HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0013.199 2002-2004 r----~~.~1-
Testimony on Bill 260, Draft 3: Relating to Smoking in Certain Places
June 18, 2003
Coalition for a
Tobacco Free Honorable Jimmy Arakaki
Chair
~ ~ ~ Hawai`i County Council
Haul 1 25 Anpnni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
245 N Kukui Srreer, Suire 20t
Honolulu, H[ 9630
zee (3n&) a3a-vu~ Chair Arakaki and members of the Hawaii County Comrci I:
Fm- (R08J 574-9072
Governing uoard The Coalition for a Tobacco Free Hawaii appreciates this opportunity once again to testify in
Jay Maddock,PH.D_L'harr
cancer Research Cercrer strong support of Bill 260, llraft 3 Relating to Smoking in Certain Places which addresses an
ojHmoai'i
smcy Evensen, vice chatr important health and safety workplace issue by providing for smokefree workplace protection
ua,voi'i Medina! for all workers. We [hank the Hawaii Count Council for the stron su ort the Council has
Service Assonanon Y g PP
Or a¢ nizations demonstrated to date for a bill that is the most comprehensive in the islands and in the
American Cancer Sociery
Ha,vaiv Poerfie, Inc. country-extending smokefree protection to all workplaces, including restaurants, bars,
Americarc HearrAssociadon nightclubs and bowliing alleys. The Coalition strongly supports protection from second hand
of Hmvai'i
Amerman t.arcgAsaocianon smoke for all workers in all workplaces, and supports the passage of Bill 260 Draft 3 as a
of Hmvni'i
cancer Re:earth cenrer tremendous step in accomplishing this.
of Ha,voi i
Hawaii Jsland Tobacco Free
Parnership- Easuta,vai'i I am Clifford Chang, Director of the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Hawaii, a statewide
dawai'i Ls[and Tobacco Free
Partnership- west Hawai •r association of over 140 member organizations, businesses and individuals committed to
Ilmval'i Smte Depar(mer+!
ofEdueodon working together to reduce the negative impact tobacco use has on the health and wellbeing of
Hawn S Smre Deparnnerrl IJawai`i's residents and visitors. The seven founding members of the Coalition are the
of Health
eo,vori Med,cat Association American Cancer Society Hawaii Pacifiq Inc., American Heart Association of Hawaii,
Hmvai `i Medicn!
services Association American Lung Association of Hawaii, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, } lawai`i State
wai •onae coast comprehensive Department of Education, Hawaii State Department of Health, and the Hawaii Medical
ttea!(h Cenler
Tobacco-Free Kava'i Association.
Mind Tobacco Free Partnership
Individuals
Kim Ku'ulei Ro-n7e The tobacco iudustry continues to do a wonderful job behind the scenes in keeping the public
stye-ryeon eee, Ph.D. debate alive regarding whether or not exposure to second hand smoke is harmful, portraying
Ken Miller
Eerh Pareman, Hsu this issue as matter of "smokers' rights" and the rights of businesses owners to make business
Arcrhony Saguibo. J.D. decisions for themselves, and keeping alive the very real, but unfounded fear that restaurants
smjj and bars will lose business if they go smokefree. You will recall that in 1987 the tobacco
Clifford thong, naPtt, c'rrss industry paid for a full page newspaper ad claiming restaurants would lose 30% of their
Director
aerh x„eh business when Beverly Hills was the first community to consider an ordinance to make
Communimrion.r Coordinator
restaurants smokefree. This dire prediction didn't come true then, nor has it ever been true
Toni Ann Symons
'ass Roots Advocacy Coordinator
Comm. No. ~ ~
Funded in part by the Ref. To• hW~lf«
'oberr Waod Johnson Foundariarc ••__--~r1s~ ! Q SVVJ
Ref. Date ~ _
Chair James Arakaki, Hawaii County Council
June 18, 2003; page 2
since, during which time over 135 municipalities or counties of all sizes, and three states, have passed ordinances
designating workplaces, including restaurants, smokefree. Ninety-seven municipalities have designated
workplaces, including restaurants and bars as being smokefree. Not one of these municipalities have repealed or
modified their ordinances following passage on the basis of businesses losing money as a result. Over 97 studies
have been conducted looking at possible economic impact of smokefree ordinances on businesses, including
restaurants, bars, and hotels. Not one of the studies that were based on measurable data, such as tax receipts, found
a decrease in business as a result of the smokefree policy.
The simple truth is smokefree workplace ordinances, including those that cover bars and nightclubs, are good for
health and do not hurt business. The Hawaii County Council has the opportunity to pass a bill covering all
workplaces that is one of the best in the country protecting all workers' health and not hurting business. The
Coalition suppports this Council in doing just that.
You will be interested to know that the results of a new Japanese study looking at the effects of second hand
smoke were shared at the just completed Second Asia Scientific Forum held in Honolulu June 8-10. This study
examined the level of 8-isoprotanc, a maker in the blood for oxidation, and flow mediated dilation (FMD - a
measure of blood flow and an indication of endothelial function) in 1 S smokers and 1 S nonsmokers exposed to
second hand smoke for 30 minutes. Oxidation occurs when highly reactive free radical molecules damage cells-
in this case the endothelial cells that line the interior of blood vessels. This study found that after just 30 minutes
of exposure, the level of 8-isoprotanc in the blood of the nonsmokers increased significantly, and their mean levels
of FMD significantly decreased -both signs of cardiac stress and damage. The evidence is very clear -exposure
to second hand smoke simply is not good for health.
While the tobacco industry continues to work behind the scenes to obstrucate the health impact of exposure to
second hand smoke, Philip Morris' own website has been changed recently to the following regarding public
policy and second hand smoke:
"The public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of
secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they
are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them.
Philip Morris USA believes that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental
tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also
believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices
Chair James Arakaki, Hawaii County Council
June 18, 2003; page 3
that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-
smokers." <http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp>
This may be the only time 1 urge the Council to heed the advice of Philip Morris and regulate smoking in public
places, i.e. all workplaces, with no exceptions, in the County of Hawaii.
I would like to share the Coalition's position on each amendment proposed in Draft 4 of Bill 260.
1. Section 14-22(a)(4) Exernpting bars and nightclubs.
The Coalition opposes this amendment that allows workers who are exposed to the highest levels of second hand
smoke to be exempted from the law. Levels of second hand smoke in bars and nightclubs are 4 to 6 times higher
than in offices; levels in restaurants are double the level in offices (Brooks, D. Employment as a waitress or waiter
and risk of lung cancer. Boston, MA: Bureau of Health Statistics, Research and Evaluation, Massachusetts
Department of Public Health, November 1995 and Siegal, M Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace: A
review of employee exposure and health effects. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270.•490-493.
1993).
There is no health or economic reason to exclude bars and nightclubs. Again, all studies based on solid data
demonstrate bars and nightclubs or restaurants do not lose business when all such places are designated as
smokefree. What's left is fear, and the misplaced belief that somehow this violates an individual's "right" to
smoke and a business owner's "right" to conduct his/her business as he/she sees fit. For all their emotional appeal,
neither of these are true.
Designating all workplaces as smokefree does not affect a person's "right" to smoke, only to draw boundaries
where a person cannot smoke when such action affects the health of others. Govemment has a very appropriate
and important colt of setting regulations that protect public health. Smoking is currently not allowed in movie
theaters or enclosed shopping malls to protect patrons from exposure to second hand smoke. Does this violate a
person's "right" to smoke? No, it simply designates places where one cannot smoke because such action affects
the health of others. Designating all workplaces smokefree is exactly the same-it provides protection to all
workers (and patrons) regardless of where they work. An analogy is drinking alcohol and driving. As an adult
over the age of 21, I may have the "right" to drink. This does not mean I have the "right" to drink and drive,
whereby my drinking now has the potential to harm others. Government has the very appropriate role of
regulating drinking and driving for the good of public health. Govemment has decided it is in the best public
Chair James Arakaki, Hawaii County Council
June 18, 2003; page 4
interest not to allow the drinking of alcohol at public beaches or public parks. This restriction certainly does not
violate my "right" to drink.
Regarding the "rights" of business owners. 1 checked on the health and sanitation regulations covering businesses
that serve any food, such as restaurants, bars and nightclubs. There are 125 pages of rules that regulate how food
must be stored, prepared and served -roles business owners must follow in order to protect patrons' health from
illnesses. Business owners do not have the "right" to store, prepare and serve food any way they see fit because it
affects the health of the public There are 21 pages of regulation that cover exposure to noise in the workplace to
protect workers from hearing loss. There arc 62 pages of rules regarding exposure to asbestos. There are 31 pages
of guidelines to protect retail grocercy store workers from back and other musculoskeletal injuries. Bar owners
cannot serve alcohol to anyone under the age of 21, and may be liable for serving alcohol to patrons who
demonstrate signs of having too much to drink should the patron leave and get behind the wheel of a vehicle. Arc
these rules in violation of an owner's "right" to conduct his/her business as hei she best secs fit? No, they are rules
designed to protect the health of workers and patrons. Some, many, of these Hiles cost the business owner money
to comply. Going smokefree costs a business owner nothing, in fact saves money on cleaning and maintenance
costs, does not negatively impact business, and protects [he health of workers and patrons. At most it inconviences
smoking patrons who now have go outside to smoke. I honestly fail to understand how this violates anyone's
"rights."
2. Section 14-20(a)(6). DeSning enclosed or partially enclosed areas
The Coalition fully supports the definition of enclosed or partially enclosed areas as "closed by a roof or overhand
and at least one wall." This definition is clear and straightforward. We oppose the exception for hotels, and
Section 14-21(a)(9) that provides a different, and very convoluted definition for a partially enclosed area in a hotel.
Regarding the concern for partially enclosed areas of hotels, since 1997 the Honolulu ordinance has designated all
areas of a hotel, except in individual hotel rooms, as smokefree [Section 41-21.2(f)(2). Whether the area is
partially enlosed or enclosed, smoking is not allowed in hotels. On Maui smoking is no[ allowed in enclosed and
partially enclosed areas, including lobbies. On Kauai smoking in hotels is only allowed in sepazate open air areas
of the hotel. These smokefree designations have not resulted in any difficulty for the patron, and protects the hotel
worker from exposure to second hand smoke regardless of his/her work station within the hotel. Simply,
smokefree conunon areas in ho[t]s work, and there is no reason to have a complicated definition that no one
understands apply to partially enclosed areas of hotels.
Chair James Arakaki, Hawaii County Council
June l8, 2003; page 5
Far the Council's interest, this complicated definition was written by lawyers for the Roya] Hawaiian Shopping
Center in 1997, based on their fear that having to be smokefree would drive away the Japanese tourists from
shopping at this center, with the City Council going along with this. Truly no one I know really knows how to
apply it. In essence it provides no clarity to the establishment in trying [o determine if a particular partially
enclosed area meets the definition, and is essentially unenforceable. In our opinion the inclusion of this definition
to apply to hotels serves no one's best interests. Appreciating the concern of Mayor Kim, not allowing smoking in
hotel lobbies simply is not a problem.
3. Section 14-21(x)(13) Regarding smoking within 15 feet of an entranceway
The Coalition encourages the Counci] not to drop this section in its entirety, but rather simply delete the reference
to 15 feet. The language would then read
"Smoking is prohibited within a reasonable distance from any entrance to, exitfrom, or any fresh air
intake ojany enclosed area where smoking is prohibited to insure that tobacco smoke does not enter
the enclosed area through entrances, windows, ventilation systems or other means. "
The Americans for Nan-smokers Rights Foundation has indicated to us that a number of the smokefree ordinances
from municipalities around the country contains the provision "within a reasonable distance" or a desigation of a
specific distance ranging from 5 to 50 feet. The "reasonable distance" language works to keep people from
smoking directly in front of a doorway or window.
4. Section 14-22(x)(2) Relating to hotel rooms
The Coalition has no objections to deleting the language that limits designated smoking rooms to no more than
20% of the morns.
5. Sections 14-20(x)(12), 14-21(x)(2), and 14-22(x)(3) Relating to a separate open air area of a restaurant
The Coalition urges the Council to retain the language as outlined in Drafr 3 in designating all areas of ra
restaurant as smokefree. Such a designation is stronger than what is in place on Oahu and Kauai, but is in
keeping with what is in place on Maui. The proposed language in Draft 4 is modeled afrer the Honolulu
ordinance, and honestly, we believe the Maui provision works the best, particularly on the neighbor islands.
Without conducting an actual survey, it appears that more restaurants on the neighbor islands are designed to be
open to the outside and natural ventilation, as opposed to the majority on Oahu being airconditioned, and
Chair James Arakaki, Hawaii County Council
June 18, 2003; page 6
therefore separated from the inside area of the restaurant by a solid wall, rather than just 10 feet of space. The
problem with allowing smoking in the open air areas of naturally ventilated restaurants that are prevelant on the
Big Island, is that cigarette smoke from the open air areas of a restaurant is just as likely, or even more likely, to
drift into the indoor areas of the t estaurant rather than blow outward.
From all reports we have received from Maui, in the five months since their ordinance has gone into effect,
designating all areas of restaurants, indoors and out, as smokefree has worked without any problems.
6. Sections I4-21(a)(13) and 14-22(a)(1) Relating to private residences being used as licensed childcare,
adult day care or health care facility
The Coalition would like to point out that the language proposed in Draft 4, to allow smoking in areas where
clients are not allowed, is in violation of state law regarding child care. HRS §346-158 reads: "No smoking in
child care facilities. Smoking shall be prohibited in all group child care homes, group child care centers, and
family child care homes during their hours of operation."
The Honolulu and Kauai ordinances designates no smoking in private residences when used as childcare, adult
day care or health care facility.
The Coalition suggests the Council adapt the following language for Section 14-21(a)(13)
"Private residences when used as licensed childcare, adult day care,or health care facility during
their hours of operation. "
Finally, let me comment on the concerns regarding fears expressed regarding the "burden" this bill will place on
the police force in enforcing the provisions of the bill. In fact, one of the beauties of these type of ordinances is
that very little, if any, enforcement by the police is necessary. Once again, think about the current provisions
designating movie theaters, enclosed shopping malls, lobby areas of multifamily buildings, elavators, etc. These
smokefree areas did not come about because the police had to enforce the law, rather, through accepted social
norms people know that smoking is not allowed in these areas and don't. The experience on Oahu and in Kauai
and Maui counties, and across the country demonstrates that these laws work with only minimal, if any, police
enforcement.
Chair James Arakaki, Hawai `i Cuunty Council
June 18, 2003; page 7
In closing, the Coalition would like to thank [he Hawaii Island and the Kona-Kohala Chambers of Commerce,
which represent approximately 1300 businesses on the Big Island and whose letters of support have been
submitted separately, are in full support of this law. The Chambers understand business will not suffer. I remind
you of the USA Today national survey that found that 70% of those surveyed indicated they do not patronize bars
specifically because of exposure to secondhand smoke, 59°/n do not patronize nightclubs, and 48°/, do not patronize
restaurants that allow smoking. ,as for our Asian visitors, a survey conducted in I{ong Kong in September 2002
regarding smoke-free restaurants found that 77.2 % of the 1320 people randomly surveyed indicated that their
dining out habits would not change with smoke-free restaurants, 19.7% indicated they would dine out more often,
and only 3.2% indicated they would dine out Icss.
The Coalition believes all workers, including those working in bars and nightclubs, deserve a workplace free from
second hand smoke. 72.4% of residents on the Big Island agree, according to a recent survey conducted by the UH
Department of Public Health Services. Going smoke-free costs nothing for businesses to implement; in fact,
businesses will save money in reduced maintenance costs. Implementation will not result in any loss of revenue or a
decrease in tourism; in fact, it may result in increased revenue. It protects workers' health and their working
conditions, which does much to improve their morale. Passage of Bill 260 will demonstrate that all counties of
Hawaii are committed Hawaii being the "Health State."
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to the next steps in the passage of the most
comprehensive smoke-free workplace bill in the state.
Sincerely~/
Clifford~k" ang, MPH, CH S
Director