12(171 b 119) 54 014(OM b 1.44) 18 137(0114 b 296)
Ear lm 1.13(020 b156) 1.16 WOO b170) 91 031(0135b1M) 54 1.14(13.69 b1.59)
8 ban tax 113 099(092 b 116) 09(091 to 106) 122 0-97 02910 19) 75 156(091 b 122)
'Vain in pates=an avant or trs anat4 Iota sank.
page 7 of 10 ng VOLUME326 17 MAY 2003 baron.
Papers
Table 9 Lend of smoking in spouse and deaths hom coronary heart disease among never smokers in California cancer prevention
study(CPS I)cohort,as of 1959.1965.and 1972
1960-5 1914-72 19)}15
M Sista A *Jebel M Wm.a
lb a aeaalt r obese rW le M rm910 r Ma0ae IiY r Y ltlteb el Maths em
Seabee is gone pr6daastu (957.al _-- p nic:Web 1959.a) . l4-4. - (997 a)
Near 724/715e 1.t) 30Ni16T 196 769aoo 196
Foam -- --_.._..7--- -- OM---_. .5------19611 171) 7/40) ------
fano ],@° OM 103010 135) _.__.._1950-1 15.15_. 1/]1)6]10 1.)1) 113490 095(0.1110128)
Curing 313n511 131 ton b 151) 36/10-29 odsInwb Ip34l 12 785 03!/0.m b 1.18)
1515-..-151-16115__.9715
� 37T61OM 0911066b 134)-_--_.-_55/20I0___..091(069 lo 111) 16]A6]5 091(0/2 lo 1315)
7 Ind)dal 2619619 192(0.91.101.15) 3599217 095(096 to 115) 9.366975 1.01(0.96101.06)
rmetr,o 1515_._-1515 1515_ _
Mwv 197E9 I.m 1247t8 lm 1085313 lm
F
33-_15_ 55 1
Fortner 63(58 116(O41 b IMI 1619432 OID(OM Is 1orl 110-1966 lam(nm b 1.15)
5 15.15__-_-1515 1.16)
Gnu' 51/11695 110 h0.80L62141411001 0/](0.6110 1.111_----.565Deq 1fQ IO.wb
-1515___-15.15-3153__1515__
her 12416547 1.16 10413 b 1911 23470-41 O155(OM 10 lm) 9)5)332] 1D2(196 10 1.11)
511(0% .10) 15--1515__
eMk�t 1)3!3347 196(0wb1.10) 36121342 096(0924181) 1393/19566 1,03 I6666
(093 lo lm)
liaksi
""" ---------15)361)_-- 110 ---- 453.0901 Im
Fa0a -- ---- 210726 021(0.5510117) 560573 033(0.1010123)
Conon ----- 269963 079(053101.19) 10.3 l.m(074 b 135)
------------------------ '1 fl9 ------Ever _-- _ 141]l9 OR(0.6010 1.13) 1 WA198 0.96(0.77 b 120)
]k d'den) 1515___ 311/s 03]ion?to 168) 557/4502 110(01310 1.09)
' Iltifred ata 1959 11]726 3752173
raealnJ:
Ikea '1515 426138 196 1963160 tm
lamer 1515____-1515 112/904 021(Mato 141) 2875619 032(0.76 lo 1.11)
1533. _
O11 1515 _ 1515_ 62h65- 091(1701136) 8111783 11410.7810133)
Ever 17414702 1515_ 0/6(16741.11) 3686862 034(0.79 lo 1.13)
I level aderl1515 -1515__-_ 266'21610 110(091 b 1.120(OW 197) 5189952 1 (0 101.7)
untie/nee alter ass 1019602 8151411
•Smo ng n straw ase by 1593 v>am.me_
t6m of enviroranairal 1096®smoke Gard on:nen or Sp ends d smolsq 10 ware.
ISmotib in spouse Eldred by 1955%Corriere 6a 196472 ad by 1072 4.esOQaan be.1973-85.
environmental tobacco smoke at that time.'The 1999 Conclusion
questionnaire showed that the smoking sutras of The results of the California CPS I cohort do not sup-
spouses was directly related to a history of total repo- port a causal relation between exposure to environ-
sure to enviromnesual tobacco smoke.II also sho...d
that the extent of misclassification of exposure was not ';`.What Is:alaadjl tln01Jl1-on, is:topic
sufilrietlt to obscure a true association between - - --
emironmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart dis- Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is
ease among women(see tables 4 and 5). generally believed to increase the risk of csmay
. Our methodology and results are hilly described heart disease and hung carer among never
because of concern that the earlier analysis of coronary smokers by about 25%
bean disease in CPS 1 1O was flawed by author bras This increased m
awing to funding by the tobacco industry.'Our results ,. :
,mea- still - chlein _
(or coronary bean disease and lung aura are consist tl' .-k •
ant with those of most of the ocher individual studies -.m--- -wogral P -�`i i<JxIae w 4l
. on areitonmental tobacco smoke,' including the 'What this study adds . - • - . -
results for coronary heart rlivase and lung cancer in Ica oCCafi(urrrsmsldlowed for 40
the hill CPS I.' Moreover, when our results are .. ?O1dy sea
jcB;ewrommmtalm1 -100ke•was"65.?---,
- included in a meta-analysis of all results for coronary :.�
astaarrdwvh aomuayhortfdmucr:h>a-
heart disease,the summary relative lrisks ofor smoke camar morality 0-i aiiy le ielo[c e a .
and ever exposure to ardvonm®tal tobacco smoke
are reduced to about 1.05,indicating a weak relation. Iliac fiadmgs sueffectst that thC effects of. - •
Widowhood was strongly correlated with smoking mal tobacco smoke;particularly for
status of spouses, owing to the reduced survival of rs. mlobayhe rt ems, e consideiably'maadr
smokeSince widowers have higher death rates than than genx-rally are
befitted .
married people a controlling for widowhood would
be expected to reduce the relative risks in this and Aaive cite smoking was cmdimed as a-
other studies of smoking'an spouses The precise area MOO&dose!dared risk Gaon for onrumary heat
of widowhood rhe to smoking in spouses still needs to disax,hmC® 7 0-969 d site°bstrumve _-::,.
be determined,but it may partially explain dee positive .:. . ... , , 5 fr' " < •li'-:
relative risks found in other cohorts. .. -. ..
BUJ VOLUME 326 17 MAY 2033 bmjmm page 8 of 10
Papers
Tanta 11 1960-98 age adjusted relative risk(95%confidence interval)W death for coronary heart dataSe,hung Caner,and ehlonle
Obstructive pulmonary disease among cigarette smokers compared with never smokers as tundion of active snaking status
(cigarettes per day)in 1959
Net as
W d ra4910 el M*Mee Mia Na is of 444•6114 r M wad,skin risk _
Aran ad*Naha patinas (95%o) ptl.aae (ss 4)
car_heart disease -"----- --
--16
Nees(1)' 2561/1005/ 120 651619216 IDI/
kora m
es ' 257W10204 .1811
1122 to 1251 511/4033 093(090 to 10])
tonal(ctarettestby):
'-9P3761154 1.19(137 to 131)__- 590/4617 1.13 ON to 123)
10190p 6593710 1.42(13110153) 3555591 143(1910154)
p6) 1151/7136 -_.-_157(1.4 m 15$) 91278____ 1.79(12610192)---
21.39 161• 1017/1193 1.]5(1.63b129) 154/2166 2.04 ODD lo 2.4)
1(I ll1217)
037 m_ STYLTI 1911 V137210) Dl/dld 213(19/b2d11
ittldonaavmker I5I13I983i 153(1.45 to 1.61) 272I/11I17 11911.1237 1367
1 kb kdo 95117 1.1'(1.10 37 1.12) 930490.191 1.14(1.13 37 116)
t,awn
Neer(1) 92/10L62 Ilh 269(33716 137
barer(7) 211110201 350(2.77 b 143) 48tIm8 1.45(106 to 1.97) .
Cordell(c5N'3-
19(3) . __- 471154 4.03(21)b 561) 62/1637 193(15010262) ..
1019(4) 116743 726(6.11 3710.11) 20561391 5.7(4.19106.12)-_
70(5) 535/7136 1250(999101533) 1556375 914(7.73101021)
21-39(6) C414719 1943 11299 to 20.77) 13212111(5 15.14(12.26 to 1669)__
10121(I) 2218
8 ' 1505 114.47 lo 24112) 62984 1611(1120 1021.06)_
TOW torrent sur _.-.
d ramdas 213419361 1191(9.61 to 11.79) 41621137 622(53910 316)
7kb edge
137/40350 154(1.5010153) --_. 116155191 _-�_-_'89(153371.74)
Oros imadlw ksksnml Sum
-__-
Nee(1)( 370262
__-_--- 1112t 29437116 190
Forret(2) 179'1041 -__206(18102.4) cam 112(1.05b191)
Wme(dwetaMrA -- _
19(3) 151543 211(194 to 4.17) _.._ 564637 _-_ 164(121 b 222)
10-19(4) 1256/40 51611.19107.111 2145691 569 11.73376251
20(5) 86/7136 033 052 to 1040) 30964175 932(725 b 11116)
21-21-39- (6) 25647E9 1199(939 to 1531) 10620(1 1227 110.13371635)
40-80(>) 1132321 13311105337 1].75) 16413 159(119610 21.23)
1W d oma smokers 392/19364 8.03 03a to 994) --_- 72321137 596(519 to 629)
7 keel it 11744153 155(15110161) 376965191 ---- 167(1.62101.73)
Items in lerasktc are it ked a an climes smokig-
mental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, research organisation that received funding primarily from US
although they do not rule ad a small effect.Given the 'oirCO 7uniI'a
limitations of the underlying data in this and the other Cor'peuv18 imntsts:In mem 7rars Jet has received funds
studies of environmental Idhacco smoke and the small originating front the uarvro industry for his tobacco related
epidemiological retch txouse it has been hnpocd for
size of the risk,it seems premature to conclude that bin,to obtain eyuhalemc funds horn er othssources. le Co(nett,
mrironmentasl tobacco smoke causes death from received funds originating from the tobacco industry will tam '
coronary nun disease and(ung cancer. 3rar.when he conducted an epidemiological review fo'i a law
firm which has several tea®companies as diene fie has
We thank Lawrence Garfinkel and Clark W Heath Jr(father saved as a oscauhant to the Univesmy of California a Los
via presidents for epidemiology and statistics, American Angeles for this papa.JFE and CCC tem no aha competing
Cancer Society)fa banning the'vended follow up of CPS 1 interims They as both lifdorg non-smokers whose primary
and for making helpful comments and suggestions and Sarran intrust is an accurate determination of the health effects of
tied and Pavan Sra fa-tedutiol tr. tobacco
Conrsbulorsz JPE conceived the seely ad obtained fudvng•
arduoed the waded folio., up analysed dr drat and 1 Tad AL yr...the.Kat'.a taw'ouernrsd surto wear ad
drafted the manuscript;he will an as guarantor for the paper. mdorada.bac Genn 199126cl-4.
GCC armbuaed to the follow up guestorame,advised on the 2 Naiad Caine mac flew den gNis awe a.a.warrd elm.
data amlysa and hrtematatiotz and anvbuted enerrivdy to awe d'ern°/de Calif/nor Leirmarrat Phe.ew Apwe3 swat{
al rd.m e teMwgart s.r la Barad.,MUS Drumm,
the manuscript Mina
maim wServices National Minton ofHt4 omh Natird Can-
Funding The
-F'undiinglhe American Cancer Society initiated CPS I in 1959, ter t®ec 19990an n4)65um No 99x645)
conducted fol ow up until 1972.and 337 maintained t e original 3 Us Dgawm d Doth ad tl.mvs Seim nyew std adage
database Evaded follow up until 1997 was mrhdaaed at the fiat 4,d'at•w"'0.'" I.'asjr,cs DG Co.r.e...n.,:vel
Univers¢ &Calikania at lm with"rad from 0,MR,mrsix
7 MentsUnport 1 and act uar:m l I .ea.:nwr.a ret®avec ap..vr
the Toba�Rdaed Disease Raven Program.a University of and :dreg Ian tide' at rakmco of Ow t.ido.,. 6111/
California,mach organisation funded by the Preposition 99 19971)5071341
cigarette sham(wwwncopedurraphonr/mbp).After mnthhu- 5 Kiel N 5'F 's.Acre K.Paws MR 11.01.0.1 Nlrkre RL conn
vg'support from the Tobacco-Rrlald Disease Reach orokiag aid
drrid of a)113(544 999210 e a wM Ty- d
"grans was&flied(follow�trough 1999 and dao aad3. 6 Then M. S L JAEpdari bg soder of fad aid res dad
were conducted at Umetrsity of GBforn-n at tet Angeles with canionscrebr*ear and Eta opeorr from W'usii Ewina
support from the Caner far Indoor Air Rae:arch.a 1988-99 Naha horn 1999i107(ap(16)24 la -
page 9 of 10 LOC V(ltUlQ 326 17 MAY 2003 be jta.
Papers .
7 US t n...vnrol Protean.Agmr).grgv'b>hour ellens,f pa of l nation men and wenn,Sig r Toe:u Caun1.9S, ,.a n:
Mr smoking:lung oav and other&w.d.NalregtonDC:OQe d d Rockit4 MIL.US Department of health and Ihn,Service,.
Iteicardi and IkAlolfRrKO(fe.f Hou.and Fawue.unmeal Ave National Imeetn.fHeald;NAi.ral Cancer lmuur.1997:213-3114.
men.1993 TEPA 000/G-90/006F and NIH Publication No 93-36054 Wilt PO4t d,n No 97-421%)
11 Hziahau AK.Ia NIL Nakl NJ lit mandated ednae w Mg ii [mann Jr.heath CN Jr.smoking eco ai..and ^`oath, tenth
cancer and environ emIal bharo situate_my 1997::315'3O-& a=Qg 118A00 Caue.rvs 1960.91.Apdraiist 1990:Io5oo-It
9 Balla.JG Paavw CM.I
.nsA'uf. ua.ur)I l.6c .and n.raanahti.A. 19&hag LGbwlraurtJM,Ma). Brier CM.U6Yug multiple al
an
tar/MS.Lryar'aN o9511v.
10 leae tracing tmiar optimizes n.au4)1i&narp n large cubo re.4
lean ME.Ia) MN.Publication baa n Mem.venmamd tobaccom, ,1piail 2001;11-292-6.
urnic-nnionn3 Ion Stene epden,iig ka amen-Rind Trm, 20 So T.The?URICpprocedure-Are S S/SLAT
gl.m ]LS lean id flat
)biv.f 199i:21:154-91. P-229.Ca).NC:SAS Laren 191G
11 Ie1'oe ME Lnanl MN:Puv.e uniing and inn Stcar lNlctL fltY e I Frown fl1.0 Cancer m.di
19A4s1)111.1e JECu11cl ba..gareparematwen nMi
I?in studies Cur 4 Mnta.aay,i it ep'Anir cc c ib rias reference
d to.w,ier,:,the Untied wen during 1966-1-A.,/gait<itt.Id
m studies of the eanxni.l Leruren int aeb nidnwt vul tobacco 19NOA5:1I)263.
nodeadhug cancer:a ait-apaa,-rwial, 2991W:12'f-A. 22 Schaefer CQ..edials)C.Ni i S ne.br knn.ig conjugal L& .d
II In Cori JC
lamas ucledemyy Rasa
esodr.1993 nen and the cants d a timed nna.v.nra. Aa J Epidemic/
M Cori CB,lanJJ(F Hnm.murder l6'abnatehjsr:.n dpolr3-3Sn 1915:141:211252
owner.Canada:Frac,Lutitute,1909. 23 Johnson NJ.Backhand Eglmoa
..HAa
tlamb.CMvstatus a
anusdnaa-
15 Hannan]EC Nail Canoe in n death deatan one e trillion men tall): the national longitudinal moth) much. Aiy:Lool
ad wva.thut Maur 1965:197.127-204. 2000104NJB
16 Ga6A<I E T vend.o.Yng cancer a,Sri I)wrung 6I-S Acis 74 Cana CIL b& La.1 the C 03 Lube Air gnarl.(CURL./
and a nue on pntnr.Cud 3% ,nag Carr}u 1961:66:10616 11 ...Ada*Al:,)lac 199132:12)9.93.
17 &muo.M,Snan. Choi W.Pain MJ,Heath CN'Jr,Cranial Llhe
Amevion Caner Society Caner Pmention Stub k 12-)ea kilo.up (Amped 7 Aimed hAH)
•
•
•
1
BMJ VOLUME 326 17 MAY 2000 LmJam Fags 100010
CHESTERFIELD , MO.
1997
SPRINGFIELD , MO .
PRESENT
OCT-16-2003 11:14 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.02/17
City of
® Chesterfield
March 9, 1999
Ms. Pat Bergauer
Missouri Restaurant Association
1810 Craig, Suite 23
Maryland Heights, MO 63146
Dear Ms. Bergauer:
I am contacting you, as a courtesy, at the request of the Public Health and _)
afet�[ mit ittee _of City_Council=_The members of this Committee are
considering recommending to City Council that a resolution be adopted, which
would express a desire that Chesterfield become a "smoke-free restaurant
community."
This committee has discussed, at length, the irritation, annoyance and health
hazards associated with second-hand smoke. The inability of restaurants to
properly segregate smokers from non-smokers and/or provide proper
ventilation within their restaurants may often spoil what would otherwise be a
very enjoyable dining experience within the many quality restaurants within
our community.
Please forward any comments you might have regarding this contemplated
action to me, so that I might pass them along to the members of this
Committee.
As always, if you have any questions or would like any other information,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Herring
City Administrator
cc: Mayor Nancy Greenwood
City Councilmembers
• City Attorney
Dept. Heads/Exec. Staff
922 Roosevelt Parkway • Chesterfield, Missouri 63017-2080 • 314/537-4000 • Fax 3141537-4796 or 314/5374799
«rC Den,
OCT-16-2003 1 14 NO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.03i17
1
'164 P01
WAitt`s®R W Rasta9rtnt and Salute
tauwLmm,.* •. ..•x...
laRctaintd, '... .'•6
Max14-530.9994 _ .
PM
I
I
• MerCh 2 I.l•
Greater St.Louis Restaurant Association •
1810 Craig Rd., Suite 223 • I
I St Louts, MU.63140 I.
j
Ann:Chesterfield Task Force
This is in regards to the Chesterfield bmoknng Mandate. Our restaurant r bar is only I IOU sq. h. Ourdtrtutg
•
area and bar is only about 1 000 sq. ft. 1 Mel this would be vciy detrimental to our business if this change were,'
1
I to happen. Ninety percent ofou?customers smoke. in turn I feel man r
hy o our customers would go to some ocher
i ;
Ii •
1 ,
restauranr/bar that smoking is*owed . W h Ch would mean our business would drop. sales would go down : .
i •
Chesterfield would loose tax revenue and we would probably have to lay employees on.
i
My last thought is that t feel this is a communists attempt,because after all Tobacco is Legal.
r I
i
i
i
b. derry Werd
•1
I
i
l
. I
t
I
I .z i • • (F41. I I
i
•I,
Vii; •
OCT-16-2003 11:15 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.04/17
DOUBLETREE-
iioni. & CONFERENCE
CENTER
ST. Louis
March 23, 1999
16625 Sw1NGLEY RIDGE ROAD
•
CFIESTERFTELD,MISSOURI 63017
314 532-5000
Ms Pat Bergauer • 'FAx 314 532-9984
Missouri Restaurant Association
1810 Craig, Suite 23
Maryland Heights, MO 63146
Dear Ms Bergauer,
In the world of business change is constant. Also,the ability for businesses to evolve, be
inventive, and allow for competition to exist,will create an environment for businesses to
thrive. As a community, Chesterfield needs to foster all of these ideas in order for it to
grow and be a vibrant community. To dictate an environment or to force a consumer to
an environment may cause them to seek the product they want elsewhere, and or, limit
the number of businesses that can compete. Allowing businesses to rise to the varying
needs of the consumer creates new ideas and markets. Thus allowing the consumer a
choice. It is also the choice of businesses, to use their capital to enhance their growth.
By creating additional regulations such as non-smoking restaurants,you limit the number
of businesses willing to risk growth. Businesses will evolve to the consumer needs as
more consumers atilizc their buying power to create a niche in the market, not by forcing
regulations.
In the hotel industry 10 years ago there was virtually no market for non-smoking rooms,
once the consumer started asking for them businesses evolved to their needs. Today non-
smoking rooms in the hospitality industry stand at 70%and growing. It often takes time •
but the leading businesses listen to the consumers and over time provides the services that
consumers will want and use. Businesses at times do not respond as fast as some
consumers would like, often due to other constraints,but usually in the end the consumer
is given a variety of choices. Regulations can reduce growth,take away competition,
imagination, and often choice.
In speaking for my business and as a consumer, I can not decide what is better for
'everyone, a non-smoking regulation in restaurants or to leave them as they arc. But 1 will
continue to choose to go to places that meet my needs as a consumer.
Sincerely,
Mark W. Hartman
General Manger .
MWH/sk
OCT-16-2003 11 15 MO RESTAURANT RSSOC 314 5% 2999 P.05/1?
• 0
Consolidated Products Company
Steak h.Shake
12173 Prichard Farm Road
St Lc hs%Missouri 63130
March 25. 1999 •
Greater St. Louis Restaurant Association
Attention: Chesterfield Task Force
1810 Craig Rd., Suite 223
St. Louis, MO 63146
•
To Whom it May concem:
As a restaurant operator in the Chesterfield area, 13426 Olive Blvd., I disagree with making our
restaurant smoke free. We would like to keep all of our area restaurants uniform and making some of
them smoke free and others not would cause confusion among our regular customer base. I thank you
for your time and consideration.
Since , 4411,
i -
Jim Condos
Missouri Division Manager
Steak-n-Shake Inc.
OCT-16-2003 11 15 MO RESTRURRNT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.06/17
•
•
:w
•03/18/90 1831 FAL 5322387 CRAZY FISH WEST ri01
II
To: Pat Betganl er
From: Chris 4cca
Data: March 1; 1999
Re: ChetrfiIcid"smoke- "restaurant proposal
li
I appreciate yatr bringing matter to my entvm I am nit in favor of any kind of a
blanket: SangIn our restaurant we have purposefully created Int
environment t litre non•stno and smokers can peacefully cot by limiting smoking
to our bar area vrhich has a vr•ntilntinn system_ I believe that the vast majority of
Patrons who &tint our lm to truth any bar, expect to encounter smokers. It is one
of those thingfi pretty m • . "goes with the territory"
My fear is that any type of 1--i;=listed resolution to the smoking issue would have an
onerous impart pn area •. . .. & in ono of two ways.
1. Arbitrary raft quality" . :• •: .: might be imposed which could require costly
arodifieanons of adr haft•lin¢eget ument and would,in addition,open the door far
mains complaints frc ai truest&who still were not satisfied with any kind of smoking
environment.
2. An outright isam on in food service establishments which would seriously
impact out bush". •
I concur with your suggest/ that the MRA survey area restaurants, Let me know if I
can be of font the=time.
me
•
•
OCT-16-2003 11:15 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.07/17
WI l UCE LEAF OF CHESTERFIELD
444 Chesterfield Center
Chesterfield MO 63017
(314) 537-1808
•
March 22, 1999
Greater St. Louis Restaurant Association
Attn: Chesterfield Task Force
1810 Craig Road
Suite 223
St. Louis MO 63146
RE: Chesterfield Smoking Mandate
Dear Chesterfield Task Force,
Thank you for all your effort and hard work at keeping the Chesterfield Restaurants
informed and up-to-date. It is getting to be rather tedious and aggravating at how a
handful of people are dictating to the majority"what is best for our community"!
(Plastic gloves and now this!)
The right to smoke and where should be as fundamental as the right to vote!!!
Although I am not a smoker myself, equal rights for those who do. Not only would a
non-smoking mandate inconvenience our customers, but also should not be forced
upon the public by a chosen few!
Non-smokers have as many rights as those who smoke and if dining in an
establishment that allows smoking diminishes the visit to less than satisfactory,that
same non-smoker also has the right never to return to that establishment. What choice
will a smoker have? I do not think that one individual or even a handful (City
Councilmembers) has the right to MANDATE LAW over a personal choice.
Sincerely,
LETTUCE LEAF RESTAURANT, Chesterfield
Mazt____, ejyt.,
Kathleen L. Carter
XT-16-2003 11 15 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.O8/17
•
P.EMO u/l1l e_eat. s�-re
5 — 8 — 7 --.. 8 � 9 •-10 tt 12
1
•
1 I ,HI
Ij I ? II
!LIin 11 111 I Inaltit NI 1�I ! 711 U r II' , I$NII I.INl X11 1. .
2 'i 111 .1111 11.1111 �j Ella uI■I.
3111111 1111RIN,:; -itiJ!!Q1 -I!�III JEW . .iwJPQIIII IIII
4
llllb'it11NISi#&JEpII .
i �1e vI., .�Y. 'I9`lIIA1!1!�.VIII _, , 1
, O�,�__�1. . �I. 11
7 ! Ili.11 NEl1 . .D'1�I11Mtl i1
9
1110
i�1�i� i11N11*1! ' .IVI M ., 14111cui —a�! , la rel "' t,Wl91W • :
I v71Svl��i+il.1 0�7�� .1 � �1!
I i ' 11■� ,a I1 LL' • I
I 112 ill Airaiimme;
131L. -I 1111 1 1 ' 1,iki ' I e1 II Brans,ns, i ii 1item: •. .
<11 11l li 1 I 133C
I
II
1s 1. • 1 1 ii _I I ' ' __' ILL ' ' a11 - I I i . n1,� ' �,:�i i �t
l i Ii I
17ii 11 it 1 Ii --'t+ 1 I• i1l 11 i_i � I •� :11111111111
F
1i 1 I 111,171-1/4110.:
-�lj y� •
•.,� ��J I A
13 -1 C2 II .a s � L it ■ ..
I 1HrHF°
II :ykIA III _ pl1� ' _I -i t : ij ; 1 0 II ._
' ' 1 '.I Vt1 (Ab P 1. , 1 0 1 11 ., % . rif o II 7■ I
22II 1 ' 1:, ,i ► , 1r1 ii� 1 ,,1A 11in
23 1 _. ..
l l 1 i'rr__ fli �i- ; ,_ _ I till v EL '
25 I 11 I I r : 0 e 111! s itu ' I a 11 /. 1 I 1 .. ; ,!7llnil I i
• • 1 � .1. _=�I,���IIIIIJ_ 1
25! MNII! 1111.1,,_, II 04.1-, 11i' 1u f-...;� ;, i'1 ' I11 i,
u � III �I.�_I u.1 q1 _''_ _i i I . I 1 rIII ';i _�I-- - Y ' --.11 LIT
[l' i ' 1 ii 1 I ' •}1 i 1 II■. :12a1I 1I1 1 11 _ 1_111 I III I I lar e _Ii s i ' 1 I I II '1 11 , I.5lil ; 11 •
IIi rl`1II !�i ' I 11 1•-j_ .._' I .P49111_11 I j .I I I I 1 I II I III i
ji i 1 1 1 ill l I' I I I I III ii ! ' .,'1 Hilt ..J! 111J1 I:
H Ill 1.1 I [1- I i li I 1 _I 1 mIr4 ' _ k1 : i Ii e; qa ' I i;
32 ' •I _: 1 1 1 1 i I 1 II �11Y . I I1 11 1- 11 mu ill
13 ' I T I 1 ; _.1 lllt1 .l!! 11 ® :. .1111111! I 11.
34 111 .i_ I _. illi. 1�.11! .J1 min .i .i11111N.111I[1C.1.
35 1 N1. 1 a H 1111 111111.111 1 I I I, I Nil I _ .1111111.1
36 ' ; I1 , i , I 1111.111 .. -I1_.11 1I • 11 _,I ,.I.1_ 111111 1:_
37 � 111ij1 I IIN I .1 !_1.. .1' • '., i
1 •III![IIRI
i _ _1 ;.' I IN11111 ; .I 1 111UIIIIIl1U :IlL. _i IlIiIio::oio'So i1 .,j m IJ40 1 1 ; j1 Nl .� i111111 1111 -i 1_-_-IINIIII .11I11m111 . U . _I 15111
OCT-16-2003 11:16 MO RESTAURANT RSSOC 314 576 e3'3'3 P.09/17
fmtakei •
•
• ITALIAN RESTAURANT
March 23, 1999
Michael Herring
City Of Chesterfield
922 Roosevelt Parkway
Chesterfield, MO 63107-2080
Mr. Herring:
I am responding to your letter dated March 9, 1999, to Pat Bergauer of the .
Missouri Restaurant Association. As we all know, smoking is a very serious and
volatile subject in Chesterfield as well in the entire United States.
• In our industry, it is one of great concern for all restaurants, hotels, bars and
food service facilities. As owners and managers, we must accommodate all
customers and clients. We have a smoking and seating policy that has been in
force for many years. It is constantly reviewed and revised if necessary.
Restaurateurs, bar owners, hoteliers and food service operators must insure to
make the experience the best for all of our customers. Operators who do not
administer this properly will sacrifice clientele.
For some restaurants, hotels, bars and food service establishments having a •
smoke free establishment can be easy while for others this can be a great
financial loss. There are many restaurants and food service facilities that
choose be smoke free. Restaurants, bar and hotels that do not accommodate all
customers will lose patrons who will choose do dine elsewhere. Our customers
vote with their pocketbook.
A mandate to have Chesterfield become "smoke-free community" is an extreme
position. Will this include hotel rooms? Will this include events such as the Air
Show? I encourage the City of Chesterfield adopt the position of
accommodation and education (not legislation) with the restaurants, bars and
hotels just as we do with our customers.
ROGCON, INCORPORATED
12 Chesterfield Mall/Chesterfield, Missouri 63017/314.532-6177/Fax 314-532.7357
Roland DeGregorio
OCT-16-2003 11 16 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 d3 P.10/17
fa4fdap
ITALIAN RESTAURANT
Sincerely,
•
41=T land D
-45-
eGregono
Owner/General Manager
The Pasta House Co. Chesterfield Mall
•
cc: Mayor Nancy Greenwood, City of Chesterfield •
•
• Pat Bergauer, Missouri Restaurant Association
Mark Hartman, Doubletree Hotel •
Chris Larocca, Crazy Fish Restaurant
Thom Sehnert, Annie Gunn's Restaurant •
•
•
•
•
•
ROGCON,INCORPORATED
12 Chesterfield Mall/Chesterfield,Missouri 63017/314-532.6177/ Fax 314.532-7357 .
Roland DeGregorin
OCT-16-2063 11:17 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2y39 P.11/17
.r
.,' La
¶-staura t
_.sociati
An Affiliated Chapter of the
tl Missouri Restaurant Association
GREATER ST, LOUIS RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION
April 1, 1999
Michael G. Herring
City of Chesterfield
922 Roosevelt Parkway
Chesterfield, MO 63017-2080
. Dear Mr. Herring,
Thank you for your correspondance concerning the smoke-free restaurant
community proposal. Thom Sehnert of Annie Gunn's and Chris Larocca of Crazy Fish
sent the information to restaurateurs in Chesterfield asking for their opinions. They
have asked me to send you copies of the letters we have received.
Mr. Herring, in conversation with the restaurant community of Chesterfield, the
opinions expressed in these letters have been voiced over and over again. They do not
want mandates for their businesses. They are willing to let customers decide with their
pocketbooks.
Thom and Chris would be glad to meet with the members of the Public Health
and Safety Committee to discuss this issue.
Again, our thanks for the information. The restaurant community in Chesterfield
appreciated the correspondance.
Sincerely,
Pat Bergauer
Regional Director
Greater St. Louis Restaurant Association
•
cc: Mayor Nancy Greenwood
City Council Members
City Attorney
Chesterfield Task Force - Thom Sehnert and Chris Larocca
1810 Craig Road, Suite 223 • Si. Louis. Missouri 63146 • (314) 5762777 • Fax: (314) 576-2999
OCT-16-2003 11:17 MO RESTRURRNT RSSOC 314 576 2999 P.12/17
ITALIAN RESTAURANT
Wednesday, August 23, 2000
TO: Chesterfield Restaurant and Bar owners and managers
FROM: Roland DeGregorio, Pasta House Co. Chesterfield, owner
Missouri Restaurant Assoc., St. Louis Chapter, board member
RE: Proposed Smoking Ban in Chesterfield
By now you have heard or seen on television what is being proposed that will effect our
pocketbooks arid customers here in Chesterfield. It is now time to take this serious! This
proposed ban on all smoking in our establishments will chase our customers to other
cities, marls, restaurants and bars where every customer is welcomed and treated equally
and not persecuted.
We need your help! How?
• WRITE- I have enclosed one of the letters I have written to the elected officials. tf you
are concerned with your bottom line, write them TODAY and tell them how your feel!
Tell them we want to accommodate ALL customers, not chase them away!
• CALL-The enclosed list of city officials has their phone numbers listed. Call them and
tell them that the smoking ordinance in place is acceptable to all. Tell them you spend
lots of money keeping and attracting customers and you want to allow our customers
to decide where to visit with their pocketbook not by ordinance!
• SHOW UP-The next meeting at city hall will deal with this one council members
agenda. Please come to the meeting and let your voices heard. This council member
has stated business will increase with this new proposal. THIS IS FALSE AND •
THERE ARE NO FACTS TO PROVE THIS! The truth is we will lose customers and
thousands and thousands of dollars.
Public Health and Safety Committee,
Chesterfield City Hall,
18052 Swingley Ridge Road
Thursday, August 31st 5:30 p.m.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions. I hope to see you therelll
636-5324177 fax 636-532.6177 MO Restaurant Assoc. 314576-2T77
ROGCON, INCORPORATED
12 Chesterfield Mall/Chcstcrficld, Missouri 68017/514-532-6177/Fax 314.5582.7357
Roland DeGregorio
OCT-16-2003 11:1? MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.13/17
of y .. �-
ITALIAN, RESTAURANT
August 23,2000
Mayor Nancy Greenwood
City Council Members
Michael Herring
City Of Chesterfield
16052 Swingley Ridge Rd Ste. 100
Chesterfield, MO 63017
Next week there will be another meeting concerning the proposed smoking ban in
Chesterfield. I urge you to defeat this measure, The hard working Chesterfield
restaurant and bar owners have been portrayed as the "bad guys'in the media blitz of
this political agenda. As I stated in my July letter, it is unfortunate that this will (and
has) been tried in the media.
I would like to remind you that we are not the bad guys,just business men and women,
who have millions of dollars on the line, attempting to make a living for their families
and for thousands more who work with and for them, Please, lets the owners decide
who can enjoy our hospitality. Let the customer decide with their pocketbook. Those
owners who do not accommodate every customer possible will be hurt We work very
hard and spend tensof thousands of dollars to attract and keep every customer that
comes though our doors. Please do not restrict who can dine in our establishments.
Comments have been made that business will increase because of the measure. This
is FALSE and there is no truth to this propaganda. it is a fact that business will
DECREASE and our customers will choose to visit Ellisville, Ballwin, Crave Coeur,
O'Fallon, The Galleria and West County Mall. Will the city financially guarantee to
make up the loss of business? I assume not. There is an ordinance in place. Let's
keep that and work with the business owners. I am asking you to defeat this agenda.
Please do not restrict our customers that Will result in the toss of tens of thousands of
dollars (or more) and can result with the closing of some establishments.
Thank you for your continued support of Chesterfield businesses.
Sincerely,
Roland DeGregorlo
Pasta House Company-Chesterfield Mall
. Owner, General Manager
Missouri Restaurant Association
SI Louis Chapter Board Member
ROGCON,INCORPORATED
12 Chesterfield Mall/Chesterfield.Missouri 62017/31a-532-6177/Fax 514-532.7357
Roland DcGrcgorio
DCT-16-2003 11:18 M0 RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.14/17
§21-103 CHESTERFIELD CITY CODE
or across or into the Missouri River or any imprisonment for not more than ninety(90)days,
lake, reservoir or retention basin. or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(7) It shall be unlawful for any person (Ord. No. 562, § 5, 2-19.91)
car-
rying a firearm to willfully enter or go upon
the premises or property of another, or toó117
ARTICLE IX SMOKING*
fire or discharge any firearm while on the
premises or property of another without Sec. 21-106. Definitions.
first having obtained the written permis-
sion from the owner, lessee or person in The following words, terms and phrases, when
charge of such premises or property, and used in this article, shall have the meaning as-
unless such person has said written permis- cribed to them in this Section, except where the
sion on his person. This section shall not context clearly indicates a different meaning:
apply to a person carrying, firing or dis- Bar shall mean an area which is primarily de-
charging any firearm while in the ee, e-
or voted to the serving of alcoholic beverages and in
persopresence of the owner, lessee, or which the service of food is only incidental to the
person in charge of the property or pre consumption of such beverages,
miser,or to the entry upon the premises for
the sole purpose of obtaining the written Enclosed shall mean closed in by a roof and four
permission of the owner,lessee or person in (4)walls with appropriate openings for ingress and
charge of the property. egress.
(8) The landowner, lessee or person in charge Health care facility shall mean any office or in-
of any real estate upon which the right to stitution providing individual care or treatment
fire a firearm is granted, shall be held re- of diseases,whether physical,mental or emotional,
sponsible for the actions of those to whom or other medical, physiological or psychological
he has given written permission to hunt on condition.
his property.
(Ord. No. 562, § 3, 2-19-91) Indoor service line shall mean any service line
located within retail or other public establish-
ments in which more than one person is giving or
Sec. 21.104. Exceptions. receiving servicesof any kind. This would in-
clude,but not be limited to,such retail and public
The provisions of this division shall not apply to establishments as restaurants, grocery stores,su-
any police target or police shooting range, nor to pet-markets, department stores, clothing stores,
any club or individual target, trap, skeet or prac- shoe stores, and the like.
tics shooting range, nor to the discharge of fire-
Person shall mean any natural person,corpora-
arms where necessary to protect life, livestock, tion, association, firm, partnership, or organize-
crops or other property, nor to any peace officer tion of any kind.
acting in the discharge of his official duties,nor to
•
the discharge of blank cartridges in theatre per- Public meeting shall mean any meeting or as-
formances or sporting events, nor to the firing of sembly held in any room or chamber wherein
salutes by firing squads at military ceremonies. public,civic or governmental business is conducted
(Ord. No. 562, § 4, 2-19-91) and which is open to the public either as partici-
pants or attendees..
Sec. 21.105. Penalties. *Editor's note—Ord. No. 535, §§ 1-6, adopted Dec. 17,
1990. did not specifically amend the Code; hence inclusion
herein as Art.DC,§ §21.106-21-111,was at the discretion of
Any person violating any of the provisions of the editor
this division shall upon conviction be punished by Cross references—Smoking and open flames.§7-55;sale
a fine of not less than five dollars ($5.00), nor of cigarette papers prohibited,3 21-7;sale of cigarettes to mi-
more than five hundred dollars (5500.00), or by Hors.§21-29.
Supp.No.6 1302
OCT-16-2003 11:18 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.15/17
•
OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ¢21-107
Public place shall mean any enclosed area to tom and lobbies, except in specially
which the public is invited or in which the public designated smoking areas which may
. is permitted in the normal course of business or be a part of the public area
use of the premises not including a private resi- b. Nursing homes,rest homes,and hos-
dence. pitals mayd
esi gnats smoking in-
patient sleeping quarters and areas
Restaurant shall mean any establishment, or
place within an establishment,open to the public foraspecific treatmentdprograms.Such
that offers food and beverages for consumption on able facilities to as make every torsleep-
the premises. able effort to assign patients ing rooms according to the patient's
Retail story shall mean any establishment whose smoking or non-smoking preference.
primary purpose is to sell or offer for sale to (3) Any publicly owned andlor operated build-
consumers,not for resale,any goods,wares,mer- ings:
chandise, articles, or food for consumption off the a. Buildings owned and/or operated by
premises. the City of Chesterfield except in
Smoking shall mean the combustion of any designated smoking areas so desig-
cor-
cigarette, cigar, tobacco, or any similar article or dated withby the theCty Counciloin this
anyother combustible substance in anymanner dance provisions of this
Article;
or in any form including the lighting, holding or
b. Any public meeting held by any gw-
carrying of, or emitting or exhaling the smoke of
any cigarette, cigar, tobacco, or any similar arti- ernmental body.
cle. (4) Restaurants:
a
occu-
Theatre shall mean any indoor facility prima- . A restaurant whose approved rily used for the exhibition of any motion picture, panty is more than forty(40)custom
ers excluding from the calculation of
stage drama, musical recital, dance, lecture or
other similar performance. capacity any n of such facility
(Ord. No. 535, § 1, 12-17-90) which is locatedted outdoors and any
portion of such facility which is uti-
lized for bar purposes. Bars in res-
Sec. 21-107. Limitations on smoking. taurants are exempt from the provi-
sions of this Article;
Smoking is prohibited in: b. A restaurant with occupancy in ex-
(1) Public places,including lobbies,corridors, cess of forty(40)customers that main-
restrooms and elevators,except in specif- tains a non-smoking area equal to
ically designated smoking areas which not less than one-half Oh) of the
may include a private, enclosed office oc- total seating capacity of the estab-
cupied exclusively by smokers, but only lishment is exempt;
when the office itself has air forcibly ex- c. An entire room or hall which is used
hausted and the air in the said office is for private social functions may be
not recirculated. Bars are exempt from exempt during its private use when
the provisions of this section. the seating arrangements are under
(2) Public areas of health care facilities: the control of the sponsor of the
a. Public areas include waiting rooms, event and not the proprietor, owner,
clinics,ambulatory care facilities,lab- or other person in charge of the
oratories associated with the rendi- place'
tion of health care treatment, (5) Retail stores or other public establish-
restrooms, public corridors, eleva- ments involving indoor activities.
Supp.Nu.30 1303
OCT-16-2003 11:18 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 03'39 P.16/17
*21-107 CHESTERFIELD CITY CODE
(6) Educational facilities including class- nated smoking areas so designated
rooms, lecture halts, and auditoriums. by the City Council in accordance
Smoking may be permitted in the private with the provisions of this article.
sleeping quarters of such facilities and (Ord. No. 535, § 2, 12-17-90; Ord. No. 583, § 1,
other designated areas as provided by the 6-17-91;Ord.No.722, § 1, 10-5-92; Ord.No. 1144,
Director or other authorized representa- § 1, 2-21-96; Ord. No. 1527, § 1, 7-19-99)
tive of the institution.
(7) Day care facilities. Sec. 21-108. Designation of smoking areas.
(8) The public areas of ho+P1s/motels. (a) Designated smoking areas may be estab-
lished when not otherwise prohibited by law. The
a. Public areas of hotels/motels include owner,proprietor or person in charge of the place
corridors primary use of which is may designate limited smoking areas in certain
access to guest rooms, .elevators, places as provided in Section 21-107.
restrooms, and the registration ar-
eas of the lobby; (b) Where smoking areas are designated, ex-
b. Restaurants in hotels/motels shall istingyphysical arriers and functioning ventila-
tion systems maybe used to minimize the irrita-
be subject to the provisions of Sec- tion and toxic effects of smoke in adjacent non-
tion 21-107(4) of this Article; smoking areas. This provision shall not be
c. Smoking may be designated in a construed to require fixed structural or other
corridor primary use of which is ac- physical modifications in providing these areas or
cess to meeting rooms which are to require operation of any existing heating ven-
available for rent to the public; tilation and air conditioning system in any man-
d. An entire room which is used for ner which decreases its energy efficiency or in-
private business or social functions creases its electrical demand, or both, nor shall
may be exempt during its private this provision be construed to require installation
use when the seating arrangements of new or additional heating, ventilating or air
are under the control of the sponsor conditioning systems.
of the event and not under the pro- (c) This provision shall not be construed to
prietor, owner, or other person in allow the designation of a public place as a
charge of the hotel/motel; smoking area in its entirety.
e. Guest rooms which are available for (d) This provision shall not be construed to
rent are exempt from the provisions require an owner, proprietor or person in charge
of this Article; of a place to designate a smoking area in a public
1 Bars in hotels/motels,including bars place.
contained in a lobby, are exempt (e) No public place shall have more than thirty
from the provisions of this Article. (30) percent of its entire space designated as a
(9) Any publicly owned park facility. smoking area when smoking is prohibited by this
(a) Land owned by the City which has article.
been identified as a park,park land, (Ord. No. 535, § 3, 12-17-90; Ord. No. 722, § 2,
or designated park service area un- 10-5-92)
der the Chesterfield Zoning Ordi- Sec. 21.108: Posting of signs.
nances;
(b) Smoking may be permitted in park- (a) The proprietor, owner or other person hav-
ing lots which are defined as areas ing control of the place governed by this Article
covered in black top, cement, or shall prominently post "NO SMOKING' signs:
gravel, and used solely for the pur- (1) In every place where smoking is regulated
pose of parking vehicles, or in desig- by this Article;
Supp. No.30 1304
OCT-16-2003 11:19 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 Sed P.17/17
OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS §21-111
(2) At each entrance of a retail store, public (e) Enforcement.
place, health care facility or place of em- (1) The proprietor, owner or other person
ployment. having control of the public space,or place
(b) Every theatre owner, manager or operator of employment,shall inform persons smok-
shall post signs conspicuously in the lobby stating. ing in restricted areas they are in viola-
that smoking is prohibited in the theatre or tion of this article.
auditorium. In the case of motion pictures, such (2) The proprietor, owner or other person
information shall be shown on the screen for at having authority to manage and control
least five(5)seconds prior to the showing of each any public place or place of employment,
feature motion picture. or a designated agent of such owner or
manager who does not properly display
(c) Every public portion of grocery stores and
food markets is required to have posted signs at Secno smoking" signs in accordance with
locations throughout each market to be visible to Section 21-109 of this article shall be
individuals entering the store or market, at the deemed in violation of this article.
indoor service lines and in all of the check out (3) The following persons shall be guilty of a
lanes. violation of this Section:
(d) Signs shall contain clearly legible letters, a. A person who smokes in those areas
or the international "no smoking"symbol consist- where smoking is prohibited pursu-
ing of a pictorial representation of a burning ant to the provisions of Sections 21-
arti-
cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a bar across 107, 21-108 and 21-109 of this it, and the words "City of Chesterfield Ord. No. cle.
535." b. A proprietor or other person in charge
(Ord. No. 535, § 4, 12-17-90) of a public place or public meeting
who permits, causes, suffers or al-
Sec. 21-110. Enforcement. lows a person to smoke in these
areas where smeking is prohibited
(a) The proprietor, owner or other person hay- pursuant to Sections 21-107, 21-108
ing control of the public place, or place of employ- and 21-109 herein.
ment, shall inform persons smoking in restricted (4) The authority to administer and enforce
areas they are in violation of this Article. the provisions of this article is vested with
(b) The proprietor, owner or other person hay- the Chief of Police and his duly autho-
n
ing authority to manage and control any public of Ci representative(s) except Se the case
21-
place or place of employment, or a designated of Cty owned facilities under Section for
agent of such owner or manager who does not 107(3) wherein the City Administrator
properly display"no smoking"signs in accordance shall have the authority to administrator
with Section 21-109 of this Article shall be deemed and enforce the provisions of this article.
in violation of this Article. (Ord. No. 535, § 5, 12-17-90; Ord. No. 722, § 3,
10-5-92)
(c) The authority to administer and enforce
the provisions of this Article is vested with the Sec. 21-111. Penalties.
Chief of Police and his duly authorized represen- A person who violates the provisions of this
tative(s)except in the case of city owned facilities article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
under Section 21-107(3)wherein the City Admin- fine of not more than two hundred dollars($200.00),
istrator shall have the authority to administer for each offense.
and enforce the provisions of this Article. (Ord. No. 535, § 6, 12-17-90; Ord. No. 722, § 4,
(d) Enforcement of the provisions of this Arti- 1.0-5-92)
cle shall not begin until July 1991.
ITi,e next page is 13511
Supp.No.:30 1305
TOTAL P.17
OCT-16-2003 11:32 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.03/14
Pub. Imp.
Govt. Gmt.
. Emer.
IPO Required- Yes
P. Hmgs. . .
- Pgs. 8 •
Filed: —7-69-15.6
•
Sponsored by: Whayne
First Reading: `lh, a„.Q., .`f,ee3 Second Reading: 7 *A3
SUBSTITUTE NO.`2 /
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2003 -p'1 GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 4260
AN ORDINANCE '
t AMENDING the Springfield City Code, Chapter 58, Health and Sanitation, Article I, In General,
2 Section 58-1, pertaining to smoking in certain places by providing for smoke free
3 restaurants with certain exceptions.
4 •
t -
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, as follows:
s •
9 Section 1 -That Chapter 58, Health and Sanitation, of the Springfield City Code is hereby
10 amended by amending section 58-1, pertaining to smoking in certain places by providing for smoke
11 free restaurants with certain exceptions which amended section shall read as follows:
12
13 "ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
14
15 Sec. 58-1. Smoking restrictions generally.
16
17 (a) Smoking prohibited in certain places. No person shall possess lighted smoking materials
is in any form, including but not limited to the possession of lighted cigarettes, cigars, pipes or other
19 tobacco products in the following places: .
20 . .
21 (1) Any area accessible to the public within a commercial establishment, including but not
22 limited to banks, office buildings, offices and stores that retail gasoline products or food
23 items for preparation by the consumer at a location other than the storenprevided-any
24 • • • • r
25 • _ w • • . _ i • a
26
(2) Any other retail store that accommodates more than 200 patrons.
OCT-16-2003 11:32 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 CJS P.04/14
•
(3) Any vehicle of public transportation, including but not limited to buses,limousines for hire
and.taxicabs. _
32 (4) Elevators.
33
34 (5) Restrooms.
35
36 (8) Libraries,educational facilities,day care facilities,museums,auditoriums and art galleries.
37
38 (7) Any public area of a health care facility, health clinic or ambulatory care facility,including
39 but not limited to laboratories associated with the rendition of health care treatment,
40 hospitals, rest homes, doctors' offices, and dentists' offices; provided hospitals and rest
41 homes may accommodate smokers by providing separate rooms for smokers.
42
43 (8) Any indoor place of entertainment or recreation,including but not limited to gymnasiums,
44 theaters,concert halls,arenas and swimming pools;provided,however,this provision shall .
45 not apply to pool halls, billiard halls, bingo parlors or bowling alleys if they offer a
46 nonsmoking area of reasonable size sufficient to accommodate customary and usual
47 demand by their customers for a nonsmoking area, nor shall it apply to a designated
43. smoking area in the lobby of a theater provided the smoking area is located away from
49 ticket lines and from where food is served.
50
(9) All public areas andwaiting rooms of public transportation facilities, including but not
limited to bus and airport facilities.
54 (10) Any other enclosed area used by the public not specifically posted as a smoking area.
55
56 (11) Rooms in which meetings and/or hearings open to the public are held, except where such
57 rooms are in a private residence.
58
59 (12) Any area where food is displayed for sale or consumption.
60
61 (13) Inside any building or designated portion of a building, public or private,where signs have
62 previously been erected prohibiting smoking.
63
64 (14) Restaurants. •
65
66 (b) Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of thls section to the contrary,possession
67 of lighted smoking materials in any form shall not be prohibited in the following areas unless the
68 owner of the property or the person In control thereof conspicuously posts the area as a nonsmoking,
69 area:
70
71 (1) An entire room or hall which is used for private social functions, provided the seating
72 arrangements are under the control of the sponsor of the function and not of the proprietor
3 or person in charge of the place.
02
OCT-16-2003 11 32 MO RESTAURANT FlSSOC 314 576 2999 P.05/14
•
(3) Any vehicle of public transportation, including but not limited to buses,limousines for hire
and taxicabs. .
•
32 (4) Elevators.
33
34 • . (5) Restrooms.
35 •.
36 (8) Libraries,educational facilities,day care facilities,museums,auditoriums and art galleries.
37
38 (7) Any public area of a health care facility, health clinic or ambulatory care facility; including
39 but not limited to laboratories associated with the rendition of health care treatment,
40 hospitals, rest homes, doctors' offices, and dentists' offices; provided hospitals and rest
41 homes may accommodate smokers by providing separate rooms for smokers. •
42 . .
43 (8) Any indoor place of entertainment or recreation, including but not limited to gymnasiums,
44 theaters,concert halls,arenas and swimming pools;provided,however,this provision shall
45 not apply to pool halls, billiard hails, bingo parlors or bowling alleys if they-offer a
46 nonsmoking area of reasonable size sufficient to accommodate customary and usual •
47 ' demand by their customers for a nonsmoking area, nor shall it apply to a designated
4s- smoking area in the lobby of a theater provided the smoking area is located away from
49 ticket lines and from where food is served.
50 •
(9) All public areas and waiting rooms of public transportation facilities, including but not
limited to bus and airport facilities.
54 (10) My other enclosed area used by the public not specifically posted as a smoking area.
55 .
56 (11) Rooms in which meetings and/or hearings open to the public are held,except where such
57 rooms are in a private residence. i
58 •
59 (12) Any area where food is displayed for sale or consumption. .
60 .
61 (13) Inside any building or designated portion of a building, public or private,where signs have
62 previously been erected prohibiting smoking. i
63
64 • ' (14) Restaurants. . . . .
65 .
66 ' (b) Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary,possession •
67 of lighted smoking materials in any form shall not be prohibited in the following areas unless the i
68 owner of the property or the person In control thereof conspicuously posts the area as a nonsmoking,
69 .. area;- . . i
•70 ' t
71 (1) An entire room or hall which is used for private social functions, provided the seating
72 arrangements are under the control of the sponsor of the function and not of the proprietor
or person in charge of the place. ,
r
1
•
a i
OCT-16-2063 11:33 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.05/14
• (2) Limousines for hire and taxicabs,where the driver and all passengers affirmatively consent
to smoking in such vehicle.
(3) Performers upon the stage, provided the smoking is part of a theatrical production.
I .
79
80 (4) Designated areas of shopping malls. '
81
• sz (5) Places where more than 50 percent of the volume of trade or business carried on is that
83 of the blending of tobaccos, or sale of tobaccos, pipes, cigars or smokers'sundries.
84
85 _ . . . .. . .�
86
87 . . _ .. .. ... ..
88
89
90 (7 6) Private residences.
91
92 (87) Areas designated as employee smoking areas and which are not accessible to the general
93 public.
94 .
95 (8) A restaurant in which 50% or greater of annual gross receipts are derived from
96 alcoholic beverage sales ora restaurantwhich has at least$200,000 in gross annual
sales from-alcohol.
(9) A restaurant which serves alcoholic beverages that has a nonsmoking area and an,
loo enclosed area for smoking separate from the nonsmoking area provided the
Dm smoking area is shielded floor to ceiling from the food preparation and nonsmoking
102 dining area and served by an independent air handling system.
103
104 . (10) Outdoor or sidewalk seating of a restaurant if the outdoors or sidewalk seating area
105 is physically separated.
106
107 (11) Private clubs.
108
109 . (12). Private dining or banquet facilities.
1to •
in (13)A restaurant which has less than 50 seats provided if the restaurant permits smoking
112 it shall post at all entrances to the facility that it is a "smoking facility."
113
114 (c) Designation of smoking areas. The owner, manager, operator or person who otherwise
115 controls the use of any establishment or facility described in subsection (a) of this section shall
116 designate the premises as"no smoking"and shall post a sign in accordance with subsection (e)of
117 this section unless subsections (a) and (b) of this section permit the designation of an area for
s smoking. If designated smoking areas are permitted under the provisions of subsections(a)and(b),
then the owner, manager, operator or person who otherwise controls the use of the facility may
designate areas of the facility for smoking by posting signs stating the facility has designated
OCT-16-2003 11:33 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576y P.07/14
•
smoking and nonsmoking areas; provided, however, the designation of smoking areas shall not
exceed a reasonable area needed to accommodate the customary and usual demand for such
• areas.
124
125 (d) Physical banters and ventilation systems for smoking areas. Where smoking areas are
126 designated,existing physical barriers and functioning ventilation systems shall be used to minimize
127 the irritating and toxic effects of smoke in adjacent nonsmoking areas. This provision shall not be
128 construed to require fixed structural or other physical modifications in providing these areas or to
129 require operation of any existing heating,ventilating and air conditioning system in any manner which
13o decreases its energy efficiency or increases its electrical demand, or both, nor shall this provision
131. be construed to require installation of new or additional heating, ventilating or air conditioning
132 systems,except as noted in subsection(b)(9)of this section. The director of health is hereby
133 authorised to grant a variance to this and the provisions of subsection 58.1 (14) subsection
134 on such terms as the director deems to be appropriate for a period not to exceed 120 days
135 for any restaurant which has secured a building permit for the purpose of making alterations
136 to the building in order to comply with this subsection.
137
138 (e) Responsibilities of manager.The proprietor or other person having control of a place within
139 subsection (a) of this section shall comply with the following:
140
141 (1) He shall prominently post"no smoking"signs,with letters not less than one inch in height,
142 or the international "no smoking" symbol consisting of a pictorial representation of a
burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a bar across it, in every place where smoking
is regulated by this section.
146 (2) In addition:
147
148 a. Every theater owner,manager or operator shall post signs conspicuously in the lobby
149 stating that smoking is prohibited within the theater or auditorium except in those
150 areas in the lobby which may be designated for smoking, and in the case of motion
151 picture theaters such information shall be shown upon the screen for at least five
152 seconds prior to the showing of each feature motion picture.
153
154 b. Every public portion of grocery stores and food markets is required to have posted"no
155 smoking" signs at specific locations throughout each market as follows: signs must
156 be visible to people entering the market, people at meat and produce counters, and
157 . people in all checkout lanes.
158
159 c. The owner, operator or other person having control of such area shall remove
160. all ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia from any area where smoking is
161, prohibited by this section.
162
163 (3) He shall request persons smoking in violation of this section to stop.
156 (f) Penalty. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this section. Any
person found guilty of violating this section shall be penalized in accordance with section 1-7.
OCT-16-2003 11:33 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.08/14
smoking and nonsmoking areas; provided, however, the designation of smoking areas shall not
Iexceed a reasonable area needed to accommodate the customary and usual demand for such
areas. . .
24 .
25 (d) Physical barriers and ventilation systems for smoking areas. Where smoking areas are
.26 designated,existing physical bafflers and functioning ventilation systems shall be used to minimize •
27 the irritating and toxic effects of smoke in adjacent nonsmoking areas. This provision shall not be
28 construed to require fixed structural or other physical modifications in providing these areas or to
29 require operation of any existing heating,ventilating and airconditioning"system in any manner which
130 decreases its energy efficiency or increases its electrical demand, or both, nor shall this provision
:31. be construed to require installation of new or additional heating, ventilating or air conditioning
:32 systems,except as noted in subsection(b)(9)of this section. The director of health is hereby
.33 authorized to grant a variance to this and the provisions of subsection 58.1 (14)subsection •
:34 on such terms as the director deems to be appropriate for a period not to exceed 120 days
:3s for any restaurant which has secured a building permit for the purpose of making alterations
:36 to the building in order to comply with this subsection.
137
138 (e) , ResponsIbilitiesof manager.The proprietor or other person having control of a place within
139 subsection (a)of this section shall comply with the following:
140
141 (1) He shall prominently post"no smoking"signs,with letters not less than one inch in height,
142 or the international "no smoking`• symbol consisting of a pictorial representation of a
burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a bar across it,in every place where smoking.
Is regulated by this section:
10. •
146 (2) In addition:
147
148 a. Every theater owner,manager or operator shall post signs conspicuously in the lobby
149 stating that smoking is prohibited within the theater or auditorium except in those
150 areas in the lobby which may be designated for smoking, and in the case of motion
151 picture theaters such information shall be shown upon the screen for at least five
152 seconds prior to the showing of each feature motion picture. .
153
154 . b. Every public portion of grocery stores and food markets is required to have posted"no
155 smoking" signs at specific locations throughout each market as follows: signs must
156 be visible to people entering the market, people at meat and produce counters, and
157 people in all checkout lanes.
158
159 c. The owner, operator or otherperson having control of such area shall remove
160. all ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia from any area where smoking is.
161, prohibited by this section.
162
163 (3) He shall request persons smoking in violation of this section to stop.
64
s (f) Penalty. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this section. Any
6 person found guilty of violating this section shall be penalized in accordance with section 1-7.
f .
OCT-16-2003 11134 MO RESTRURRNT Assoc 314 576 2999 P.09/14
(g) Administration and enforcement. The authority to administer the provisions of this section
is vested in the director of public healthand welfare and his duly authorized representatives.
Whenever the need arises,the director of.public health and welfare may call upon the fire and police
dIepartments and other deartments of the city to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this
171 section." .
172
173 Note; Bolded language has been added and stricken language has been deleted. •
174 -
175 Section 2-This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 90 days from and after passage.
176
177 .
178
179: Passed at meeting:4.r.1 2 gig •
180 r ..
181
Ise •
•
183 _ . . Mayr
184 •
lss /�
186 Attest: `�' , -- )91 - t.---
, City Clerk
187
Approved as to form: ''
, City Attorney
~~
•
192 Approved for Council action: i ,City Manager
193
194 -
195 N:U"MARaKOWARDlORDPROP3kmoke-Gaedping\no smoking reelsmoke4reo4.whams sub.wpa •
OCT-16-2003 11:34 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 0399 P.11/14
Aff.Agcy. Notified .- . . . :. •
Emergency Required. . •
••I
P. Hmgs. Required
Fiscal Note Required -
IPO Required Yes
Board Rec. Required
EXPLANATION TO SUBSTITUTE NO.2 TO COUNCIL BILL NO. 2003
•
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Health
PURPOSE: This is a substitute bill requested by Councilman Whayne to provide for
an exemption for restaurants which have less than 50 seats.
REMARKS: This bill allows a restaurant with less than 50 seats to be exempt from
the provisions of the ordinance and to allow smoking in their establishment.
4
Submitted by: • Approved by: .
i
J . •
hector of Health City Manager
•
•
N:WIAREIC&LLssmoke neew+Avynnu0.doc
•
OCT-16-2003 11:34 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.12/14
IPO#
• Implementation Procedure of Ordinance ,_
Council Bill No.
City Code No._ Ordinance No. �`• •
Effective Date of Memo: , 2003 upon ordinance passage . 2003 •
Subject Restaurant Smoking Restrictions
City Department Responsible for Administration: Health •
Contact In Case of Questions:Assistant Director of Health
Phone:417-864-1655
Support Agencies &Their Roles:
Finance already receives annual report from restaurants on the percentage of sales •
involving alcohol as a condition of getting a business license. Finance will provide this
information to the Director of Health to determine if an exemption shall be granted.
1111 Plan for Administration:The Springfield/Greene County Health Department currently
has a full time tobacco control officer who enforces all tobacco ordinances in the city of
Springfield.The Director of Health will be responsible for determining and granting
exemptions under the ordinance. Health department food inspectors who are in
restaurant facilities on a daily basis will monitor compliance. •
How Ordinance Works: This ordinance amends Section 53-1 of the Springfield City
Code,which deals with smoking restrictions. It adds restaurants as an area where
smoking is prohibited in the City of Springfield. Under the provisions of this ordinance
any restaurant where 50% of the gross annual receipts are derived from the sale of
alcohol are exempted as well as any restaurant which sells over.$200,000 worth of
alcohol annually. In addition any restaurant with under 50 seats would also be exempt.
from theprovisions of this ordinance. Outdoor and sidewalk seating of restaurants as
well as private clubs and private dining or banquet facilities are also exempted. It will be
the responsibility of the Springfield/Greene County Health Department to enforce the
ordinance.The Director of Health will be responsible for granting exemptions under the
provisions of this ordinance. .
•
Purpose of the Ordinance: To protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting
smoking in restaurants and to protect the rights of citizens to breathe smoke-free air,
and to recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the
desire to smoke.
•
7
OCT-16-2003 11:35 110 RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.13/14
.-
•
Frequently Asked Questions: •
•
How does this prohibition of smoking in restaurants affect bars? .
Bars will be exempt under the provisions of this ordinance as well as any restaurant, .
•
which over 50% of gross annual receipts are derived from the sale of alcohol or serve •
over$200,000 worth of alcohol annually. .
• Does this ordinance prohibit smoking in bowling alleys or pool halls? ;; :•
No, smoking is still allowed in pool halls, billiard halls, bingo parlors and bowling alleys if .
they offer a nonsmoking area of reasonable size to accommodate the usual and
customary demand by their non-smoking customers.
• Won't this ordinance have a significant financial impact on restaurants that must.
go smoke free?
Recent data regarding the affect of smoking bans in restaurants in New York and • . ....„-•
Massachusetts suggest that the anti-smoking laws has had little to no affect on local .
sales,job growth and income. In Massachusetts after the inaction of a smoke-free law,
t.
revenues actually increased by 4 percent as compared to 2 percent increase in .
revenues in communities who allowed smoking.
i • .
Are most restaurant owners and manager opposed to this ordinance? •
A recent survey conducted by the Springfield/Greene County Health Department of all.:. " ,
restaurant In Springfield, indicates a majority of restaurant owners and managers favor .
a smoking ban.
•
•
Torn Finnie,City Manager . • Date
• xAsaAnsceru.susowO Dr3fc wuckinc IPO Sub z.doc .. . _•.
a . . .
. .
•
• .
. • .. •
S
OCT-16-2003 11:35 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.14/14
•
Frequently Asked Questions: ,
How does this prohibition of smoking in restaurants affect bars? -
Bars will be exempt under the provisions of this ordinance as well as any restaurant, ,
which over 50% of gross annual receipts are derived from the sale of alcohol or serve '.
over$200,000 worth of alcohol annually. .s
•
Does this ordinance prohibit smoking in bowling alleys or pool halls? • ..• ;;=
No,smoking is still.allowed in pool halls, billiard halls, bingo parlors and bowling alleys it:.;
they offer a nonsmoking area of reasonable size to accommodate the usual and
customary demand by their non-smoking customers. . ,
Won't this ordinance have a significant financial impact on restaurants that must ::.,
go smoke free?
Recent data regarding the affect of smoking bans in restaurants in New York and ' -:s:,
Massachusetts suggest that the anti-smoking laws has had little to no affect on local -:::-;
sales,job growth and income. In Massachusetts after the inaction of a smoke-free law, rc
revenues actually increased by 4 percent as compared to 2 percent increase in - .. -
revenues In communities who allowed smoking.
-
ISAre most restaurant owners and manager opposed to this ordinance? - _•
A recent survey conducted by the Springfield/Greene County Health Department of ail,;.:;
restaurant in Springfield, indicates a majority of restaurant owners and managers favor
a smoking ban. __ , ;
.: - ,,,-------52--. ....
Tom Finnie,City Manager: Date _ _fi
N onxacentsotmonreAmoa;asuosm xmo
•
•
•
J. .. •
•
TOTAL P.14
OCT-16-2003 11:44 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.02/07
Pub.
Govt. Gmt
. • . . . Emer. .
IPO Required
• P. Hrngs.
Filed: P-47-03
Sponsored by: Carlson
First Reading: Second Reading:
SUBSTITUTE NO. 1 FOR AMENDED -
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2003 =239 GENERAL ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE
1 AMENDING the Springfield City Code, Chapter 58, Health and Sanitation,Article I, In General,by
2 adding a new subsection to allow for an extension of time until July 7,2006, to come
into compliance with the new smoking ordinance under certain circumstances, and
declaring an emergency.
5 •
6 •
7
8 .
9 . - Section 1 - That Chapter 58, Health and Sanitation, of the Springfield City Code is hereby
10 amended by amending Subsection 58-1, Smoking Restrictions Generally, by adding one new
11 Subsection (h), which new Subsection shall read as follows: •
12 •
13 . . 'ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
14
1s Sec. 58-1. Smoking restrictions generally.
16. .
17 (h) Extension of time for Enforcement of Section 58-1. Notwithstanding any other provision
is . of this section, any restaurant that may establish through verifiable financial records that it
19 has experienced at least a twenty percent (20%) reduction in total sales of food and
20 beverages during the months of July,August and September 2003 as that experienced during
z1 the months of July, August and September of 2002, may qualify for a thirty-six (36) month
22 extension of time to comply with the provisions of this section from July 7, 2006. Records
23 establishing same must be submitted by November 15,2003, and be in a form acceptable to
and approved by the Director of Finance. Such records shall be subject to audit upon
request of the Director of Finance and at the expense of the restaurant submitting same.
26 Upon the Director of Finance certifying to the Director of Health that-a restaurant has
CET-16-2003 11:44 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.03/0?
. . .
..
'submitted sufficient•verifiable records establishinwa reduction of at least twenty percent .
. • as (20%)of its total sales of food and beverages as outlined above, the Director of Health shall
29 grant such restaurant an extension of time to comply with this Section for up to thirty-six(36)
30 months from July 7,2006,unless the exemptions contained in SeCtion 58-1(b)(6),(9)and.(13)
31 am repeated prior to such date. In the event such exemptions are repealed prior to that date,
32 any exemption granted by the Director of Health pursuant to this section shall end on the
33 same date ai the exemptions contained in Section 58-1(b)(6), (9)and (13) are repealed?
34
35 Note: Bolded language has been added.
36
37 Section 2-The City Councilfinds and declares that this ordinance constitutes an emergency .
38 because it pertains to matters affecting the public health, safety,welfare or morals,Therefore,this
39 ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after passage. - , , '. ". - •
ao
•
41 •
. .
42 • . .
43 Passed at meeting:
44 45 •
46
41 Mayor
'
ail
Ilr;o Attest , City Clerk
51 "
5271 c,/65 2 .
53 • Approved es to fon, , CitY*tOrneY
(
• . . • i
'55
City M. anager
. . I
56 Approved for Council action: ,
57 . • - ;
. r i
58 •
59 KASIOREICBILLSIttebnottrooksexeepticauratibusineawyd
•
i• -
1
. .
- -
.. .
• • • - • •• • ' ' 1
1
02
. f
. ;
•• . • •
, .
. . .. ;
' I
. . • , • . _
. 4
' . .
• •
. ;
' .
•
• • i
• • • 1
• I
' .
I•
OCT-16-2003 11:45 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 3 P.04/07
Alf.Agcy.Noticed
Emergency Required
IPO Required_
P.Hrngs. Required
Fiscal Note Required
Board Rec. Required
•
•
EXPLANATION TO SUBSTITUTE NO. 1 FOR AMENDED COUNCIL
BILL NO. 2003-239
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: LAW
•
PURPOSE: To amend Chapter 58, of the City Code, Health and Sanitation, Article I
dealing with smoking in public places to allow a temporary exemption for restaurants
under certain circumstances.
BACKGROUND:The City Council enacted a new smoking ordinance in April of this year.
Several restaurantrelated exemptions were adopted in that ordinance, but one dealing
with restaurants serving a mostly smoking clientele was not included. •
REMARKS: This bill will create an exemption for those restaurants that are able to
establish a twenty(20) percent reduction in total food and beverage sales for the months •
of July, August and September 2003 as compared to the same months in 2002. tf a
restaurant is able to establish this reduction, the Director of Health is authorized to grant
an exemption up to July 7, 2006.
•
Submitted by: Approved by:salt
t
•
CdY = City Manager •
•
me cen sieuswtisr,d .ova
•
•
*-
OCT-16-2003 11:45 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 eJ9 P.05/07
Dear Dave,
I feel that your statement might be a little strong. It does pit us against them. You
have your statement in Proposition A.
•
Some thoughts for a cover; We the Springfield Restaurants and Cafes have met
and discussed the positions of the Clean Air Committee and have come to the conclusion
that there is no compromise language for Springfield Restaurants and Cafes. Based on
this conclusion we ask for the following:
A. That owners and operators of cafes can have designated smoking areas, well
ventilated,per the State of Missouri law. That is to be enforced by the Springfield
Health Department.
B. That the owners and operators will post signage to inform the public that they
have designated smoking areas and that owners and operators who are non-
smoking will post signage to that effect.
C. That owners and operators of restaurants and cafes that have designated smoking
areas give employees the right not to work in a designated area, and that
employees can have a free choice of where they work.
D. Restaurants and cafes have been targeted unfairly. We have witnessed the loss of
business from some of our operators. We do not want an ordinance that can
negatively impact our business. We feel our freedom of operating our businesses
to benefit our families and employees is being taken away.
E. Restaurants and cafes need to meet the demand of the consumer and meet the
demand of a market place economy. We feel our customers have the right to
make a decision of where to go to dine, this is their free will.
If Springfield patrons feel that Springfield should be smoke free in all restaurants
and cafes they will let us know by not patronizing the establishments who have a
designated smoking area.
OCT-16-2003 11.45 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 2999 P.06/07
PROPOSITION"A"
The Restaurant and Café's Affiliation of Springfield present the following item to
the City Council for vote or for placement on the ballot for a public vote:
There will be a no smoking ban place on any City, County, State or
Federal Building, or property owned or operated by any of the above named
entities including the grounds, sidewalks and vehicle of said entity.
There will be a no smoking ban placed on any Hospital or place where the
Medical treatment of individuals is practiced,including the building or property
owned or operated by the above entities, any such building/property's grounds
and sidewalks and the vehicles owned or operated by the above entities.
There will be no smoking ban placed on any Charitable Organization,
Church or Private Club, including the building or property owned or operated by
the above entities, any such building/property's grounds and sidewalks, and the
vehicles owned or operated by the above the entities.
There will be a no smoking ban place on any Restaurant, Café or Bar,
including the building or property owned or operated by the above entities, any
such building/property's grounds and sidewalks, and the vehicles owned or
operated by the above entities.
There will be a no smoking ban place on any Bowling Alley or any
Gaming Facility, including the building or property owned or operated by the
above entities, any such building/property's grounds and sidewalks, and the
vehicles owned or operated by the above entities.
There will be a no smoking ban placed on any place of business or
workplace, including the building or property owned or operated by the above
entities, any such building/property's grounds and sidewalks, and the vehicles
owned or operated by the above entities.
OCT-16-2003 11:46 MO RESTAURANT ASSOC 314 576 S33 P.07/07
PROPOSITION "B"
It is proposed by the Restaurant and Cafe affiliation of Springfield that the existing
ordinance that is on the books at this time concerning the Smoking Ordinance in
Springfield be held in affect with the changes that follow.
We feel that their should be an addendum to this ordinance that reflects that any
Restaurant or Cafe that has had a drop in sales that is in direct correlation and caused by
the existing ordinance be exempted from the ordinance.
We feel that this ordinance shall stay in affect and without change until a statewide
initiative is passed.
•
•
TOTAL P.07
:t3 & 9 % Ws%<) > 3 •
. � &
/
z '
\
z /
z
\ . y.
/
. �
z .
/
z ¥
z \
. �
z . A}IVINII4JflS
. �
irt
\
z . �
} .
\
z § .
y . .
z . ;
•
� � \
. §
A � . . . .
, xww x wwwwwxww wwwxx N ww y
SUMMARY
Council Members:
Hopefully the material provided to you here has, at least, caused you to raise your eye-
brows and question some previous thoughts. I had hoped that common sense might prevail
but without all the information being provided to you there may be insufficient data for every-
•
one to make a sound decision. There are two sides to every issue, this is the other side of the
anti-smoking debate that isn't brought up often enough. To view an anti-smoking ordinance
as purely a public health issue is obviously a mistake. It is an economic issue that affects the
businesses covered under the ordinance and their employees. The economic issue is also-a
concern that would affect the tax base of the city. There is also a concern of future litigation
brought against the cities from any such passed ordinance. There is also a freedom issue. A
free market place should drive the smoking or non-smoking issue.
Recently at my restaurant we have reduced the number of smoking tables by half, from
12 to 6. The reason for this was simple. There was no need for the extra tables being made.
available for smokers. Those tables were being utilized by non-smokers who were not willing
to wait for a non-smoking table. An entire smoking section was being used by mostly non-
smokers, so it was obvious there was no need for this section. Now the only smoking tables
available are within the bar section of my restaurant.
The second hand smoke (or ETS. as it is referred to in most studies, Environmental
Tobacco Smoke) issue is not as crystal clear as the anti-smoking coalition would have every-
one believe. No one questions the fact that the smoke coming off of a lit cigarette is a car-
cinogen or that it contains other unhealthy ingredients, but the amount of such smoke ingested
by non smokers is the issue. There have been studies involving spouses, where one spouse is
a smoker and the other a non-smoker. This scenario is not what this legislation seeks to ad-
dress and should not be relevant, yet that particular study concluded that there was no statisti-
cal evidence that secondhand smoke was a significant health hazard. Other studies have been
released involving bartenders, waiters, & waitresses which are relevant to this ordinance and
those studies have all concluded there was no significant health risk. This is not to say that
second hand smoke is healthy or that every study on either side is 100% correct, they are sub-
ject to interpretation and those interpretations differ. Please note all materials within the
Second-hand smoke section and the Studies section.
Studies publicized by the anti-smoking coalition stating the conclusion that "Waitress
have a 400% greater chance of developing lung cancer, or "Waitress are four times as likely
to develop lung cancer.", are misleading. The one study that was done on this in California
was a survey of respondents. No criteria of personal habits were included within the study,
nor was economic circumstances or health care availability included. The point is waitresses,
as a profession, smoke more than the general public. In my restaurant I currently have 15
waitress, 13 of whom smoke. That's 87%. That's about 4 times the national average. I doubt
that my restaurant is much different than most restaurants throughout the nation in this regard.
There just might be a reason, other than second-hand smoke, why waitress have a higher risk
of developing lung cancer, most of them smoke.
The rhetoric used by the anti-smoking coalition is an issue which is rarely questioned
and is a major concern of mine. Statements purported to be facts which are not facts is mis-
leading. I have heard among other quotes the following
- 1. "Employees should be able to choose between a paycheck and their health".
2. "Second hand smoke can cause asthma."
3. "Upon entering a room with second hand smoke someone could suffer a stroke within 30
minutes."
4. "Second hand smoke causes strokes and heart attacks."
All of these statements are, at least, implying something that is just not true. These rep-
resentations of the truth are inaccurate and misleading, making a mockery of the actual studies
results and this rhetoric demonizes smokers and is a scare tactic meant to frighten the public
and gain sound bites via the radio and newspaper reports. -
Common sense and the studies do state that second hand smoke can aggravate asthma or
any pre-existing pulmonary condition. Exposure to second hand smoke can cause the arteries to
constrict, but from those facts developing the above rhetoric is more akin to propaganda than
the facts.
Passage of anti-smoking bans have consistently resulted in litigation with either the cit-
ies, municipalities, or the states which have enacted them. Please note the litigation section.
Specific results of cities within our state, namely Chesterfield & Springfield are con-
tained within this packet. Chesterfield attempted to pass a similar anti-smoking ordinance in
1997, it was not passed. Springfield is currently attempting to refine their anti-smoking ordi-
nance. They have excluded bars or taverns with over 50% liquor served, pool halls, and bowl-
ing alleys, but not restaurants which serve less than 50% food by volume. Several restaurants
are banning together and have asked the city for reimbursements for their losi revenues.
Several committees have been formed at the request of the current Mayor and it seems as
though a vote of this issue will ultimately go before the peoples of Springfield, Mo.
The exclusions for bars, taverns, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc. again creates an uneven
economic market place within the city itself While the restaurants which have the smoking ban
can not have any smoking within their establishments other businesses which happen to serve
over 50% liquor are expanding their food menus and are taking advantage of this unequal play-
ing field which has been created by the ordinance. Exclusions of specific businesses while not
applying those same exclusions to all businesses which serve food and beverages is not fair nor
is it the intent of the anti-smoking coalition.
The only way that this type of ordinance would be fair to the businesses which it affects
would be for an ordinance that is passed, statewide, by a public referendum, and then hope that
all of the states that border Missouri pass the exact same law. Creating an uneven economic
playing field within the state by passing individual city ordinances is grossly unfair.
I employee over 55 full & part time employees. My restaurants gross payroll last year
was in excess of$700,000.00. The sales tax paid to the City of Jefferson from my establish-
ment was in excess of$50,000.00. I have the following licenses City Liquor License, County
Liquor License, City of Jefferson Merchants License, State Liquor License, ATF Special Tax
Stamp. My business pays over 54,500.00 in property and personal property taxes.We pay over
$8,000.00 per year to the City for my customers parking fees. I am the current President of the
Board of the Capitol City/Lake Ozark Chapter of The Missouri Restaurant Association, Past
President of the state Chapter. Current state board member of the Missouri Restaurant Associa-
. tion, member of the National Restaurant Association. Past recipient of the Small Business of
the Year award, presented by the Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce. Current board mem-
ber of the Jefferson City Convention & Visitors Bureau, Inc. Member of the Jefferson City
Chamber of Commerce, Missouri Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, Capitol Main Streets, East
Side Business Association, etc. etc.
•
The point is for 21 years I have been investing in my business and Jefferson City,
by expanding, buying additional properties, physical upgrades to the buildings, major financial
purchases of contents, equipment and time, and hiring of additional personnel. I have attempted
to create a business which is considered an asset to the community. I give back to the dommu-
nity via a myriad of charitable organizations. I've got an investment here that I care deeply
about. Again, I ask each council member if you were contacted by any constituents prior to the
Cole County Citizens for Clean Air in regards to their concerns about smoking.
- Ordinances that will negatively affect individual business yet positively affect other
businesses which serve the same general public should be thoroughly thought out and all the
possible ramifications of said ordinances need to be considered.
Councilman's Groner's amendment to the present bill is admirable in it's major attempt
to find a compromise (by having an isolated and vented area for smokers) and I commend him
for the attempt. The two main problems with any facility wishing to comply with this amend-
ment are
1. The project would be extremely costly.
2. Most facilities are not designed or,laid out in such a way that would allow them to build a
wall and create and isolated area If your were designing a new restaurant things would be
different but most existing restaurants are precluded from this possibility due to current
floor plans.
I could go on, but I've taken enough of your time. Your thorough consideration of this
complex and contentious issue is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Rob Agee
President-Madison's Café
10/29/03