HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0942.115 2006-2008
To cco-eFree
March 10, 2008 ry~jiyy(
Honorable Mayor Harry Kim
County of Hawaii
891 Ululani St.
Hilo HI 96720
Aloha Mayor Kim:
My name is Juan Moncada, Chairman of Tobacco-Free Big Island (TFBI); a community coalition
of volunteers, businesses and organizations working towards a tobacco-free Hawaii. Our
mission is to provide education and be a resource to the community on tobacco prevention for
youth, cessation programs, and supportive public policy.
I admire the years of public service you have provided Hawaii County residents over your
tenure, and that your last year in office you recognized the County's health care crisis as your
top. priority. So I was confused by your recent letter to Council Chairman Pete Hoffmann &
Council Members stating your rejection of Bill 224, whose premise is the protection of the public
health. Unquestionably, one factor in the health care crisis is prevention of the most prevalent
and expensive diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes and asthma.
The Health Care Crisis in Our County
Second-hand smoke is classified a Class-A carcinogen (same as asbestos), known to cause
cancer. There are no safe levels of exposure. Outdoor tobacco smoke has been declared a
toxic air pollutant by the California EPA. Scientists have tested the toxicity of outdoor tobacco
smoke and have concluded that it can be as harmful as indoor second-hand smoke, especially
for the young, the elderly, asthmatic children and adults suffering from COPD such as
emphysema, and individuals with mitigating heart conditions. Hawaii County has the highest
rates of childhood asthma in the nation. There will be 1,460 adults who die this year in Hawaii
from tobacco use. The annual health care costs in Hawaii directly caused by smoking are $336
million, not including lost productivity for an additional $308 million.
The World Health Organization states in a recent stunning report that more life has been lost to
tobacco and second-hand smoke exposure than in all wars combined. They warn that the
tobacco epidemic is increasing and will claim 1 billion lives by the end of the 21°` century unless
government officials take measures to enact strict policies to curb tobacco use and protect the
public against second-hand smoke. Tobacco use and second-hand smoke combine to be the
number one burden on our healthcare system - it is a major reason for our crisis, overburdening
our budgets and our medical capacity.
Impact to Our Resources
A visit to our parks, beaches and recreational facilities should be a pleasurable and safe
experience, yet because of cigarette litter they are unsightly, unclean, and particularly
hazardous to small children. Cigarettes and their packaging make up the number one litter item
on our island. Cigarette butts are composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic, which is
estimated to take up to 25 years to decompose on land and in the sand. It takes a cigarette butt
5 years to decompose in the ocean. Cigarette filters have been found in the stomachs of sea
turtles, fish, birds, whales and other marine creatures who mistake them for food, swallowing
harmful plastic and toxic chemicals. Both our human and our animal resources are nil
by tobacco products on our beaches. Comm 5
Ref. To.9-01
Ret Dota MAR
OurMission. ffloprovide tools to inspire allsegments of ourdiverse communityto eliminate tobacco useand i as await
Page t of 2
Precedents for Smokg,-Free Beaches and Parks
In addition to Haunama Bay on Oahu and Kahalu'u Beach in Kona, hundreds of municipalities
across the country and around the world, including California, Chicago, New Jersey, Japan,
Australia and Spain have passed similar legislation enabling citizens to enjoy smoke-free
outdoor parks and beaches. The California Clean Air Project reports that aside from installation
of signage, there is little cost involved with implementing outdoor smoke-free ordinances for
beaches. Compliance is high once people become informed and accustomed to the new
protection.
Enclosed are some informational resources relating to second-hand smoke, policy
recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO), studies on outdoor tobacco smoke
and other areas around the world that have passed similar legislation.
Riahts and Freedoms
Some opponents of Bill 224 have mistakenly couched the issue in terms of smokers' rights.
Discussion of rights and freedoms can be quite emotional for most of us. We are blessed to
have many guaranteed rights in this country, including the right to bear arms and the right to
free speech. Yet we also regulate aspects of these rights for protection of the community. We
regulate the discharge of firearms downtown, and we regulate malicious speech such as
slander and libel. The American Civil Liberties Union has issued a statement that there is no
constitutional right to smoke, and we do not infringe upon an adult smoker's legal rights by
restricting smoking in public areas. Those who exercise their freedom to smoke do not have an
inalienable right to inflict this choice upon the majority of others who made a different decision,
particularly children.
Partnership with the Community
Tobacco Free Big Island is prepared to help with public education through a media campaign to
inform the public about the benefits and expectations of the new law. We are available to
provide referral resources for smoking cessation to all those who would like to quit smoking.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further and answer questions you might
have. You may contact us at: 896-1670.
A Lasting Legacy
We know, Mayor Kim that you care deeply about the people of the Big Island. You have
dedicated your professional life to public protection and public service. We also know that you
care deeply about public health, particularly since you have designated our health care crisis as
a top priority for your final year as our mayor by focusing attention on resources, doctors,
equipment and funding. Please also consider positive legislation designed to help reduce and
prevent the tide of serious illness. We urge you as our champion to provide a lasting legacy of
health to the people of this island by supporting Bill 224 in its current (original) form if passed by
the Council. Please consider it as a part of your healthcare crisis priority and sign it into law.
S' rely,
n Moncada, Chairman
ZJ11acco_ land
Fre e Big Is
d
enclosures
Cc: County Council Members, Patricia Engelhard, Director Parks & Recreation Division
Our Mission. 'To provide tools to inspire all segments of our diverse community to eliminate tobacco use and exposure in East Hawai'i."
Page 2 or 2
The Toll of Tobacco In Your State 3/7/08 1:11 PM
The Toll of Tobacco in Hawai'i
Tobacco Use in Hawaii
High school students who smoke 16.4%(10,900)
Male high school students who use smokeless or spit tobacco 3.8% (females use much lower)
Kids (under 18) who become new daily smokers each year 1,900
Kids exposed to secondhand smoke at home NA
Packs of cigarettes bought or smoked by kids each year 2.2 million
Adults in Hawaii who smoke 17.5% (172,700)
Nationwide, youth smoking has declined dramatically since the mid-1990s, but that decline appears to have slowed considerably or even
stopped in recent years. The 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that the percentage of high school students reporting that they
have smoked cigarettes in the past month Increased to 23 percent in 2005 from 21.9 percent in 2003. This increase follows a 40
percent decline between 1997, when rates peaked at 36.4 percent, and 2003. The survey also found that 13.6 percent of high school
males use spit tobacco. U.S. adult smoking has decreased gradually in the last several decades, and 20.9 percent of U.S. adults (about
45 million) currently smoke.
Deaths in Hawaii From Smoking
Adults who die each year from their own smoking 1,200
Kids now under 18 and alive in Hawai'I who will ultimately die 27,400
prematurely from smoking
Adult nonsmokers who die each year from exposure to secondhand 90 to 260
smoke
Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined and thousands more die
from other tobacco-related causes such as fires caused by smoking (more than 1,000 deaths/year nationwide) and smokeless tobacco
use. No good estimates are currently available, however, for the number of Hawai'i citizens who die from these other tobacco-related
causes, or for the much larger numbers who suffer from tobacco-related health problems each year without actually dying.
Smoking-Caused Monetary Costs in Hawaii
Annual health care costs in Hawaii directly caused by smoking $336 million
- Portion covered by the state Medicaid program $117 million
Residents' state & federal tax burden from smoking-caused $622 per household
government expenditures
Smoking-caused productivity losses in Hawai'I $308 million
Amounts do not include health costs caused by exposure to secondhand smoke, smoking-caused fires, spit tobacco use, or cigar and
pipe smoking. Other non-health costs from tobacco use include residential and commercial property losses from smoking-caused fires
(more than $500 million per year nationwide); extra cleaning and maintenance costs made necessary by tobacco smoke and litter (about
$4+ billion nationwide for commercial establishments alone); and additional productivity losses from smoking-caused work absences,
smoking breaks, and on-the-job performance declines and early termination of employment caused by smoking-caused disability or
Illness (dollar amount listed above is just from productive work lives shortened by smoking-caused death).
Tobacco Industry Influence in Hawaii
Annual tobacco industry marketing expenditures nationwide $13.4 billion
Estimated portion spent for Hawai'i marketing each year $42.2 million
Published research studies have found that kids are twice as sensitive to tobacco advertising than adults and are more likely to be
influenced to smoke by cigarette marketing than by peer pressure, and that one-third of underage experlmentation with smoking is
attributable to tobacco company advertising.
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2005
http://w .tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/toliprint.php?StatelD-Hi Page 1 of 1
Tobacco State Settlement: Hawari 3/7/08 1:11 PM
Hawaii
Updated: December 12, 2007
FY2008 FY2007
Spending on Tobacco Prevention $10.4 million $9.1 million
% of CDC Recommended Minimum 96.3% 84.0%
Rank Among States (1-51) 4 7
Tobacco Generated Revenue (FY2008)
$151.9 million
CDC Recommended Minimum Spending on Tobacco Prevention
1$10.8 million
Actual Spending on Tobacco Prevention (FY2008)
$10.4 million
Summary: The U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention Tobacco's Toll in Hawaii
(CDC) recommends that Hawaii High school students who smoke 16.4%
spend between $10.8 million and
$23.4 million a year to have an Kids (under 18) who become 1,900
effective, comprehensive tobacco new dally smokers each year
prevention and control program. Kids now under 18 and alive in
Hawaii currently spends $10.4 Hawari who will ultimately die 27,400
million a year from tobacco prematurely from smoking
settlement revenue for tobacco
prevention and control. This is Adults in Hawari who smoke 17.5%
96.3% of the CDC's minimum Adults who die each year from
recommendation and ranks Hawaii their own smoking l,zoo
4th among the states in the
funding of tobacco prevention and Annual health care costs in
Hawari directly caused by $336 million
control programs. Hawaii's smoking
spending on tobacco prevention
and control amounts to 6.8% of view more data
the $151.9 million in tobacco-
generated revenue the state collects each year in tobacco settlement payments
and tobacco taxes.
Current Status: Hawaii's tobacco prevention programs are funded through the
Tobacco Prevention and Control Trust Fund, which was created with tobacco
settlement dollars, and through funds allocated to the Department of Health and
other state agencies for tobacco prevention programs. Total anticipated allocation
for FY2008 tobacco prevention and control is $10.7 million.
As it considers future funding for tobacco prevention, Hawaii will have more
tobacco-generated revenue than ever before as a result of a cigarette tax increase
that took effect September 30, 2007, increasing the state cigarette tax by 20 cents
to $1.80 per pack. The tax will increase again in 2008 by 20 cents, bringing the
total tax to $2.00 per pack.
http://w .tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlementsiprint.php?StateID-HI Page 1 of 2
Tobacco State Settlement: Hawal'I 3/7/08 1:11 PM
Background: Hawaii's tobacco settlement funds are governed by a 1999 law
approved by the Legislature and then-Governor Benjamin Cayetano (D) that
originally allocated 25 percent of the funds to a Tobacco Prevention and Control
Trust Fund. The law also distributed 40 percent of the funds to the state's
Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund and 35 percent to the Department of Health
for health promotion and disease prevention.
When the 1999 law was passed, it was initially interpreted to allow expenditure of
only the interest and earnings on the trust fund for tobacco prevention and
cessation in order to preserve and grow the endowment. Subsequently the law
was amended in a 2001 special legislative session to permit expenditure of up to
50 percent of the fair market value of the trust fund. In October, 2002, the Trust
Fund Advisory Board approved a policy to expend interest and earnings and a
portion of the principal. As such, the Board approved an allocation of at least $6.1
million of the Tobacco Prevention and Control Trust Fund to be spent in FY2003.
In a special session in the fall of 2001, Governor Cayetano proposed and the
Legislature amended the tobacco settlement law modifying the allocation
percentages set by the 1999 law. The amended law created a new 28 percent
allocation to the University of Hawaii (UH) for debt service on $150 million in
revenue bonds issued for construction of a new medical school. In order to create
the 28 percent UH allocation, the percentage of settlement funds going to the
Tobacco Prevention and Control Trust Fund was cut in half to 12.5 percent, and
the percentage allocated to the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund was reduced
from 40 percent to 24.5 percent.
In FY2002, the Tobacco Prevention and Control Trust Fund received $11.2 million
in settlement money - the 25 percent allocated by the 1999 law before it was
changed. The Trust Fund released $1.8 million in grants for tobacco prevention and
cessation. In addition, the Department of Health allocated an additional $2.4
million for tobacco prevention and control for a total of $4.19 million in tobacco
prevention and control funding in FY2002.
The 2003 Legislature imposed new assessments on Hawaii's Tobacco Settlement
Special Fund, effective in FY 2004. All of the state's tobacco settlement revenue is
deposited into a special fund under the purview of the Department of Health
(DOH) and allocated by percentage according to law. The tobacco settlement law
also allocates tobacco settlement money to the Emergency and Budget Reserve
Fund, children's health insurance programs, and to pay debt service on revenue
bonds for the construction of the University of Hawaii Health and Wellness Center,
including a biomedical research center and a new medical school. Also in 2003, the
Legislature transferred $1.9 million, the interest earned by the tobacco settlement
special fund from the state investment pool, to the general treasury.
Hawaii appropriated $10.25 million in FY2003 and $8.9 million in FY2004 and
FY2005 for tobacco prevention. In FY2006, funding for the program was reduced
to $5.8 million, but increased to $9.1 million in FY07.
Additional Resources
The Toll of Tobacco in Hawaii view
http://w .tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/print.php?statel0-HI Paoe 2 of 2
The Toll of Tobacco: Sources 3/7/08 1 *11 PM
The Toll of Tobacco
Sources
Smoking and smokeless rates, deaths, and other state tobacco-related information
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC, CDC, Sustaining State Programs for Tobacco Control, Data
Highlights, 2006 (and underlying CDC data/estimates); Adult smoking from CDC 2006 BRFSS; youth smoking from state
YRBS, YTS, or other state-specific surveys; California EPA, Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a
Toxic Air Contaminant, June 24, 2005. See also, CDC, "Factsheet: Secondhand Smoke," September 2006.
New underage daily smoker estimate based on data from U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), "Results from the
2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health," with the state share of national initiation number based on CDC data on
future youth smokers in each state compared to national total.
Kids exposed to second hand smoke
CDC, "State-Specific Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking Among Adults, and Children's and Adolescents' Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke - United States, 1996," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 46(44): 1038-1043,
November 7, 1997.
Packs illegally sold to kids or smoked by them
DiFranza, J. & J. Librett, "State and Federal Revenues from Tobacco Consumed by Minors," American Journal of Public
Health (AJPH)'89(7): 1106-1108, July 1999; Cummings, et al., 'The Illegal Sale of Cigarettes to US Minors: Estimates by
State," AJPH 84(2): 300-302, February 1994.
Smoking-caused health expenditures, productivity losses, tax burdens
CDC, Data Highlights 2006 [and underlying CDC data/estimates; CDC's STATE System average annual smoking attributable
productivity losses from 1997-2001 (1999 estimates updated to 2004 dollars); See also, CDC, "Annual Smoking-Attributable
Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lose, and Economic Costs United States 1995-1999," MMWR, April 11, 2002; Zhang, X.,
et al., "Cost of Smoking to the Medicare Program, 1993," Health Care Financing Review 20(4): 1-19, Summer 1999; Office
of Management & Budget, The Budget for the United States Government - Fiscal Year 2000, Table S-8, January 1999;
Leistikow, B., et al., "Estimates of Smoking-Attributable Deaths at Ages 15-54, Motherless or Fatherless Youths, and
Resulting Social Security Costs in the United States in 1994," Preventive Medicine 30(5): 353-360, May 2000. CDC, "Medical
Care Expenditures Attributable to Smoking United States, 1993," MMWR 43(26): 1-4, July 8, 1994.
Additional information on tobacco-related costs
U.S. Department of the Treasury, The Economic Costs of Smoking in the U.S. and the Benefits of Comprehensive Tobacco
Legislation, 1998; F.J. Chaloupka & K.E. Warner, "The Economics of Smoking," in J. Newhouse $ A. Culyer (eds), The
Handbook of Health Economics, 2000; CDC, Making Your Workplace Smokefree: A Decision Maker's Guide, 1996; D.
Mudarri, The Costs and Benefits of Smoking Restrictions: An Assessment of the Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1993 (H.R.
3434), U.S. EPA report to the Subcommittee on Health & the Environment, Committee on -Energy and Commerce, U.S.
House of Representatives, April 1994; Hall, J. R., Jr., National Fire Protection Association, The U.S. Smoking-Material Fire
Problem, April 2001; National Cancer Institute, Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, 1999, op cit.
Tobacco industry marketing
U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Cigarette Report for 2004 and 2005. and Federal Trade Commission Smokeless
Tobacco Report 2002-2005. State total a prorated estimate based on cigarette pack sales in state. For tobacco marketing
influence on youth, see Pollay, R., et al., "The Last Straw? Cigarette Advertising and Realized Market Shares Among Youths
and Adults," Journal of Marketing 60(2):1-16, April 1996; Evans, N., et al., "Influence of Tobacco Marketing and Exposure to
Smokers on Adolescent Susceptibility to Smoking," Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87(20): 1538-45, October 1995;
Pierce, J.P., et al., 'Tobacco Industry Promotion of Cigarettes and Adolescent Smoking," Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) 279(7): 511-505, February 1998 [with erratum in JAMA 280(5): 422, August 1998]. See, also Campaign
factsheets. Increased Cigarette Company Marketing Since the Multistate Settlement Agreement Went into Effect and
Tobacco Marketing to Kids
http://w .tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/sources.htm Page 1 of 1
l AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
of HAWAI'l
Via e-mail: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Via fax: (808) 961-8912
Hearing Date/Time: Thursday, February 21, 2008, 8:30 a.m.
Place: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa
78-128 Ehukai Street
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Re: Testimony of the ACLU of Hawaii ReAardinA County of Hawaii Bill No.
224 Relating to Prohibition of Smokinr in Certain Places
Dear Council Members:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii ("ACLU of Hawaii") takes no position on
Bill Number 224. We write today only to clarify that there is no constitutional right to smoke.
It is clear that tobacco smoke causes irritation to the eyes, nose, throat and/or lungs of many non-
smokers. The ACLU believes these harms are sufficient to justify carefully tailored government
regulation of smoking in public places.
The mission of the ACLU of Hawaii is to protect the fundamental freedoms enshrined in
the U.S. and State Constitutions. The ACLU of Hawaii fulfills this through legislative, litigation,
and public education programs statewide. The ACLU of Hawaii is a non-partisan and private
non-profit organization that provides its services at no cost to the public and does not accept
government funds. The ACLU of Hawaii has been serving Hawaii for over 40 years.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Sincerely,
<";
Daniel M. Gluck
Senior Staff Attorney
ACLU of Hawaii
American Civil Liberties Unlon of Hawarl
P.O. Box 3410
Honolulu, Hawal'I 96801
T: 808.5225900
F: 808.5223909
E: office@acluhawail.org
www.acluhawaii.org
• Columnists
• Their View
¦ Yourvkws COMMENT
. . '7iow many of those battle deaths could have
'
¦ Their View
been prevented, remains a subject of debate
since wars often must be.fottght to prew" .
independence and.fteedban.
There is no debate, however, on the number
Pt an. cjimnd u of tobacco-related deaths "that can be prevented
- all of them.
A major obstacle in establishing an inter-
national affoit to reduce tobacco dimths. was.
.
spelled out in the WHO tepeat. Gavequtrerits r
to tob : v t S . around the world collect more than $200 hit
gr lion in tobacco taxes every year. Out,&all
iv tkvk FlMeslYeNmxerklt2. those' revenues. the iepott'said less than:o$e
fifth of L percent of that revenue is speni on
he United States should wrbrle with, ft
United Nations to-peas:tolaac¢I 'aon- tobacco control,
proliferation treaties. That hcolil come %e no surprise to out- Amer!
The World Heialth O rga~4ttion cans who have their restraign out
estimates tobacop use will kill I•billion of they way to avoid .piacing placing restraints. on the
I pa- tobacco mpanies that pump campaign dona-
in the 21st-century unless gover tunenta'a ggre
sivdly,curb'tke spread andttse.of ti ft ew Lions in, campaign coffers.
Responsible In 1965,.cigar6M packages manufacturer! I w".
' in the United:states were mq*W to carry a
imperative to prtrstietieadaa to ttie:. warning label that said: "G4gatatee antokurg
of arms ands nuclear weapon fee' gte may be hazardiw's to your hesltlr'
humanity. They ahattld make.,an:. In 1970, the waif labels'were.cbauged to
effort to vanquish tobacco.
products fur the say; "Me surgron'ge. p" has dereratitreil.that
Sallie reason. cigarette' smoking is'eiat,+ous.to your }ieelth:'
The WHO These warning lalsels'.vw a:boon to Ameri-
Report on the can tobacco companies.'` j' Jae, bels were used
Global Tobac- to prevail over lawsuits attempting to recover
13pidemic, damages for the death and asn stag caused by
2008, according Cigarette slcing:
co
to The Associ- Their uwAompts were warned, argued the
ated Press, urges ell; tobacco coxupaaietr,. a4d7dsey. emoe'to ignore .
nations to dramatically the warnings.
increase efforts to,pro- Despite the lards of asaistanpo'ltom the
. .
vent young people from. nation's capital, lawststs.started gmug bit
beginning your to smoke, kelp the tobacco industry: Cities steCea.atrR.basirim
smokers quit and protect b leaders successfully pushed fbr laws. ordinance
nonsmokers from: exposure es and rules that curbed smoking.
n
n secondhand smoke. In 2006, a federal 'judge ruled that tobacco
Many people are willing ebmpanies have violated civil racketeering
to accept hundreds-of thousands of needless. laws by conspiring for decades to,deceive the
deaths annually when it comes to the usp of . . public about the dangers of their-product.
tobacco but deeply'moutn only a fractign_ .of. A Harvard study. early this year concluded
deaths sattaed•by tuilitaty aFdAri: thatcigacette'matets have'fot.years delilxa'
Oww
Though government' studies. estueagte:iliat make them rteamtore oreaddw addicttive.vb.' s:~.cigatittea.to
'
500,000 Americans die every year from'.tobac-
co-related diseases, Cbn s refuses to give Congress still iefoses to give the FDA pow-
er to regulate tobwoo pptodacts that are i ncrem-
the Food and Drug Adnds. Mon. the Power
to regulate tobacco pEoducxs. ingly being, marketed iq forma, eauuttilelr.: `
In a 16-month period, :mm Americans are U*-%'the Unlted Stelae waft • stitb.the
killed by tobacco than all the cornbinod battle United Nations to co; htwl the sprea$ #nd' use of
rte Civil War,. tobacco-prgducts Ott it apps tikely..
deaths that oce»rreatl„dtrgrlg. that tobacco. will people by 2100.
World War I World War II and ttie Korean . "
War, as well as the wars in Viem m,;Ptfg' *A- kowkmi Nethaway writes Cox Now SkrAx
Stan and Iraq. The total battle deaths of those - wars come to 642,447,
FACT SHEET: Outdoor Air PoUndon From Secondhand Smoke
James L. Repace
Visiting Assistant Professor, Tufts University School of Medicine
and Repace Associates, Inc.
101 Felicia Lane, Bowie, MD 20720 U.S.A.
<www.renaee.com>
1. Tobacco smoke contains at least 172 toxic substances, including 3 regulated
outdoor air pollutants, 33 Hazardous Air Pollutants, 47 Chemicals restricted as
Hazardous Waste and 67 Known Human or Animal Carcinogens (Repace, 2006).
This is true whether tobacco smoke is inhaled in the act of smoking, or inhaled by
nonsmokers out of the air indoors or outdoors.
2. The concentration of tobacco smoke pollution of buildings [secondhand smoke
(SHS)] is governed by the density of smokers and by the ventilation rate.
Tobacco smoke pollution outdoors or outdoor tobacco smoke (OTS) is
determined by the density of smokers, the wind velocity (direction and speed),
and the stablity of the atmosphere.
3. SHS concentrations persist for hours after smoking ceases indoors, while OTS
concentrations dissipate rapidly after smoking stops outdoors. However, during
smoking, OTS levels outdoors may be as high as SHS indoors.
4. A limited number of controlled experiments and field studies of OTS have been
conducted in California, Europe, in the Caribbean, and in Maryland:
• California (1). The California Air Resources Board study (CARB, 2006),
measured OTS nicotine concentrations outside an airport, college, government
center, office complex, and amusement park. CARB found that at these typical
outdoor locations, Californians may be exposed to OTS levels as high as indoor
SHS concentrations. CARB found that OTS was strongly affected by counts of
the number of smokers and moderately affected by the size of the smoking area
and the measured wind speed. The CARB study indicated that OTS
concentrations are detectable and sometimes comparable to indoor concentrations,
and demonstrates that the number of cigarettes being smoked (i.e., total source
strength), the position of smokers relative to the receptor, and atmospheric
conditions can lead to substantial variation in average exposures. CARB declared
that OTS is a "toxic air contaminant."
• California (2). Klepeis, et al. (2007) measured OTS respirable particle
concentrations in outdoor patios, on airport and city sidewalks, and in parks.
They also conducted controlled experiments of SHS indoors and OTS outdoors.
Klepeis et al. (2007) found that mean SHS particle concentrations outdoors can be
comparable to SHS indoors. Within about 2 feet of a smoker OTS was quite high
and comparable to SHS concentrations measured indoors. They found that levels
measured in 2 sidewalk caf6s were detectable at distances beyond 13 feet. They
found that in contrast to SHS, OTS does not accumulate and that OTS peaks are
more sensitive to source-receptor proximity and wind velocity. Thus, long-term
averages for OTS concentrations are averaged over a large number of transient
peaks, which only occur when smokers are active, whereas indoor concentrations
remain high long after cigarettes have ended, and the total dose to a person
indoors from each cigarette will be greater than for a cigarette smoked outdoors.
Klepeis et al. (2007) found upwind OTS concentrations very low and downwind
OTS much higher.
• Denmark. Boffi et al. (2006) measured OTS respirable particle pollution in a car
park (open space), outdoors in front of a conference center with smokers under a
roof (18 smokers during a measurement time of 35 min), indoors in the
nonsmoking conference center, along the motorway to Copenhagen city centre,
and inside a Copenhagen restaurant where smoking was allowed. Bof t et al.
(2006) found that mean values observed with smokers in front of the conference
center were significantly higher than the outdoor parking place, indoor conference
center, motorway and Copenhagen outdoor official data.
• Finland. Repace and Rupprecht (13 WCTOH, 2006 ) measured OTS respirable
particle pollution in Five outdoor cafes and on city streets in downtown Helsinki.
They found that air pollution levels in Helsinki outdoor cafes with many smokers
during August 2003 were 5 to 20 times higher than on the sidewalks of busy
streets polluted by bus, truck, and auto traffic.
• Maryland. Repace (2005) measured outdoor fine particle and carcinogen
concentrations from OTS on the campus of the University of Maryland at
Baltimore. Using controlled experiments, Repace (2005) found that cigarette
smoke RSP concentrations decline approximately inversely with distance
downwind from the point source, whereas cigarette smoke carcinogen
concentrations decline approximately inversely as the square of the distance from
source to receptor. The experiments showed that OTS smoke levels did not
approach background levels either for fine particles or carcinogens until about 23
feet from the source.
• Caribbean: Experiments conducted on a cruise ship underweigh at 20 knots at sea
in the Caribbean showed that OTS in various smoking-permitted outdoor areas of
the ship tripled the level of carcinogens to which nonsmokers were exposed
relative to indoor and outdoor areas in which smoking did not occur, despite the
strong breezes and unlimited dispersion volume. Moreover, outdoor smoking
areas were contaminated with carcinogens to nearly the same extent as a popular
casino on board in which smoking was permitted (Repace, 2005).
5. Conclusions: Field studies plus controlled experiments demonstrate that,
regardless of which way the wind blows, an individual in an outdoor cafe,
transiting through a building doorway, or otherwise surrounded by a group of
smokers, is always downwind from the source. They also show that under some
conditions, outdoor levels of tobacco smoke (OTS) can be as high as indoor levels
of secondhand smoke (SHS). Outdoor smoking bans are already common in
Canada (Figure below).
NEWS Second-hand smoke campaigns target
BUSINESS great outdoors
SPORTS Last Updated Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:04:14 EST
AR(SkEN1AiNMENi C8C News
WEATHER Smoking has been banned in workplaces, restaurants and
HEALTH ASCIENCE theatres, leaving the great outdoors as the next frontier for
anti-smoking campaigns.
CRC ARCHIVES
Km "People understand the concept of air pollution, that it may be
everywhere," said Roberta Ferrence of the Ontario Tobacco
TEENS Research Unit and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
FROGRArtGuVE in Toronto. "Somehow withl second-hand smoke outdoors
E4&4& EYYSiEFIERS they feel it's magically whisked away, and it isn't."
SERVICES Newfoundland and
CONTACT US Labrador, and Nova
ABOUT CDC Scotia are working on
provincewide bans on
smoking on
restaurant patios,
which is already the
law in 16
municipalities across
Canada.
The governments
have acted although
there is little
published research on
levels of outdoor
second-hand smoke
or its health
implications (CP file photo)
References:
CaIEPA, 2006. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, State of California Proposed Identification of, Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air
Contaminant As Approved by the Scientific Review Panel, on June 24, 2005.
Klepeis, et al. (2007) Real-Time Measurement of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke
ParticlesJ. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 57:522-534
Repace (2005) Indoor and Outdoor Carcinogen Pollution on a Cruise Ship in the
Presence and Absence of Tobacco Smoking Presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the International Society of
Exposure Analysis, Oct. 17-21, Philadelphia, PA.
Reprice JL and Rupprecht AA. Outdoor Air Pollution From Secondhand Smoke. Presented at the IP World Conference
on Tobacco Or Health, Washington, DC, July 12-15,2006.
Reprice JL. Exposure to Secondhand Smoke. Chapter 9, In: Exposure Analysis, W Ott, A Steinmann, and L Wallace,
Eds. CRC Press (2006).
California: Officials in California Town Say Smoking Ban Is Working
Source: The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition, 2006-05-30 Author: SHEARON ROBERTS; ORDINANCE NO.
2006-217 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CALABASAS REGULATING SECOND-HAND SMOKE AND
AMENDING THE CALABASAS MUNICIPAL CODE..
Google Image Result for http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/images/cigbuttsljpg 3/10/08 2:17 AM
Cigarette
Butt
LMer o~c• rym..tti ,.llcr non>r
Cigarette Butts as Litter-Toxic as Well as Ugly
By Kathleen M. Register
This article first appeared in the publication "Underwater Naturalist"
Bulletin of the American Littoral Society, Volume 25, Number 2, August 2000
Cigarette butts are the
b most common form of
plastic litter on the
beaches of the U.S. and
world-wide. Toxic
chemicals can leach out
of the cigarette filters.
" photo copynghted by Chns
Register.
Introduction
Every beach-goer has seen them-cigarette butts littering the shore. Beyond being unsightly, does cigarette
litter present a threat to organisms? This article summarizes research conducted to determine if the
compounds in discarded cigarette butts (the filters and remnant tobacco) are biohazards to the water flea
(Daphnia magna). Short-term bioassays (48 hours) using the water flea as the test organism were conducted.
The results indicate that the chemicals released into freshwater environments from cigarette butts are lethal to
Daphnia at concentrations of 0.125 cigarette butts per liter (one butt per two gallons of water).
Smokers discard billions of cigarette butts yearly, tossing many directly into the environment. Cigarette butts
accumulate outside of buildings, on parking lots and streets where they can be transported through storm
drains to streams, rivers, and beaches.
Some background on cigarettes
95% of cigarette filters are made of cellulose acetate, a plastic slow to degrade. Cellulose acetate fibers are
thinner than sewing thread, white, and packed tightly together to create a filter; they can look like cotton.
Cigarette filters are specifically designed to absorb vapors and to accumulate particulate smoke components.
Cultivated tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum, is a member of the nightshade family of plants. It is a broadleaf native
http://Images.google.comiimgres?lmgurl-http://www.longwood.edu/cl...%3DClgarette%2BLItter%2Bon%2BBeaches%26um%3D1%26h1%3Den%26sa%3DX Page 1 of 8
Google Image Result for http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/images/cigbuttsl.jpg 3/10/08 2:17 AM
of tropical America cultivated as an annual.
Cigarette filters may look like
cotton, but are made of cellulose
acetate, a plastic that is slow to
degrade in the environment.
Cigarette filters are specifically
" designed to accumulate
particulate smoke components
including toxic chemicals. Photo
copyrighted by Chris Register.
Depending on the type of tobacco and its growing location, the leaves of the tobacco plant can have different
tastes, burning properties, aromas, color, and nicotine content. Tobacco leaves contain several alkaloids,
including the highly toxic alkaloid nicotine. Nicotine is a powerful insecticide and among the deadliest of all plant
products in its pure form. According to the US Department of
Health and Human
Services, it raises blood pressure, affects the central nervous system, and constricts blood vessels in humans.
Nicotine is a colorless liquid highly soluble in water, and readily absorbed through the skin in its pure form.
Potentially hundreds of additives are mixed with tobacco during the manufacturing process. Additives to
smoking tobacco include flavorings and humectants used to keep tobacco moist. According to a publication
written for the tobacco industry, additives can constitute ten percent of the weight of the "tobacco" portion of
a cigarette, and four percent of the entire cigarette. A widely used cigarette additive is menthol, which provides
flavor and serves as an anesthetic. When burned, many additives form new compounds, possessing unique
properties. The "tar" often referred to in connection with cigarettes is not a black petroleum tar product, but
instead refers to the hundreds of substances and additives found in tobacco. Tar, when cool, is a sticky yellow-
brown substance and the US Department of Health and Human Services states that it is composed of organic
and inorganic chemicals, including some carcinogens. The complete list of 1,400 potential tobacco additives,
which include sweeteners and flavors such as cocoa, rum, licorice, sugar, and fruit juices is considered a trade
secret. Since tobacco is not classified as a food or drug, there are no legal maximums on agricultural chemicals
or chemical additives cigarettes may contain.
Emergence of the issue
Cigarette butts accumulate in the environment due to the popularity of plastic cigarette filters and the habit
some smokers have to "toss their butt" rather than use ashtrays. Prior to 1954, most cigarettes were non-
filtered. In the mid-1950s, sales of filtered cigarettes increased dramatically as the cause-effect relationship
between smoking and cancer was reported extensively in the press. Before these reports, in 1950, sales of
filtered cigarettes in the US were 1.5% of all cigarette sales. Now, more than 97% of cigarettes sold in the U
.S. have filters.
The recent bans on indoor smoking have also appeared to cause a shift in cigarette butt deposition.
Circumstantial evidence indicates that more cigarette butts are accumulating outside of buildings due to the
popularity of indoor smoking bans. In Australia, cigarette butts account for 50% of all litter, a trend that the
executive director of Keep Australia Clean blames partly on indoor no-smoking policies.
http://Images.google.com/lmgres]Imguri-http://www.longwood.edu/cl...%3DCigarette%2BLitter%26on%2BBeaches%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX Page 2 of 8
Google Image Result for http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/images/cigbuttsljpg 3/10/08 2:17 AM
How many discarded cigarette butts are there? Trillions. Global tobacco consumption has more than
doubled in the last 30 years, and world cigarette production reached a record high in 1997 according to the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The USDA estimated that in 1998, 470 billion cigarettes were consumed in the US; world cigarette production
was 5.608 trillion. The World Health Organization estimates that 1.1 billion people in the world smoke-that is
one third of all people on earth over the age of 15.
The 470 billion cigarettes smoked in the United States in 1998 translates to a total of 176,250,000 pounds of
discarded butts in one year in the United States alone. The filters from 5.608 trillion cigarettes (approximate
world production) would weigh more than 2.1 billion pounds (Table 1). This figure does not include the weight
of the tobacco still attached to the filter, or the packaging, matches, disposable lighters, and other "collateral"
waste that is generated by smoking.
The filters on one pack of 20 cigarettes weigh 0.12 ounces (with no tobacco attached) and displaces a volume
of 10 ml. With annual worldwide production of cigarettes at 5.608 trillion, the potential weight and volume of
cigarette butts becomes enormous (Table 1).
Similarly, cigarette butts take up a large volume of space. If one person smokes a pack and a half a day, he will
consume more than 10,000 cigarettes in a year. This number of cigarette butts (filters only-not including
remnant tobacco) will fill a volume of five liters. Worldwide annual consumption of cigarettes creates enough
cigarette butt waste to fill more than 2,800,000,000 liters (2,800,000 m3).
number of filters ounces/pounds milliliters/liters
20(one pack) .12 oz 10 ml
10,000(one year's consumption for one 3.75 Ibs 5 liters
smoker)
1,000,000 375 Ibs 500 liters
100,000,000 37,500 lbs 50,000 liters
10,000,000,000 3,750,000 lbs 5,000,000 liters
465,000,000,000(Number of cigarettes 174,375,000 Ibs 232,500,000
smoked in the US in 1998) liters
1,000,000,000,000 375,000,000 lbs 500,000,000
liters
5,608,000,000,000 2 804,000,000
2,103,000,000 Ibs liters
(1998 world cigarette production)
Table 1-Weight and Volume of Discarded Cigarette Filters. The percentage of cigarettes with filters varies,
depending on the country.
Number of filters
There is one measure as to how many cigarette butts are finding their way into streams, rivers, and coastal
environments. The International Coastal Cleanup Day, organized annually by the Center for Marine Conservation,
involves more than 500,000 volunteers picking up debris from beaches, rivers, and streams around the world.
[Note: in July 2001, the Center for Marine Conservation changed its name to The Ocean Conservancy.]
Volunteers complete Marine Debris Data Cards indicating the quantity and type of litter they pick up. Cigarette
butts were the most common debris item collected during the international cleanup, numbering 1,616,841 in
1998. Cigarette butts have topped the list in all CIVIC International Coastal Cleanups since they were added to
h"p://Images.googie.com/lmgres?imgurl=http://www.longwood.edu/cl...%3DClgarette%28Lltter%28on%2BBeaches%26um%3D1%26hl%3Deri%26sa%3D% Page 3 of 8
Google Image Result for http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/Images/cigbuttsl.jpg 3/10/08 2:17 AM
the Data Cards as a separate item in 1990.
Because of the vast inflow of cigarette butts into the environment, experiments were conducted to determine
if cigarette butts as litter present an environmental problem beyond aesthetics and have a measurable toxic
effect when they enter the aquatic environment.
A series of bioassays (tests which use the response of a living organism to determine the effective level of a
chemical in the environment) were conducted. One of the organisms most studied in aquatic bioassays is the
planktonic animal Daphnia magna, often called a water flea. Static acute toxicity tests using D. magna have
been widely used for decades to estimate the acute toxicity of chemicals to aquatic invertebrates. In aquatic
ecosystems, water fleas occupy a critical position as they transfer energy and organic matter from primary
producers (algae) to higher consumers such as fishes. Water fleas are small transparent crustaceans, have one
central black compound eye, and swim in jerky motions. They feed by rhythmically beating their legs, collecting
algae or bacteria on the filter-like bristles on their thoracic legs, and passing the food toward their mouths.
The Experiments
The large number of chemicals in used cigarette filters precluded toxicity testing of each chemical. Thus, a test
that can estimate aquatic toxicity from the composite of chemicals and compounds found in cigarette butts
was used.
Using the US, Environmental Protection Agency's 1996 "Aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test for freshwater
daphnids" standardized toxicology protocols and procedures, water fleas were introduced to petri dishes filled
with dilution water and the test solution. For these experiments, the test solution was made by soaking the
components of cigarette butts (remnant tobacco or the cellulose-acetate filters) in distilled, de!onized water,
and allowing the chemicals in the butts to leach into the water. Water fleas in the petri dishes were observed at
24 and 48 hours. In addition to death, any abnormal behavior or appearance was also recorded.
The transparent crustacean Daphnia
(often called a water flea) are
planktonic animals which occupy a
critical position in aquatic
ecosystems, as they transfer energy
and organic matter from algae to
Y higher consumers. Tests using
Daphnia have been widely used for
¢ decades to estimate acute toxicity.
1 Daphnia Illustration O by Chris
Register
Do Not Copy or Reproduce Without
Permission from Clean Virginia
Waterways!
Click here to learn more about water
fleas.
Data collected during the experiments were used to develop dose-response curves. Data were also used to
determine the experimentally derived toxicant concentration producing death to 50% of the test population
during continuous exposure over a specified period of time. This is referred to as the "Lethal Concentrations
50" values (LC50). LCO means no animals died, and LC100 means they all died. Lethal Concentrations provide
a quantifiable measure and precise expression of toxicity.
http://Images.google.com/imgres?imgurl-http://www.longwood.edu/cl...%3DClgarette%28Lltter%2Bon%2BBeaches%26um%3D3%26h%3Den%26sa%3DX Page 4 of 8
Google Image Result for http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/Images/clgbuttsl.jpg 3/10/08 2:17 AM
Each test included controls consisting of the same conditions, procedures, and daphnids from the same
population. The only difference being that none of the test chemical was added.
Prior to conducting the definitive experiments, three range-finding tests (preliminary hazard assessments) were
conducted to establish parameters for the acute toxicity tests. The range-finding tests established test
solution concentrations and leaching periods. The definitive tests had four components:
Experiment A - Used filters. To establish if the chemicals in used cigarette filters produce death in Daphnia
after exposure to a specific concentration for a specified period of time. Remnant tobacco was removed from
cigarette butts for this test. Filters from two cigarette butts were soaked in 500 ml of distilled, deionized water
for one hour at room temperature. Twenty daphnids were exposed to each concentration level: 4, 2, 1, 0.5,
0.25, 0.125 butts per liter.
Experiment B - Remnant tobacco. To establish if the chemicals in the tobacco found in smoked, discarded
cigarette butts produce death in Daphnia after exposure to a specific concentration for a specified period of
time. Remnant tobacco (totaling 28 mm) from two cigarette butts was soaked in 500 ml of water for one hour
at room temperature. Twenty daphnids were exposed to each concentration level: 4, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.125
butts per liter.
Experiment C - New, unused filters. To establish if the chemicals in new, unused cigarette filters produce
death in Daphnia after exposure to a specific concentration for a specified period of time. No tobacco was used
in Experiment C. Daphnia were exposed to the chemicals that were leached out of new, unused filters to
determine if any of the compounds in new filters were toxic to Daphnia. New filters were soaked in distilled,
deionized water for one hour at room temperature. Twenty daphnids were exposed to each concentration level:
16, 8, 4, 2, 1, and 0.5 filters per liter.
Experiment D - Cigarette butts' effects on the pH of freshwater. To determine if the presence of
cigarette butts in freshwater changes the pH of the water. pH is an important factor to aquatic animals, and
can affect the toxicity of pollutants. For this experiment, one cigarette butt (the filter plus 28 mm of remnant
tobacco) was soaked for one hour in 100 ml of spring water at room temperature. The pH of the water was
measured before and after the one-hour soak using a Hach brand pH tester that had been calibrated just prior
to the test.
Results
Experiment A (filter only). In this "filter only" experiment, 100% of the animals died after 48 hours in the
concentrations that were equivalent to the chemicals found in two or more used cigarette filters per liter. In the
25% dilution, equivalent to one cigarette filter per liter of water, 20% of the Daphnia died within 48 hours. The
LC50 was, therefore, between one and two used cigarette filters per liter. In concentrations of one used filter
per liter and greater, deposits of material were noted on the swimming hairs of some Daphnia.
Experiment B (remnant tobacco only). In this "tobacco only" experiment, 100% of the animals died after 48
hours in the concentrations that were equivalent to the remnant tobacco from 0.5 or more cigarette butts per
liter. In the solution that represented the remnant tobacco from 0.25 cigarette butts per liter, 80% of the
animals were dead after 48 hours. In the most dilute solution, representing 0.125 remnant tobacco cigarette
butts per liter, 15% of the Daphnia died in the testing period. The LC50 was, therefore, between 0.25 and
0.125 remnant tobacco cigarette butts per liter.
Comparing Experiments A & B. In both experiments, the swimming patterns of affected Daphnia resulted in a
departure from the normal hop-sink swimming pattern. Before dying, some affected individuals whirled in one
place, while others lay on the bottom, ineffectually beating their swimming hairs, but unable to produce net
movement.
http://Images.google.com/Imgres7lmgurl-http://www.longwood.edu/cl...%3DCigarette%26Litter%26on%26Beaches%26um%3D3%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX Page 5 of 8
Google Image Result for http://vw .longwood.edu/cleanva/images/cigbuttsljpg 3/10/08 2:17 AM
In the high and mid-range concentrations (0.25 to 4 cigarette butts per liter) of the tobacco-only group,
Daphnia developed dark deposits or accumulations on their swimming hairs (setae) at 24 hours. Some Daphnia
with this dark substance on their swimming hairs floated without attempting to swim, and several frequently
became stuck together in groups. Deposits also formed on the animals in the filter-only group. These deposits
were lighter colored and occurred only in the test solutions that were two or more filters per liter.
As seen in Figure 1, significant differences in acute toxicity among treatments were evident after 48 hours of
exposure. The survival rates of the water flea were poorest in the tobacco-only test solutions. Acute toxicity at
48 hours was higher in the higher concentrations for both remnant tobacco and the cigarette filters. This
indicates that the tobacco has a greater toxicity than the filters. For both tobacco and filters, the toxicity
increased dramatically over a small interval. Such a steep slope of the dose-mortality curve indicates that
individuals within a species will behave very similarly to each other in their response to the chemical (whereas a
shallow slope of the curve indicates considerable variation in susceptibility to that particular chemical within a
species).
Figure 1 Dose-mortality curve at 48 hours for the filter only and tobacco only doses.
Experiment C (new filters). The survival rates of the water fleas after 48 hours of emersion were poorest in the
solutions with the higher concentrations of filters. But even at the highest concentrations of 16 new cigarette
filters per liter of water, death rates were less than 50 percent.
Findings in control animals. At the conclusion of Experiments A, B and C, all water fleas in the control groups
were alive, maintained a vigorous swimming pattern, and did not whirl or accumulate a dark substance on their
swimming hairs.
Experiment D (effects of cigarette butts on pH). The pH of the tested water was 6.6 before cigarette butts
were added, and remained 6.6 after cigarette butts soaked in the water for one hour. The presence of cigarette
butts did not change the pH of the water.
Results of experiments
Given that exact real-world exposure of water fleas to cigarette butts is unknown, the tests done in this study
cannot attempt to imitate the actual exposure. It is possible that the concentrations used in this study
exaggerate the duration and dosage of exposure. It is recognized that exaggerating exposure can result in
distortion, but it is felt by the author that the results of the experiments reveal relevant patterns.
Experiments A and B show that the chemicals in cigarette butts are acutely toxic to water fleas at
concentrations higher than 0.125 cigarette butts per liter of water. This translates to one cigarette butt per 8
liters, or approximately one butt per two gallons of water. In addition, the evidence was strong that the
remnant tobacco in cigarette butts is a principal factor determining the mortality, although the compounds in
used cigarette filters also have a lethal effect on the water flea. The presence of the remnant tobacco from
just one-half a cigarette butt per liter was enough to kill 100% of the animals, while it took the filters from two
cigarette butts per liter to have the same 100% fatal outcome. The dark deposits that formed on the
swimming hairs and affected the swimming patterns of the water flea suggest that this should be studied to
determine if these deposits constitute a physical, rather than toxic, effect from this source of pollution.
The results of Experiment C indicate that the components of new cigarette filters are toxic only at
concentrations very much higher than used filters. Even at a concentration of 16 new filters per liter (the
equivalent of 64 new filters per gallon), the chemicals that leached from the filters killed less than 50% of the
water flea. While the components of new cigarette filters may contribute to the total toxicity of cigarette
butts, the chemicals and compounds that are absorbed by the filters during the act of smoking are responsible
for most of the deaths associated with cigarette butts' filters.
http://Images.google.com/imgres7lmgurl-http://www.longwood.edu/cl...%3DClgarette%2BLitter%2Bon%2BBeaches%26um%3D3%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX Page 6of8
Google Image Result for http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/Images/cigbuttsl.jpg 3/10/08 2:17 AM
The results of Experiment D show that the presence of cigarette butts in freshwater do not affect the pH of
the water. This indicates that the chemicals leached from cigarette butts do not kill water fleas simply due to a
change in the pH of the water.
Conclusions
Cigarette butts are the most common type of litter on earth. Collected, they weigh in the millions of pounds.
The toxic chemicals absorbed by cigarettes' cellulose acetate filters and found in butts' remnant tobacco, are
quickly leached from the butts by water.
The evidence indicates that the toxic chemicals leached from discarded cigarette butts present a biohazard to
the water flea at concentrations of more than 0.125 butts per liter, or about one butt per two gallons of water.
The leachate from the remnant tobacco portion of a cigarette butt is deadlier at smaller concentrations than
are the chemicals that leach out of the filter portion of a butt.
Implications of research
The experiments summarized in this article are just the preliminary steps to fully understanding the impact
cigarette litter has on our aquatic environment.
With cigarette butts identified as a biohazard, governmental agencies, environmental organizations, and anti-
litter groups could educate smokers that littering cigarette butts causes harm to the environment.
Cigarette butts in the environment is a litter issue-not a smoking issue. Just as the manufacturers of sodas
have no control over the consumer's disposal of empty cans or bottles, cigarette manufacturers cannot control
a smoker's behavior when it comes to the disposal of cigarette butts. Just as beverage manufacturers
contribute to litter prevention campaigns, and have invested in public education on litter issues, so too should
the tobacco industry. Thus far, cigarette manufacturers have made small efforts at litter prevention education.
They need to take an active and responsible role in educating smokers about this issue and devote resources to
the cleanup of cigarette litter. Strategies can include anti-litter messages on all packaging and advertisements,
distribution of small, free portable ashtrays, and placement and maintenance of outdoor ashtrays in areas
where smokers gather. Maybe cigarette packages can be redesigned to accommodate discarded butts.
In some states, consumers pay a small "anti-litter tax" every time they purchase a canned or bottled beverage.
These funds support anti-litter efforts. A similar tax on cigarette purchases would go a long way toward funding
campaigns aimed at eliminating the littering of butts. Picking up littered cigarette butts costs schools,
businesses, and park agencies money. By taxing smokers for anti-litter educational efforts, some of the costs of
cleaning up cigarette butts will shift onto smokers.
Smokers who now treat outdoor spaces as public ashtrays may reconsider their behavior when they learn that
cigarette butts are made of plastic, not of cotton and paper; and worse, that cigarette butts contain chemicals
that can kill some of the animals that occupy critical positions in aquatic communities. It is important that
smokers' littering behavior be modified to decrease this source of pollution.
About the Author:
Kathleen Register is the founder and executive director of Clean Virginia Waterways, and coordinates the
International Coastal Cleanuo in Virginia. She is an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Natural
Sciences at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia. Ms. Register has a master's degree from George Mason
University in Environmental Resources and Policy, and is co-author of the U.S. EPA's Estuary Monitoring: A
Methods Manua/ and Virainia's Water Resources: A Tool for Teachers. To contact the author, please send an e-
mail to cleanva@longwood.edu or call 434-395-2602.
Quoting this Article:
http:l/Images.gonte.com/imgfes7lmgurl-http:l/www.ton"ood.edulcl...%3DClgarette%2BL1ttet%2Bon%2BBeaches%26um%3D1%26hB63Den%26sa%3DX Page 7 of 8
Google Image Result for http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/Images/cigbuttsl.jpg 3/10/08 2:17 AN
Permission is granted to reprint all or part of this article provided credit is given to the author and to
"Underwater Naturalist, Bulletin of the American Littoral Society." The photographs and the drawing of a
Daphnia may not be reprinted in any publication or used on any web site without written permission from the
artist. For more information, contact cleanva@lonawood.edu.
Students and Teachers:
Return to Cigarette Butt Litter Home Paae Are you interested in doing a
Return to Clean Virainia Waterways science fair project on cigarette
litter? Click here for ideas and
information.
Compiled by Clean Virginia Waterways, Longwood University, Farmville, VA 23909
434-395-2602 Fax: 434-395-2625 Email: cleanva@longwood.edu
http://Images.google.com/imgres?lmguri-http://www.longwwd.edu/cl...%3DCigarette%2BLItter%26on%2BBeaches%26um%3D1%26h1%3Den%26sa%3DX Page 8of8
=AMERICAN NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Defentlng yaw light to bwft sm*Aw air since 1976
Municipalities with Smokefree Beach Laws
as of January 2, 2008, by date of enactment
This list includes those municipalities that specified that all city beaches and/or specifically named city
beaches are smokefree. The list does not include those municipalities that have restricted smoking to
certain areas of beaches.
1. Sharon MA May-1995
- - - -
2 Westford AMA September-1998
3. Grafton i MA j February-1999
4. Dover Township 1 NJ March-1999
5. Madison VIA March-2001
6. Bloomington 1 MN I June-2001
7. Braintree ` MA July-2001
8. Surf City Borough NJ October-2001
9. Seaside Park NJ December-2001
10. Upton 'MA June 2002
11. Holliston ; MA July-2002
12. Mount Arlington Borough NJ May-2003
13. Lavallette Borough NJ June-2003
14. Santa Monica CA April-2004
15. Los Angeles CA May-2004
16. Los Angeles County I CA June-2004
17. Carpinteria CA August-2004
18. Fergus Falls MN August-2004
19. Capitola CA September-2004
20. Laguna Beach CA October-2004
21. Manhattan Beach -CA October-2004
22 Santa Cruz CA October-2004
23 Brick Township NJ March-2005
24. Battle Lake _ MN _ June 2005
25. Gilford NH June-2005
26. El Segundo ACA--- August-2005
27. Ship Bottom Borough NJ August-2005
28. Seal Beach CA September-2005
29. Carmel CA November-2005
30. Del Mar I CA February-2006
31. Pacific Grove CA February-2006
- A -
32. Monterey CA At - - - - April-2006
33. Imperial Beach CA 1 May-2008
34. Torrance CA May-2006
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J • Berkeley, California 9472002 • (510) 841-320032 ! FAX (510) 841-320071
www.no-smoke.org • am@no-smoke.org
Page 1 of 2
35. Washington County MN May-2006
36. Hermosa Beach - CA June-2006
37. Morro Bay CA June-2006
38. Hoffman MN June-2006
39. Lake Forest IL August-2006
40. Howell MI August-2006
41. Pacifica CA September-2006
- - -
42. Sand City CA September-2006
43. Palos Verdes Estates i CA October-2006
44. Wilmette i IL November-2006
- -
45 San Diego - -CA---- December-2006
46. Hawaii County HI January-2007
47. Tyngsborough MA January-2007
48. San Mateo County CA I February-2007
49. Buffalo ~MN April-2007
50. Oceanside CA May-2007
51. Windham NH May-2007
52. Davis County UT j June-2007
53. Surfside Beach 1 SC July-2007
54. Des Moines i IA - - i August-2007
55. El Cajon CA August-2007-
- _
56. Belmont I CA I October-2007
57. Chicago I IL October-2007
While ANRF has been tracking smokefree laws since the mid-1980s, we didn't start tracking smokefrree beach laws until
recently, when these laws became more common. We will continue to review older laws that may have contained these
specific provisions, and to update this list to reflect our findings. If you know of a smokefree beach law that is not currently
listed here, please contact ANRP at (510) 841-3032 or anr@no-smoke.re.
May be reprinted with appropriate credit to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.
® Copyright 1998 - 2008 American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. All rights reserved.
Page 2 of 2
AMERICAN NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS FOUNDATION
DefeMing your right to breaths smokebw air since 1976
Municipalities with Smokefree Park Laws
as of January 2, 2008, by date of enactment
This list includes those municipalities that specified that all city parks and/or specifically named
city parks are smokefree. The list does not include those municipalities that have designated
smoking areas in city parks, those that provide coverage only a certain number of feet from
playgrounds or youth areas, and those that provide coverage only during youth events.
1. Coppell TX Undated ordinance
2. Vestavia Hills AL June-1993
3. Clayton CA September-1993
Monterey County CA February-1994
5. Salinas CA February-1994
6. Santa Cruz County CA June-1994
7. Watsonville CA July-1994
8. Sylvania OH January-1995
9. Palo Alto CA September-1995
10. Huntington Woods MI February-1996
11. Bellaire TX April-1996
12. Fultondale AL April-1996
13. West Warwick RI August-1997
14. North Richland Hills TX October-1997
15. Lindale TX April-1998
16. Lodi CA May-1998
17. Burleson TX September-1998
18. Farmers Branch TX September-1998
19. Shuqualak MS September-1998
20. Wellington FL May-1999
21. Greenville TX June-1999
22. San Ramon CA June-1999
23. Beverly Hills CA July-1999
24. Poulsbo WA August-1999
25. Bainbridge Island WA September-1999
26. Hightstown Borough NJ September-1999
27. Grants Pass OR January-2000
28. Swampscott MA May-2000
29. Grand Terrace CA June-2000 !
30. Largo FL September-2000
31. Amador County CA October-2000
32. Raritan Township NJ November4000
33. Sarasota County FL November-2000
34. Coral Springs FL December-2000 !
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J • Berkeley, California 94702 • (510) 841-3032 / FAX (510) 841-3071
www.no-smake.org • anrQno-smoke.org
Page 1 of 7
35. Silver City NM January-2001
36. Weston FL February-2001
37. Madison WI March-2001
38. Chipley FL April-2001
39. Whately MA April-2001
40. Beverly NJ May-2001
41. Mammoth Lakes CA June-2001
42. Sherwood OR June-2001
43. Braintree MA July-2001
44. Haltom City TX July-2001
45. West Orange township NJ August-2001
46. San Fernando CA September-2001
47. Los Alamitos CA December-2001
48. Seaside Park NJ December-2001
49. Ashland OR January-2002
50. Cohasset MN February-2002
51. Long Hill Township NJ February-2002
52. Kosciusko MS March-2002
53. Fremont MI April-2002
54. lone CA April-2002
55. Secaucus NJ April-2002
56. West Milford Township NJ May-2002
57. Carson CA June-2002
58. Effingham County GA June-2002
59. Union City NJ June-2002
60. Carlstadt Borough NJ July-2002
61. Dover Township NJ July-2002
62. Logan Township NJ August-2002
63. Bay Minette AL September-2002
64. Stafford Township NJ September-2002
65. East Greenwich NJ October-2002
66. Huntington Park CA October-2002
67. Woolwich Township NJ October-2002
68. Eden Prairie MN November-2002
69. Jackson Township NJ December-2002
70. Ceres CA January-2003
71. Concord NH January-2003
72. Laguna Niguel CA January-2003
73. Maple Grove MN January-2003
74. Berlin Township NJ March-2003
75. Shrewsbury Borough NJ March-2003
76. Zimmerman MN ]!a
r
ch-2003
77. Mount Arlington Borough ay-2003
Page 2 of 7
78. New Brighton 7NJJune-2003
79. Redlands 80. Reedley 81. Aitkin 82. Lavallette Borough 83. Eatontown Borough NJ July-2003
84. River Vale Township NJ July-2003
85. Saint Ignace MI July-2003
86. Livingston Township NJ September-2003
87. Manalapan Township NJ September-2003
88. Plymouth MN October-2003
9. Woodbury Heights Borough NJ October-2003
90. Benton AR November-2003
91. Millstone Township NJ November-2003
92. Pasadena CA 4November-2003
93. Hawthorne CA December-2003
94. Carbondale CO January-2004
95. Coon Rapids MN February-2004
96. Dover NH February-2004
97. Fowler CA February-2004
98. Gardena CA March-2004
99. Port Orange FL March-2004
100. Portland ME March-2004
101. Winters CA March-2004
102. Luverne MN April-2004
103. Champlin MN May-2004
104. International Falls MN May-2004
105. Marshall MN May-2004
106. Ramsey MN May-2004
107. Rutland VT May-2004
108. Shoreview MN May-2004
109. Baldwin Park CA June-2004
110. Anoka MN July-2004
111. Fairfax CA July-2004
112. Carpinteria CA August-2004
113. Columbia County WI August-2004 I
114. East Rutherford Borough NJ August-2004
115. Edina MN August-2004
116. Havre MT August 2004
117. Jackson CA August-2004
118. Ridgefield Borough NJ August-2004
119. Teaneck Township NJ August-2004
120. Andover MN September-2004
Page 3 of 7
121. Delran Township NJ September-2004
122. Moonachie Borough NJ September-2004
123. Russellville AR September-2004
124. Vineland City NJ October-2004
125. Harris County GA November-2004
126. Fresno CA December-2004
127. Robbinsdale MN December-2004
128. Winthrop ME December-2004
129. Arvada CO January-2005
130. Laguna Hills CA January-2005
131. Maplewood MN January-2005
132. El Monte CA February-2005
133. Hueytown AL February-2005
134. National City CA February-2005
135. San Francisco CA February-2005
136. Charles County MD March-2005
137. Logansport IN March-2005
138. Appleton WI April-2005
139. Huntsville AL April-2005
140. Monterey Park CA April-2005
141. Shreveport LA April-2005
142. Alexandria MN May-2005
143. Callaway MN May-2005
144. Headland AL May-2005
145. Battle Lake MN June-2005
146. Cerritos CA June-2005
147. Dayton MN June-2005
148. Douglasville GA June-2005
149. Muscatine IA June-2005
150. Athens- Clarke County GA July-2005
151. Buffalo Grove IL my-2005
152. Glendale CA July-2005
153. Holmdel Township NJ July-2005
154. Parkers Prairie MN July-2005
155. Woodland CA July-2005
156. Baton Rouge /East Baton Rouge Parish LA August-2005
157. New York Mills MN August-2005
158. Arden Hills MN September-2005
159. Seal Beach CA September-2005
160. Trussville AL September-2005
161. Gardendale AL November-2005
162. Deerfield IL December-2005
163. Urbandale IA December-2005
Page 4 of 7
164. Corvallis OR January-2006
165. Eagle County CO January-2006
166. Calabasas CA February-2006
167. Del Mar CA February-2006
168. St Joseph County IN February-2006
169. Upper Southampton Township PA February-2006
170. Ellsworth MN March-2006
171. Homewood AL March-2006
172. Irondale AL March-2006
173. Mendota Heights MN March-2006
174. Dassel MN April-2006
175. Elbow Lake MN April-2006
176. Laredo TX April-2006
177. Malden MA April-2006
178. Troy AL April-2006
179. Adrian MN May-2006
180. Imperial Beach CA May-2006
181. North St Paul MN May-2006
182. Culver City CA June-2006
183. Hoffman MN June-2006
184. Lindenhurst IL June-2006
185. Montevallo AL June-2006
186. Mounds View MN June-2006
187. Ashby MN July-2006
188. Baudette MN July-2006
189. La Mesa CA July-2006
190. Palmdale CA July-2006
191. Spring Lake Park MN July-2006
192. Yucaipa CA July-2006
193. Lake Forest IL August-2006
194. Libertyville IL August-2006
195. Smithfield UT August-2006
196. Crystal MN September-2006
197. Rexburg ID September-2006
198. Westbrook ME September-2006
199. Augusta ME October-2006
200. Bloomington MN October-2006
201. Chula Vista CA October-2006
202. Contra Costa County CA October-2006
203. Hawthorn Woods IL October-2006
204. Herman MN October-2006
205. Northbrook IL October-2006
206. Orland Park IL October-2006 i
Page 5 of 7
207. Palos Verdes Estates CA October-2006
208. Tinley Park IL October-2006
209. Wheaton IL October-2006
210. Firebaugh CA October-2006
211. Albert Lea MN November-2006
212. Hudson Falls NY November-2006
213. Salt Lake City UT November-2006
214. Santa Clarita CA November-2006
215, Wilmette IL November-2006
216. Bend OR December-2006
217. Colton CA December-2006
218. Emeryville CA December-2006
219. Mesilla NM December-2006
220. San Diego CA December-2006
221. San Diego County CA December-2006
222. Ham Lake MN January-2007
223. Indianola IA January-2007
224. Olmsted County MN January-2007
225. Tyngsborough MA January-2007
226. Chicago Heights IL February-2007
227. Ringwood NJ February-2007
228. San Mateo County CA February-2007
229. Shorewood WI February-2007
230. Linwood City NJ March-2007
231. Westchester IL March-2007
232. Atkins AR April-2007
233. Goshen IN April-2007
234. Bayou La Batre AL May-2007
235. Gulf Shores AL May-2007
236. Hastings MN May-2007
237. New Hope PA May-2007
238. Oceanside CA May-2007
239. Orange Beach AL May-2007
240. Simi Valley CA May-2007
241. Somerville MA May-2007
242. Temecula CA May-2007
243. Blue Lake CA June-2007
244. Davis County UT June-2007
245. Clovis CA July-2007
246. Jasper Al July-2007
247. Muskegon MI July-2007
248. Surfside Beach SC July-2007
249. Des Moines IA August-2007
Page 6 of 7
250. El Cajon 7NJugust-2007
251. Los angeles 252. Washington Township 253. McKinney 07
254. Prosper
007
255. Sugar Land TX September-2007
256. Wallingford CT September-2007
257. Watsonville CA September-2007
258. Belmont CA October-2007
259. McComb MS October-2007
260. Pearland TX November-2007
261. Oakland CA December-2007
262. Roseville CA December-2007
While ANRF has been tracking smokefree laws since the mid-1980s, we didn't start tracking smokefree park laws
specifically until recently, when these laws became more common. We will continue to review older laws that may
have contained these specific provisions, and to update this list to reflect our findings. If you know of a smokefrce
park law that is not currently listed here, please contact ANRF at (510) 841-3032 or anr@no-smoke.org.
May he reprinted with appropriate credit to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.
® Copyright 1998 - 2008 American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. All rights reserved.
Page 7 of 7
AMERICAN NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Defending your right to Mealhe smokefree air since 1976
Municipalities with Smokefree Zoo Laws
as of January 2, 2008, by date of enactment
1. Fort Wayne IN June-1998
2. Alexandria LA December-1998
3. Bridgeton NJ March-2000
4. Cape May County NJ February-2003
5. Albuquerque NM March-2003
6. Essex County NJ October-2005
7. Three Rivers MI April-2006
8. Socorro TX December-2006
9. Saint Louis MO December-2006
10, Bethany OK July-2007
11. Goshen IN April-2007
12. Plano TX April-2007
Note, Oklahoma State law prohibits smoking in all indoor and outdoor areas of zoos. See 21 O.S. Sec. 1247
(4/30/07).
While ANRF has been tracking smokefree laws since the mid-1980s, we didn't start tracking smokefree zoo laws until
recently, when these laws became more common. We will continue to review older laws that may have contained these
specific provisions, and to update this list to reflect our findings. If you know of a smokefree zoo law that is not currently listed
here, please contact ANRF at (510) 841-3032 or am ,no-smoke.om.
May be reprinted with appropriate credit to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.
® Copyright 1998 - 2008 American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. All rights reserved.
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J • Berkeley, California 94702 • (510) 841-3032 / FAX (510) 841-3071
www.no-smoke.org • am@no-smoke.org
Page 1 of 1
THESE BEACHES ARE ALL SMOKING PROHIBITED.
THESE BEACHES ARE ALL IN JAPAN.
? i>-7 ,
~I
m
~ Yr2
® Kotobikihama Beach, Kyoto Prefecture
® Sun Beach. Shizuoka Prefecture
® Sunoreso Beach, Miyagi Prefecture
® Takeno Beach, Hyogo Prefecture
02007 Mark A. Levin