Washington Smoking Ban Legislation, Part I

Initiative To The People 901

Columnists Corner

Multimedia Portal   |   Educational Portal   |   News Portal   |   Scientific Evidence Portal   |   Archive Portal   |   Columnist Portal

Washington Smoking BanLegislation, Part I: Initiative to the People 901

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because the principle of wholeness differsradically from our ordinary categories, it challenges us to rethinkwho we are from the ground up. We’re called to rethink not only ournature but, even more, the dynamics of our existence, namely, that we’renot separate beings, however much we appear to be. . . . So, too, ourpersonal ways of being emerge from our relatedness to the systems withinand around us. . . . We’re beings of connectedness, engaged with allsorts of systems that operate in and around us. . . . Claiming ourconnected nature starts with recognizing our connectedness: observinghow we participate in family systems, educational systems, economicsystems, work systems, religious systems, media systems, politicalsystems . . . We’re both products of all these different systems andchangers of them. Failing to notice this two-way dynamic, somecritics interpret holistic perspectives through one-way, top-down, dominator categories, asif the whole were a monolithic entity imposing itself on its partsagainst their will or well-being. It’s a short step from this conceptualimage to a political version in which people like Hitler, Stalin, or MoaTse-tung step in for the one system and run things as if they were it­asif they could know what’s best for humanity or society . . .Exploitingone part for the benefit of anothercannot, therefore, be a strategy in systems without weakeningand ultimately destroying the whole. . . . In the short term,dominator methods can seem successful, but in the long term they fail.They’re ignorant of how things got to be the way they are because of theworkings of systems . . . Systemimbalances must be righted, or system ills gouncorrected. Imbalances makeproblems multiply, until systems fail, and we with them.Another reason dominator methods don’t work is that they don’t valuewhat each part means to the whole­that the whole couldn’t be what itis without each of its aspects. What we call parts are the whole inexpression, which means they’re not dispensable." {Underline, italicadded.)

 

"TheMystic Heart of Justice,"  Chrysalis Books
Denise Breton and Stephen Lehman, Pages 99 – 103

 

CurrentWashington SmokingLegislation And Initiative

 

We begin 2005 facing a new rolling-wave ofone-way, top-down, dominator proposals for a statewide smoking ban fromtobacco control advocates. And, based on recent reports that a bowlingalley was rented by our state health department to film an anti-tobaccoadvertisement, it appears that this new tsunami of special-interestsmoking ban legislation will be accompanied by television advertising,too, as last year’s wave was in 2004. As of this writing there areseveral new statewide legislative bills concerning smoking, as well as anew initiative, before the people and their elected representatives. What is unique and refreshing about this year’s proposed legislation isthat there are also bills before our legislators that offer a clearchoice, approaches that can address important worker protection,public health, and children issues without imposing the debilitatingside-effects that accompany customary anti-tobacco mandates. A one-pagesummary of the philosophy behind those new approaches is set forth in "AmendingWashington’s Clean Indoor Air Act 2005," as prepared by the hospitality trade HELP StrategicAlliance.

 

Statewide smoking ban Initiative to the People 901.  This is particularlyimportant to we the people because it is the purest expression ofout-of-state special-interest one-way, top-down, dominator categorymandates. Beyond imposing a new prohibition against hospitality venuespermitting their customers to smoke that initiative also seeks todramatically expand the prosecutorial powers of local health departments,a fact not disclosed in its descriptive language. I-901 is addressed inthis text and the legislative bills will be discussed in my commentaryto be published the week February 14, 2005. The seven legislative billsare (clicking on the bill number will take you to it on leg.wa.gov Website):

 

SB 5592Prohibiting smoking in public places.

HB 1714Prohibiting smoking in public places.

SB 5114Prohibiting smoking within thirty-five feet of a public place.

HB 1670Revising regulation of indoor smoking for the purpose of protectingminors and public health.

HB 1109Modifying designated smoking area requirements.

HB 1253Modifying designated smoking area requirements.

HB 1559Modifying designated smoking area requirements.

 

A Few IntroductoryRemarks

 

I begin this discussion of I-901 with anarticle published today by the Tacoma News Tribune, "AfterSmoke Out, Air Clears In New York,"  by Jim Rutenberg andLilly Koppel with the New York Times.That news report says in part:

"NEW YORK– Back in 2002, when the City Council was weighing MayorMichael Bloomberg’s proposal to eliminate smoking from all indoor publicplaces, few opponents were more fiercely outspoken than James McBratney,president of the Staten Island Restaurant and Tavern Association. Hefrequently ripped Bloomberg as a billionaire dictator with aprohibitionist streak that would undo small businesses like his bar andhis restaurant. Visions of customers streaming to the legallysmoke-filled pubs ofNew Jersey kept McBratneyawake at night. Asked last week what he thought of the now 2-year-oldban, McBratney sounded changed. "I have to admit," he said sheepishly,"I’ve seen no falloff in business in either establishment." He went onto describe what he once considered unimaginable: Customers actuallyseem to like it, and so does he. . . . There are still thosecursing the ban as an affront to their civil liberties. Some barand restaurant owners say that it has undoubtedly caused a falloff inbusiness. City officials say they doubt that contention, pointing todata from the first year of the ban showing that restaurant and bartax receipts were up 8.7 percent over the previous year’s. They saidthey were still waiting for more detailed and updated data from thestate." (Underline added.)

 

According to the New York Times restaurantassociations love the smoking ban inNew York. Customers loveit. City Officials love it. Even "hard core" persons who smoke like it!And, as an added bonus, restaurant and bar revenues are up as well! As New York goes, so does the rest of theUSA, anti-tobaccovociferously proclaims! Reading the article through it becomestransparently clear that The Times’ news room has become an outpost ofits editorial department. Maybe they’re short of space at The Times,having hired even more reporters and columnists to chronicle the War onTobacco, a rerun of "The Apprentice" to see who gets to cover the War onObesity, too.

 

So what’s the rub" Now everybody justshuffle into line with the New York Times’ and Tacoma News Tribune’seditorial positions, to support smoking bans nationwide. Why, if youdon’t you’re probably unpatriotic, too – we’ll have to see about that!Who has the audacity – the unmittigated gall, no less -- to object to astatewide hospitality smoking ban when even past opponents ofNew York’s ban are sheepishly eating their ownwords" Doc Koop andPierce County’s KevinPhelps/Frederico Cruz-Uribe dynamic duo were right all along! Full steamahead to Washington falling in behind the leadofNew York City and the RobertWood Johnson Foundation! Who would dare do less"

 

"Well, yes," some admit, "there are New York legislators who are seeking tochange that statewide ban because of its heavy-handed effects onhospitality revenues throughout the state of New York, other than upscaleManhattan dining spots.""But that’s not reallyimportant" they say, "those businesses just aren’t, you know, part of themainstream."

Others opine "Well, yes," local pub, bar,and neighborhood tavern trade seem to be down," adding "but we all know that’s notimportant, the big chain restaurants are doing fine!"

 

And, of course, we also hear the chorusabout those "hard core" smokers: "Why, who cares about them" They just need to get with the times and beupscale hip like the rest of us!"

 

Droning in the background, nearly asubiquitous and mind-numbing as pharmaceutical nicotine televisionadvertisements, we hear the steady beat of "Civil Liberties, you say"Hogwash! Your right to smoke ends at the tip of my nose, filthy pariah!"They add "Since the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say that you arepermitted to smoke the majority rules what liberty you have!" Suchintellectual miscreants overlook the fact the Constitution also does notsay one can drink water, wear green pants, douse oneself in perfume,drive a car, or eat a cheese burger, either.

 

The Pristine Clean wade in with their shrillcries about dashing to the drycleaners to get rid of the "stench" fromtobacco smoke microseconds after a fellow citizen decides to light up inthe next county. Others stridently remind us that they’re busting theirshampoo budget because they need to run home and wash their hair afterdriving by a casino that allows smoking. Both overlook the fact thateveryone in the State ofWashington is not requiredto create an environment theylike in a bar or tavern they might choose to go to a few times a year, if at all. And neitheracknowledge the reality that current Washington law about smokingworks just fine (when countyhealth boards comply with it): Pristine mom and Clean dad canwake up in their "Smoke Free" house, take their children to a "SmokeFree" school on the way to their job at a "Smoke Free" office, go tolunch at a "Smoke Free" restaurant, stop by a "Smoke Free" grocery storeor other retail establishment on the way home, then take their childrenout to a "Smoke Free" McDonald’s or other family restaurant before goingto a movie together in a "Smoke Free" theatre, to come home and puttheir kiddies to bed in their "Smoke Free" house, before starting their"Smoke Free" cycle all over again the next day. And they can go to a"Smoke Free" bank or a "Smoke Free" city hall to conduct their personalbusiness as well. Apparently that’s not quite enough for the PristineClean; such people apparently have a need to mandate that the rest oftheir world – including places they will never go and people they willnever meet -- be coerced to join their "Smoke Free" life experience aswell, whether they like it or not.

 

Somewhere in the background a bar and casinomanager inTacoma looks over his incomestatement. He breathes quiet a sigh of relief as he finds that revenueshave finally returned toprevious levels, eight months after the smoking ban inPierce County that carveda hole the size of the grand canyon in his revenue was stayed. He makesa statement to that effect at the next hospitality coalition meeting.And, unnoticed by the elitists pushing the bans, a single mom cocktailwaitress wonders if she will experience several months – perhapspermanent -- unemployment or reduced tip income in the coming year, dueto the latest unrelenting waves of perennial smoking ban legislation.

 

Oblivious to it all, utterly disconnectedfrom every-day folks’ reality, those at "Healthy Indoor Air For AllWashington" begin to budget their $83,000 dollars in donations receivedfrom the American Cancer Society an the American Lung Association forI-901. The fact that those donations in turn ultimately came frompharmaceutical nicotine distributors and private pharmaceutical grantsor annual fees having no more significance to them than mereidentification of a donation source in box 1. on a Public DisclosureCommission form.

 

Meanwhile, back at the smoking cessationdude ranch, GlaxoSmithKline extols the virtues of a 36 percent increasein their "Smoke Free" nicotine delivery device product sales since thesmoking ban in Ireland was mandated, while the London financial timesreports that Glaxo has announced a $5 million advertising campaign to becoordinated with Italy’s new smoking ban. Through it all, Pfizer andPharmacia, "Smoke Free" nicotine delivery device patent holders andlicensors, keep their standing as Appellees in the government’s federallawsuit that seeks to extract $280 billion in new costs from tobaccoconsumers, under the guise and gossamer-thin veil of the governmentcollecting billions from tobacco companies for past misdeeds (which,fortunately, the U.S. court of Appeals just shot down, denying thegovernment authority to seek such damages in the currently ongoingtrial.)

In some states opportunists begin to vie forposition in land deals that could turn a handsome profit when tribalauthorities purchase them to put up smoking-ban-exempt and tax-exemptcasinos on "Tribal Trust" lands that are not part of a reservation.

And the boards of many large chainrestaurants -- where smoking is notan integral part of the hospitality experience like it is inbars, taverns and casinos -- project how large their increase inbusiness will be when small business taverns that serve food and ma andpa establishments go out of business.

 

The preceding observations are, collectivelyand at once, at the crux of both I-901 and this year’sWashington legislativebills. Smoking ban legislation is far more complex and far reachingin its effects than the simple-minded and repetitive political mantrasthat tobacco control advocates and mainstream press present. Thosewho blithely spout their pronouncements about other people’s rights –whether as a business owner, property owner, an employee, or consumer –ending at their pointy little heads do so at peril of ignoring the factthat legitimate legal rights – including theirs -- are not a matter of public opinion, norare they subject to majority vote. Responsible legislators and maturecitizens understand that Breton and Lehman, as quoted at top of thispage, are correct:

 

"Exploiting one part for the benefit of another cannot,therefore, be a strategy in systems without weakening and ultimatelydestroying the whole.. . . In the short term, dominator methods can seem successful, but inthe long term they fail. They’re ignorant of how things got to be theway they are because of the workings of systems . . . System imbalances must be righted,or system ills go uncorrected. Imbalances make problems multiply, until systems fail, and we with them."

 

In the final analysissmoking ban legislation touches us all, whether we work at a hospitalityjob or choose to smoke.They affect us all because they affect local tax bases, civil liberties,employment, and small businesses. Political mantras do not replace lostrevenues to local city budgets when patrons and their revenues migratefrom taxpaying nontribal establishments to tax-exempt tribal venues.Pronouncements about rights do not provide a pathway to jobs lost.Jimmied "statistics" about hospitality revenues that ignore thedevastating effect of smoking bans on small, independent establishmentsdo not replace the dollars available in local economies to purchasegoods and services that are lost when mom and pop go out of business,nor do they replace the goods and services that their former employeescan no longer afford. Nor do platitudes about costs of health insurancejustify under any circumstances mandating that about 25 percent of ourpopulation – persons who smoke offthe job – be a permanently unemployable class of citizens. Topresume there is merit to that position necessarily assumes that the"Target Group " 25 percent of our working population contributes noeconomic value to our society whatsoever.

 

And the New York Times article quoted abovebegs – ignores – a central question: "If restaurant and bar trade trulywent up 8.7 percent, and that increase was enjoyed by small business aswell, despite a smokingban, how much did it fail to increase because of a smoking ban"" Have weas a people begun to measure our future merely by how little we have lost, howmuch economic or employment pain wecan endure"

 

It is with those preliminary thoughts inmind that we now begin to discussWashington’s Initiative tothe People 901.

 

Initiative To ThePeople 901, Prohibiting Smoking In Public Places

 

I-901 is "AN ACT relating to the prohibition of smoking in public places."This initiative is sponsored by Christopher Covert-Bowlds 2075 BarkleyBlvd, #105 Bellingham , WA 98226 Phone: 360-220-6609Fax: 360-650-1354 cjcovert@hinet.org (see Ballot Measure information  on Washington Secretary ofState Web site.) Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) documents disclosurethat Tacoma City Council Member Kevin Phelps  is the CampaignManager media contact for this initiative. Mr. Phelps can be reached atP.O. Box 2613 Seattle, Washington (253) 272-2041 kphelps@cityoftacoma.org.Mr. Phelps was also the Media Contact for last year’s statewide smokingban Initiative 890 and served as Chair of the Tacoma-Pierce County Boardof Health when it enacted the smoking ban in Pierce County December2003.

The full text of I-901 isavailable in .PDF format on the Secretary of State’s Web site locationby clicking in the preceding bold letters. This ballot measure’sdescriptive language reads as follows:

 

"Ballot TitleInitiativeMeasure No. 901 concerns amending the Clean Indoor Air Act by expandingsmoking prohibitions. This measure would prohibit smoking in buildingsand vehicles open to the public and places of employment, includingareas within 25 feet of doorways and ventilation openings unless alesser distance is approved.

 

Ballot Measure Summary

 

Thismeasure would prohibit smoking in public places and in places ofemployment. Current laws allowing designation of certain smoking areaswould be repealed, including current provisions allowing designation ofan entire restaurant, bar, tavern, bowling alley, skating rink, ortobacco shop as a smoking area. The prohibition would include areaswithin 25 feet of entrances, exits, opening windows and ventilationintakes, unless shorter distances are approved by the director of thelocal health department."

In April 2004 Thurston County Superior Courtjudge Tabor ruled that an initiative for substantially similar –virtually identical -- statewide smoking ban I-890 must includedisclosure of that fact that the initiative would not effect tribalestablishments. The descriptive language for that ballot measure wasamended to incorporate such language. I-890 failed to gather therequired signatures. The descriptive language for I-901, filed a scantsix months after I-890 failed to qualify for the ballot, does notcontain a disclosure that tribal bars, taverns, casinos and restaurantswould be exempt. I address the importance of the tribal issue in thissection, as well as in the next part of this series that discussesSenate Bill 5592. As of this writing a lawsuit to challenge thedescriptive wording of I-901 has been reported. That story, if true,will be updated as more information is available. Finally, thedescriptive language of I-901 makes no mention of the fact that its newlanguage expressly gives local health department attorneys equalauthority with city and county attorneys to bring enforcement actions.That is a clear and unmistakable expansion of prosecutorial discretionfor health departments that must be addressed. Perhaps that will becomean issue is a legal challenge to the descriptive language of I-901 aswell.

 

AFew Points About Environmental Tobacco Smoke

 

The language in I-901adds a new Section 1. to Chapter 70.160.The additional language reads as follows:

"INTENT AND FINDINGS: The people of theState ofWashington recognize thatexposure to second-hand smoke is known to cause cancer in humans.Second-hand smoke is a known cause of other diseases includingpneumonia, asthma, bronchitis, and heart disease. Citizens are oftenexposed to second-hand smoke in the workplace, and are likely to developchronic, potentially fatal diseases as a result of such exposure. Inorder to protect the health and welfare of all citizens, includingworkers in their places of employment, it is necessary to prohibitsmoking in public places and workplaces."

The preceding languagein I-901 is false as stated and contains material omissions of fact.Notable among the glaring omissions is the simple fact that I-901 will not and cannot prohibit"protect the health and welfare of all citizens," even if thewildly exaggerated claims about Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) inI-901 were true. Indeed, as discussed below in this section, the likelyoutcome of passing I-901 would be the opposite of the initiative’sstated intent: morehospitality workers exposed to moreETS in smoking-ban-exempt tribal venues that are also subject to lessstringent worker safety regulations. I-901 therefore fails even themost basic "first blush test," in that it will not and cannotaccomplish the intended purposes as written.

 The INTENT AND FINDINGS language inI-901 about ETS are not supportedby consistent scientific standards. Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)was first listed as a human carcinogen in the National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) ”Ninth Report onCarcinogens” in 2000. The current EleventhEdition ofthat report lists ETS as a known human carcinogen. Readers can accesstext for ETS in that report by clicking on “Environmental Tobacco Smoke”in the list of carcinogens. Paragraph 2 of that text reads in part:

 

“Evidence for increased cancer risk from environmental tobacco smokestems from examining nonsmoking spouses living with individuals whosmoke cigarettes, exposures in occupational settings, and exposures toparent’s smoking during childhood (IARC 1986, EPA 1992, CEPA 1997.) . .. A meta analysis found an overall increase of risk of 20% for exposureto environmental tobacco smoke from a spouse who smokes.”

 

Thereare eight very important points to make about the preceding languagefrom NIEHS:

 

a.) Thestudies cited are the studies that OSHA referred to as outdated and thatit specifically rejected concerning ETS exposures in its decision to withdraw its proposed Indoor AirQuality regulations December 2001 with the support of tobaccocontrol groups. Why would OSHA withdraw proposed regulations in 2001 toprohibit a substance like ETS that had just been declared to be a “Knownhuman carcinogen” by NIEH in 2000" OSHA explained in detail its decisionto withdraw its proposed regulations to the U.S. Court of Appeals inAugust 2001. Among its reasons were that the studies it relied on(including those cited above) were outdated, current ETS exposures werenot as represented in those and other studies, and its previous relianceon that data was “simply wrong.” Risk is commensurate with the doseabsorbed. The primary material question is not the alleged toxicityof a substance but the degree to which one is exposed. And, as isexplained below, inconsistent risk factorswereboth calculated and applied to reach the conclusion about thecarcinogenic nature of ETS.

 

b.) The20 percent increased risk referred to is stated in the 1993 EPAreport on secondhand smoke (a risk factor of 1.19 at 90 percentconfidence level), which Judge Osteen eviscerated in his July 17, 199890-page-plus Memorandum opinion. And that 20 percent increased risk – incomparison to risk factors of 3.0 and greater under normal standards –was only achieved by substituting a 90 percent confidence level in placeof customary 95 percent confidence. A later review of 58 studies byInternational Agency for Cancer Research found an average risk factor of1.21, which tends for more to prove the absence of bona fide risk thanto support that conclusion. For IARC’s study to establish any bona fiderisk it would need to establish minimum risk factors in excess of atleast 2.0.

 

c.) But isn’t anyrisk of any kind whatsoever unwarranted and unacceptable" If we can ban any risk why not do so"The answers to those questions is found in what NIEHS added to the listof “Known human carcinogens” this year. NIEHSadditions to its 11th edition oflist of human carcinogens include hepatitis and otherviruses, compounds in grilled meats and eggs, and Neutrons (X-rayradiation). Ifany risk whatsoever is unacceptable then DO NOT ever have another dentalX-ray, NEVER eat another grilled cheese burger or steak, and DO NOT goout in public where you could be near any person who may carry hepatitisviruses. In short, stay at home, live in a plastic bubble, and live onstrict soy bean diet. Better yet, follow the example of tobacco controladvocates and mandate thatall of your fellow citizensmust live that way so you can roam around free as a bird wherever youmay want to go. Boy, howdy, that mandate will create a robust andgrowing economy to sustain your job and goods and services that areprovided for you.

The food relatedadditions to NIEHS list are important to the smoking ban subject andfood services. About grilled foods NIEH says:

 

“MeIQ, MeIQx, and PhIP are heterocyclic aminecompounds formed when meats and eggs are cooked or grilled at hightemperatures. These compounds are also found in cigarette smoke.They are listed in the report as ‘reasonably anticipated to be humancarcinogens’ because oral studies in animals showed they caused cancerin multiple organs including the forestomach, colon, liver, oral cavity,mammary gland, skin, and cecum. Several human studies suggest there isan increased risk for breast and colorectal cancers related toconsumption of broiled or fried foods that may contain these or othersimilar compounds.” (Underline added.)

 

Airborne carcinogenicNitrosamines are also produced when grilling meats. This particularly onpoint with the subject of ETS and the hospitality industry becausetobacco control advocates claim that hospitality workers have a doublerisk of cancers which they attribute exclusively to ETS. Kitchens andgrilling locations are often close to patron sitting areas. What is thesafe distance for airborne carcinogens produced by grilling meats" Arepatrons unwittingly objecting to smoking sections in separate parts of arestaurant, only to sit at a counter or table next to a grill"

What cancersattributed to ETS in hospitality businesses were in fact caused by othersources" Has NIEHS now published a confounding factor, where cancersattributed to ETS may in fact be caused by other sources" Are we next tohear that Wendys, McDonalds, and Jack In The Box are to be sued intooblivion over these new cancer risks from grilled meats, despite their“Smoke Free” status"

 

d.) Please see PierceLaw’s 1990 paper about electromagnetic emission fields (EMF) “Coping withthe Risk of Cancer in
Children Living Near Power Lines,”  by Eileen N.Abt, who received an M.S. (Environmental Health) from the Harvard Schoolof Public Health. That paper discloses three studies about cancer inchildren living near power transmission lines that found risk factors of2.0 to 3.0 (versus 1.20 for ETS.) The conclusion of the Committee onInteragency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC) was “Epidemiologicfindings of an association between electric and magnetic fields andchildhood leukemia or other childhood or adult cancers, are inconsistentand inconclusive.”

 

e.) Risk factors of2.0 to 3.0 concerning child leukemia and power lines are “inconsistentand inconclusive” as the basis for regulation, yet EPA and tobaccocontrol advocates have launched a nationwide jihad against EnvironmentalTobacco Smoke as a “known human carcinogen” based on risk factors of1.20. What agenda is pushing such conflicting scientific standards"

 

f.) Please see EMFServices article, “Fields Associated WithElectric Power Systems,”  which says in part:

“To date severalstudies have examined the association between childhood cancer and powerlines. The outcomes of these studies are complex and subject to variedinterpretation, but at least eight have reported positive results. Asthe methodologic shortcomings of earlier studies have been overcome bybetter study designs, the trend of positive results has continued. Manyof these studies have shown relative risks of around 1.5 to 2.0,indicating a doubling of the incidence of illness in the exposedpopulation. A widely reported Swedish study, released in late 1992,revealed for the first time some indication of a dose-response gradient,with the number of cases increasing in the presumed higher exposurecategories. Large meta-analyses that pool the results of severalstudies have been performed and the positive association still holds,even when individual studies with positive results are removed from thecalculations. It is this consistent pattern of association in thechildhood cancer studies that has continued to drive the research intoEMF bioeffects.” (Underline added.)

 

g.) And NIEHS isdirectly involved in that EMF issue, according to the Web site Kid’s Health for Parents,  which says in partabout this subject:

“Some parents haveconcerns that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by power lines aremutagenic (cause changes in cells' hereditary DNA) and increase theirchildren's risk for cancer. This is because preliminary studies in theearly 1990s appeared to link clusters of childhood cancer toneighborhood location of power lines, and these studies were heavilyfeatured in media reports. Although the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) initially declared power line EMFs to be possible carcinogens(cancer-causing agents) in 1990, the agency later concluded that therewas not enough evidence to support this declaration.. . . In its list ofrecommendations regarding EMFs, the council noted that "noscientifically documented health risk has been associated with usuallyoccurring levels of electromagnetic fields," . . . the NationalInstitute of Environmental Health Sciences concluded that the evidencefor a risk of cancer and other human disease from the electric andmagnetic fields (EMF) around power lines is ‘weak.’”

 

h.) Finally, about EMFemissions, Columbia University’s Health Q&AInternet Service, “GoAsk Alice,” says in part:

“Some epidemiologicalstudies have shown an increased probability of childhood leukemia andbrain tumors in residential areas from exposure to strong EM fields,such as those created by high voltage power lines (the ones on big steeltowers). In occupational settings, a similar correlation has beenidentified between breast cancer and leukemia and EM fields. But therisk factor of two is low, especially in comparison to a risk factorof 20 for the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. You wouldbe hard pressed to find someone who believes that 60 Hz fields(typically what you would live near) actually cause or initiate a cancer,although it's possible for EM fields to promote or co-promote apre-existing cancer.” (Underline added.)

 

We haveclaims about ETS that have been rejected by both our federal courts andOSHA after extensive review and very close scrutiny, and which producerisk factors that are fractions of what is not considered high enough toregulate other alleged cancer sources, yet tobacco control continues toassert such claims as if they were Gospel of Risk. Where are thelegitimate disclosures that should be made regarding such statements" Isit time for NIEHS to revisit its conclusions about ETS" Might we expectthat EPA’s risk factor for ETS of 1.19 at a 90 percent confidence levelis considerably less than one-half as compelling as 2.0 to 3.0 riskfactors for which NIEHS concluded “the evidence for arisk of cancer and other human disease from the electric and magneticfields (EMF) around power lines is ‘weak.’”

 

The point of discussions about EMF emissionsand carcinogenic compounds in some foods above is not to promote newconcerns about health. The material point in this discussion aboutNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) andEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke is that on the one hand NIEHS classifies asubstance with a risk factor of 1.19 at a 90 percent confidence level (ETS)in the 1992 EPA report on secondhand smoke as a “known humancarcinogen,” yet it has also concluded that EMF emissions with riskfactors of 1.5 to 3.0 at 95 percent confidence demonstrate a weakassociation for risk of cancer and human disease. And confoundingfactors regarding viruses, as well as grilled foods in hospitalitybusiness environments, are not disclosed or apparently considered. Atwhat point does the “science” get stretched so fat that is snaps"

The INTENT ANDFINDINGS language of I-901 are also directly contradicted by conclusions of the U.S. Departmentof Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).I discuss OSHA conclusions in more detail in the forthcoming sectionabout HB 1559. In its August 2001 response filed with the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Circuit of Washington D.C. (see OSHANOTES.PDF) OSHA filed that response to address a petition by Actionon Smoking and Health (ASH) to force OSHA to promulgate a nationwideprohibition on smoking in the workplace. ASH’s petition failed and OSHAwithdrew its proposed Indoor Air Quality regulations December 2001, with the support of tobacco controlgroups that included the American Cancer Society andthe American Lung Association that are now providing financialsupport for I-901. OSHA’s conclusions as presented to ourfederal appeals court were reached after extensive public hearings andadditional workshops dedicated to ETS, one segment of which focused onthe hospitality industry. In its response OSHA said to the appealscourt:

 

1.) Page 15: "Critically, there isno longer any basis to assume, as the proposed rule does, that all workers in all workplaces facean elevated risk equivalent to that found in homes during the 1980s."(Underline, italic added.)

 

2.) Page 17: "Here, as we haveexplained above, the proposed rule appears to be based upon outdatedinformation and methodology and itsrisk estimates are not supported by the weight of evidence now available."(Underline, italic added.)

 

3.) Page 17: "OSHA does notbelieve that over 74 million workers are exposed to ETS at work atlevels equivalent to those faced by a nonsmoking spouse of a smoker athome." (Underline added.)

 

4.) Page 18: "Nor does OSHAbelieve that issuance of an ETS rule would prevent between 2,234 and13,723 excess deaths annually, oranything like that." (Underline, italic added.)

 

5.) Page 18: "This potentialhazard is not, as ASH’s Petition suggests, so egregious as to demand instantaction, especially to the exclusion of all other safetyand health matters before the agency." (Underline, italic added.)

 

The INTENT ANDFINDINGS language of I-901 are also directly contradicted by the conclusions reached by ourfederal district courts.July 17, 1998 U.S. district Court Judge William L. Osteen ordered thatSection 1 to 6 and appendices of the December 1992 EPA report onsecondhand smoke be vacated (see page 1 of EPAPOST.PDF  for a copy of that order and page 2 for EPA conclusionsthat it effected.) Judge Osteen’s order was accompanied by a 90page-plus Memorandum Opinion that presented a scathing review offatally-flawed statistical methodologies employed by EPA to reach itsconclusions about secondhand smoke. Judge Osteen’s conclusions includeda statement that EPA statistical methodologies were "an uglypossibility with which this court is faced." The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the 4th Circuit confirmed that important issues remainedregarding the EPA report and its methodologies when it overturned JudgeOsteen’s July 1998 order December 11, 2002, based on procedural groundsthat our federal courts did not have authority to review the EPA reporton secondhand smoke. The full text of the 4th Circuit's makes itpainfully obvious that, notwithstanding its ruling on proceduralgrounds, important issues regarding the December 1992 EPA report onsecondhand smoke still remained (see, for example, pages 15 and 16 ofthe courts ruling.) The fact that neither Philip Morris nor any othertobacco company chose to carry the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Courtchanges neither Judge Osteen’s district court conclusions about fatalflaws in the EPA report on secondhand smoke nor the important issuesregarding that report the 4th circuit expressed its concern about. Simply put, the 1992 EPA report on secondhand smoke does not supportI-901’s stated beliefs about secondhand smoke.

 

The INTENT ANDFINDINGS language of I-901 are also directly contradicted by the content of many studies reliedon and quoted by tobacco control advocates.For example, consider the OTSUKA study that is often used to support theclaim that only 30 minutes of exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smokecan cause adverse cardiac reactions. In July 2004 I filed a PublicDocument Request with the Snohomish Health District requesting allstudies relied on by the district to support the district’s publiclyadvertised statement that "There Is No Safe Level Of Exposure ToSecondhand Tobacco Smoke." The Otsuka study was provided as part of thehealth district’s response to my request. I subsequently filed acomplaint alleging improper use of public funds to support Initiative890, dated August 15, 2004, with the Washington Public DisclosureCommission. That complaint, now No. 05-096, is presently before thecommission and its investigators. The full text of that complaint,including its 38 pages of exhibits, will be published by Forces.org at alater date. A few facts about the Otsuka report are relevant to I-901’sIntent and Findings language:

 

1.) The Otsuka study did not measureEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke, itmeasured only Carbon Monoxide (see page 1, left half, of Otsuka abstract)published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol286;286:436-441). Can the same symptoms be induced by standing besidethe exhaust of a city of a city bus"

 

2.) The Ostuka study was subject to peerreview criticism precisely because it did not measure ETS (see page 1, right half, of Otsuka abstract.)

 

3.) Moreover, peer review of the Otsukastudy stated "In terms of public policy, it would be useful to knowhow typical these exposures and results are." Readers should note that the State ofWashington has neverconducted any credible study of actual ETS exposures in this state.Indeed, the state has refused to conduct such or participate ETSexposure studies as far back as 1994 regarding a Redmond, Washington business and as recently asJune 2003 inPierce County (see June 24, 2003 E-Mail correspondence between "SecondhandSmoke Consultant" James Repace and Tacoma-Pierce County Department ofHealth staff member John Britt). The boxed text in that E-Mail statesthat the Washington Department of Health refused to fund a cotinine studyto support the smoking ban inPierce County. Cotinine isa metabolite of nicotine often used to estimate ETS exposure levels.Application of the Otsuka study to Washington public law is thereforewithout foundation as to actual exposures inWashington work places.

 

4.) But the story about the Otsuka studygoes even deeper when considering the actual data published (see page 438 of the JAMA publication)for the full text of Otsuka.) In 1994 a comprehensive study of ETSin work environments was conducted at a cost of $8,000 to my company.The results of that study were published in the May 1996 issue ofHeating/Piping/Air Conditioning (see HPAC.PDF).  The Washington Department of Labor andIndustries refused to comment on our data or review or system. Theresults for Carbon Monoxide in our company’s study show an eight hourtime-weighted average Carbon Monoxide exposure of 1.7 parts per millionwith a range of 0.9 to 2.0 withsmoking permitted at work stations. (see data table on thirdpage of HAPC.PDF, which is page 78 of the publication.) Thecorresponding outdoor Carbon Monoxide concentrations measured at thesame time were a mean of 2.8 with a range of 1.9 to 3.5. The data forour company were also consistent with Carbon Monoxide exposures measuredin six otherWashington office buildingsat the time. Otsuka, data however, show that the 30 studyparticipants were taken from a nonsmoking area with a mere 0.40parts per million Carbon Monoxide and immediately placed in a smokingroom with 6.02 parts per million concentration of Carbon Monoxide (animmediate increase of 15 times theprevious exposure. The material points about that data are:

 

a.) The Carbon Monoxide concentrationsreported ion the Otsuka study are at wild variance with typical workplace exposures as actually measured in Washington work sites.This brings special emphasis to the peer review comments about theOtsuka study published by JAMA "In terms of public policy, it would beuseful to know how typical these exposures and results are."

b.) The extreme range of Carbon Monoxidelevels in Ostuka for nonsmoking and smoking areas are not only atypical of actual exposures but they could also be severe enough toinduce the symptoms reported based exclusively on changes in CO exposures andindependent of any consideration of ETS.

 

c.) Our test data showed no increasedmaterial risk due to Carbon Monoxide exposures because indoor timeweighted averages for each work day measured were less than outside air,with smoking permitted at work stations. Would the proponents of I-890hold all employers accountable for alleged risk to workers when indoorworksite air is superior to outdoor air"

The INTENT AND FINDINGS language of I-901are directly contradicted by the conclusions of credible andwell-credentialed scientists. For example, see the recent studyresults published by Roger Jenkins, Ph.D., the recently-retired leaderof the Environmental Chemistry and Mass Spectrometry Group in theChenical Sciences Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. A January28, 2005 article that discussed Dr. Jenkins’ conclusions was publishedby OAKRIDGER.COM under the title "The‘Truth’ About Tobacco Smoke."  That article says in part:

 

"Just how harmful is environmental tobaccosmoke" Not as harmful as the Environmental Protection Agency or thoseanti-secondhand smoke commercials would have one believe, accordingto Roger A. Jenkins, Ph.D., consultant to the Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory's Chemical Sciences division. Jenkins presented ‘HumanExposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Is What You See What You Get"’at ORNL this week. ‘Some people wish I didn't have the findings I have,’Jenkins said. ‘Others say, 'Gee, if this is true, why does the EPAcontinue to talk about this"' [The research] steps on people's toes, andthat's exactly what I want it to do.’" (Underline added.)

 

And the INTENT ANDFINDINGS language of I-901 are directly contradicted by the internal conflicts of alleged"studies" conducted by tobacco control advocates.See, for example, the recent statements by tobacco control advocateJames Repace, as published by TheAssociated Press and published in Chief Engineer Magazine’s January 2005 edition, under the title "SmokyBars Versus City Streets:" 

 

Which is more harmful to your health - asmoky bar or a city street filled with diesel truck fumes" Well, youmight want to skip your next happy hour. "Smoky bars and casinos have upto 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than highways andcity streets clogged with diesel trucks at rush hour, according to astudy that also shows indoor air pollution virtually disappears oncesmoking is banned. . . "This paper will help localities pass smokingbans,’ predicted the author, James Repace, a biophysicist who worksas a secondhand-smoke consultant after spending 30 years as a federalresearcher. ‘It shows how beneficial smoking bans are for hospitalityworkers and patrons.’ (Underline added.)

 

Mr. Repace was paid $7,836.50 (seeinvoice) to testify before the Tacoma-Pierce County Boardof Health on December 3, 2003, when it enacted the now-overturnedsmoking ban in Pierce County. Mr. Repace is a beneficiary of a $300,000 grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which also funded Repace’s study quoted by the Associated Press. Thepurpose of the $300,000 grant was "Analysis of the effects of secondhandsmoke in the hospitality industry."Chief Engineer Magazine published a rebuttal of Mr. Repace’sconclusions in its February 2005 edition under the title "SmokyStory Lights A Fire."  About Mr. Repace’s conclusions,that rebuttal said in part:

 

Such statements promote false health risksfor hospitality venues and are often used to promote interests of thefoundation’s pharmaceutical constituency, including ‘Smoke Free’nicotine distributors. Credible facts about alleged dangers ofEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) are found somewhere between whatconstituents are measured and vested interests in doing so. Repacemeasured respirable particulates, which are not the only constituents ofETS, nor is ETS the only source of such particulates. Mr. Repace’s studycontains information directly contradicted by other onsite air qualitymeasurements. A study of our company’s offices in aWashington suburban officepark regarding ETS measured indoor Total Respirable SuspendedParticulates (RSP) at a mean of 27.0 micrograms per cubic meter, withsmoking permitted at work stations, and an outdoor RSP mean of 22.8micrograms per cubic meter, an outdoor to indoor RSP ratio of 0.8444.Were we to apply similar ratios to Repace’s findings that indoorparticulates of 231 micrograms were "15 times the 15-microgramEnvironmental Protection agency limit for outdoor air" we wouldnecessarily conclude that Delaware outdoor air was 195 micrograms or 13times the EPA limit and nearly 9 times that recorded in ourmeasurements. What accounts for the significant disparity in the RWJfoundation’s study indoor-outdoor RSP ratios compared to those measuredby others" Why are study data not reported for outdoor areas adjacent tothe bar or casino where indoor RSP was measured" (Underline added.)

 

As noted in Chief Engineer Magazine’sintroduction to that rebuttal, this author wrote that copy published bythe magazine. The above observations about the INTENT AND FINDINGSportion of I-901 barely scratch the surface of credible commentregarding the false nature of statements about ETS included in theinitiative. They are sufficient, individually and collectively, however,to demonstrate that such statements are not supported by the NationalInstitute of Environmental Health’s conclusions about know carcinogens,the statements are made in apparent defiance of extensive research andinvestigation by OSHA, the statements are refuted by conclusions of ourfederal courts, the data in some studies relied on by tobacco controladvocates is severely flawed, credible independent researchers stronglydiffer with such statements, and the conclusions published by sometobacco control advocates are readily rebutted by applying actual onsite test measurements of ETS constituents in Washington work sites.

 

Are we to believe thatproponents of I-901 are ignorant of the above contradictory informationabout Environmental Tobacco Smoke"Or, in the alternative, is it true that proponents of I-901 merely choseto ignore – exclude – the vast wealth of credible science andinformation that directly refutes their wildly extreme claims aboutEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke" Either possibility is completelyunacceptable, considering that I-901 would establish as state lawthe wildly exaggerated claims in that initiative’s INTENT AND FINDINGSlanguage.

 

For those with an interest in more in-depthinformation about the science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke I recommendacquiring a copy of the E-Book "TheABC’s of ETS"  published by Forces.org.

 

Protecting ALL Workers"

 

Mr. Bowlds, I-901’s sponsor, wrote a Letterto the Editor of the Tacoma NewsTribune in support of I-901, "AllWorkers Deserve Smoke Free Environment,"  that waspublished in February 1, 2005. In light of the fact that tribal casinosand other hospitality venues are exempt from I-901 that ballot measurewill not provide a smoke free environment for allWashington workers. Aletter to the Editor of The Tribune by John Kaye, "OnlyTribal Casinos Will Benefit From Smoking Ban,"  presentsa more realistic view of a statewide smoking ban such as I-901,considering the short-lived but painful hospitality business experienceduring 2004 with the smoking ban inPierce County. The Tacoma News Tribunepublished an editorial "NextStop November For Smoking Ban Initiative"  supportingI-901 on January 31, 2005. Referring to I-890 that failed last year, TheTribune said:

 

"Opponents tried to confuse the issue with adecoy initiative, but I-890 ultimately ran out of steam because itsbackers just didn’t have enough money to finance a successful signaturedrive. They’re back now. The revived measure, Initiative 901,would also require that all employers under the state’s jurisdictionprovide smoke-free environments for their workers. A campaign kickoffrally will be held in Tacoma at 7 p.m. Feb. 10 at theLandmark Convention Center." (Underline added.)

The key words in theTribune’s editorial are:"all employers under the state’sjurisdiction." That excludes all tribal hospitalityvenues. To gain an appreciation of the impact of tribal venuesplease see WATRIBES.PDFfor the locations of 29 federally recognized tribesand the casinos each is allowed to operate. The construction of tribalcasinos is not limited to tribal lands, tribes may purchase new land andconvert it to "tribal trust land" to establish casino locations in morefavorable population centers. This creates a serious and important"Border Area" issue: strategic tribal locations establish magnet zoneswhere patrons who choose to smoke can readily go to tax-exempt andsmoking-ban exempt tribal hospitality venues, thereby diminishing thecustomer base and revenues to nontribal hospitality venues in thesurrounding areas. Along with that migration of customers from nontribalto tribal hospitality venues come the transfer of a significant portionof the local tax base from taxpaying to tax-exempt

 

Undisclosed Vested Interests

 

The initiative appears to be promoted by theAmerican Lung Association of Washington, which sent mass mailings datedJanuary 2, 2005 to solicit petition signatures, volunteers and donationsto support an unnamed initiative to prohibit smoking in public places(see PDF copy of the ALA letter, donation solicitation page,and return envelope.) TheALA documents state thatchecks should be made payable to "Healthy Indoor Air For AllWashington." The initiative enjoys strong special-interest financialsupport from private advocacy groups that are directly connected to"Smoke Free" pharmaceutical nicotine distributor’s vested interests,having raised $83,000 as of current reports filed with the PublicDisclosure Commission. According to PDC filings to date that $83,000 infunding consists of a November 22, 2004 contribution in the amount of$25,000 from the American Cancer Society,  , an additional $50,000donation from the American Cancer Society in December 14, 2004,  and an$8,000 contribution by the American Lung Association of Washington onNovember 1, 2004. This level of funding from private advocacy groupsraises serious questions of public lobbying for laws by 501 c-3 taxexempt entities.

 

There is a current and historical connectionbetween both the American Cancer Society and the American LungAssociation with pharmaceutical interests and "Smoke Free" nicotinedistributors. For example both organizations are current and historicrecipients of seven-figure grants from the Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation of Princeton, New Jersey, the largest single shareholder ofJohnson & Johnson. For example, current or immediately recent grants tothe American Cancer Society include $399,574 (13 months, awarded on12/23/2003, starting 01/01/2004 ending 01/31/2005) ID# 048091  for "Developing a sustainability plan for theCenter for Tobacco Cessation" and $749,996 (2 years, awarded on02/15/2002, starting 02/15/2002 ending 02/14/2004) ID# 040101 for "Developing a virtual center to provide information on guidelinesfor tobacco dependence treatment." Current or immediately recent RWJfoundation grants to the American Lung Association include $138,900 (1year, awarded on 11/24/2004, starting 12/01/2004 ending 11/30/2005) ID# 052404 for purposes of "Public awareness campaign to increase the number ofsmoke-free communities in Illinois," $987,932 (30 months, awarded on05/14/2002, starting 06/01/2002 ending 11/30/2004) ID# 045147  for purposes of "SmokeLess States: NationalTobacco Policy Initiative" and $205,419 (8 months, awarded on03/29/2004, starting 04/01/2004 ending 11/30/2004) ID# 050428  forpurposes of "SmokeLess States: National Tobacco Policy Initiative -Special Opportunities grant – Washington." I corresponded with KevinKnox at www.cancer.orgabout grant No. 050428 in April of 2004 (see KNOX0407.PDF.)  Mr. Knox confirmed to me that the grant would be appliedto develop a network in native communities regarding tobacco use,including tribes inWashington.

As to historical ties between the AmericanLung Association and the American Cancer Society with pharmaceuticalnicotine distributors please see, for example, a 1996 list of $35 million in grants to tobacco control advocacy groups that includes $500,000 to theAmerican Cancer Society and $1.1 million to the American LungAssociation, in addition to $649,967 to Washington DOC. The AmericanCancer Society was the nationwide managed of the George H.W. Bushadministration’s 1991 to 1998 Project ASSIST, Washington DOC was a paidcontractor under that program, and the American Lung Associationaggressively promoted smoking bans as well as increased taxes oncigarettes during that program. And during that time Johnson & Johnsonwas distributing Nicotrol "Smoke Free" nicotine delivery device products(see Value Line report  dated March 1998.) In addition, theAmerican Cancer Society has received an annual grant for the pastseveral years from GlaxoSmithKline for use of the cosiety’s seal inpromoting its Nicorette gum, NicoDerm CQ, and Commit lozenge "SmokeFree" nicotine delivery device products (pick up a box for one of thoseproducts at a grocery store or pharmacy to confirm that fact.) Nicotrolproducts are currently distributed by Pfizer, through its Pharmaciasubsidiary.

 

The direct linkage between aggressivelypromoting smoking bans as a mercantile strategy to increase sales ofpharmaceutical products is not open to credible or even tongue-in-cheekquestion. Sunday January 9, 2005, by theLondonFinancial Times, "DrugGiants To Cash In On Italian Smoking Ban,"  by Andrew Jack. That article was reported by Forces.org.The Times says:

 

A €5m Italian marketing campaign foranti-smoking products is being launched by GlaxoSmithKline this week as pharmaceutical groups gear up to cash in where their rivals in thetobacco sector are losing out. GSK's drive to boost sales of itsNiQuitin nicotine replacement gums and patches is timed to coincide witha new local law restricting smoking in the workplace and comes asItaly prepares onMonday to enforce its ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and cafés. Itsrival, Pfizer, is also aiming to boost demand for its products in Europe. The fresh focus on the smokingstrongholds of southern Europe follows a 36 per cent increase insales of GSK's products inIreland sincethat country introduced a ban on smoking in public places at the end ofMarch. . . . GSK dominates the UK market for nicotine replacementtherapies, with sales of £160m (€229m) a year. The company claimsthat the chances of successfully quitting smoking are about 5 per centwith no assistance, and double to about 10 per cent with the aid of itsproducts." (Underline added.)

 

That direct linkage between tobacco controladvocacy groups and increased sales of "Smoke Free" pharmaceuticalnicotine delivery device products is further corroborated by a June 2003published plan to employ government powers for the purpose of replacingcigarettes with nicotine inhalers. The RWJ foundation awarded about $3million in current and recently expired grants to Washington University inSaint Louis while Dr. WaltonSumner II, MD published a paper "Estimatingthe Health Consequences Of Replacing Cigarettes With Nicotine Inhalers"under the university’s auspices. Dr. Sumner’s paper, which explicitlystates that smoking bans "reduce opportunities to smoke," and therebygive pharmaceutical nicotine replacement therapy products a competitiveedge, was published in the journal Tobacco Control June 2003 at www.tobaccocontrol.org . Tobacco Control journal isalso supported by grants from the RWJ foundation. Dr. Sumnerexplicitly advocates the use of fast acting and highly addictivenicotine inhalers to replace cigarettes. Dr. Sumner also states in hisresearch paper that increased taxes on cigarettes will givepharmaceutical nicotine products a competitive price advantage. Hence,tobacco control advocate’s declared strategy to use government influenceto increase taxes on cigarettes, and to reduce opportunities to smoke,to give their pharmaceutical nicotine sponsors’ products a competitiveedge.

 

Adverse Side Effects of Smoking Bans

 

It is of deep concern that many studies, andeven pharmaceutical company statements state that there is only about a10 percent chance that those products will work for purposes prescribedwhile other studies, such as works published byStanford University, clearlyestablish the products have their won unique health risks. I wrote aboutthe health risk side effects of Nicotine Replacement Therapy in myJanuary 29, 2003 article, "CancerRisk" Nicotine Replacement Therapy May Do Smokers More Harm than Good,"published by the Los Angeles Daily Journal. That work included findingsby Dr. John Cooke, Director of Vascular Medicine at Stanford UniversitySchool of Medicine, that nonsmoked nicotine in pharmaceutical gums and patches stimulates thegrowth of blood vessels, which in turn can increase the growth of tumors.And a January 2, 2003 broadcast by CBS Evening News reported theNational Cancer Institute’s conclusion that nicotine is far from benign.Dr. Phillip Dennis was quoted in that report, saying "The take-homepoint is that nicotine is clearly not harmless." Thos previous reportsnow assume added significance in light of recent news reports aboutCOX-2 inhibitor and other medications side effects can be an increasedrisk of heart disease. Would we the people of the State ofWashington be passing a lawwith I-901 that cannot accomplish what it claims to protect all workershealth, while advancing the aggressive distribution of pharmaceuticalnicotine products that can produce more heart disease and otherunexpected adverse side effects"

 

The side effects of smoking bans in generaland I-901 in particular extend beyond medical concerns, however. Asalready noted, in our state a predictable, certain, and known sideeffect of smoking bans is to cause a migration of hospitality revenue,jobs, and local tax bases from tax paying nontribal hospitality venuesto tax-exempt and smoking-ban-exempt tribal establishments. Do we addeconomic injury to medical insult with I-901, merely to accommodate anout-of-state special-interest mercantile agenda" At what point do theprescribed smoking ban cures for an Environmental Tobacco Smoke problemthat does not exist as represented by tobacco control advocates imposeso many adverse side effects that the Washington small business wholepatient dies in any event"

 

If one is looking for a one way, top-down,dominator model for public policy I-901 is clearly the way to go. Weappear to be confronted with an initiative that cannot and will notaccomplish what it claims, confers a virtual monopoly to accommodatepatrons who smoke to tribal venues, directly advances and supportshidden pharmaceutical nicotine distributor vested interests, is promotedI defiance of well established and credible conclusions about the truerisks of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and will impose a predictable andcertain lose of revenue and jobs in the nontribal hospitality smallsector with a commensurate loss of tax revenues to local tax districts.

 

Those solicited to sign petitions for I-901should ask a simple question: "How much loss to residents of the StateofWashington is an out-ofstate pharmaceutical agenda truly worth""

 

Then, good folks, call it as you see it andsign or vote accordingly.

 

Norman E. Kjono

 

 

Advertisers   |   Media contacts