People Ban: PA State Page 1

Read Newest Articles at: PA State Page 2

---

House, Senate agree on exception to smoking ban

10/22/06

Sidestepping smoking ban

The House and Senate don’t seem to agree on much in their efforts to revamp the state’s 2004 slots law, but they do agree on whether there should be smoking in Pennsylvania’s slots parlors.

Each chamber has approved language that allows slots venues to sidestep any local smoking bans that might be enacted, requiring them to abide only by a statewide smoking ban should one ever be enacted.

That means Mohegan Sun at Pocono Downs would not have to snuff out smoking if its host municipality, Plains Township, ever goes smoke-free.

Robert Soper, the racetrack’s CEO, has told the state’s Gaming Control Board that the facility will have smoking and non-smoking areas and plans to “adjust amenities” as market demands dictate.

Michael Race is Harrisburg bureau chief for Times-Shamrock Newspapers. Have a question or concern about state government? E-mail him at mrace@timesshamrock.com.
Read More

---

Subject: Philadelphia Slot Parlors
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006
From: Edward J Moore
To: Senator_Fumo@fumo.com, tartaglione@pasenate.com, stack@pasenate.com

Dear Pa State Senators,
Please consider in your voting on the “Slots Bill”, the right to allow
smoking areas in Philadelphia slot parlors. If we eliminate smoking
areas and allow a ban in Philadelphia, many will go elsewhere. It is
also common knowledge that a high percentage of gamblers are smokers and
when Delaware banned smoking areas in their racinos, the results were
layoffs and increased profits in Atlantic City. For the slot parlors to
be all inclusive and competitive they must have smoking areas for gamblers.
Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts on this issue.
Edward J Moore

---

July 25, 2006
By Myron Cope

In response to the July 11 editorial “Local Control: If the State Won’t Act, the County Should Ban Smoke”:

It surprises me that the Post-Gazette refuses to allow facts to stand in the way of its tirades against smokers.

You were presented with scientific fact, gift-wrapped in a letter from Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., who stated that, although he does not recommend use of tobacco, the largest study to date has shown no significant relationship between secondhand smoke and cancer — or, I think it logically follows, between secondhand smoke and any disease of the PG’s choice. For all I know, the PG fears smokers will cause an outbreak of beriberi or mad cow disease.

Anyhow, within days of Dr. Schneiderman’s letter, there followed (with no mention of the study he cited) your latest demand that smokers be banished by law from all public workplaces.

Don’t you like that broad study because it was conducted in Europe? Not Iraq or within the confines of Steubenville — Europe. Does not your editorial writer recognize Europe? It’s a continent.

At any rate, you are now trying to support your preconceived notions by citing blatherings from the surgeon general whose opinions — without a shred of fact — were spread across your front page.

The U.S. surgeon general carries a highfalutin title but performs no surgery of an official nature — not even an appendectomy. However, a few surgeons general got into self-promoting.

In 1964 Luther Terry made himself mildly known by smacking smokers. Eighteen years passed before pointy-bearded C. Everett Koop (there’s a handle!) remembered Terry’s gig and used it to get on the speech circuit.

Now, 24 years later, you fall back on the current surgeon general’s nonfindings and your usual variety of statistics that invariably are round numbers. As journalists, do you never smell a rat in round numbers?

At any rate, you then publish an essay under — in large print — the names Paulraj Samuel, M.D., and Amber Samuel, M.D., who pronounce the surgeon general “the highest-ranking public health official in our country.”

They cite the surgeon general’s report as the last word and tell us of Pittsburgh’s beauty canceled out by their being consumed by “what health hazards lurk in a nearby puff of smoke.” There goes Mount Washington!

In any case, it is important, when speaking of studies to know who commissioned them. The recipients of these grants know who — and usually deliver the grantor’s desired result, else they’ll never get another grant.

Also, never mind the PG’s tireless references to the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, et al. Bureaucracies all. Get cousin Louie a job over there writing press releases citing “studies” and round figures on secondhand smoke.

Smokers, head for your basements! The health Nazis, who never let fact stand in their way, are after us as never before in their ignominious past.

————

July 20, 2006

Myron Cope should stick to topics he knows about

Myron Cope may know a lot about the Steelers, but what he does not know about the dangers of secondhand smoke could fill Heinz Field. Contrary to his July 25 commentary “The Smoke Nazis Are After Us,” there is enormous evidence of these dangers. (See the recent surgeon general’s report at www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm.)

As noted in the report, it “was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the report was revised to address reviewers’ comments.”

How could every one of the dozens of top experts in this field be completely wrong? As someone who has contributed to other surgeon general reports, but not this one, I can attest to the careful fact-checking that goes into them.

Myron Cope also states that “it is important, when speaking of studies, to know who commissioned them.” How true this is. Experts ignore most studies claiming no harm from secondhand smoke precisely because they were paid for by the tobacco industry, which funded researchers only as long as they failed to show any dangers of smoking. (See www.mayoclinic.org/news2001-rst/893.html.)

With limited research funds and so many public health problems needing study, does Myron really think that government would fund research on, and scientists would waste their time with, one that didn’t actually exist?

KENNETH PERKINS
Professor of Psychiatry
University of Pittsburgh
Oakland

————

Rotten air

After reading the rant by Myron Cope in the July 25 Post-Gazette (“The Smoke Nazis Are After Us”), I had to comment. Let me say first, that I am a big fan of Myron. However, I am dismayed by his torrent of venom toward nonsmokers who prefer not to have their lungs polluted by secondhand smoke, both in his book and in his recent commentary.

I choose not to smoke. I also choose not to smell like an ashtray. My husband and I had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time in New York last year; it was nice to be able to go to a restaurant and get the first available table, regardless of our smoking preference. It was also nice being able to enjoy nights out without the stench of stale smoke on our clothes for the ride home. Judging by the lines of people at every establishment, the smoking ban was not affecting business, either.

We recently attended the Steelers Celebration at Heinz Field, which is supposed to be smoke-free. Our evening was spoiled when the group of tipsy girls behind us chose to light up during the Bon Jovi concert. They were less than a foot away; would they burn us?

Face it, Myron, you choose to partake in a habit that is a big turn-off for most Pittsburghers. The tide is turning, and I look forward to the day when you and your fellow smokers do take to your basements.

KRISTIN STROHMEIER
Plum

---

July 14, 2006

The Pennsylvania Restaurant Association has thrown its support behind a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants, bars, casinos and private clubs.

So why couldn’t we find any local establishments who agree with them?

Admittedly, we used a small sample, but when staff writer Jeff Pikulsky talked to owners of Mon Valley clubs and restaurants last week, he found angry opposition to the proposed ban.

Monessen Elks Club Steward Marcy Zites estimated that 70 percent of her club patrons smoke and feared that a ban would be bad for business.

Those sentiments were echoed at the Foster House in North Belle Vernon, where bartender Lisa Vestrat said customers have been complaining about the possibility of a ban.

At the High Point restaurant in Coal Center, Loretta Sepesy lamented, “People like to have a drink and cigarette. They take away all of your rights anymore.”

The proposal to ban smoking in public places was introduced by Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, a Republican from Montgomery, and is currently being considered by the Senate’s Public Health & Welfare Committee. Similar legislation in the House died in committee last month.

The ban is being offered out of concern for the health and welfare of employees who work in those facilities and are exposed to second-hand smoke. A recent report from the U.S. Surgeon General brands second-hand smoke as a health risk and recommends that it be banned from public gathering places.

We understand the concern of the state’s Restaurant Association and its desire to be on the politically correct side of the smoking argument. But we think the organization should have contacted more of its members to see if they feel the same way.

It’s our position that in a free society, this decision should be up to the individual restaurants, not the government. Restaurants who want to ban smoking should be welcome to do so, and customer response will determine if they are right or wrong.

“The sun does more damage to peoples’ bodies than second-hand cigarette smoke,” said Monessen Elks Club trustee Brian Mears. “What is the government going to do next, shut down the sun?

Shh, Brian, don’t give them any ideas.

---

Letters to the editor, 07/01/06
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The top headline of the June 28 Post-Gazette, about the “major health hazard” of secondhand smoke (“It’s ‘Indisputable’: Secondhand Smoke a Major Health Hazard”), reminded me of another recent news story.

That story detailed a study in a major magazine that reported that it was unhealthy to jog, bicycle or exercise outdoors in Pittsburgh on many days — due to very poor air quality.

George W. Bush’s surgeon general correctly points out the dangers of secondhand smoke while remaining silent about the large increases in air pollution (and all types of pollution) since Mr. Bush began to systematically reverse federal environmental protections.

I may start a Web site called SMOKE — Stop the Madness and Oppression Killing Everything. I may then conduct a study of the health effects of secondhand smoke on the average person compared to simply breathing the air in Pittsburgh on a poor-quality-air day.

Maybe smokers could accept “the war” against us, and cooperate as much as possible, if we saw some consistency in relation to corporate polluters, the government’s failure to discourage gas-guzzling SUVs and continued poor urban planning resulting in more traffic smog.

To single out smokers while ignoring more-significant polluters is like blaming the poor for all social problems. Also, if the goal is to discourage smoking, I have heard no politician discuss alternative forms of funding to replace the huge tax revenues generated by cigarette sales.

RICHARD RESTIVO
North Fayette

---

Smoking Ban In Restaurants, Bars Gaining Support
June 28, 2006
The issue of banning smoking in Pennsylvania workplaces probably won’t come up again until after September, Perrine said

---

Some area politicians like smoking ban bill
June, 2006
RICHARD FELLINGER
A plan to ban smoking in most indoor public places has ignited debate in the Capitol, but its future is hazy.
The bill from Rep. Sue Cornell, R-Montgomery, was dealt a blow when a House committee deadlocked on it last week, but supporters are undeterred. They vow to seek compromises and keep pushing it.

---

Workplace Smoking Ban Defeated — For Now

Jun 6, 2006

There will be no smoking ban in all public places and workplaces in Pennsylvania — for now.

This morning, the House Health and Human Services Committee voted on the legislation. The vote was 14-14, which means the bill fails. SURVEY: Do you think smoking should be banned in public places and workplaces in Pa.? “I voted yes. It was somewhat of a difficult vote for me because I’m a believer in less government, but it really became a real health issue. I heard from so many people in my district that were supportive of it because of the secondhand smoke and the people who work in the establishments have to breathe the secondhand smoke,” said Rep. Katie True.

---

May 30, 2006
Tracie Mauriello

A proposal for statewide restrictions on tobacco use could go up in smoke, at least for now.

State Rep. Susan E. Cornell, R-Montgomery, is trying to push through a bill that would prohibit smoking in most public places, but legislative leaders say there are more pressing issues to address first.

Time is running out for Ms. Cornell, who lost in this month’s primary.

The House Health and Human Services Committee is expected to vote on her bill June 6 and forward it to the full House. Members, though, are in no hurry to take it up.

“Our priorities are going to be property tax reform, lobbyist spending disclosure and the budget. Those are the things we have to get done,” said Stephen Miskin, spokesman for House Majority Leader Sam Smith, R-Punxsutawney.

Ms. Cornell’s bill would prohibit smoking in places including most retail stores, workplaces, bingo halls, museums and restaurants unless owners and managers create separate smoking rooms with approved ventilation systems.

Ms. Cornell is expected to propose an amendment allowing smoking in tobacco shops and tobacco manufacturing companies.

The Pennsylvania Restaurant Association says businesses should decide for themselves whether to be smoke-free based on their clientele. But, it says, if any ban is enacted, there should be no exceptions.

“Any legislation should be consistently applied to every workplace, no exceptions,” said Kevin Joyce, the association’s president and owner of The Carlton, a restaurant in Downtown Pittsburgh.

If the state doesn’t take action on smoking bans soon, Allegheny County might adopt its own local smoking ban.

County officials have been discussing the idea for years but have delayed action hoping the Legislature will impose a statewide ban instead.

They’re becoming impatient and frustrated by the Legislature’s inaction, said Guillermo Cole, spokesman for the Allegheny County Health Department.

“A lot of these bills have been introduced in Harrisburg but they never seem to go anywhere,” he said. “There are some members of our Board of Health that think it’s time to move forward and do something at the local level.”

Mr. Cole believes local ordinances are allowable, but even that is in question.

The state’s Clean Indoor Air Act of 1988, which requires restaurants to offer nonsmoking sections, pre-empts local ordinances. That pre-emption may not have been legal or proper but has not been removed, said Joe Minott, executive director of the Pennsylvania Clean Air Council.

“The Clean Indoor Air Act sets as low a bar as you could possibly set. It’s unconscionable for the Legislature to say, ‘We’re not going to allow local governments to reflect the will of the people and add more restrictions,'” Mr. Minott said.

Allegheny County officials should move forward with a local smoking ban, even though it would likely face legal challenges from the tobacco industry, he said.

“They need to do what they believe is in the best interest of the citizens of Allegheny County. They have a legal and moral duty to do what they think is right,” he said.

Passage of a local smoking ban would require public hearings, a recommendation from the county Board of Health and approval by County Council and county Chief Executive Dan Onorato.

“Everyone would rather see a statewide ban. If we were to approve something locally, that would put some of our Allegheny County restaurants and bars at a disadvantage,” Mr. Cole said. “Customers can just cross the county line to go somewhere they can smoke.”

---

April 18, 2006
J.D. Mullane

This is the first week of a New Jersey ban on smoking at all indoor public places, such as bars, restaurants and clubs.

My question: What next will the guv’mint ban? You don’t think activist Jersey legislators will stop at diners along the turnpike, do you? I don’t. Meddling in the private affairs of citizens and business will continue apace.

Based on my observations as a reporter for many years, government never satisfies its twin cravings for 1) more money and 2) more meddling in people’s lives.

And government loves meddling.

Rarely a week passes when I don’t see an article in this newspaper about some bureaucracy trying to worm its way into private lives under the color of “helping.”

Last week, for example, we reported on a local public school district that has a program that “gives parents and kids in grades six to eight a chance to spend time together and interact with other families.”

Families stop at the high school, where dinner is served, board games are played and parents talk to their children about dating, bullying, curfews and drugs. They “bond.”

All of this is done with the aid of a social service agency and “teachers, counselors and other school officials.”

Maybe it’s me, but doesn’t basic parenting require serving dinner and bonding with your kids without assistance from “school officials?”

Apparently not in Lower Bucks County. Three other local school districts have similar programs and two more want to launch versions of their own.

Another example, also from last week: State Rep. Stephen Maitland of Adams County wants to make it a law to tack $13,000 to the sale of every new home in six counties in the mid-state region deemed to be high growth areas. The goal is to spread “growth” more evenly across the state and to encourage the renewal of houses in older town centers, according to the AP.

So, it’s really about modifying the behavior of homebuyers.

This kind of meddling is irresistible to government types. You only need to keep an eye on the Jersey smoking ban to see how.

In fact, the Jersey smoking ban is already reaping dividends for the savvy observer of ever-expanding government meddling.

Tucked away in 77 pages of state-imposed restrictions is one that widens the heralded “indoor” smoking ban to the outdoors, with something called the “25-feet rule.”

This means no one can smoke within 25 feet of a bar or restaurant.

So, what’s next?

Perhaps New Jersey will ban smoking in cars carrying children, as one of the first bills proposed last year had intended.

After that, maybe the government will ban smoking anywhere near kids — even if you are lighting up at 10 p.m. on a backyard deck in sub-freezing weather because your wife won’t let you smoke in the house.

We may not even have to wait to see how it plays out over there.

The Jersey smoking ban is echoed in Pennsylvania with House Bill 1489, introduced last year by Rep. Susan Cornell of Hatboro.

“We don’t call it a “ban.’ It’s an “anti-smoking legislation,’ ” Cornell’s secretary told me Monday.

But HB 1489 would ban smoking in workplaces that expose non-smokers to “second hand smoke,” she said.

If passed, my bet is that the meddling won’t stop until the state has fully criminalized a bad habit.

---

POTTSVILLE, Pa.
(AP) – Starting June 1, the Brass Tap Tavern will go smoke-free, possibly a first for Schuylkill County.

Owner Matthew P. DiRenzo will enforce a smoking ban at the downtown bar because of health concerns for himself, employees and patrons. Smokers would still be allowed to light up outside on the patio.

Clinical Outcomes Group of Pottsville has petitioned local organizations to support a statewide ban on smoking in the workplace – including bars and restaurants – similar to laws in New York and Delaware.

While some tavern owners think a smoking ban will hurt business, DiRenzo hopes to bring people back.

“I can honestly say a lot of people have given up on the bar and tavern scene. A lot of people don’t like a smoking environment,” he said.

---

The treacherous journey to … Pennsylvania

I left New York state for a while March 13, and I’m just glad I made it back alive. I was in a ruthless society, where people could smoke inside buildings, talk on their cell phones while driving, buy fireworks, stun guns and pepper spray, ride their motorcycles without helmets and even get away without having to pay sales tax on the clothes that they buy. There were probably other wanton acts being performed there that I didn’t see or realize, like letting a parking meter run out for 15 or 20 seconds, but I was just looking out for people doing the aforementioned things and steering clear of them.
Of course, I’m talking about our neighbor to the south, Pennsylvania. As I approached the Pennsylvania border, I didn’t know what to expect. I never felt so vulnerable and unsafe. New York state does such a good job of protecting me from myself that when I left that environment, I didn’t know how to act. I don’t smoke, use fireworks, pepper spray, stun guns or ride helmetless, but I wanted to, just for that day, to see if I would survive.
Going home, as I approached the border of New York state, I began to get nervous. I started to feel choked. Was I on the cell phone? Thank God I wasn’t! I made it to the border alive.
As I left those toll-free, well-maintained Pennsylvania highways, I started wondering if there was anything that I bought there that I could possibly claim on my New York state income tax form to help my state squeeze more tax dollars out of me. Unfortunately, there wasn’t. As I gladly paid my tolls at the Ogden and Grand Island toll barriers, leaving those toll-free road behind me, I knew I was back to safety. As my trailer bounced happily all over the “well-maintained” roads that I pay tolls and taxes for, I breathed a sigh of relief. I don’t have to think for myself anymore. New York state will do that for me.
Bill Fundis
Niagara Falls
March 19, 2006

By John Hilton
February 12, 2006

Carl Stasyszyn Jr. nearly lost his business after the Locker Room Sports Cafe banned smoking in 1997.

Stasyszyn is a nonsmoker and his father has emphysema, so the pair decided to focus more on the restaurant side of the business — becoming just the second bar in Pennsylvania to ban smoking.

But after about a year of steadily declining business, they relented and allowed smokers to light up again. “It was a pretty disastrous business move on our parts,” the younger Stasyszyn recalls. “Drinking and smoking go hand-in-hand…. We went back to smoking. It was either that or go out of business.”

The lessons of the Locker Room, which closed last year, are not lost on area tavern/ restaurant owners — who worry that Pennsylvania will become the next state to ban public smoking. Legislation is being debated in the state Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee.

Eleven states have enacted complete bans on public smoking, including a record five in 2005. Three of those states border Pennsylvania — New Jersey, New York and Delaware. That leads many to believe the Keystone State will be next.

“We’re all concerned about it,” says Dick Phelan, owner of the Gingerbread Man franchise. “You’re talking about people making a law that will affect our business.”

A poll conducted by the Gallup Organization between Dec. 27, 2004, and Jan. 19, 2005, concluded a vast majority of Pennsylvanians support bans on smoking in a variety of public locations.

Responses to the survey ranged from a high of 94 percent approval for bans in grocery stores to 78 percent in indoor restaurants to a low of about 46 percent in bars and outdoor cafes. The poll was cited by Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, during Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee hearings held in September. Greenleaf is sponsor of the bill to ban public smoking.

Goes together

Stuart Taylor, 62, says he has smoked “off and on” for about 50 years. The Carlisle man likes to complete the famed Market Cross “passport” of worldwide brews each year.

And he enjoys a smoke with his beer. Always has.

“Beer and cigarettes have been around since even before Prohibition,” he says. “There’s just something about the two that goes together — like coffee and cigarettes in the morning.”

Still, Taylor says he respects the rights of nonsmokers and understands why new laws are being discussed. “Even though I’m a smoker, I believe that people who don’t smoke have a right to fresh air,” he says. “I’m not going to get all up in arms if they (ban public smoking) because I know it’s coming.”

Industry opposed

The bill is opposed by the Pennsylvania Tavern Association and the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association.

“Our membership typically consists of mom-and-pop, family run, small businesses,” says Amy Christie, executive director of the tavern association, which represents 1,200 members. “They rely on their clientele who have become regulars through the years. I can point to study after study that show small businesses are the ones hurt when a ban like this is put into effect.”

Backers of the legislation say the tavern and restaurant industry continues to thrive in states that have adopted a public smoking ban.

“None have lost money because of the bans,” testified Joanne Corte Grossi, the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s deputy secretary for health promotion and disease prevention, during the Senate hearing.

In 2004, Pennsylvania spent about $5 billion to directly care for people suffering with tobacco-related conditions, says Ella Kuratomi, a Department of Health spokeswoman. Fourteen percent of all state Medicaid expenditures went to treating tobacco-related conditions and the health problems contributed to a $4.24 billion loss in productivity.

“Employees of bars and restaurants are three times more likely than the rest of us to get lung cancer, and have a 50 percent better chance than firefighters,” Grossi testified.

But Christie argues in favor of personal choice. “When you become an employee in that industry you know you’re walking into a place where (smoking) is going to occur.”

Senate sources say the bill isn’t likely to be voted on anytime soon.

‘A little bit’ worried

Liz Horn, 22, has worked at the Market Cross Pub in Carlisle for five years. Horn, who is eight and one-half months pregnant ,admits to being “a little bit” worried about the health affects of working in a smoky bar.

“I worry more now because I’m pregnant, about the low birth weight and all,” she says, adding: “I think most of the waitresses here would prefer to see it” be a non-smoking pub.

A nonsmoker, Horn says the Market Cross is not as bad as some other bars she has visited.

“It’s more at night and not so much during the day,” she says. “It’s not as bad because we have a good ventilation system, but when you go home at night, you still smell from the smoke.”

Market Cross owner Jeff Goss says he tries to accommodate all customers. His North Hanover Street establishment is divided into a smoking side, which includes the bar, and a non-smoking restaurant side. Smoke Eater and ionizers pull in the smoke and recycle clean air.

Matter of choice

“From a health standpoint, I know there’s danger in the smoke,” says Goss, a smoker. “All we’re asking is let us be accommodating and let the customer make the choice.”

What Goss doesn’t want to see happen is a repeat of the process used in Massachusetts, where smoking was banned statewide in June 2004. However, the full ban came about two years after restaurants and taverns spent thousands of dollars to install Smoke Eaters and other ventilation improvements.

Goss says he has spoken with friends and fellow restaurant owners in California and New York and they report an initial loss of up to 40 percent of their business following enactment of smoking bans in those states.

Business has bounced back somewhat for those owners, but he remains worried. “When you’re talking about 20-, 30-, 40 percent (loss of business), as a small independent we don’t have” other stores to absorb the loss, says Goss, who owns a second Market Cross Pub in Shippensburg. “It can knock a person out of business.”

Health care experts say the concerns are exaggerated and point out that many nonsmokers may frequent taverns and restaurants more often if smoking is banned. It is a point Phelan concedes. “We don’t know how many people don’t come in because” smoking is allowed, he says. “That’s what we don’t know… We might stay the same. We might end up ahead.”

In the tavern business for over 30 years, Phelan estimates between 50 and 75 percent of his customers after 9 p.m. are smokers.

A level field

Now that he’s on the other side of the bar, Stasyszyn says a ban on smoking is “a great idea” that can work without hurting businesses. The key is making the same rules for everybody: “If they’re going to mandate it and everybody has to do it, then everybody is in the same boat,” Stasyszyn says.

Local tavern and restaurant owners are worried the Legislature will grant exclusions to some in their industry. For example, New Jersey gave casinos a pass when its public ban on smoking went into effect.

“That’s not going to be fair to us,” Phelan says. “I just want everybody on a level playing field.”

State Sen. Patricia Vance, R-31, who sits on the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee, says lawmakers have several issues to sort out before any votes are taken, including whether they can even extend such a law to private clubs like the American Legion and the Moose Lodge.

“I don’t know if we can do that if they’re a private club,” Vance says, adding she is somewhat torn by that aspect. “I have some empathy for the private clubs, but then I think about the people who work there.”

Christie says her organization is watching the debate closely. “The only way it cannot take away from one industry and give to another is to make sure there are no exclusions.”
Read

80% in Valley back tougher smoking limits

Anti-cigarette coalition releases poll for Great American Smokeout.

November 17, 2005
From The Morning Call
By Ann Wlazelek
Of The Morning Call

In time for today’s Great American Smokeout, a local anti-smoking coalition has released results of a survey that members say overwhelmingly supports their mission of a smoke-free Pennsylvania.

Eighty percent of the nearly 3,000 registered voters in Lehigh and Northampton counties who answered the mailed surveys said they support ”a law that regulates exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in indoor public places.” Ten percent of those responding were smokers.

Alice Dalla Palu, executive director of the Coalition for a Smoke-Free Valley, interprets the response to the group’s survey to mean residents want smoking banned in all public places and work places. In separate questions, 75 percent preferred no smoking in restaurants and 59 percent preferred no smoking in bars, she noted.

Dalla Palu said Pennsylvania’s current law, the Indoor Air Act of 1988, does not regulate second-hand smoke because it requires businesses only to have a policy, and that policy can be to permit smoking on the premises.

”There’s no fine,” she added, unless a restaurant of a certain size does not have a nonsmoking section. ”And then, it’s not enforced.”

Essentially, smoking is prohibited at movie theaters and government offices, but not all restaurants, bars and bowling lanes.

Smoking rights advocates say they are not surprised at the higher-than-usual support for regulation considering the way the question was posed and the under-representation of smokers.

”Everyone wants a law that regulates some degree [of smoke] in some places, such as grammar schools and hospitals,” said Michael McFadden, a Philadelphia author and spokesman for the Web-based Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network.

If the survey had asked about a government-mandated law banning smoking in bars and private clubs, he speculated, ”the response would have been much less.”

McFadden said about 25 percent of adults in Pennsylvania smoke and smokers represent about 70 percent of bar patrons.

”Of the 59 percent who said they want no smoking in bars, most probably never go to bars,” he said.

McFadden said self-selection can influence results too, especially if the coalition conducting the survey was identified.

Krysten Evans, coalition advocacy coordinator, said the nonprofit group was not identified to avoid such a bias. Surveys were returned to a nonspecific ”health studies department” at a post office box, she said.

The coalition conducted the survey to gauge attitudes and launch a grass-roots effort to make Pennsylvania the 11th smoke-free state. The next step is to survey cities such as Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton, where mayors can judge public opinion and decide whether to encourage state legislators to revise the indoor air law. Smoke-free coalitions in Carbon, Monroe and Pike counties also plan to survey voters.

Coalition members said they had no estimate of the cost of the survey. However, the coalition is funded by grants, including those from a court settlement that Pennsylvania negotiated with the tobacco industry.

Replicating a survey conducted in Massachusetts several years ago, Evans mailed survey cards to 8,000 registered voters in the Lehigh Valley, or 4,000 in each county. Thirty-eight percent, or 2,949, responded.

”Lehigh and Northampton counties are ready,” Dalla Palu said. ”They want to protect their health from the hazards of second-hand smoke.” Smoking has been linked to heart disease and cancer, the nation’s leading killers.

ann.wlazelek@mcall.com
610-820-6745