I was particularly proud this past week to be a part of a City Council
that was willing, almost unanimously, to actually define the cutting
edge of legislation involving protection from secondhand smoke.
The span of my lifetime also pretty well defines both the dramatic rise
and continuing fall of the acceptance and promotion of tobacco smoking
in the United States. The late 1950s was the high point when 44-47% of
all adult Americans smoked; over 50% of men, and about 33% of women,
following by only a few years a time when the U.S. Government (and
tobacco companies) provided free cigarettes as part of the food ration
to millions of G.I’s.
In the early 1950’s I remember seeing advertising disguised as
documentary films produced by tobacco companies touting the benefits of
smoking actually shown as part of the instructional program in
elementary school.
Most doctors I knew as a youth smoked, and ads in magazines like Life
routinely featured doctors promoting specific brands of cigarettes.
Adults typically smoked at the dinner table after eating or sometimes
even while eating.
Smoking was routine on trains, planes and buses, in restaurants, movie
theaters and workplaces. Even schools and hospitals. Ashtrays were
everywhere, more often than not occupied by a burning cigarette. Smoking
was accepted as a right, and objections to second-hand smoke were
generally perceived as frivolous.
At college, smoking was actually allowed in the classroom subject to
discretion of the professor, which was more often than not granted
because the professor wanted to smoke in class. Informal receptions of
clubs and organizations in college were routinely called “smokers,” and
free cigarettes provided by tobacco companies were often featured.
I grew up in a place where my parents and most other parents smoked, all
day every day – at home and in the car (with the windows rolled up in
winter). Both my parents died from smoking related diseases, my father
from lung cancer and my mother from emphysema.
Although tobacco legislation and studies of health risks began to appear
in the early 20th century, smoking got a huge boost during
the two world wars, and for early 40 years, any anti-smoking activity
was deemed virtually anti-American. It was not until the late 1950s that
health authorities once again began to strongly suggest that there was a
relationship between smoking and cancer. In 1966, the surgeon general
first required the warning “Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your
Health,“ and in 1971, cigarette advertising on television was banned.
The trend had finally been reversed.
While some advocates of tobacco-related legislation were clearly
interested in saving smokers, the most important motivation has been
saving non-smokers from the discomfort and health-related impacts of
secondhand smoke. Along the way, however, the percentage of American
smokers has declined by over 50%.
In 1995, the “Marlboro Man,” television cowboy, David McLean, died of
lung cancer at 73.
Recent responses to Richmond’s legislation have suggested reprises of
Nazi Germany and invasions of privacy by government. People have
suggested Richmond should be paying less attention to secondhand smoke
and more attention to violence and homicides. As I emailed one critic
this morning:
This was not about protecting you; it was about protecting people who
cannot protect themselves, including children susceptible to asthma and
older people with health conditions that are aggravated by smoke.
As the [Contra Costa Times] article said, " Secondhand smoke is
listed as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency." If people want to kill themselves, that's personal. If they are
putting someone else at risk, them it's a public problem.
The role of government, broadly, speaking, is to protect and enhance
public health, safety and welfare. It is entirely appropriate for
government to take action to limit unwanted exposure to secondhand
smoke.
This is part of a trend that started with transportation, restaurants
and bars and the workplace, all of which have been very successful and
well-received by the overwhelming majority of people.
I hope you reconsider your condemnation.
This is not a right to privacy issue or a private property issue. One
person suggested it should not apply to condominiums because they are
private property. I can tell you as an architect that there is nothing
in the building code that makes a condominium any more smoke-tight
between units than an apartment building. From a building code
standpoint, both are regulated by the same code section and are
considered simply multi-unit dwellings.
As a City Council member, I cannot stop people from killing each other
with guns, just as I can’t and won’t stop people from smoking, but I can
legislate an end to secondhand smoke where if affects vulnerable people
in multi-family dwellings, and it will probably be much easier to
enforce than laws against murder. It may also save just as many lives.
As I have grown older, I have watched with great satisfaction the end of
smoking first in movie theaters and classrooms. Later came planes,
workplaces and then bars and restaurants. These laws were made largely
by someone else, typically state or federal legislators. I am proud that
as a mere city council member, I can take a seat along with these other
pioneers in an increasingly enlightened nation that has wakened to the
dangers of secondhand smoke and taken action to protect those who can’t
protect themselves. In the process, America has become healthier.
From today’s West County Times:
Richmond tightens smoking rules
By Katherine Tam
West County Times
Posted: 07/11/2009 12:45:52 PM PDT
Updated: 07/12/2009 05:26:01 AM PDT
Richmond will ban smoking in apartments and
condominiums in addition to public places, making the city the toughest
place in the Bay Area to light up.
City officials will require multiunit housing to go smoke-free by
Jan. 1, 2011. That includes individual apartment units and common areas
such as lobbies and patios, where experts say secondhand smoke can seep
through cracks, vents and wall sockets. Apartment owners can designate a
smoking area, but it must be at least 25 feet away from where smoking is
prohibited.
Fines for violating the new ban on smoking in multiunit housing start
at $100.
The new ordinance, which the City Council approved this month, is on
top of additional regulations created in May that bar smoking in public
places such as parks, trails and where parades, farmers markets and
other public events are held. Smoking is prohibited indoors where people
congregate and work — regardless of whether it's publicly or privately
owned — including restaurants, bars and conference rooms.
That's a big change from more than a decade ago when people hoping to
keep secondhand smoke at bay created smoking and nonsmoking sections in
restaurants and airplanes.
"We're on the right side of history," Councilman Tom Butt said. "This
idea that somehow you could bifurcate buildings and make portions of it
smoking, portions of it nonsmoking, it just doesn't work."
Richmond now has on the books the strictest batch of secondhand
smoking laws in the region, said Serena Chen, a regional director at the
American Lung Association in California. Other cities have some of the
same laws, but not all of them.
Secondhand smoke is listed as a human carcinogen by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
It was an F grade on an American Lung Association report card in
January that spurred Richmond officials to toughen their laws. That
report card graded cities on how well they discouraged smoking by
developing laws that ban smoking outdoors and in multiunit housing and
that regulate tobacco sales.
Most cities in the Bay Area got a D or F. No one got an A; five
jurisdictions — Contra Costa County, Oakland, Berkeley, Novato and
Belmont — got Bs.
Belmont made national headlines in 2007 when it became the first in
the country to ban smoking in multiunit housing; that went into effect
in January. Dublin followed suit in 2008 with a less-restrictive
requirement that half the units in buildings with more than 16 rentals
be smoke-free by 2010.
In Richmond, people can continue to smoke at home if it is a
single-family house and on sidewalks and streets, but not within 25 feet
of a door, window or vent that leads to a place where smoking is
prohibited. Tobacco retailers are required to get a permit.
Smoke-free law supporters celebrated with hugs in the back of the
City Council chamber this past week after officials passed its latest
law. Smokers and apartment representatives, who were fewer in number at
the meeting, were less enthused. Theresa Karr, who represents the
California Apartment Association, asked the city to cushion the
financial blow to apartment owners and tenants by requiring half,
instead of all, the units in existing buildings be smoke-free. Evictions
could be an unintended consequence, she warned.
"You are not only financially impacting owners and operators of
rental properties, you're probably going to financially impact tenants
who maybe have no other bad habit other than they smoke," Karr said. |
