HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0746.022 2000-2002 Page 1 of 2
l4~aan laent~ty
From: "Mildred L.Y. Lum" <mlylum@mail.health.state.hi.us>
1Po: "Sandy McGuinness" <sandramaui@aol.com>; "Julian lipsher" <jdlipshe@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "tina tamai"
<tltamai@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "John Hunter" <triplef@interpac.net>; "Clifford Chang"
<clifford.chang@cancer.org>; "John McDonnell" <jmcdonnellmd@hawaii.rr.com>; "Debbie Odo" <xtobacco@ala-
hawaii.org>; °`Don Weisman" <don.weisman@heart.org>; "Hyeryeon Lee" <hyeryeon@hawaii.edu>; "John Hunter"
<program@ala-hawaii.org>; "Karen Iwamoto" <Karen.lwamoto@cancer.org>; "Lola Irvin" <Lola.lrvin@cancer.org>;
"Lori Kaizawa" <kaizawa@pixi.com>; "Mark Levin" <levin@hawaii.edu>; "Toni Symons"
<Toni.Symons@cancer.org>; "Steve Shimizu" <shshimiz@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "Lorrin Pang"
<Iwpang@health.state.hi.us>; "Faye Newfield" <fenewfle@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "Carrie Tarumoto"
<cstarumo@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "John Kaizuka" <jtkaizuk@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "Charles Roessler'
<charles.roessler@verizon.net>; "Laura Bollinger" <taura@encorehawaii.com>; "Jesse Marques"
<jessme@interpac:net>; "Lila" <Irjohnso@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "tobacco1" <tobacco1@mail.health.state.hi.us>;
"Tobacco2°° <tobacco2@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "Tobacco3" <tobacco3@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "Jamie"
<jstakaha@mail.health.state.hi.us>; "~€athy koga" <kmkoga@mail.health.state.hi.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 9:42 AM
Subject: Fw: [TSP-talk]Workplace smoking kills
FYI,
Mildred
Mildred L.Y. Lum, MPH, CHES
Environmental Tobacco Smoke Coordinator
Tobacco Prevention & Education Program
Hawaii State Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street, Room 217
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel: (808) 586-1431
Fax: (808) 586-8252
e-mail: mlylum @mail.health.state.hi.us
"The greatest thing in the world is to know how to belong to oneself."
- Montaigne
Original Message
From: Joe Cherner
To: TSP-talk@ mokescreen.or~ subscribed as mlylum@mail.health.state.hi.us
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:05 PM
Subject: [TSP-talk]Workplace smoking kills
®f~ic~ s®l~i~ bills
September 2, 2002
Non-smoking women who are exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace may have a higher risk of developing
lung cancer than those who live with a smoking spouse, a German study has found.
Non-smokers who live with a smoker partner, have twice the risk of developing lung cancer as those who live with a
partner who does not smoke, the research found. But women who work with smokers have almost three times the
risk compared to those who work in a smoke-free workplace.
Some careers more riisky
Researchers from the Institute of Radiation Hygiene in Neuherberg, Germany, interviewed 234 women diagnosed
with lung cancer and 535 women without cancer about their passive exposure to tobacco smoke at home and at
work.
Although a few of the women reported that they were former, light smokers, none reported mo d more
than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. ~Omm• N®~
ale lilo.
S~~ ~ ~ 9/23/02
;f~f, .Date
.
Page 2 of 2
The researchers found that women who worked in smoky offices were almost three times as likely as those whose
workplaces were smoke-free to develop lung cancer.
Women with husbands that smoked, were less than twice as likely as those who lived with non-smoking partners to
be diagnosed with lung cancer.
Furthermore, the researchers found that women who worked for more than 10 years in an environment where they
were exposed to substances linked to lung cancer, were twice as likely as women in other careers to develop lung
cancer.
1bI®re exp®saare at w®rk
The study's findings support previous study results, the researchers report in the latest International Journal of
Cancer.
As an explanation as to why exposure to smoke at work may be worse for non-smokers than exposure to smoke at
home, the researcher report that the study did not measure how many people smoked at the workplace, only how
much time study participants spent in the smoke-filled workplace.
They theorise that it is possible that more people at work smoke, while at home if there is only one person that
smokes, the exposure to smoke is much less.
The researchers also note that the risks of lung cancer in non-smoking women from home and workplace smoke
exposure are probably as applicable to non-smoking men. - (Health24)
Joseph W. Cherner, President
SmokeFree Educational Services, Inc.
http: //www.smokefree.org
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has." Margaret Mead
To search the TSP-talk archives, go to:
http:/~'smokescreen.orgi?TS_P-talk
To unsubscribe, send any message from mlylum@mail.health.state.hi.us to
TS P-talk-unsubscribe@smokescreen.org
If you would like to help prevent another generation of tobacco addiction and disease,
go to www.SmokefreeAir.org and send a smokefree EZ-letter to a key decision maker.
Note: You are subscribed as (ID: 59039
9/23/02
Page 1 of 3
Maim l~en~i~
From: "Jessie marques" <Jessanie@hotmail.com>
To: <jessme@interpac.net>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:07 PM
Subject: Fwt: [bg-announce]TobaccoScam
Original Message
Front: Bill Godshall
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 12:19 PM
To; bg-announce@smokescreen.org subscribed as jessanie@hotmail.com
Subject: [bg-announce;
fot,accoScam
TobaccoScam website is at www.TobaccoScam.ucsfedu
C~'npaiig~ Frosteotes S~?oke-Free Environa~aents
by JOHN SCHWARTZ
New York Times, 2002-08-07, via tobacco.org
http;;7www.nartimes,com,'2003108.!07/business/media/07ApCO.htm I
STANTON A. GLANTZ wants to tell restaurants and bars to go
smoke-free but he is having trouble getting the word out.
Prof. Glantz, a tobacco researcher at the University of California,
San Francisco, yesterday announced a new Web site, "TobaccoScam,"
to counter what he calls a 20-year campaign by the tobacco industry
to use the restaurant industry as a stalking horse to defeat anti-smoking rules.
But Prof. Glantz's attempts to get restaurant trade magazines to
accept ads for the site were not entirely successful. Two of the
three magazines that were approached initially accepted the ads.
But the publications changed their minds after Philip Morris sent
e-mail messages asking whether they would be running the ads and
suggesting that the company's own ad decisions would be affected by
the answer.
"We submitted the ads. They were approved and, later on,
rejected," said Joe Therrien, a consultant who placed the ads for
the university project. According to Mr. Therrien, one magazine
told him that the first ad in the series was "too negative."
"Negative" is an apt description. The first advertisement in the
series is ablack-and-white, full-page call to arms for the
industry that claims "Big Tobacco is Lying. Again." It then
attempts to counter arguments made by the industry and its allies
over the years that restaurant business goes down when smoking is
banned, that second-hand smoke is not harmful, and that special
ventilation systems can accommodate smokers. The ad also directs
readers to the Web site, www.TobaccoScam.ucsf.edu ,where it has
posted selected economic and scientific studies, as well as polling
evidence, to back up the group's claims.
That first ad also shows New York restaurateur Michael O'Neal, who
looks out from the ad with the sort of tough, suspicious look that
might appear on a bouncer's face before a surly patron becomes
airborne. He says, "Big Tobacco has been conning the restaurant
business for years. Don't be a sucker. Go smokefree."
A spokeswoman for VNU Business Publications, publisher of
9/23/02
.
Page 2 of 3
Restaurant Business, one of the publications that rejected the
advertisement, denied that the magazine had received an a-mail from
Philip Morris. "When the ad arrived, it was reviewed and found to
be inappropriate because Restaurant Business does not accept
advertising that is negative toward another company," said the
spokeswoman, Deborah Patton.
Representatives of Penton Media, the publisher of the other
magazine, Restaurant I-lospitality, did not return calls. (A third
publication, Nation's Restaurant News, owned by Lebhar-Friedman,
accepted the ad.)
Generating controversy is nothing new to Prof. Glantz, a gadfly on
steroids. lie has been fighting the industry for decades, and on
multiple fronts. In 1994, he uncovered a secret trove of tobacco
documents from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company including
one 1963 document from a top executive that stated, "we are,
therefore, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug."
"That trove of documents provided powerful ammunition to the Food
and Drug Administration in its efforts to regulate tobacco
products. And they bolstered the efforts of state attorneys general
in their lawsuits that led to amultibillion-dollar settlement over
tobacco-related medical expenses.
More recently, Mr. Glantz has begun a campaign to fight the
portrayal of smoking in movies. The pugnacious advertisements in
that campaign, which cited the Miramax film "In the Bedroom" by
name, were rejected by Variety and The I-~Iollywood Reporter earlier
this year.
The TobaccoScam site, which is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation and the Rhoda Goldman Fund, he said, is "the opportunity
to get the truth out to these people" in the restaurant business.
"Restaurant people are very sharp, but they've been treated to the
big lie that smoke-free measures will cost them business," Prof.
Glantz said.
The National Restaurant Association opposes government-mandated
smoking bans "because of the dramatic economic impact bans have on
restaurants and their employees," according to an item on its Web
site.
A representative for Philip Morris a company that has long
championed First Amendment rights and the value of free choice,
ideals that have served it well in its fight against tobacco
regulation said the a-mail messages were a mistake.
"It was a decision that was made by a junior-level person" late on
a Friday afternoon, said Brendan McCormick, a spokesman for Philip
Morris U.S.A. "We realized immediately it was a mistake in
judgment" because the a-mail messages could be interpreted as a
threat to withhold advertising from publications that ran the
Glantz ads. The company called each of the publications the next
week "to clarify dvhat our position is and our position is those
publications are certainly free to take that advertising. We have
not made, nor do we intend to make, any advertising decisions based
on anybody else's advertising."
"The more voices that are out there the better," he said.
Mr. McCormick argued that his company's position is moderate while
those of Mr. Glantz and his allies is extreme. "They want
government to make the smoking-ban decision for everyone," he said.
9/23/02
Page 3 of 3
Mr. O'Neal, the restaurateur, said that he was happy to appear in
the advertisement. "You go to a Yankees game, you can't smoke," he
noted. "You ride an airplane to California, you can't smoke. Why do
you have to smoke in a restaurant or a bar?" 1~lis own flagship
restaurant, O'Neal's Lincoln Center, has historically allowed
smoking, he said, because he was hoping that the city would pass
tough anti-smoking laws, and he wanted "a level playing field°' with
other restaurants.
O'Neal's Lincoln Center is currently closed for renovation, he
said, but he added that when it reopens this fall smoking will not
be allowed. "It won't hurt our business," he said.
To search the bg-announce archives, go to:
http/lsmokescr..~en.o~?bg-announce
To unsubscribe, send any message from jessanie@hotmail.com to
bg-announce-unsubscribe@smokescreen.org
If you would like to help prevent another generation of tobacco addiction and disease,
go to www.SmokefreeAir.org and send a smokefree EZ-letter to a key decision maker.
Note: You are subscribed as j~ssa~aer`la h®tmaiii.c®~ (ID: 33673
et more from the Web. 1=REE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
9/23/02
FROM 7MARQUES FAX N0. 8089286140 Sep. 23 2002 02:16PM P4
~~c New ~attle~round: California's
~xperienc~ With Smoke~~'ree bars
u:
~ Sheryl Magzamen, MPH, and Stamon.4. Glantg, PIzD
®hjees '~csstudy ~ in 1994, the California Lcgislattae en- from rows reports, internal tobacco industry
tobacco indtt~g*'s te~cs io the poli6- acted the California Smoke-Frame Workplace memoranda, persona! correspondence,pnblic
c~3, , sad asedia s$ ar- Law (Asscrnbly SiII (AB) I3), which required doctffitents, and legislative mceangs. We con-
tesxzptitag to subvert Califottasa~s woke- indoor workplaces in California Eo be smoke reefed tobacco indtzctry agency Bursoat-
frea bar 13w, ~d ffie ~EasL~ of ~sIC15 ' AJ~ 13 went into effect Januan• 1, 1995, Marsteller for an interview; it deferred qucs-
advoc~staupbotdatsdpatszta~etlte law except for the provisions governing bars, tav- bons to its client, the National Smokers'
by a~itag floe ssrne 3 . - - errs, and gaming rooms: these provis~oas, Atlianec (NSA), which aeclincd to participate.
Methods Interviews key Eti- wlaic?t acted to ~ ve bar employees the same
fosttaanYS irn~alved izt tIr develtspmtttt protections as other workers, took effect an
aril itssplettatfort of the snxo~-f~ Janu~'y 1,1998. The toba~o indtastry elaim~l ~es[[!PS s
leas levy wire seas t#sat malting bats smoke free would devastate - .
-from bill as+alyssss, itzYet~I business, deny adults the freedom to strtokc, Delaying Indtiud Implementrarivrs of the
memorattcia„ tabaeeo inda>~y daeta- violate the rigtt~ of business owncas, and be S~rsvke-Free Bar Pmvisions of ~.4B 1
meats. anerl9a arsicles, lad rem difficult to erafot+ce3 (also J Millet, interview
Results`. 'Tfae . tnbaeea it~ts• with atafltots, I?ecembcr 4, 1998}. On Fe
bruary 23, 1996. AE3 3037 ~•as in-
swanked both iztside the it~taire a~ I
he tobacco indztstty always opposes trndured to extend the bar exemption in AB
throtrglt a ptblie to smoke free worldlace legisladort,""b ~xcepi I3---originally scheduled to espirc on Janu-
atterra~ to delay ' - of t~ for I trtlstaccessftal atietttpt to undetxnine im- sty 1, 1997----to Janasarv 1. ZOQO, to give tie
law astQ Yo encourage taoncosttpls"ammce pleanentation of a local clean indoor air atdi- state Occupatianai Safeey and Health $tan_
owe flee teas w~ itt fix. nanoe aillex ie passod hr 1987,'the it?dustry lords Bo&rd or federal Erivirotlmentat Pmtec-
wer~ aisle to at~Iaold-the lase! by - eraliy rots and aceepts the law after it takes donAoern-y additivnaI time to develop a vcn-
the law sg~ a heap a~ suarkgr safe8'v . ~ effeect_ 1-lowaver, the mbacco industry went Yo YilatioD standard." Neither AB 13 nor the
issue. The ltd gzaug+s 1 ease- • ~-aord'utaxy lengttZS-~9 repeal attertspts, an lsroposed?iB 3637 placed an affirmative duty
oess"ftri its pig she state ~ " urastts~essfui 5 i 8 rrriiliott itlitiarive campai~,` on either agenry to ptndttcc ventilation stan-
the law. and a statewide public relations c~tnpaig~ lards. In the snare than 2 years between the
Corrcdusror~ l't is p ~o etsast to prevestt the irrtplementation of the Smoke- pa~gc ofAB 13 itt I994 and Jsntzary 1.1997,
and defend toke`frt~ bar' Yates b~ Ftt~e Woafeplace L.aw in CaIiforttia bars. Pub- no rcprcxetttativec froth bats, tavetaas,
doing so re>~ires a - aid tic health groups countered with survCys and chzbs, or the tobacco ind l'ng
u.S4
y pctiYianed either
tail. cor;tttaittnetat b}~;se coztamunity activities to demonsaate tint the agenc}• to crefaee a standard (1-. qubty,~ir, mem-
Th~e tobacco issdtt:~try will f'xgkat t l~r - personal testiunoni~als-the tobacco industry so- orandtun to Gov Pete WeLson, Sep _ ben 12,
eat Qes:etatioa of cl~ indoor aif' iavPS licited did not reIIect the broader public semi- 1'3~J6).
even more aggressively tls~ ge~ea^al - ~ rent, which favored stnolce-free bars. Tobacco °I'he senate reducea3 A~ 3037 to a 1-year .
w~rlcpla~ laws. (~rss J ~lFC ~ealcds wntrol lroups ttplrei@ srrtoke-free bans by ex- extension (to tannery 1, 1998•). and the bi it
~QOI:91:24~--Z52} - pendiat; considerable resout~ces to mobilize passedwit}'tout contaovetsy.?he @rralth groups
_ public support, wo¢•idng m the legislature, and did not oppose tine 1-year extension. John
remaitzing foetucd on smoke-free bars as a hyyl~ chief of staf~'far the Senate Health atui
. workplace safety meast~e. Human Servic:s Committee, explained why:
- The authors arc with fhe Iastitutc for 8ealtk Policy
• - . - l~el'fa~dds Sttadies, Dcpasanent of Medicvac, University of Cul-
- ' - - . - ifornia, Sao Francisco.
- VVe interviewed represetttativcs $atn vat- Reques~ for reprints should be scrtt to Stag-
, _ _ _ ferrety health.orga~atiotis,leglslative offices, ton A Glafftz, Ph A, Professor of Ivledacirte, Divi-
- _ advocacy ~+oups, state agencies, state con- fion of Cardioto~ Box 0130. Linirersity of Cali-
" ornia, Smr Fr~cisco, C'++ 94I43 lo-msil: 2ianea(ay
- -~."'L= ~ t=s, ammtcrest groups, trade BTOUps, aszd n~diciae.uc~sicdul-
- - media observers- We obtained information 'rt<is arocle **as accepted Jasauary 3, 2000.
FsBratary 2tX1Y, WL 9I, lam. 2 :,meats Journal of Public HrsIth 245
~'ta~®cn amd Gl~~
•°itJheaa see s ao mar +g sauld still Ise ea8ttct0d ~ Tts>: ~ *~c~ ~ 137 v,as to be iaeal d
its tarsd wot~lace~¢, it~~ rate ~ 1997 Ieive aesstoaa Yo ~vetai 4~ i~~ ~.Aaaasrisa~ C~
iaw) .ire the ctxy. itiol7c~dy r ~ c 1 ~rtat goaaa$ iatta~ el~'~t. ~ S held ae vrs- ctrv~d cetr
~atnalbl ~oz4c ayt~F. t1~d x~ t~iaxst ~s r 5pt t l3t>srsttte t33.1°re~) ~ $ -gam - estt
~e ~tf~ wotaldba. ~ ~ 137. rad~ rivets rhea staspetsd~ rite ~ ~t;~oBe'~t C;al-
the (tobacco i~ttStY°y; std illc}' ~~yoc x~l Y'l axed' dt~dliz~.`3-1`~te~ if~•r~s Aim ~ l~~ ~iot~y
rreedto~atso~aat..~ud~ouusvria ifora~ata®na1Sa#sry~~FltfiAr~- r~~ably~ie~-
E
the sympaetay ®f tFse . it toalr a Iituea ttrzae rn ~s sc cx~az¢ surds bor - imam's ata~tal~sacts of t~ tag- t
forthc pta191ic rQ t4'i E"i~t3~" (J. lb%i~ei, levels ®f s+kc its tb~ laa~ bp3~ ~
intervis~ euzYii o~ 4.1998). tBar}' I999 or smokitag xarnxl,d'~ tea - l~fo~ 131 teas ~d in tltc '
2001. 1~ ofYiae c~ of s~vei,g std Seams J-adaai ~oattxtaitt~, tF.s llnacric&tt
1997-J 999 ~iuemprs ro Repeal S~eo~- ~e ba3l ~o~3d 1 b seat to #1~ ~ ~ I~ffi~ Associa-
Frpe Bar L~ A,bly ~ - ~b~ , A ~ s~n~: and ~atifor- t
tae ~ c a strand gtaablic ltlth s~ ~ a full°pagc f
ABer 3037 I~ S r'tia~i bills vt~tt~ ~ tobacco a~ - Aso P~ 1tSCd-
viere introdt~cccl to ova tlae:.ii~ ~ oorzttz'btaaoa>~, it. ~ 7`aavoid tleis hos- 2
opted ~~0 3s Ar It r4zo! i
tae ad~ ,
provisions ot'P.,F3 I3, ~oYEr ~sgaoxe asad ~ till Vire~nt aced Nlatld~ ~ lagl~a,~ the inti~4ry's atn,~tts3i~
law 4001: efl`ECt.~ 1~Rt?ZCY ~ YffC tobacco ~ ifLC 5~3AIYCffiCtlS t$$Y 812c st~t+t; offal trl t~e'~ 1} b92~c l
duStrv OT itS laaosv:s i`i0I1$ Ylte dpi- ~f a~ ~ ' ae develop vets- job x~.t ~ Y~te indu~y~
aati0~c ptJ~licly $ rz.~! 3au+s t1~tItBII ' ~ t! S~%f'~ ~'t~'b ~ ~ ~trld C~rittt)~
Tavern 63svr~rs iJrsat~ fi>r IVOr'fla~ S13 137 20 ~ Asssra•,bly G s~t>l~: ~ v~seoaene also
C:ali£oratsa C~as,litfot; is.~i l~ohibiti~i, ~ ~t~t'~ni4tcg, sfrlsi~ it 31 2, pl~~ aa~ of ssre~bers rrr the
IvOrthem Calm
aavct~. T 1ttAg- '1°1'ais patrliaat~y 1E] 8 a`lltastt~xe:~ Sys Jtcie~ $ urged cam- ~
socaaeiott, ~ Cs4llforra3a, i. s~•,sed ~eve~gs: ha®v 4a4?~t;{9 aedtast3~r ~ Ia so ~ m ~Il. t Septcanb~r 9, !
Association, as aucli tts axtdzviai~l ham ~ I~1, t~ 3t~ s3efesrs~d a bats s
bowF ~ileys. Grotags on ~o~ as oppas~g l~ ev5~ 4ptraoi t3ie pevs.' ssa ~ I~"'l, frw ~
the rcp~l utcieaded t's~e ~eai C,naetr So- July rid Scg~a~z, arse I3tg Ylse '~ys of rise i 9~71e~s1~ j~
ciety. °.:tc American 1„ttnlZ Association, the oat 1'v~dyanavrat°s iaticmastc, €rnc ~ ~and^r lt~byssY pre- 1
Ara~ri~n 1°Ietari Agsociatio:.; r~mericasts far S13137YOd,~ritnpl~csu®f$rsoko. $ S-+..-°°aar t~ ~c~ osa csett~ to ;
Nonatnoiceas' ~tig~ts, tlx ~lifotztiai Medical ft~ baxa,`~°"•18 ?o cotutter l~ indtt~§ ~ zn for Maniac allowing
Association, ~$ifor~ia lessor t^ederation eider se,„ dacheafths~ttbiicazed ~ ~~ntitffi I.oclcy'gs'~ftas,~, i
(Ams~icsszt 1~edcsation of L,~or ~ ~a its actieis. t7s3 Ata~tst Z$,1997, 41ae S;3 std the Est to It>~
of Iadusgxiat ®tgar~:ioa~ i~"~.-~07). tk~s 137 ~vsa dIIYO a~o~c-f:~ a~rrel
Califots~ Nttt~ As~ca~otm e;ad tlae i.+ae ~ Aafs a~A Zp7 r~disr«s.~ A1~:297 svas>alitvc ~vESet3 j
of Caiifotnia ~ities. icaYas fat Nonolcers' iti out a full- ~ 1 ~ 0u 3anttaty 5, i 498,
'Fwtsl~,9sia~r#oc i~boffiea. Page adv~rti~eraYest let %laG .tVeiv 1?oraC ~tra~ 4~ a~~e s~aft~-~rptovisions
,~B 29~ ; 297 ~s ~a~oe~d bi` ~ 1~estcrts ]~deldos beadlireed `°L?on't ~ evorlc~ ~~z i~ - soic~€s
semblyman 1~tI i7itaeerar (~-h~ in serve a~k~-free a~ticgla~s?'f
lte leer ~s 1~ s~, "A,s s~
y 1997 to azasnd tae law resg to H yes.13~ ~-.says aa" ~ ~ ~tao~ ~ X03 ~ttt Ito
ing cfubs. lr, P,+Iax 199?, 'Yine~2t itss~rte~ Uea F,.vg+~t ~9, Bhe afEbly ~ 5'E3 e,~~ ~ CAarc-
azaarndmexsts itato ~ 297 wetter by lobby- 137 by a v0ts: of44 28: I.ea4ocsyes s'~, \~e t~ sxtr,xs on t~ rabacexs in~
ist1q fur blip Morris ~d ~ar'~ a on S;S i37 {pro°tobasco) ra°s~bved a total of dt~y ash . all:zys to taado
casino axtd rac~t~s4c ici Vistx`a diz." A13 5433 ?{ICi ass tobac~ iYtdosta-y ~xrspaign ~ z~ad a lair tit i~d gatse itsto effect,
297 wostld t+ave extet exemption fts: aibtatiotts ift tlae period 1997 ao 1998 (aatt~at, wosish is ~ttu~ tt sfz~cxalf tb stopping
bars tuttal January 1, 2VJ 1.8tR 1 r~~rai1~ that if S9S57 ~ wote)~; 2eox vm~~ ao OPf SS 13 i from goi ;~to (P. -
the ~deral C~upaticrnal Safery acid li~lih (pto`tte~lah) jived 51000 is~ tob3sco iridtas- i~tsa~aier~ , N Z3,
AdtninistY~Yi6d2 adalste~l a s•~cI for sec- try :5ra s:otrtribtat5aas in the pcri0d 1997 1 ~}ii~ ?~:a*aect~, sass. Js~y ?.8, th:r aa-
cnrtdhand a-tttaalte escposure. bps earvtakl have Z to 1938 {Ytteau, S36 per vote) {P<,70I by ~ P,~ 257 ~ 42
24. '['how vote
years to cornpla'• NEa~-iiy tit}- ~r~ious> in C.a;- i~ v~ s $x.32 a~ YOI~ inchtsisg+ i
A33297t1s:, iab~C~rr- i#oTraia,9•r~.ss other st8tef,'s aa3d Ylas: US Ctx~ ir~tiod 3997FO I9~ (rC9~C,
tnittee Jtaly, too la;c to lx ~ grc~s' ~ s6ovrn tlseas YObaccao is+ cam- 5829}, and ~ sso shied SI000
current lrgislstive s€s.sion,`~ ~a a could not pax~s~aalonsbothi~t?sncelegislatass- (538;(P<.OOl;.~ _
delay impletYt~tipet of rate sana~-f~ bat v parcrns on tobaoo0 isstne~ anal as A1S 299 anvusd to il~ .1~
provisions asn J~ 3, 14~. Tl~ tel. h~ a n^xatd foz voting f~0~bly for Y#te tobacco ytt dad ~~i~ d as icletat pro tom.,
ever, ,could r~Yasm alive meat' ohs : i~tastryc S~~tsar Joius 11<at gaga l<r~caseo},
retreated 0oa Jsnet~ 5,1948, scald pn6vide ~seacled b~ w•exst ~k to tltc wino kad s ~or~ ~tablic 1?€1a ~eor4t,
a vclucle for tcv}sacco i~asrrv Boras to over- fots+o~e. Setsate ~sa:ti'at3T~13i11 cep 1~. the coaa~oversy she
tzun t~ las?+ a£aer s6 irr effe~~ I.ocieycr ~-1'lsyexar3), wlao ttad bra a strong to~eco ~dz~~ p?al~lic rr~t°.otss cam~i~
Bantus Bill !37. Ir Aragust 1997, vuaceiit ally of rite aobacoo indu~gr; sm ~d -come 4o ge~atci 131arioz xas ~villimg consider the
amended Sae dill (SB)137, a horse-racaag view protection of bar exnpi0yees frown get- a;l ~e ~ort0atzic pct of sxxsoke-
hill authored by 5essator YC~ ?daddy (R- o~dh~sd sma}.~ srs a'~orlter's tight i$sue."`` 1.`' ~sat~ he vieaure3 the laew as a 1
i<resnv~, t® gattend srtzolcfng in bars wnti i Jaatu- lie rt;fern-si S>3 137 tq tkte S:;nate Judiciary '^~rorkat s~afs:ty is;;tte°' aid not a "custorier-
arv i , ZUU 1. S>3 137 had a'~acly passed in the Comerartt®e to kill it. }rat:fe~renee isstac; $3tttton put ehr burden of
i
:an .4+»encan 3uum:,l r.f }'vbl,c il:alth, Fesnxan 2t)C/1. ybi. u;. Ne 2 !
Sd WdZZ :z8 ZBBZ ~Z •d35 a~T98Z6808 'ON XC~ S~i1~2l1`iWJ' W021~
FROM JMARQIJES FAX N0. 8089286140 Sep. 23 2002 02:18PM P6
Jtnoke-tree Bdrx
I
proof on vpponerns to prove that the law wet business and infringcmem of their rights as nia Ucparimcnt of F lealth Services (DHS),
• actually hurting business.'t•z5~e business owners.'° The health groups presetttcd mcrrao tv J, iioward, U. Ka1, and D. ~.ymxn,
Button directed ahc bill to the Senate evidence that mokrfrer workplaces were an May 27, 1997; C. Stcvcras, DHS, nacmo to M.
Health assd iiumar: Services Committee, inteacal part of the decline in smolang peeve- GtnrsL September 30, 1997; Steve;nS,1~I T5,
chaired byanti-tobacco Senator Diana Watson lance in California.3'~'I°hc president of tht Cal- memo to L. Frost, Flay 23, 19'17).
~ (D-los sangetes), who planned a pubFFe hear- ifornia labor Federation (AFl-CYO) stated,. Refuse! to use media caanpae,~n, Ptablic
ing `i Watson ~vai emac~erned that the indrastr;- "Wc believe disease and death should not be a health advocate went cvmerncd that the to•
was'~artctertYtitaittg the uaaplementationof rlais condition of amploymetat: To put a hurt bacco industry would run a campaign to un-
pubtichealth law"' by g noncompliatxx, lace on the issue, the health groups were also dc:ctat eatrtpliaraace with thcsmoke-free bar pro-
Vincent watat~d the h delayed atoll Jrute, represcntcd by individual bartenders, wait- visions and Melt it was iraportatat that the health
which would dive the industry more tame to resses, and clue owner who supported the law mcssa~e reach the public first.l'he Tobacco
build opposition, so lte attcnnpted to pull she (M.:3urgat, interview v~%th authors, Novem- Control Stotion o$~t1zz G$lifomia Lkpartmest
bill o~tlre votr~ calendar f
J. IvfaIIer, iutttview bet 17.1998; P. I{ntppratlt. interview with au- of Hearth Services had 2 r~urces to undtrtakr
with authors,'~eoembar 4, 1998) and did not thou, November 23, 1998). this task, a contract a$e»cy:esponsible for the
appear at the hearing in an er'fort to prevetst a. ~ 297 deed m cotratraittee. iratplemeratation of tree srttokc-tree bar prvvi-
vota.2i Watson ici=,pt 297 oa fete c~rlendar lions grad a large statewide media campaign
grad held the heariratg_ Putting the Economic.4rgurnent to Resr funded by-the tobac,^o ta~.~ws~ The'l'obacco
The healthadvocate<s rued the hearing as Education and Ttesearch Oversight Cornrrait-
a focal point for tiheir activitiCS (M_ 13~ ~v ixa- In Mtay 1998, rhoAmericara Bevera~.e ln- tee, she boa3y with tF:e legislative mandate to
terviewwithat#hors,Ncvember 17,1998). On stittate released a survey' of selected barown- oversee the California Tobacco Control Pro-
March 12,16, and 23,1998. the h~sltFa gtotaps ear and managcr5 ha CalFfornia that claimed a gram, rccortama~cd that era educational caxrr-
rart a~~~ as the.Sraemo Bee, flew deciirae in business of 593% since January paigus begin as early as August 1997.sfi
YordcTrmcs Wet~n ~datio:i, end La (~iRiott, 1995, with sra»d-alone Tsars ciaimine a 81.3% Tbe ~rrsittisteation of frav~rrior Pete Wil-
cottrtteti~ the to~cco isldta.~y's ar~.tataeryt th2.t dt~.' Sitrtiiar anecdotal claita~s of lost t~eve»ues son (R) igsaored this advzce (M. Otntst, tuemo
AFB 299 vas about individ3ral tisthts rimer rlsast have been used to f Iglst smoke-fry restaatuttttt to J. s°loward and J. Sttattots, May 28, l 997)
employee pr~otearon ftoan seconahand saxaoke. 1aws,'~"''` despite the facztltat they have beeta rt.• and re9lasedto isasplement an educational caraa-
On MarcFr 2S, dto day of the heas,+, the pcaicdly shown to be alsc ~ studies of actual pai,~s on -the grounds that promoting the new
American Cancer Society released tlae lesuiLrt ra~uranta}ss ;ssaQ baf-Fg revaasues. >~r law vuould Yea Cozt~a~s~d "lobbyita~' agt
of a poll conducted ~ l~ruary 1998 demorr~ l~trrton ecquested.tltat the state t3oar+d of tobacco industry's efforts to overturn the
sttating gublic sttplso:~ far srtaolce-ilea bars; Equalisation, Califotgsia$ sales tax collection iaw''~s lay October 1997, the AzncricanHeart
61 °io of yellers surv st~porse~ithe 2-mottitt-~ aneaary, rapidly produce a ptelimittary analy- Association aA.d the rlraLri.;an Cancer Society
old taw lrs araotlaer survey condom for tlae sir of taxable sales. Or: June 24,19g8,the board wart compiainirtg that bar patrons would be
Caiifarraia Dxsesat of-lElealth Ste, 61 % ;ported tl~t the state's smallest 1161 estab- uigprnparcd for the new previsions at~d treat ttto
reported that tiae new law lead aao eYTeot on the llshmettts that serve alcohol (less than $50000 tobacco hadtastty would incite bar ocuners Arad
Ir~ceiihood of their visi~g a tsar.. and 3~% re- in taxable sales per month) had a 1.06% i»- patrons to violate the law"4
ported tFrst they world be traot>r likely ro visit ~e in revenues in Jaraaiary 1998 eomtsarexI The Tobacco Education and Research
a a~noke-iY ee bay Ina addition, 75% ofbar pia- with 3arauasy Y997 ~ TEae boardalso founathat Oversight Conatnitt~-and public hcslth advo-
trons wlao were smokers repotted ~rraplying the stem's 131 small~stbats----those the indus~- cases asked. that, ruse if the administa2eion
with tree law wlacn m a lxaa: 's"lais poll gees corn- try claimed would lx hurt most----showed the would not allow advertisements while the leg-
sistcnt with other itxi.~senderu }lolls ('l`abia 1) lest ita~rase it3btasittc~s, 3S%ovCr the pro- islattu>r was in session, it at least develop end
indiestitag,gublic suppati 'for sttaoke-ate bars vious Jartuar~! A Iatcr; ahc board released data alsprrn~e advertising that could air gtaickiy after
and was used to eourtter widely aooapt~ a~ cotttparirag:.January 1997 and 1998 sales for the l aFsiatttre adj<surred in September 1997.
ecdotal cleirTSs oflost iaacome and noncons$li- 11751a,~et bars asad ~s-with bats that Tlae adrtairtisffation tasftased (A!1. Gencsi. I~FiS,
ante in news reports ~ by the to- showed a 1.07% incrzase ~ salesr~ l~brthe full metaao to J. Howard snci J Stratton, May 28,
bacco inndustry, mostly tJtroaag~ the IJ5A, an ~aarter of 1995. that was a 5.0% axaercasc ga !997), despise the fit clear s$etailed advertising
organization created by the ptal~lic relasions taxalale sales for all eating and estab- concepts lead been presented by its advertisin
tarm$tarsonMttfstcliesforPltiiF 1Vlorris.'` liskur?rrassatedw~Ia1997~3WFtiletheto- g
p agetzcy t».R,ptil i-997 (A. Sc~tcx; AshQr/C'~oaild
Americsm.s for Noraokers` Ravhts linked beceo industry ~rreiaaued to puss its economic AdvettisinS, 144 C. Stevens, April 8;.1997).
groups such as the l~fotth~°at California liar cIaatrr,; iA the rlaedi3, the board repoft~ ended Only whets ltgisslative attempts. to repeal the
and Tavern 1•Lssocaatioa (creates t$te Dot- rite economic argtmaeat in the legislature, stra®fsa-fee:. barlaw failed whr<ra the le~.slaeure
phis Csroup, sander oontratct with Ply Mot- adjotuaaed did the adaiainisuation begin woaic
ris?') back to the toba~o indtrsay or the NSA State E„8omzs so Impdetnetzz Siiaoke
Fra?e Barr ing on alt advcxtisirrg campaign.' The fast ad-
(C_ liallet4, interview wit$ StathoY~-1Vove~ ~~tisement pa'omotirsg smakc-mac tiers aired
her t 1998)_ It also pubIiti?xd l?hFl~ lvloaris A,s with other public healeh law's, ttte psi- just b weeks befog the law wane into cfft~ct.
'docaatneni's disclosed dta~ loom's lid- treaty rrtodc for impFeratneing rheSraoke-Free Szep~»ratng local agencies 13y July 1996,
' motion age t~ tpi3axo itxl~y t3~ dampest- Woti~plaee. Law ire 1995 was education, wide when plz~ttting of the itasple:mentation of the
sleeted ~t the b1SA a f gsv~ foe the formal. ~forctffient actions (citations. and smolc~-free $ar provisions began, 85% of Cal-
; industry railz~ th~rt ass orgaaiaaraoa rarer- f•.tae5)1;iept to a rata. A public eaaacatioa ifomaa. localities already had agencies dcsig-
aa
setatizta smolccss> ~rtapaas~a focusing ors ±Jte dat><eers of second- ailed ro etsforce tlae Stroke-Rase Workplace
The bearing eras a dot ccatfrtsntaaion Irattd straoke (the jt>stifi~tion for the law) that Law [~ttse cf the ~±esaeaxl workplace prOvi-
lsetwcrtt tlae tobacco iaad~ary and flat started 6 months before tire, law took eflrect saoras ii~eated in 1995: (l3. lt5sex; incer-
~ groups. 13ar owners, club owner arm liar- eat itraplttncntation and rnitdtnazcd the z~ ids witty aaathoas, November l 1, 1998)_ In
tenders opposing tfae law cotatplained of Ios< for t"oruzal p~orcertaeat (lt. Shiatizu. Califon- 1946, Tobacco Cotateol Section conducted
Febnssirv 2001, voL 91, tic- 2 ~icaa Journal of Public Pieaitls 247
FROM JMAR~UES FAX N0. 8089286140 Sep. 23 2002 02:20PM P7
ibla~~tea stall Clanfz
TA~L1$1-~*ra+rv~ ~4 ;~ewl~t £ear4 ~ ~rsr9 COteigYflsnC®1Arath @6t~ G~644ot~tla Ssz4ole~»t~r>~ Irv !fie
~ study Sponzcr ti°&ajes! ~ir?Sln~ ..r~ .'4~dlti0nal ~ndirsga
1 - - `
i Cailiarnia Smoketr:ae &4°ro ~ Fleet Br:7playeetS had a rSS'p<3risibili4y 3S°J° ra~orted tl~f orr@uid ~ Ism iikeEy !o go tt9 a bat
Ci4ie5° (A4sts~s 9'$96; to ptat~t bat arttplp~+~$. 2tt~S aft &.ita~. a~;t@ 11 ~'0 who: teAOrtet!
61 bar es°npioy?Sts had a I® ~ ~ ity 43tet 4.?t~r tQvOSass° b~ stterra§ Fike}y t® QC to a Da< tk98t allowed
to pPOtf~t bas' ~.att»a. spy
Gallf@mie 2ttrrrent 80°/. pt @St tss eQ tht3$ 4hey would pr~F fi~ of baP p~ratss ~R~ ?3tat 4Yiey drd 'lot smoky
of Ft+~lEh 5ervi~ ~ ~ st3a-try bat a4 ~It a: ®i~ net s~,ol~ ire barfl.
dJuly 9~7i 8i`e/s c° ~r staled that it vrvvtd mabc~ na &4% ~ CB~ttl~ hpd visiiae's bartn eha p~sr year: ~
di`faaret ®r2hsS tf~+woufd b@ rnOre Likely to visit i 1 t9o ft b3~ir;g wosskfy ®ar pstrarss,
Sf 8tso;;y b4'E#tt Sts7D~ ftf~,
LOS Att~elts COt%t7?y Ot ~r pattt3t~ ~ totprs l3~ly 40 go 3~io , tj ~ p~'i ~
i t3sDatt+'nOri2 of H~Pdti~ ?@ a stfr~a sea', or it arm np d~grer~~. r ~ ttt l~c~; r~ ; to visit bars-
0 4k9e ~§s 4. i~ 70°k. Of ~e~ mat it vrss vary Qr 61 dt ~ bay vs ~fto~zjtgr Or ~m~w'17~t
soms± ant to 1? smoke-free-bars. a~taveai ~ the 4clssg ban.
Amerlcsin I.tanQ t OQ96 ~ bar'i ir:.la~ l.,otsd@tt s~srare (Oskltttsai} °Phe 2 e~reaz aze t~avity Daff®ivgee# by tOUrtsts.
Assaciatlo°s. CO:rtra wer® er nole~ fry. I
CeOSta-SOiara° B6°i Ot b ats ~'tattensraan a wharF (Sett i=rent? ~
(Maat'.~s 14.9 ~Sj vs~te sns~ fta~_
r8+°fAEf'i@3R Car.~r ~9ek ~ vC:4g#'a Ottd~it thQ St7TOke-1C9:~ 9~1sk. 69 °!e ytr@Ptgxj ~~{~g3',4',~t tht ;A~sDLO indU6flp $p_°tt}
~ety, Ca~fa9rrfae ~99b tsF vrs sat Otte etta~cts Of t@@ ttstach ~t~y on ta~+irtg asks acfe~rtsslYtg. '
t3tloi9iBt:` S1nOlc8 Ors bar'frorkers and Otfs. 9D',b ~
ti~r~a ~5/° &tnCke is haantsu! to hgai8h. i
° On afl'pk!tt~ ~ ad W(lrlCplBC@S. ~
~ Caiifots:ia 6f41t>>Lit ®f ~r ~ i~rsted ?1raY having senOk~tree 3396 @4'~as; r~ ' AfYVing wake-ft'Ee tt~'6
of t~~s Sena' t~tS ~r;tiL w~ n02 it8lpaert~trtt.
tMart+n S~p3Z 64ere,'r€~Cn/.ed t3~t tPaa'~s+ Wbtald tsav~ T!0 6ffeS:e Orr 9d9S {
i r tP9ay were less 4iicaby to vssit a 83ar because
i th8sf ~s"tstA~ a4 ~~tit)Q ~ 3aer. Of t~ n~
~ Z4 tEgBta~ t tP a+~te rrrare Iik81y 4a visat a irar i
$96 of srt'.Ott~e~ atz by t}~ law tYls sass time 8i+ey ~
sg ~ neagt s~bk, vaa3te ire 3 i~4~ 1. ~
Los e0>9 6046 Of • tt$s aiaProti~ Of tkte Smoke-t?~e ba3,~ 2.59'e Ot smokers oaf t4itis Frew ia,es.
Mmes Po~~ ~Ar. ~09ro of t+8$63pPK4d~ strte4tg#°3.
~ (May 2T, 193.$} X4°!0 @t ~PS?sf8, ~e Of aal~is~ stall 59°!0 ®f
~ tt?d etes3 the tsSar 1t6~.
f Cafifami3 E~Zar~se~: Ot Z~ s Of ttte-smoke-tree b@r?gwr. 896 ~tti tG l mote ~t~,,, er t8itl r+c'd ets~nge their
I Of Heaftit ^~srv~~ o rtap@tsd thaf it srrr~vtese 8e have t b~dvi0t, r fear s iasspls~tt~Q.
1 (Oc~i?er 5. ?t3$~j tofce°f++~ ~rt~ ~ bats. Since gaols cortda in f~Rarct:, aEri in~xe~ number
Ot srn@k~ went ottt~g® $Q ettvs3te tf a@Fptpar®C
vaittt ~'is tsaa YOtF ~iID_ {
Sara ~rsrscis~s Bons ire ~srttptittnCe wi4h A9 t 3 in T~.3~'° 09 SO.Sei'e of stand-S ~r3 visa£&i:! traet'3 in ~®mpliance.
Tp~C6o ~+'ee ` ,a,Sz ~r~'tsOp bats visi8ecl. T7.@% of PsightClubs visated oye:P iig COzi'+~€sattce.
~ (Darbsr 14, :548 ~5.~0 d'1Y te~rt f via in San i3co 57.8% Of or~ypplyiPtg ~tS posted n@-Smoidtsg slgsss. ~
its Cgac...a. 76.5% Of atorc~trs;sly,t'a~ i@ars pOS°~d trasmOking signs.. ~
'f'909b Qf f°.~t l~rs vi~staad sa!a~ trr cArrtpsiance_ i
t
`g~tt@om~digit-Ola4 t~;,~.rs~e sutv9y ttat~ ~eDFUary 7 to MatCJ1 i7, 1996.Of 1283 at9tat msttsbsss Of Cal~sstttia hetts~hpt$S. I>aPnp~llts~ error i8
:.,~.T'ra~art~;=n~ ~n°drs~il°t~teo"st>s cng~a R} is ~S.s°~. ~Sian~ev~ r.Ort byePie Cai3sa~ at~ls®~, Prielcrt. {VJ.sc
°f~andcSSS-digit~d9aS ~Sg gV~egt $r~1 Jat6±t 7'! t7. ?$3<, @f 303 Oalifarnia ~dutts 21 y®af~s of des. iss~t3srtq aat+p ere sear pt{Ytatrs.
5~^.tpas+vp, errgsr is ;~3.2"io.ey sus3~ ~nflu ~ the ~ieki fie9~tt~t Saar. ~at5 ~raet~st~, ~ail?.a`
=~.'N9om~6iglF %r~iiFfa 3utveY Ft9 u3ry 4 Et€ ~.~a5 Las ,$rt;t ~Urs~y t~9~t7t5 xv#1o ors strs'.de a bat, Ctightclub, 1ounQe. Or
~ ~ r~'K 3fttTF wry ~ 1538, aa~ +roh@ stare 2 ~ yeses ar tamer, Satnpticsg error is 44.7°/s. ~urve~r vase cort~~~ted by
i CQai?trtunG&tf3li Ca~t,~
1 dera-'4e<+ ~ ~ ~#~i~SS'9~:'~ ~Vfas~st Si3ts tt,^i~GG, anQ bars ih Otdklaltd by AtrtarlCa3tE t.uttg aiiOn 5t3tt.az
°f~arldOrrs~tla5~-~a4;#e?z~ae 5urr~y ~ 3, 9899 O'f ~ Caiifarnla reyi5t®r8Q waters. ~araeipanYs t8 y+sar$ ®r older.5hmp1irr8 setter is
sa.t)°l0. Surv~ + Cpr~u~d b5~ Cfsatft@n ~?r~ Cossstaany, Nlalnut Cry. {`rdtjl.~
°t~anacrn-dl~it-? t~pheNSe saarvey irr ~naary ~rtsf 4b6ar~t? 1 ~5 of 1 ot)7 Cstrfamia bar patrna$. 29 y~rs er @Idst. A 438~n evr~ cle~t9 a~
stay-Matt 2i Or CS~t ,'~f@tie® ViaY':irrg ~ ba : iaeaeczt, ®t nigh4dub, "at:Cfuaiiait~ Oise at4acned to a r~iaiarant h~#, tar ; and du4a, 6n the last 12
m@niPts; SafY~li~ Stt~t ~ :3.~Y0: Suwey urea ctarcfaacti~c: by I°ield CorgatatiOn. San F~ Ga7ig3°
nom s~>~tse~ae ire 3' 1959 et 9.514 adults in Caiitonla. Sa?~+pf1n4 errs >s r3%. S~rey was corers by the Lea
~ ~ Timm i~z:
l "Ra.~r::; ~ ~Y eel latag:ASt 1 Ot 1020-Dar pattorsa 21 yedrs ar Older who in the Fast 92 rnottths had xss($ec; a bar, tavern,
ar rri®htcJttits, t ~ to a ,utartL #xstet, sreatd tauD. 5arngafits~ error is ~3°/®. a~tarvey wee COrs~d by 1=fssd Resaatets
'P,enaaarsi ~ar±t~ie Of ~'a °~~`S in this ~ Gf San Ftanat~ were g~sera$2Q~ ~~G'4 diet was fnitiaiay c0satac;raci to Confirm that a bar was in ~ -
OR9s88io.? afD6:-~+'at~ Qiti l''1J61r5 a;l~ iOC~tiOtt. A Lo1ai Of xl7 b8rs umer@ S.nd tivad cottsptiartee a;Ae~cs frotr. ~ Pht t0 ! 0 ®M by .
f cansu-isa.~is fCe ~ > iur a 3-vc ~%sCd its tdasoeinb€r and Caec®fnber S 898 ~
248 American 3cure~l ofl'ubiic Heslrh Fobnaary 20Gi, Vol 9;. No. 2
FROM JMARQUES FAX N0. 8089286140 Sep. 23 2002 02:22PM P9
a ~iailup pi>11 to gauge public opinion on the Staring in 1"ebnsary 1 y96, the h5A 13rsCatJStOn
cmc,Ua-Frei Workplace l.aw'° and surveyed ettourated a bar poster and coaster cxmp:~ign,
the county and city tte$ltpi departmeattS (latovert warniatg barpattons, "You are being targeted" The tobacco indus-en' s c:ampaigrs to fight
as ioc;al lead agencies) to assess haw to handle in more titan 2000 ban~~ tv crslisz. theta in thz smoke-free bars in California was unprccc-
tite ttafssition W s-raolce-Free ~ars.b1 The lots! cam~i~+r, to posgsorte the phase-in of smoke- dented in dtc duration and io4tensity and evolvccl
dead sgettcies sug~~ested variotas activities, ifr free bars (C. Hallett, interview with authors, over tune.
r.~ eluding text for no~stgaoking signs anfossning N ovesxabes 16. 1998). The April 1996 NSA The industry's initial argustterres against the
people abotratlre 1ar~ tip a for bar owts- tewslc~relairaccitltat"Califorsiacom~ers Iawectiteredoaprecfiictior~sofeconotnicdisac-
CIS. battendeas, andt W+rd etTfOM.t flow 1Save a way tL1 Send a messagC tostate lAW- ter acrd gOY~ettt EnY2''YCrtltCeui94}sl fit;e ChOflCf.
srrggestiotss," 7n addition, bythe end of 1996, makers that they won't stand for an upcoming Tlsc M.onomic argurtsent lost stc~rtr after stud-
" Caitfotnta COri1P12t1F41Y8e;$ 13~ ttlreraQy trams 5motcir~ ban that will 3hrce every bar in the ass showed no e#feet of local smoke-free bar
plemented sanokc-floc bar ordiztaaocs, so rite state to cltrit serving their smoking cue- laws on bar teverues'~ and effectively ended
Tobacco. Control Section cotald identify i tomeas"~ Cttstaenerc were asked to fill out the at3ert#te 13oazd oY'EquaIiaatiotb reported that bar
victuals who could ac4vi~-state acrd loosl oi~r- "action coasters" that wets serif to state legis- bttsiaess increased (D. Kiser; interview with au-
cials oa itrxple~gt~sioa Bat~`~amtz, i [ators. The NSA also tools ouY a =page adver- thozs, Novartber E 1998: la 1-iunting, iater-
vicw with atttbora; Novr i 8,1995}.°x. tiseateat in dflc Natforr i Resfaurrznr News to view with oath®rs,1?ecetnber 18, 1498). The
! effort evert less viable w pciiitiic2l promote. the atcssage that it wanted to help f~-choice argttrstetsf subsidtd as polling d~
witlthtthc W-'t°^~°°"'~a as~w~ ear- rest~uraxeuts fight for thetr rights and that froth the smote, voEtuttary rs~lth agencies, and
ter for tae 'T'obacco Goatrol Section. to r~tataransrs lase business where strsoking ordi- the,Lvs~n~eles7°rmes showed that most barpa-
~ piste a fnedia cairn tu~snces go into effecE.3° trons supported stroke-free bars." Research
To support the 1ocs1 itapleraeiizatioa of Bn I?eceatber 1997 anti January 1948, the showing tI~t bar workers' health itnprovcd 4 to
the bar provision, stn cu. I, 1997, the To= NSA supplied 3000 bass with "action kits;' 8 weeks after the law took c~ffect'a reinforced
bacco Control Se~ioas ~ art At]~ritxn which included >3 saiadoev sticker to register the concept of stnoke•free bars as a workplace
I Lung Association ate a coner~t to arssi.~ rite bar§ opinion ofsmoke.free bars, c?tsroaler safety i5stae.
the local lrad agencies zti ~ str~ce- ~ I to place in the bar, and cue- Throughout-these battles, the industry
free bars.. Tlt~ projcxc, ~ttaed 11TH, tortser active coasters that stated, "T'm a core- tried to CIC3t23 positive fee4backl00p in which
lowed tl:e'FObacco Conuol Section to support stitueat, not a cairttinal,," to be sent its NSA- smokers would be cncotuaged to ignore tote
~ 3mOkc-lice bet irrtpletuentation itt a wn+ that provided cavclopes to the bar owner's state law btu it was going rn be repealed and the
~ was more te~iataat to political iruerfeternoe. le~slatos.`~ 13y March 1998, 4119 paifued raids ;nduStty then used rite noacotngliance as an
In Jt~ ' ~ n abotat the raew r~«essed the Senate Pdealah anti Htntrars set- argtunent in eht: iegislarflae for Repeal. Although
law, aasvvats to ootrttttota i frt~ vices Cot~tittee_~'
this shat
fly sailed to get the law ttalcd; how-
ttte Departttteret ofHe~ Servsces' 1497 X11 The NSA, working through Burson- ever, ftdid create cofapliaaoe problerns-
showitig public sttppott for sffio~-ftt~ bats 14tarstelke, treed pt~t and electronic mcdaa to A~eougl: rate health~p
uvs were outspent
{Table 1), and a letter from the dt~ convey the etnpressioa that there ware tarn- lsvthe tobacco atsdusStCy,'~thcy wcmc willing to
director were sent tae ail 36tM30 bats ia. t~ std. pant public dissatisfactacn with smoke-free tanks the ittcpierstcaxtatioa of smoke-free bass a
S1tEA7I-i followed with a poster rr ~ bats and negatave economic efi;"ects otr small priority arrd commit resources m dcfcnding the
'.ate 199'7 d~rr the le~l bt~iaesses (C. Hallett, interview with au~oes; law (p K.tt~rs£tz< interview evith authors. No-
regatditrg smoke-ffec bass, ptta~ies for soar IVOVembcr• lti,1998). Betweetr January i 998 vealber 23. 1998). Ia addition to fltads for
corrapiiaftce,,myt,~sabotstvett~ationattda~ ~d June 1<348, Burson-Marstelier issued poll~andadve~rtising,thesegrotapstasedtheit
ticipated itr~sacts, ~d pubic std Aftertl~c aaof~e titan 70 pt~ess tele~s claittfling pmb- eredr~iilir: to garner pulslie support for smoke-
barprovisioaswent , B~ paab- lease with the impicmentation of smokewfree fre= bass and to cotultcr th* tobacco industry s
I lisped 2 sari-page adve~ ffi the ?v'ew bay act@vities, botPt outside: Azad ode the legisla-
i York 7"rmes spa j44TT1~P lqQ w~ll° The t+obaeco indus~y domirsated early Repeatitsg t~ successful strategy used its
kuowrt bars arxi za with ~ t1~2serp- at~a oavaageofthe ir~csatrd popularity of other legislaacre b3rElc> s ` the groups daecrly at-
i ported the law to protest the heap of their stooks- barg_ A~[ieles that wea~e published ;scked ~ tobacco '
~ workers and customers, >l~ werk before the smoiee-free bar ions wills to ore thetod~ throw a
' pmvis supp try glr
i ~aL into effect, arc! tutu 3 nrortths aflervvard, ties of advertisements, which staved as both a
t The Wat• o Perc tso®rs
} f ~ ep ~ shaaiamd opposision to flee law and clairtts cal! to acLioft for the public attd a message to
` of lost Wis. lost: jobs, and problems with the legisiaetuc that the health. erasgs were w0E-
+ An t 994, well befost: impl of t, as ~ll as the probabality that the hag to •:se their public regard to-hold the in-
the snsoke• bar provisions, Philip lUlorr~ law wroasid ba ~,sa.~^.s iaiso J Ivgille~ dusery's political allies aceouattablc. lra addi-
j oonttdw~apo>sti~Ipul~t ~beruierv se~itlt auraats, I~ecernlser 4, T998). tiocB, the lreaitlt ~Yrotaps wrrc able to attract
{ the Doipbzn Gsot~, to develop a The 13elaatttrsetft ofHealth Scsviccs had tried rrilical support forsmoke-fig bars savior ent<-
Actioa Ply" to "safegttsrd ~ ate ~ w ip tfiis atgttttteat by conta~issiottiag ties oatside she nadiaiot>al public heahh com-
agaitsst the tht~3 of a tonal i ban°' mod. opitraott polls in 1996 and'I997,whichdemon- trruttit;
; inclu tine California I.,abot Fcdcr-
`~tect and sr~rm goiter of sale ttrtaiL'acsa= sued drat about two thfrds of tine population atioaa, use Califot~ia Lcagtte of Cities, and
ket~ sttaew, vistbilit3c aatd tio~"" supported staoke•free bars ('T'able 1 fihese individual cities across the stagy (M. )3urgat,
I3orh P'hr~ 141orris atxltl`~ l~°SA ~r poT-Ps, hovdevc~ did not ls4.ve the same etaeo- ;a]tetview with authors, Navzmber ! 7, 199€;
owtsers and smokers the diserct mail ram- floral as use p storiesthatthe to- P. I~epps~t,rsttervaew with s.rthors, Novera-
f Pba~ h3orr~'s d ofstr>r~s= 'a~co iV's media op~rat:ion ?eueratec~° bcr 73, 1998).
ere (also C. l~l~„ - - want a~ Evens?a, spgsport for smo~a-s~tee bars itrc~scd the ga261ic health gz+oups-also were xtided
thorn, Narerflt~• l€, ! m nsois~e the ~routt l998s` (also C. Holiest, interview by powerful Ie~slators syrnp~etie to their
agai~t ~aoKe-$t~e ~zs.. with atarhors, Novembzr 16,1998)_ ~atsc. Fos mss, WiYlie Brown, who
February 200] , L'ol. 4I.'_r'o_ 2 As~erscasa Joe~nal of Fabric Health 149
FROM JMARQUES FAX N0. 8089286140 Sep. 23 2002 O2:21PM P8
rotmgz~sa,e>n mnd ~tsaea
t>~xived rttote eo* Why Bars? to it~l;ertr~ttt ~ 5rnoks-Free woli;-
tributions theta airy other ls~latt?t• ~ ~
I eso l s.c*"~` isnb-tr~ttltailr 10 ptegar~ for EllC tc}
try, taseC Otis pow~t ~ >9f aa- l~2ty did t2se tobacco i>adustry tight so =xo ~ rite laa• an6 to coe~-
~nb2y to p~~ t2tr t:aba ir... a• ~ t~ ~ aaxwise-f~ bar 3>~a
. z . .
' r~etang t+as owner
airowa lei rift in 195, sia~ ~ ntttnber of cigat?°toes smoked in bees srtd ~ ats3 t~ pbtblit,
senator a? the 1~tetic Catacta& ssotis i;t xttt~tt sa'ttail~ the rluartbrr sznok~ it! Z3Y~i }'del sdtt 8o~acCb taa~ustry de¢rne the
President Teat l that ~ ~toc- w+3~? Fart of the liiay he itt tl>K assar~ icy to tnakt thr ftgl•:t ;
ray otg tlrt s~rtg side of flee tobacco ~t that bar have beeot~ vic°~ as "]ast over s~o~e- -.bats ~ ercconoraic debate, '
;:a&tae, partieu2atly ~ that ~tadus~ fa• bt~ioa"'~ of ~iAlly+ ale s~Aking, aa>i° ~ stt~ busts as the vices }
vttritl~ P.~tsbiic• is i~ ayserz<zai~a c>sat> stttok+~-f bars setadl a ;wag ofd doftsg~tll',fic ~ ~
lions fD 5~rasso~, : ~s; is not ~cially d~italt3t d,~: X~e2t~t- to t> to t zoo itadtastl~•'s
orandutti to Catty ~ctsfsaort oaa `I'>ai9asx~ strte, a~9erview with azattaors, ~'ebYUary l~< ~e 1 ~ 1~aa°sed x.13 13 ss a hesd~
lntetests;,~isril 2 e, 14396}. t3~ the ~ ladv w 1999}. ~d ~ aaf~r .
'into ci~ct ~ 199a", air _ T'ra~~ l~ A aetote duct s°..asoti 2~aae rode w~ ~x'~tdt~z~ t co»a~rrrat rasotne~s ro
tote rtatc+ it cIetet° that doe t the - ~g tobacco Meta, In twat year, daa'rt8 r?~ ItBts: i'$se Ft~ti'< eroatps sprat aft
a~ wclald teconsidr~ Tae ba= } the tobacco iadta~eyts ~ta~cetiat~ eft dl- ~3i}R'to p~tstcttc uphold 2h~
if tit> eras a ~b~ ~ t ~ at young childreet havr bt~cotne a polit- : ~ ~ve~ ~tsnaletas, arzd lol~
nomic ias. ~41~t1~ i §s~l liabiiity? ,~s a t~tilt, the industry' ~ ~ i c~ar~'l~ataue33zt res~oorces. '
a»uib werr z~.l a" aft#te fs~¢ ~t l so~rte of its- effs~ ~ 2s~alda
w~ also wi12i~ is lake oft not I
bar p~ovisis>us erase >s ~ ~ youtag adults. why the is ti?at gzb2ic Defy t2t~ tobacco ~ haft also tobacco ~
'l`ate hP.alfat g cue sao: a~ ~ litlt fltave mom aboalt sarto~ g®lita a3s~ ~ 12
is Set~ng flee VVitso~ a ~ to iss~ std ao etot }Y is ia- Oraa~ rh¢ l~ , the~gha hoe jam; i
itrlpiettl~tation>afsile ? ~ (aged 18-• h ~`he p~ of l3 ~s ozily the
spiot tip t~ottiti~,eo~of~t ~ 24~~. a~ ssl~ ~rouag adttl~ t ^ l:
3~) rte o~ ~t om
~ sa::>o'~~,fr~e 1~s. ~c
IIat,Idb Gc.~ . iww'eolru+~aa,zr.~ r1>s~ sCrxs a ale p~et8i~~ of oats ~ttY~tss,°¢ , wflF oot}t~aztb Eo s~k to ut'iM
Frhir~tyon ~itt1 Y$.e wit `F°>se • ~s~,lieirly ~;r.~..,.~fta ~ ~,.dr- >~,uaa~ lice lvaw, r~rsss ;4it~s ii ~ ~
t~_h ~ tttotiot~2 Yes itt #tte Pete: laattettt ~ i€sav=lekel o~"acarla itt ~ ~nes. +
usenet rite ,vjd~ tp ~ err tit setilyd. ttzwsssi~ t21aY ties sra~ o£ Tt~ra222x Services sosag2tt to itt~2~tttcttt t2tr ~
dls ptabt%..1g aasQ t>ritt to tl lust,, 11~':~ law; t' c2id ttE3t i~-r ~-3~1 p®liticaE ~
t aost the toba~xo i>ad ,
~+cresgt~ '3olic~s~ as 1996. ~'lit~. i~ Motsis seed &tJ soa
~ l t~+ta t,'e~ ectie~
C;orst~ltoti~b~didrao:~":~ Rr~esY~se~,"t~ - e~ominbai~attd 'gib
€ttot~ss die ttcr.: i
t~~ ins circles tltto~~ir the Carmel ~'iub altd ARatlboto" lY eve lst,~c oa-tire titttog
ig~loae t~ ~1. l 20 Flays pai~s.'he e1 Club pro. ~ saw Vital ~zsp3Ae~tatt=~ Loner
taste
blytttattl3~tt,~, 1#;.I$9"j.A.s a ~ "ct~ate aa2 a;'t~~vr et-
Fl~ tttk~: tic $t~~i gibs ate.
elseviz tfieita~tta, hag ~ast~i~1. std cigaxe tlistribvYiatl feet- us tnss~ €sot cxsly pss but active it2tpl~
ao b~eaf sublicor?>it~it=~tai~€g~~ irk that wi13 sot be affected by clt~,girc$ 1't2~pt~ioh3 o4'clea~ z~o~ ah• taws. ~
adtn~.iem a~
t wiCy - federal tllatiosss or she .s of tobacco ra-
sed sissy sxp~d 2~ ~ _ lase "s01~A ~ittg,';hc {~aic8go ~®Btts°1~3>f ~~g'~
°i' aat~.ela i~ fate iis~ riser t~saas rateCamel irlub ptt~t, sr~s
itCd t0 losver•~ptsaf#~ iirt~io~ il9 its xtaa~Cg ttatet3al 4 "~~Y g i suctsosx corttrt'butmd ro the of this 5S
that t~o:lid trot aft; t~ aiis~ of'~igi3 ht ~'ie ttlafe terse, t~ ol9j wive is to di• ~ a~i:.~sis of ~ssalts. ~d ~s waitESS~ of she p~ite;,
politic~i ~,~asts a€sttti. ' . resar~ tectly leach ~ iassa, 22se gtrsmpit
rarely, € coltid lssuald or, z~~ :#s~ w~ stars ta~intaha te+s. ~ assot~aesoia ~
present itt C.a42zfotssi~, >.ed by its ~ wig ttenci isfluer~elrs will :have a l~stirag ita~- 2gas ~+srlc ~ iVatio~l7tl Cancea 9tsari~
basso co~tz~sl ~d dte itn- ~ ~ club goers who wt~l to associate
plcrttes°.atiols of ~ t tvozkpl~a~es Carol wins eft is `cool: ' :t3 adr~itioa io " 1 a2 t.
was ~s afs~.+ ~t fF~c Attscrir<an
t^ttratt~ its 1995. l3> s~`.:di~8y reaa~ttg ~ adults, t§us lit Hx~lsls.4~ociadon Carf'ee~ee. ?dnvsmbeS l 1.
9~j®oft$ag~l;taf asi>~otr~t~lrfS~od+elsfas'teetts.ias lam.
cottabissss~ ~a~ I3 ~ s~tol ~tttott~ ymuog adttirs also grotatotes
autlsots,?tcs~~wxb~ i 1, bs''~j, ~ `t;rity srzlo~ng.
of bar oac~n> _;;tta€ .bail. ' it::- ~gls 41'sete is ttcsstt§i'x~g Yn ~ 13 treat ~
plctrsetst>~tbv ~-1~'~o1a~1~c~ sn pnOh82sits ~ posw~. $~ivld>ds spt bats, GtAactz 5.23.h E. Tobacee Wars: taestaae rho
rite ee.5tt3Y S~~rt6 Cf<3' b2a~ srntr¢tacF~ thrcttii8 ~ ~c~-31~C bar~,'cstmn- Cslfdrn~ ~a". ~ra&a1cy: Unaa"ersity ofCab j
in 2 99~_ :~s. a rcpt 40 is fly t~4' rite :mss o~ p~ ~`vtT'~ 3?sras: 2;t00, +
2.:~r~toaid iv. G SA. ;aolitical rr>tirttts a°
r~tarta~t G&~2ei~: 8~ t~ motiotatt; : at:5a bars a maids sr<iois:^<~ 31~2ion: ek'e paassage of
~~S t~6a oflocs€ l~ a,'~ sit tl~ stsealo~ isno k>t Csliftrtai~*: A&s~sbly Bill 13. Tob ConProd.
tha°"=F" ~.?Et"~?'ua~` sOSrII$11y8Sble. i447;6_~1 34.
ootnbinatiott3 it'i YY3~ ' ~tz:• 3. Aanesicasi l3evtta~e lABtia9ate..4merican ~er+er
Pt}+ii3~ with .3 ~ ~.SSOIP,s L.~atrned age lnsrarues A9car~a 1Rrsearrh Srudy. toe An•.
Caai~: KP~+tG lit ;e?Ear~vneDC; AprSi i 991=
l 99~' ~ awl tr~~ t~ ~ ?'sew e_ tvl~as+~~,' ARaiaa S, C3"i~sra SA. alts cie-
with ~#isots, 2`Tav~'s9s~t 21. 19~}. Vtly bents tsus.•t x.~tla bees: 77te smoke- t~€s ®P?hihp klaris' °'C~zfarria t;niforro ~o-
all flee contra~ctsy ~robla'~ c oza ire phasrcl ire 3 yeaPS s all otaser work- eorauasl I?c?-.~rs.tF+uBht lieaHh. 197:
stand-alarm Wis. gl in Caiifatnia, weett aeranke fee=, It was 8':t9Lt9a~G.
I
.50 Ame^irss: Jatttsal o.`PublicpIcalcb Fdbre3a;y 2041, Vol 9 i. Ko, ~ f
FROM .TMARQUES FAX N0. 8089286140 Sep. 23 2002 02:13PM P1
y' ~'+'^~5~}'2~~.3~ f <h;.y~ aQ'W ~'"jr " ti..w ~ e.rs v.'..~..~~a~
~w~~~-~` ~ µ ~ -ti
~ Sapp®r~ for Srnok~-~re~ ~.esta~rar~ts
_ , r , . o~g ~.ssae~~s~~ts adults, 1992-1999
-
% 3 Daniel R. Brooks, MPH, curl Lorelei f!. Mucci, ~IPH
• - -
r _ - ldfforrs ro tmplceraesat smoke-fry res•~u° coraplcriosa rate amoatg contacted houscteolds
: „ ~ mnt laws lsave proved cotltestious, despite tlae ranged from 54°/n to 7Q%; the annual sacra.
- docntnerat2tion of meastarablc levels of car- pIc size raatged from 1825 to Z78, Addi-
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~onmenaul tobacco sffioke,I ek tiona! deeails about the methodology of the
_ postare of resratarattt ~voi4cers to high levels of Massachuse~ B1~SS err available from 4hc
v. ~ . _ yrsvirotsttsexatsl tobacco smolre,Z and the sag- atrehors.
~ ~ ~ _ won of borpp ~d clarotlic e$ects of ex- As part of a setties of questions on atti-
- postatt; ate:-the health of-these workezs.Z' Op- lodes toward restx~cting snzokizsg in various
`7~'ffi .8992. zo _1: ' - - ~ _ - position to snnoite-free r~,aattrazlts leas cotnc public areas, respondesats were asked, "Cos-
_ `t~3' from the topat;co isdtastr3% orgataiza- cereli~ag snaking ~ rostatitauts, should it be
~l~ bons of s~okcrs, anti restatar~st associations. allowed without restttiction, should it be pc7-
- .d ~ Desasitc the conajovetsy, increasing prophets suites otsly its designated areas, or not be al-
y.. ~ of lotattlitics have implemented a~ulatinats to lowed a; a13?'°AlI rasposadents also psa~~ded in-
~~-D~~ ~992•~0 •s.8~.~ - peke restaur~zzts stzsoke ft~e_ In ]vlassachu- for_nation on deaa=ogiaapbie charac~tcristics and
. ~ seers,. tlac percentage of the population living a varieey of sucking-related variables, in-
' = ~;~7~'3b ~,i~: in coatnatntiiics escerlrially prolsibiting sffiok- eluding curtest ~okirsg status (cuarent for-
• ~ ~ ~ - = ~ lag in aeststntmts iYtcs Eton OZ% in 1932 me°. never) and rules about smoking in flee
to 30.0% in 1998 ~ home. p'orffier srraolcers write asked how long
- ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ f3 neffinber of studies have considered the it had been since they last smoked regtalarly.
-c - eCOaaosnie e.$ect of smol~-fade restadi~tet lagvs, C~a;sest sanokea5 wear; cluerfed about whetlacr
` • tiv~'8y, : either tlerough analyses of their impact on errs- iisey spoked dailt•: ayer~age number of ciga-
. ~ ~ - t ~ . ` pi®yment or sales'-'a or througls surveys of rett~ per d:g5+, iittse costs R'~.titS until fast cig-
- ~ the trublii;:s intentions or belxavior witch re- arctic, whegher rhep• had ~s a quit attempt
. sit to t~atronziat~ resrautauts after the im- in the past yCEr', cad whether they platatacd to
s - ~ ' : " ylemestaeion of regulations- a`'t $ However, try ro glair stnok~3.
tltercitave'ocen,almostnopublislaeds8ladies Oasr~aoutcorraeofittt~s4.wassupport
hem :al• a ~ ~ • ~ of levels of public rapport for spoke-free Ern smoke=fry re~stts~tFtb, Yde categorized in-
sr 't~Z~;` = restat~attts. di<zdtraLs tvlao Stated that s111a1GiAg its t~tau-
;aoolc~-~ ~s;4c ' ~v ;
- I"ne Massachusetts 1?epartttseat of Ptah. tests should not be allowed at all as suPPo
_ . 20€s~;92,;,~ " : Tic H~ has been collecdrsg izafotaaation on smoke-fry restaurants and 811 others (smolc-
- - - - _ ~-°J ~ public opartion r ~ardiag snokiaxg iesarictioss sag should be allowed iaa desflgnated areas.
-
_ _ _ - _
. - ~ diffi'rent public setYitzss, irlcdudinS restau- snok~igshottFdbealk~wecf Witlaouirt~iction,
- - ~ zatst~, since 1932.Oux;goals in this study were or so opinion) as nec?ssttppottive. •
_ - to (!)assess change over type in: support for We first evaluated Chatrsgcs over tone in
. _ - smoke-ft~ restaurarz~ and (2~ eialuate de- the level of support for stroke-free restau-
- jam. tnogtiaphic atsd smoking-related factors that rates among the polsttlatiots as a whole and by
_ r pt~dict ctttaetst levels of sztpporte smoking statue. T~ising data ¢gotn 1999 only,
- _ we also evaluatccl Yeceret demographic and
_ = - smoking-related ps~lictots of support. To en-
~ ~T~ ` ~ ~~h®ds scare that detmogzapliic differences in support
j ~ ? for smoke-Ere. tartest-ants were sot d~ae to
Data were collected through irlterVie~vs dl~erenoes by sata3csrag s~tus across nc~ ~~aai-
~ ~ ~ eonducted from 1992 m 1999 as pmt of the chits, wt; calculated sttao ~ -ad-ustcd -
- ~ ~ l~
y~~ x Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Sur- cs~e di~rerences stared to Ilse slnok-
f-} _ veailance System (BR1=SS).'IBle ~RFSS is eta i$sg status distas'batdos of sll respondents in
. { C~~ ~ ongoing, state-based. ratadona-digit-dialed 'the i999 survey. because BRI:SS data are
l~ - - - household teiephortc sta~vcy of health-srkated
j'1 ~ s r g:;haviars and conditiatss amozzg adults 18 ~e ~ the Massachusetts ant
• - ~ - F yeat°s and older.. condtFCteti ire collaboration of Public 13calth, ~urcau of glestth Stan~c~stRe.
. _ - with else Centers for; Disease Control clad searvn and Evalsassior; Boston.
- - ' ~ - - - preyerttion_ a^ Requea~ for rxgriuts should be sent to Daniel
_ - Ys~ttt3TlgT 1992 to 1999, the Massachtts~ 1~ Btnoks, iv:PH; Btu~au of ~ralth Statistics, Re-
- - 13R)~SS used alist-assisrrd methodology to ' ~a Evslu~°u, M:~.3xusct~s De~aztmeat
~ J _3~ T ~
~ of ~~4ic ~lsahh, S4f t€~astua St, 6t1¢ Floor.
- _ ~ . . sms3plc households. Interviews were tort- AvfA 021o8~b39 (e-mail: datsirl.Grooks(a~
_ - _ ~ • - - - _ ~ dtseaed with one aatsdotnly selected adult fststz ~ue.:>sa.~a).
w:--.:
each contacted household. `I°he interview snicbcier~asacceptedMarchz4,20001.
_ _ -
_
~ctnuaryZ001,Vo1.91.-No.2
FROM JMARQUES FAX N0. 8089286140 Sep. 23 2002 02:iSPM P2
TA~t.~ 1--Ss1p~~s®PY for ~eesaaikittg Re~FriCti®na in Re~taurrsnts: Mas~ehus®ttS l98teavi®raf ~dsk FaCBOr Suvsf®Iflanc® Systear,,
1~2a49~~` I
?9a2 X993 ;39a 1895 1996' 1957 1@98 t9t3>r ~
i
j (^=1825). ;^-1857). (n ..3288), (n=3311;, {n=7171: ,n=3725). (n=~b94a), ln_7278).
(95'1e v^~) is (99% Cl) % (~3oh CI) % (9$~5'v Cll °6 (95% C1) °lo (95gc G1) °ro (95°!o CI` % (95% C:)
i
' A;,itudes tosrrare ~ _
f((1 sntokittg in restaurarrs
I Co-nplete[y 37.5 42.8 47.0 a6.t 48.0 50.5 52.3 59.8
Sn9ok~ free (3d.7, 40.3) (9d2. ~.a) (.d4.E, 49.4) (42.7, a7.5) (43.2 52.8) £a7,7, b2.5) (5a.3.54.a) (58.2. 6S .4; f
i In d~i9n3t8d 57.3 527 49.5 51.5 47.0 45.4 +12.2 35.6
i arms ortiy (54.5, Sn_1) (50-0. 55.4b (47.1.51.4) (49.1.51.9) (42.2, 51.9) (43.0, d7.6 (40.2.44.2} 134.0, 37.2) ~
A110~6~6kh0ut 3.$(28, d.9) 3.3 (2.3, 4.3) 2.5 (1.8, 3.2j 2.2 (1.b. 2.3) 3.7 (1.6, 5.8) 2.9 (21, 3.aj 3-8 (3.1, 4.64 3.2 (2.5, 3.6) `
rBStnC50t'
I fdo opiniaet/ t.4 (0.7, 2~ } 12 10.7, f.7) 1,1 (0.6, 1.5) 1.2 (0.7, i.8) 1.3 (0.3.2.3) 1.6 (1.1.2.1) 1.6 (0.9, 2.2) 1.4 (t.0, 1.6)
refused i
Support for oor:sptss,~r3
smoke-ire rest~u+ i
Cunertt smokes ; :-4 2A.3 24.9 20.0 24.3 25.4 25.0 33.g
(~.8, t5s) nr.8.24.9) (20.4, 29.5) (15.8.24.11 (16.0, 32.7) (20.9.29.6} (21.4, 28.6) (30.1, 37.2) '
Foetrter sre~kOrs 37-Q 43.6 43.4 46.0 51.0 54.1 60.7
(~•fl.42-Di d5-1) (39.T. 48.1) (36.4, 48.3) (37.5.54.4} (47.2, ~.Q) (5D.3, 57.9; ;57.7, 63.7)
Tdevee smokers 57.9 5a.0 99-3 38-0 60.5 Sr9.$ 62.4 ~ 69.2 ~
) ;47.5.56.2] (5G.7.57.9) (55.9, 62.7} 154-5.61.4) 053.9.67.9} (56.4. 6.3.7) (59,1.65,6) (67.0. 71.31
j NOPe. C1s s"+dase+ca irk. i
1 °Questions on at~tuda€ totmraed srnaiar:g in rL54arsr~n4s +~r'8 included only from Qctober through Dec®trsbes.
wei~ted as accoasaat for differctetisi pzo9c- coilege education. S>Jppott was also directly '~abk Z also shows t9re association be-
biliry of ~Iecaion and ~ pgttally ~itzst for rr^tare4 to rules shout sttsoking is rise house- evucen ather smoking-related variables and
nOtuesQoatse, we used S~'tJAA.~ to cakui~ hold. Reg>atdaess o1: aduirs' ovr~ smoking star- subpar: for smoke-free restaurants. Amott~
95% eottif-id~~ iazerval~ that ~ottat~l for tus, the ttsore restricavc the ssnoKing rules in forever stsacs}cet5. ~p)sp;t sncr~ed as rim
tha sas~titt~ s
a'teene a weig~g.t ~ tttcir o+r,~ hott:seholds. the mare libcely they sine,` gezitting increaseci..~1Ytong cutrer,~
to ssy t resrautants shauid be smoke stno6cers, support was stat~stantialiy gtrater
fry (F2g~ 1). among lighter and lt:ss dependent stnoiers.
~~~8~
The rate of sr~pport for mskiatg resgau
rants stn®ke free increased firotn 37S°.t, in i
t99z to sQ.>~r$ ~ 1999 cga;,i~ a~. ~ Wit. ec ~
peered. nor lrxrs e~ze twos: lilceiy ffisrl ; ~ 80 ~ 9s~ y3 7g
~ i 1
crarrent: saro3rers lease la~eiv to fa~~or g
restaurants sttgolce free. Tkst~ugla. i 99b. tote c 7p !
level of suplbort aptlg foi~78r tress I ~
i ~ ~ ' I ~
midway isetv~ets tze~a
~r a~ euas~t sue.
bus in iate4 yews former st:7okers awe ad- ~ i 50 ~ ; ~
most as €tleeiy as never ok~ to e:tdots: ~ ~ 40 { j
srr?ok>=-fry ear~ra~.°ss..~}thoas~3t tt~e absolt~ ~ { ~
level of v3tied qtly h srno~ng ; ~ 39 '
~F9.7
StattES. th6'ite SLg~ILAr ~ YiPTEe ! ~ 25 -
$t7tOF1® current` forst~r. a8d ties~:r >raol:,"s.
By ? 999. ~atcr than b0 :'a of norsmaok~rs gn j I
and 34°ia of current smokers n.°ppo:ted I 0 '
Smoke-free restaSSSants_ I ~rs>~&f Cssares~t 8enoiss= ~or'asosr ~trta!c>§r P
~aSQt~ i
In 1994. i+eve}s of xaase~d lithe bt ~ ~ ! s Ato aQte atooee~ri a tseasi~~ saxaoki ~t~l3o-scRre~
sez or age (~ahle Z~. bier ad~asstt~€!t for i ~
~-ttioking status. Fiis{S~,aics w+e~ sub~atsa;;ily ! ~
more likely Y ddltiaw e® Ivor toal~stg
I
res~x~r-astts srsoke fs~ Std: inM~ed dad I ~G~~ ~pixt #eaa pbl~ng dseselc}as~ 1;?s a~ast~t9t'$,'by ti~~l~g Ott;
t~iy wi€fig it>ee~. ~ ~ > istYef Etaaar~ibcofd asnvtcita9 ~y~t ~>t9t~t~ ~
educatioi7 s,~zs t~zorc cot1~:~. tl'~ ioa•- ~ctoe ~dtrart~fttaarr.~ m~
zst ie`ais found axts~~g t.
Felmrssy30Et1.1~bL 9F.'ia. Autetd~at Joaatnel oI1?o+blic FTeillth 301
r FROM JMARQUES FAX N0. 8089286140 Sep. 23 2002 02:iSPM P3
I Briefo -
T6lBLH 2--~Sta 'arc frequently portrayed by opponents pf reg-
Np'Or4 f®r Pr®h6b68ing Stet®k9ne~ in ReSt~ttrants, b9+ ~tzt®gr®phic ~ uJatas~y efforts as absolutePy oppostd to such
' artd Smoking-Related Variables: A&assaehusetts Behavioral Rlsk
1=act®r ~ttna~ilBapCe Systs~saa,1999 i restrictions. Smaters who indicated support
wart alcarly ditl'erent f
om those who op-
Su¢Fort Smoke•Fret Difference', % i posed smoke-free restauraetes: they smoked
~J ~ rvo- Restaurants, % (95% Cq (95°1a CI) ~ fewer cigarettes and smoked less frequently.
I Sex acti~•ely tvartted to quit, and. wart mole likely
a=emale a3a2 61.1 (59.1, 63.0) 0° to live in homes with stricter rules about
mate 2945 se.a (s5.t3, s1.o) -2.5 (-5,s, 0,7} smpkang.
Age group, y
18-39 ° Our estimate of support for smoke-free
33t 1 59.5 (56.8, 62.1) 0 tt's~urants is probably conservative. T73ere is
x0-64 2730 61.4 (59.0, 63.8) +29 (-0.6, 6.4)
ASS 1138 57.3 (53.8, 60.8} ~,5 f-7.9. 1 A} she ~3dence that cstimat,~ of levels of sup-
~ Raoelethnicity port art; sensitive to itowtltg question is phrased.
s ~ white 5x19 58.6 (56.8, 60.3) 0° For cx;ntt~~, consider 2 surveys condtacted in
#3iac~c 71 l 62.5 (56.4, 68.6} +3.9 (2.0, 9.8) in -1998. "3'f22 $molcelcss States Stttvey
M'sspaniC 140 71.1 (65.0, 77.1} +10.3 (3.5, 17.1)
Asian 235 63.9 (54.3, 73.5) +6-7 (x.5,16.8) asltedwtrr~terresptindentsagr+ecdordisa~eed
Education with bant~g stnakirtg in recwatrattis, while the
Leas than high school 750 612 (55.5, 67.0} 0° Ore~ottBD~6lSusoticssctatiallythesamephtasr
tiis7h sehooUG~D Zfl80 57.3 (54.5, 60.2) -5.3 (-11.3> 0.6} itrL¢ as the Massachusetee ~RFSS, which ex-
College 1-3 1718 53.6 (fi0. t , 57.2) -10.1 (-16.4, -3.7} pu~~, provided ~ option to restrict smoking
?CoPlega t 2o'E6 65.3 (62.8, 67.8) -2.0 (-7.9, 3.8)
Income, $ Yo dcsig~ted area. Despite the fact ehat the
<25000 1476 53.9(49.9.58.0) Ola sl~veysvae~coadu~edattl~satraetittte,thees-
25000--4.9999 1847 56.4 (53.2, 59.5) +1 _G {-3,7, 6,6} tiII]ate of support was 17% higher vn the
X0000 2160 65.4 (62.7, 68.2) +6.3 (t.4, 11.3) Smokeless States Surrey (C. Mosbaek, Ore-
Years since quitting gon l$ealth Division, written: cot71t2sutlication.
~ ~1 194 472 (3fi.3. 58.0) 0°
~ 1-5 306 51.0 {43.5, 58.4) +3.8 (-9.4.17.0) May 1999).19
?5 1122 65.4 (61.9, 68.8) +i 8.3 (6.8, 29.7} there iS also some evidence tlrttt Opposi-
CusTerrt smok®r lion t4 smoke-fret restat~aats wanes further
Smoking habits a4~er regulations have taken efFeet. ir1 1993.
t Smoke every ~ 1'132 312 (27.1, 35.2) 0°
' Smoke Some days 329 a3.1 (36.0.50.3} +11.9 (3.7, 20.2} $ro~e was one ofalte fiE~t mttrticipalities tat
i ~ Cigarettes psr day Mas~achttseuus to implement reguiaiioats mak-
j ?29 203 23.7 (15.9.31.4) 0° ing all restaurazts SrilolGe fry: Although these
1 t-20 563 30.4 (24.1.36.7) +6,8 Ems-2.16.8) It~It1371otLS4v highly COrttetttiotLS 3t the tmre,
i 1-10 350 39.3 (34,2, 44.4} +15.7 (6.a. 25.0) a sue tx7nsincted in 1998 sitowes~ drat only
I Time to 1st cigarette, min
~ ~0 762 30.9 (25.5, 36.2) 0° 11% o1`residerxts disagt+eed with tkcsn,20
j >30 56a 32.8 (21.7, 37.9) +1.9 (~.5, 9.3) .Although the factors that determiae the
Desire to quit smoking process of public health t~8ttlatjon are com-
fV~ contemplating quitting 368 24.0 (18.2.29.7) 0° p q~fy,publicopinion is
lax and dt~fCUit t0
'Thinking rout within 6 mo 397 33.5 (27.3, 39.7) +9.6 (1.1, 18.0)
Plan to gate writhir: l mo 568 40.Q (33.9, 46.8) fit fi.a (7.8, 25.0) certsitaiy one component of the regulatory
Made quit attempt wlipsin year pztxess. A decade ago, only a srtaalI miaotity fa-
No 56II 27.8 (23.0.32.7} 0° voted tnt3ldng Ycstsvtattts smoke free;l3~vet;
Yes 692 37.4 (325.42.2} +9.5 (2.7, 16.4) ~e gl~heac demonstrates a Strb-
I
root®. CI=contider,ce irtte3va;. statrttal and contutuing incressa iII sarppott.
'Demographic varia4li~ adjust®d for snlakirag sta4us. iVlassacltttsetic ha.shad astsorlg atad active
°Reference group. a0ti-tobacco c~`ort 4hat has included a focus
on protecting tlae public from etsvaonanental
tobacco smoke: itutiatives talaging ftvom state-
wide television advertising campaigns to ef-
Those who did act smoke dtiily> smoked creased, so has the level of support. Among foxes by local coalitions have been designed to
fcvvcr ct~seetes. said they were platnt~g Yo Ma~sacfat~etrs trsidcrris, support has increased speci>.acally promote sttppott for smoke-free
quit smotciatg xzth~ 30 days, and had made to the point at which ti0% support tvlalcing resfatar~ts2i Without comparable dates from
a quit attempt its the past year were ffiore re~ttrartts smoke frec_ other areas, fr is not possible W coneltadc to
likely to express strpvart for g res-tau- TBot stuprisin}y, the svangest predictor what extent the trt~dnt lvlassachusetts reflects
:ants smoke ft~ec. of support was the smoking statue of the in- such efforts or a more getlerai na4ional ttettd.
dividual. Among former smokers, sutrport 7ltere is a need far ftttttre surveys in-
increasedwith tlae length of titnc since quit- vowing more dtstat~ed questions about reasons
.i~iSCYdSS[®'8 ling Smoking said was almost ss high among for st~pox~ag or apposixeg snBplce-free tu-
those who had quit ¢or S years or more r°arttc; su¢h stuveys would provide impottarat
Druirsg the 19?Os a~ 198&D3, the level of {65.4%) as among. those who had never infotii~tion to aid in ftrx~er increasing pub-
support 2or strec its ataonB US smoked (69.2%}. However, even among cur Iic support for leuientit~g regttl~tions that
~ residents r~iained ecsestraail?' ai rent smokers, a substantial percentage fa- would proxect restaurant employees and the
about 20%.'$ As of the sesIth rs= voted malting restaurants smoke fire. This ~ public 7roen ex~ostrre to envirol~en2s1 to-
fecxs of carviranntietrsal tobacco smoke ~s particularly si~ii
scant given that smokers bacco smoke
30: Atrerican 7ocrra,°? of Pttlsttc Hcstrls February 2001. Vol. 9?, A!®.
Page 1 of
a~n ~dent~ty
Froen: "J.Marques" <jessme@interpac.net>
To: <hiclerk@interpac.net>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:51 PM
Sutsject: Atten: Wall lids
iA}Ells S~ ~i+1ESw5:7.hiicy~~;,vc~.~,. ,~a:l~tL~~]C ~~,:t~:-,
_ t-~cca,a~n~ _ _
~ 5
, ~d~
Voi. 281 No. 20,
~ May 2s, 1999 ? ~ ®rsg~rral Corrtributi®r~
RDF of THtsARTICI[ '~®urism grid ~®#~I ~~V~t'ill~S ref®re gild ~4fter
~`'`LT~~? ~assa~~ ~f Srn®~~-Fr~~ Restaurant
See Related: ~rdlnanC~S
Authors' Articles
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD; Annemarie Chariesworth, MA
Context Claims that ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants
Return to will adversely affect tourism have been used to argue against
Table of Contents passing such ordinances. Data exist regarding -the validity of these
claims.
Author/Article ®bjective To determine the changes in hotel revenues and
Information international tourism after passage of smoke-free restauran4
ordinances in locales where the effect has been debated.
Design Comparison of hotel revenues and tourism rates before
and after passage of 100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances and
comparison with US hotel revenue overall.
Setting Three states (California, Utah, and Vermont) and 6 cities
(Boulder, Colo; Flagstaff, Ariz; Los Angeles, Calif; Mesa, Ariz; New
York, NY; and San Francisco, Calif) in which the effect on tourism of
smoke-free restaurant ordinances had been debated.
Main ®utconte Measures Hotel room revenues and hotel
revenues as a fraction of total retail sales compared with
preordinance revenues and overall US revenues.
Results In constant 1997 dollars, passage of the smoke-free
restaurant ordinance was associated with a statistically significant
increase in the rate of change of hotel revenues in ~ localities, no
significant change in 4 localities, and a significant slowing in the rate
of increase (but not a decrease) in 1 locality. There was no
significant change in -the -eats of change of hotel revenues as a
fraction of total retail sales (F=.16) or total US hotel revenues
associated. with the ordirances when pooled across ail localities
(!x-.93). International tourism was either unaffected or increased
following implementation of the smoke-free ordinances.
Conclusion Smoke-free ordinances do not appear to adversely
affect, and may increase, tourist business.
JAMA. 1999; 281:1911-1918
9/23/02
Page 2 of 2
View Full Text
Author/Article
Information
south®r/s~rticl~ Inforr~ati®n
T
Author Afifiiliiataons: Institute for Health Policy Studies, Department
of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
C®rresp®nding Q,uth®r and Repcents: Stanton A. Glantz, PhD,
Division of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco, San
Francisco, CA 94143-0.124 {e-mail: giantz@medicine.ucsf.edu).
Funding/Supp®~t: This-work was supported by fVational Cancer
Institute grant CA-61021 and a gift from Edith and Nenry Everett.
Ackn®w9edgrnent: We thank Jeremiah Paknawin-Moch, MS, for
his comments on the manuscript.
~ 1999 American Medical Association..All rights reserved.
I sxoRT cut: Choose a Journal
9123/0