From: SMOKEFREE@compuserve.com
Date: Mon, 06/09/08
Please contact your PA Senator NOW (at his/her Harrisburg office) urging a
YES vote on the Smoke Free Pennsylvania Act when the Senate reconsiders the
bill (which is on today's Senate agenda). Contact information for Senators
is at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/
Although it exempts 12 slot casinos and about 500 bars and 500 private
clubs (exposing about 20,000 workers to tobacco smoke pollution), the
legislation will provide smokefree indoor workplaces for more than 95%
(probably close to 98%) of workers in Pennsylvania. If the Senate rejects
this legislation, it is unlikely that the legislature will reconsider the
issue for at least another year.
For a copy of the Smoke Free PA Act, go to http://www.legis.state.pa.us/
and type in SB 246, then click on Printers Number 2099.
Upon enactment, Smokefree Pennsylvania will continue advocating legislation
next session to let local governments enact stronger smokefree ordinances
and to eliminate exemptions for slot casinos, bars and clubs. More
newspaper editorials below.
Bill Godshall
Smokefree Pennsylvania
- - -
Senate must reconsider smoking bill, compromise is better than no ban at
all
Morning Call (Allentown)
June 6, 2008
http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-edit2.6445775jun06,0,4593220.story
Politics in Harrisburg is all about counting noses. It's ironic that the
effort to finally pass a statewide smoking ban fell short earlier this week
by seven noses in the state Senate. On Wednesday, senators rejected a
conference committee compromise smoking ban by a 19-31 vote, mostly because
the proposal treated Philadelphia differently than the rest of the state. A
difference of just seven noses is preventing millions of Pennsylvanians
from being protected from breathing second-hand smoke.
There are two separate issues at stake regarding this legislation. One is
the need for Pennsylvania to do a better job protecting as many of its
citizens and workers as possible from the proven health risks of inhaling
second-hand tobacco smoke. The second is the distinction Pennsylvania law
makes in what it allows Philadelphia to do apart from the rest of the
state's municipalities. All it takes to resolve the first problem is a
willingness to compromise. It might take a constitutional convention to
sort out the Philadelphia question.
A year ago, Philadelphia enacted a tough ban on smoking in public.
Allegheny County and Scranton tried to do the same, but a court ruling
struck down the Allegheny ban, citing a 1927 law that grants only
Philadelphia such authority. Allentown, meanwhile, held off considering its
own prohibitions because of the court ruling.
The Senate's 21 Democrats voted as a bloc, rejecting the compromise. Senate
Democratic Leader Bob Mellow of Lackawanna County was the only conferee to
vote against the compromise bill, supposedly because it wouldn't
grandfather in the Allegheny County and Scranton bans. All Philadelphia's
Democrats voted in solidarity with all of Allegheny County's Democrats.
What's curious is that the compromise would have protected Philadelphia's
smoking ban. Without the compromise, neither Allegheny County, nor the rest
of the state, will have one.
Right now, Pennsylvania has the weakest smoking law in the nation, not an
unfamiliar distinction for this state. The compromise would have put
Pennsylvania about in the middle of the 30 existing state bans in terms of
its effectiveness. It would have protected hundreds of thousands of
Pennsylvania workers on the job and many more Pennsylvanians in
restaurants, sports venues and other public places. It's true the
compromise included numerous exceptions, including allowing smoking in
private clubs and in up to 50 percent of slots casino floor space (except
in Philadelphia). It isn't perfect but it's better than no ban at all.
Gov. Ed Rendell supports the compromise because it's a public health issue
that can cut the state's medical expenses. He's right. On Tuesday, soon
after the Senate rejected the compromise, the House approved it
overwhelmingly. The only chance for a smoking ban is if seven senatorial
noses smell things differently when they reconsider the bill on Monday. In
the interest of millions of Pennsylvanians, they should change their votes
and pass the smoking ban.
- - -
Pa. Senate must clear air on smoking ban
Butt out.
DelCo Times (editorial)
Friday, June 6, 2008
http://www.delcotimes.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily;!661240813?_nfpb=true
&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDCT%2FOpinion&r21.content=%2FDCT%2FOpi
nion%2FTopStoryList_Story_2168526
That was the breath of fresh air - literally that was blowing out of
Harrisburg earlier this week.
After months of wrangling, it seemed Pennsylvania was about to join its
neighbors in reining in the places where citizens can legally smoke a
cigarette or cigar in public.
Then, of course, our politicians had to butt in. You can almost see them
huddling in the proverbial smoke-filled back room.
The result? Wednesday, the state Senate rejected a compromise bill to ban
smoking in most workplaces and public spaces.
Now the status of the proposal is in limbo, although it could come up for
another vote next week.
Thats the good news. The bad news is that, for now, the ban has been
snuffed out. Some would argue there is even worse news, that this move to
limit lighting up in public could be - and should be - even better.
Its true. The compromise measure put together by a legislative panel in
Harrisburg is watered down by a long list of exclusions to the law.
Dont get us wrong. We welcome the move to restrict smoking in public places
in Pennsylvania. Its long overdue.
For far too long, the Keystone State has stood on the sidelines as our
neighbors in Delaware and New Jersey have moved to clear the air, enacting
much more stringent measures on public puffing.
Specifically, Delaware has taken an especially tough stance. Fears voiced
by some bar and restaurant owners that they would lose business after
banning smoking proved unfounded. In fact, several studies have indicated a
boost in business after clearing the air of cigarette smoke.
Even New Jersey, which initially wrote in exemptions for many areas inside
Atlantic City casinos, has rolled back these exclusions, in part because of
the concerns for workers exposed to second-hand smoke on the job.
Anyone who has stepped inside Harrahs Casino in Chester can sympathize with
those whose job puts them in that kind of atmosphere. The smell of smoke in
the casino is at times overpowering.
Unfortunately, that is one of the venues where smoking will likely continue
under the Pennsylvania proposal. Thats because one of the exemptions would
allow smoking on up to 25 percent of a casino floor, and as much as 50
percent if the casino can prove that the ban is having a negative effect on
business.
So if you like to gamble with your health while youre gambling, Harrahs
likely will continue to be the place for you, along with the rest of
Pennsylvanias new slots parlors.
And thats not all. Other exemptions are being made for a lot of bars and
taprooms where food is 20 percent or less of annual sales, designated areas
in outdoor stadiums, nursing homes, cigar bars and tobacco shops.
In general, the measure outlaws smoking in most enclosed workplaces and
commercial establishments, as well as areas where the public is invited or
permitted.
For the most part, youll be able to smoke at home, but not at work, unless
you go outside. Actually, thats already the case in the overwhelming
majority of state work sites.
But the fatal bone of contention is that the bill prohibits any county or
municipality from enacting its own legislation, with the exception of
Philadelphia, where a measure already on the books would be allowed to
stand.
That irritated senators from areas such as Allegheny County and Scranton
that already had their own measures in place. They led the move to reject
the plan.
To their credit, two Delaware County senators, Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of
Chester, and Ted Erickson, R-26, of Newtown, both voted in favor of the
ban. Sen. Connie Williams, D-17, who represents part of Haverford, voted
against. So did Rep. Bryan Lentz, D-161, of Swarthmore. Lentz argued that
the number of exemptions hardly made it a smoking ban. We sympathize with
his feelings, but at this point were ready to take what we can get.
The move fell in the Senate, 31-19, while sailing through the House by a
163-38 vote.
Its possible the Senate could reconsider the proposal Monday.
The bill is a needed improvement, light years from where the state now
stands, too often in a cloud of mushroom smoke.
Is it flawed? Certainly. So concerned about the exemptions is the American
Lung Association that they have opted not to endorse the bill.
We understand their sentiment, but we disagree with their stance.
Both the House and Senate should move to pass the measure in the current
session, making Pennsylvania the 34th state to enact such a smoking ban.
Then they should immediately go to work attacking some of the exemptions.
Then maybe we can really clear the air.
- - -
Efforts to limit public smoking fail following a Senate rebellion
Harrisburg Patriot-News (editorial)
Thursday, June 05, 2008
http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1212612
940181680.xml&coll=1
The Legislature's efforts to come up with a public indoor smoking ban have
gotten messier than a pool hall ashtray.
As of yesterday morning, it looked like Pennsylvania would join 32 other
states and the District of Columbia in banning smoking to some degree. A
six-person legislative conference committee had produced a compromise out
of a tough House bill and a less restrictive Senate version.
Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, a long-time champion of an indoor
smoking ban and a committee member, said it was the best that could be
accomplished at this point and he supported it on the belief improve ments
would come in future years. Gov. Ed Rendell said he would sign it.
By mid-after noon, all bets were off when the Senate surprisingly reject ed
it on a 31-19 vote.
Senate Democratic leader Robert Mellow, the only member of the conference
committee to oppose the compromise legislation, headed a rebellion by
fellow Democrats.
A day earlier, Sen. Mellow was furious the committee decided to grandfather
in Philadelphia's tough smoking ban while rejecting his amendment to also
allow Allegheny County and Scranton to reinstate local ordinances that ran
into legal trouble.
Mellow said the new bill essentially told the "second largest county in the
state ... to go to hell." Treat Allegheny County and Scranton's ordinances
the same as Philadelphia's, he said after the Senate vote, and we have a
deal.
But his furor doesn't go far enough. If these three are allowed to have
their own ordinances, why not Harrisburg, Altoona or Johnstown?
What is really needed is an amendment to Pennsylvania's Clean Indoor Air
Act to remove language saying local ordinances can't supersede state law, a
provision that was key in a court ruling that struck down Allegheny
County's measure and forced Scranton to delay implementing its law.
Or, better yet, the 31 senators should push for a straight up-or-down vote
on the original House version. Since it would have exempted only private
clubs and tobacco-related businesses, it would solve the Allegheny
County/Scranton issue as well as making moot the argument for allowing
local ordinances statewide.
It also would be much more effective in combating the well-documented
health dangers of secondhand smoke -- including the failure of smoking-only
areas and filtration systems to protect nonsmokers -- than the compromise
version.
While we were prepared to accept the legislation for reasons cited by
Greenleaf, it would have still left thousands of workers exposed to
secondhand smoke because of some one dozen exemptions that were carved out,
including ones for casinos, private clubs, bars with limited food sales and
as much as 25 percent of hotels.
But that is likely a pipe dream and, if so, even though a tough statewide
ban would be preferable to varying local measures, municipal governments
should have the right to pass their own laws.
Local officials likely will show more gumption in standing up to Big
Tobacco and other special interests. Perhaps that's why their lobbyists
fought so hard to prevent municipal ordinances.
- - -
Legislators fail to address secondhand smoke in Pa.
Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre)
June 6, 2008
http://www.timesleader.com/opinion/Legislators_fail_to_address__secondhand_
smoke_in_Pa__06-05-2008.html
WERE FUMING MAD at our state legislative bodies and not real happy with our
governor. For years they purportedly have been working on a smoking ban,
and now the Senate has rejected the compromise bill.
But thats not all thats upsetting. The heart of the issue is whether
municipalities - cities, boroughs and townships - have the right to enact
more restrictive bans.
The legislation at stake, which is likely to resurface as early as next
week, has some defects, as most bills do. But in this case there is a major
flaw that smacks small-town Pennsylvania in the face: Only Philadelphia is
allowed to enact more stringent measures.
Some background into the players is needed to clear the smoke. Gov. Ed
Rendell, the City of Brotherly Loves former mayor, said he would veto the
bill if his city lost this privilege.
Two years ago Philadelphia enacted a more restrictive smoking ban, and he
did not want his hometown to lose that. Heck, Philadelphias law even
prohibits smoking in its slots casinos, a provision the state proposal
lacks.
Kudos to the governor for sticking up for the folks back home, but what
about the rest of us in the Keystone State?
Why didnt he stick up for other towns that have, or are considering,
smoking restrictions? Doesnt secondhand smoke bother him in Wilkes-Barre,
Hazleton or Pittston, too?
Both Scranton and Allegheny County had progressive no-smoking laws, but
they were unenforceable after a state court struck down the countywide ban.
Sen. Bob Mellow, a power broker from Lackawanna County, opposed Senate Bill
246 on those grounds.
Ironically, the day before the Senate rejected the bill, West Pittston - a
pipsqueak of a town (population-wise) but a giant in the regions
anti-smoking movement - strengthened its ordinance by banning smoking on
all public properties.
That measure would be rendered meaningless if the state proposal passes.
Does that make any sense to anyone outside Harrisburg?
Weve said it before and well say it again: If a town wants to take stronger
measures to limit the deadly habit for residents own good, why would the
state expressly prohibit that?
Smoking hurts people - its costly in many ways, both to individuals and to
society at large.
And worst of all, this latest legislative pitch is a textbook example of
how politicians say one thing - stop smoking and dirtying the air - and
then throw us a curve by allowing lobbyist-endorsed loopholes.
Lawmakers should write a meaningful law that protects non-smokers from
secondhand smoke and forces those who do puff to do so with extreme
caution.
No ifs, ands or buts, towns and cities should have the right to kick butts,
even if it breaks Joe Camels strong back.
Weve said it before and well say it again: If a town wants to take stronger
measures to limit the deadly habit for residents own good, why would the
state expressly prohibit that?
- - -
Our view: Smoking ban should not be quite this complicated
Public Opinion Online (Chambersburg)
June 7, 2008
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_9496364
If anyone wanted an example of the extent to which business interests
influence the state General Assembly, it can be found in Pennsylvania's
long-stalled pursuit of a statewide ban on public smoking.
Roughly three-fourths of people everywhere don't smoke, with a much smaller
percentage rabidly anti-tobacco. Clearly, most of the state's population
would be unaffected, or positively affected, by a smoking ban.
And yet, the people who represent that majority in the General Assembly
can't make the ban happen. For almost a year now, lawmakers have been
trying to reconcile plans containing varying degrees of restrictions.
To some extent, the hang-up hinged on whether to allow local bans to exceed
the restrictions proposed in the state law, a valid and admittedly
complicated issue to resolve.
But dithering over exceptions aimed at appeasing businesses -- taverns,
clubs, and casinos mostly -- represents an equally big obstruction. Some
lawmakers want to preserve the rights of business owners to make their own
decisions about smoking in their establishments, squaring them against
other lawmakers who think exceptions of any kind undermine the intent of
the legislation.
On the one hand, lawmakers should be commended for taking a nuanced
approach. On the other hand, we have to wonder at what point the interests
of 75 percent of the population outweigh the interests of a comparatively
small number of entrepreneurs.
Fully realizing the intent of a smoking ban -- essentially, increased
public safety and fewer public annoyances -- requires a total prohibition..
Anything less amounts to half-baked posturing.
If this is best we can expect on an issue with such clear popular support,
we have to wonder what will happen when the Legislature moves on to even
more fractured and multi-faceted issues such as the state budget.
-- By Matthew Major, on behalf of Public Opinion's editorial board
- - -
Dont hold breath waiting for statewide smoking ban
The Daily Item (Sunbury)
June 08, 2008
http://www.dailyitem.com/0110_editorials/local_story_160083200.html
Residents and visitors of 30 other states are protected from second-hand
smoke. So are residents and visitors to Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania
Legislature inexplicably continues to bungle attempts to pass a statewide
smoking ban for the rest of us.
Wednesday, the state House passed a smoking ban, but the Senate rejected
it. The stumbling block was a dispute over whether to allow Allegheny
County and Scranton to enforce their local ordinances in addition to the
statewide measure.
The Legislatures continued inaction demonstrates a lack of political will
on the issue.
Advocates for clean air should turn their attention toward local bans,
perhaps modeled on the Philadelphia ordinance. The citys Clean Indoor Air
Worker Protection Law went into effect in January 2007. It covers all
workplaces, all indoor areas open to the public, sports arenas, theaters,
sidewalk cafes and restaurant patios, and all outdoor areas within 20 feet
of an entrance to a smoke-free area.
The ban is enforced by the Philadelphia Department of Health and aided by
public tips about violations.
Philadelphias smoking law was challenged in court and withstood the test.
Countywide bans may be the simplest means to quickly implement measures to
improve indoor air quality. More so than individual municipalities,
counties may be in a better position to employ health inspectors to enforce
a ban.
If a statewide measure ever passes, it would override any local versions.
In the meantime, local municipalities and counties ought to consider acting
to protect their residents.
If one day the Legislature decides to clear the air, so be it. But do not
hold your breath.
.
|
