CITY COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

HEARING REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE

AN ORDINANCE, Amending Chapter 10-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled “Public Places – Prohibited Conduct,” by prohibiting smoking in certain public places and in the workplace, with certain exceptions, and by repealing certain provisions set forth in Section 10-602 regulating smoking; all under certain terms and conditions.
 

May 24, 2000
[2:30 PM]

By
Robert B. Sklaroff, MD
And
Michael David Sklaroff

Suite #130
50 East Township Line Road
Elkins Park, PA  19027-2253
(215) 663-8200
FAX:  (215) 663-8388
rsklaroff@home.com
http://members.home.net/rsklaroff/homepage.html

I am Robert B. Sklaroff, MD, a Philadelphia physician and taxpayer.  I speak on behalf of the FPD, the Federation of Physicians and Dentists, a constituent organization of the National Association of Hospital and Healthcare Employees.  NUHHCE is a part of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, which is—in turn—a member of the AFL-CIO.  NUHHCE has, in particular become involved with ensuring monies generated through the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry are properly appropriated, as was discussed this morning.  Speaking for the FPD, I ask that you pass Councilman Michael Nutter’s proposed Ordinance intended to protect the citizenry against Environmental Tobacco Smoke.

In addition, my son has a brief comment:  [“I am Michael David Sklaroff and I am almost ten years old.  A few months ago, I went to a Saturday Concert at the Academy of Music.  Beforehand, we wanted to eat dinner.  But we had to leave a nearby restaurant because it was so smoky.  I am healthy, but smoking hurts my eyes.  And I also cough.  I don’t think it should be allowed where nonsmokers go to public places, such as where they eat.”]
 

I have testified about this issue periodically during the past two decades.  I have argued, simply that the right to swing one’s fist ends at the tip of my nose; so, too, does the right to pollute the public air.  Over recent years, scientific evidence has accumulated that documents the dangers to nonsmokers who inhale the exhaust fumes of smokers.  That is why this bill is so important.  Employees should not be forced to smoke involuntarily.

My major problem with this proposal is that it does not go far enough.  It should not exempt people who are covered by a union contract, inasmuch as this loophole could cause non-union members to be forced to work in a smoky environment.  All employees should be protected, regardless of their jobs and regardless of whether they are unionized, and I will explain why by quoting information I acquired last week over the Internet through <ets-talk@smokescreen.org>, which is an invaluable resource for such data.

Mr. Albert Benson [ajbenson@home.com] wrote:  “I believe this so-called labor union involvement/interest is merely an attempt to create a controversy when there is none. I work in a union shop, where my union is the same one that was involved 15 years ago in clearing the smoke from a Pac-Bell building in Seattle. There was no controversy then and we have none here in California. The hospitality industry tries to work this angle, when all that is wanted is to keep the smoking going. Just do what is right, get the smoke out.

These sentiments were endorsed by Mr. Arno Seegers [arno@lvcm.com], who advised that more information on this issue could be acquired by reviewing the following site “Families Against Tobacco Smoke Odors & Offenses”  [www.fatsoo.com].

Mr. John D Michon [JDMichon1@home.com] wrote:  “Bar employees need to be protected as well. What good is it to ban smoking in restaurants on the pretense of protecting restaurant workers, wait-persons will go to the bar to order drinks for the patrons. Also Union Halls may employ people to provide a service at various union functions and those employees should also be protected as well as the non smoking Union Members.”

These sentiments were endorsed by Mr. Joe Cherner [smokefree@usa.net], who wrote:  “In NYC, we have strong letters of support for smokefree workplace legislation from the six largest, most influential labor unions.”

I have had the opportunity to review a letter written by the Acting City Solicitor in 1994 to then-Councilwoman Happy Fernandez.  It concluded that local initiatives would not be pre-empted by the state-wide Clean Indoor Air Act.  I might add that the absence of any Rules and Regulations implementing this 1998 law—which were to have been generated through the State Health Department—limits its applicability to any of the 69 counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  Therefore, it is necessary for the localities to fill the vacuum caused by state-level inactivity.  I have treated non-smokers who have gotten lung cancer from chronic inhalation of side-stream smoke, and it causes great pain both to patients and to those who interact with them:  family, friends and health care providers.  Preventable illness is clearly a public health concern.  Thank you for your attention.