STUDY SESSION NOTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Ave.
October 5, 2009
Mayor Pro Tempore Wanda Sang called the Study Session to order at 6:35 p.m. Council Members present: Karen Adams, Karen Berry, Tracy Langworthy, Lena Rotola, Terry Womble and Mike Stites. Also present: City Clerk, Michael Snow; City Manager, Randy Young; Police Chief, Dan Brennan; Sergeant Jim Lorentz; Public Information Officer, Heather Geyer; staff, and interested citizens.
1. Staff Reports – No Staff reports were provided.
2. Jefferson County Health Department – Smoking Ban/Clean Air Act Presentation
The following attendees contributed to a comprehensive report on the effects of smoking on our community and economy and the benefits of non-smoking legislation.
Kay Johnson, a WR resident and former smoker Dr. Mark Johnson, Director of Jefferson County Public Health Department Donna Viverette, Supervisor, Tobacco Prevention Initiative Tom Meiers and Nancy Mickelson, Wheat Ridge High School Merry Hansen, Co-Chair of Tobacco-Free Jeffco Colleen Haton, Exempla Lutheran Hospital Jeremy Vann, Youth Tobacco Control Specialist
Their report summarized current smoking regulations in the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act (CCIAA) and highlighted the many loopholes and exemptions that continue to create environments in our City that contribute to smoking use and youth initiation into tobacco use. Also presented were exemplary non-smoking regulations that Municipalities can adopt to strengthen those not already in the CCIAA.
Tom Meiers spoke to the problems of tobacco use by Youth and their efforts at the High School to combat those affects.
Council Member Womble left the meeting at 7:10pm.
Council and Staff considered the options in pursuing strengthened tobacco use regulations for the City of Wheat Ridge.
Council expressed unanimous support for Staff to draft an Ordinance incorporating into the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws the 9 recommendations in the document titled Summary of Areas of the CCIAA Which Should be Strengthened to Reduce Tobacco-Related Health Risks which was submitted to Council tonight (amended to this packet).
3. Sex Offender Registration Fees
Chief Brennan and Sergeant Lorentz presented a staff report illustrating the discrepancy between the costs to maintain the City’s Sex Offender Registration program and the current fees required for initial and maintenance of registrations.
Council expressed consensus in support of Staff drafting an Ordinance to implement Staff’s recommended fee increases.
4. Revision to Pawn Broker Ordinance
Chief Brennan presented a proposal to update the current Pawn Broker reporting requirements in the City Code to take advantage of more modern uses and applications of digital photography and electronic record-keeping.
Council expressed consensus to support Staff drafting an Ordinance to implement Staff’s recommended Code changes.
Meeting adjourned at 8:06p.m.
Michael Snow, City Clerk STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Ave.
October 5, 2009
6:30 p.m.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
.1. Staff Reports
2. Jefferson County Health Department - Smoking Ban/Clean Air Act Presentation
3. Sex Offender Registration Fees
4. Revision/to Pawn Broker Ordinance ~h.A.( ~ ~ City of T~Wheat~dge ~OFFlCE OF THE 01Y MANAGER
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy Young, City Man~
DATE: October 5, 2009
SUBJECT: Jefferson County Health Department - Smoking Ban/Clean Air Act Presentations
PRESENTERS:
Dr. Mark Johnson, Director of Jefferson County Public Health will speak to: Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act (CCIAA) background/health benefits
Donna Viverette, Supervisor, Tobacco Prevention Initiative will speak to: CCIAA exemptions - what has been done to strengthen the CCIAA
Tom Meiers, Nancy Mickelson - Wheat Ridge High School will speak to: Youth tobacco use
Colleen Raton and other Coalition Members, Exempla Lutheran will speak to: Community Support
Jeremy Vann, Youth Tobacco Control Specialist, Tobacco Prevention Initiative will speak to: Smoke-free laws and youth access to tobacco
Jeremy Vann, MPH Jefferson County Public Health Youth Tobacco Control Specialist 6303 Wadsworth Bypass; Arvada, C080003 303-275-7556
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report on Juvenile Underage Possession of Tobacco, Dan Brennan, Chief of Police 2. City of Golden tobacco ordinance excerpt ..... \..4." ~ r City of ~Wheat~dge ~OLICE DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
TO: Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council
THROUGH: Randy Young, City Mana~.<1 FROM: Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police W DATE: September 25, 2009 (for Study Session of October 5)
SUBJECT: Staff Report - Juvenile Underage Possession of Tobacco
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City staff is seeking direction from City Council on the issue of creating a specific ordinance that prohibits tobacco possession by minors and creates a stricter penalty than State law. Since 2006, the City has been approached by individuals and organizations asking for a new ordinance that would prohibit the possession of tobacco by a person(s) under the age of 18.
In the fall of 2007, Wheat Ridge High School (WRHS) staff and students decided the school on site "smoking pit" would be eliminated. In the past, this location was used by WRHS students to smoke on campus. This decision by the school administration followed the school district's tobacco-free campus policy. After the "smoking pit" was closed, some students began to congregate and use tobacco in areas along Holland St. to the east and north of the high school. The school and Police Department answered numerous calls from neighbors due to the increase in loitering and trash being left behind by students. The school Security Staff and School Resource Officer worked with these students and neighbors in an effort to mitigate the problems associated with students congregating off campus.
In 2008, Governor Bill Ritter signed Senate Bill 08-088 that prohibited tobacco possession by minors. The bill makes the possession of tobacco by a minor illegal; however, it is a non criminal offense. It allows for stricter penalties in home rule jurisdictions.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES: Members of the Police Department have participated in meetings with students, school staff and health organizations on the issues of tobacco use by those under the age of 18. Previously, staff has recommended not creating a new ordinance that would prohibit the possession of tobacco products for persons under the age of 18 for several reasons: • An ordinance would further alienate disenfranchised youth from the school and law enforcement. • Possession of tobacco by a student is a violation of the school district's code of conduct and can be handled administratively by the school. Staff Report - Juvenile Underage Possession of Tobacco September 25, 2009 Page 2
• An ordinance would create laws related to status offenses that create criminal histories for those under the age of 18. • There would be a workload impact to the Police Department and Municipal Courts. • An ordinance would create an expectation by certain community members that this ordinance would be strictly enforced. • Lastly, there is a consensus among City staff that prevention education is a better alternative than enforcement.
There are surrounding communities that have stronger ordinances that prohibit the possession or use of tobacco in public places. I have attached the juvenile possession of tobacco ordinance from the City of Golden as an example. On June 22, I met with other Jefferson County law enforcement executives and Dr. Cindy Stevenson to discuss the school district's policy on prohibiting smoking on-campus beginning this school year. We agreed to meet again in October in an effort to assess the impact of the school district's policy on police resources and neighborhoods adjacent to high schools.
In 2008, Governor Bill Ritter signed Senate Bill 08-088 that prohibited tobacco possession by minors. The bill makes the possession of tobacco by a minor illegal; however, it is a non criminal offense. It allows for stricter penalties in home rule jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATION: City staff is seeking direction from City Council on the issue of creating a specific ordinance that prohibits tobacco possession by minors and creates a stricter penalty than State law.
DB/ck City of Golden Colorado - Where the West Lives! - Municipal Code Page 1 of 1
8.19.040 Dispensing tobacco
(A) Definitions. For purposes of this section the following words shall mean as defined unless the context specifies otherwise:
(1) "Cigarette" means any product that contains nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains:
a. Any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; or
b. Tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by consumers as a cigarette; or
c. Any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco that, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph (1).
d. The term "cigarette" includes roll-your-own, i.e. any tobacco that, because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling, is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes.
(2) "Tobacco Products" are defined as: cigars, cheroots, stogies, periques, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed, and other smoking tobacco, snuff, snuff flour, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine-cut and other chewing tobaccos, shorts, refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco and other kinds and forms of tobacco, prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing or for smoking in a pipe or otherwise, or both for chewing and smoking.
(B) It shall be unlawful for anyone under the age of eighteen (18) years to purchase, possess, consume or use either by burning, ingesting, absorbing or chewing any cigarettes or tobacco products.
(C) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly furnish to any person who is under eighteen (18) years of age, by gift, sale, or any other means, any cigarettes or tobacco products.
(D) Any person who sells, or offers to sell any cigarettes or tobacco products, either over the counter or by use of a vending machine, or any other coin-operated machine, shall display a warning sign, as specified in this subsection. Said warning shall be displayed in a prominent place at such location or on such machine at all times, shall have a minimum height of three inches and a width of six inches, and shall read as follows:
WARNING
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE TO PURCHASE CIGARETTES OR TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
(E) That any person under the age of 18 is/was in possession of any package or container with labeling indicating that such contains cigarettes or tobacco products shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of subsections (B) and (C) herein. (Ord. 1679,2004; Ord. 1212, 1993).
http://www.cityofgolden.netiCodePrint.asp?CodeID=465 09125/2009 ~."_.WL'~~~1 Heart Disease & Heart Attacks I-II • Secondhand smoke is a major preventable cause of cardiovascular disease and death according to the American Heart Association, The u.s. Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and many other prominent public health authorities. • Exposure to secondhand smoke causes nearly 10 times as many deaths from heart and blood vessel diseases as it does from cancer. What is Secondhand Smoke? • Each year in the U.S., secondhand smoke causes 49,000 heart disease deaths. ® Secondhand smoke is a • Past scientific studies have shown that people living or working in an environment mixture of the smoke given polluted with secondhand smoke have an increased risk for a heart attack. off by the burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco • Constant exposure to secondhand smoke (in the workplace or home) nearly doubles the product and the smoke risk of having a heart attack, according to a study of more than 32,000 women. exhaled by smokers."-20 • People who have never smoked have an estimated 30% greater risk of heart disease if ® Secondhand smoke is they live with a smoker. This is almost half the risk of smoking 20 cigarettes daily, hazardous and contains a even though the exposure to tobacco smoke is only 1% of that of a smoker. mixture of more than 4,000 chemicals - many of them • As little as 30 minutes of breathing secondhand smoke puts certain individuals at toxic. The cardiovascular greater risk of heart attack. The Centers for Disease Control warns that people with system is very sensitive to known heart disease should avoid all indoor environments that permit smoking. these toxins which are Stroke "-13 known to cause HEART DISEASE, damage to the • Breathing secondhand smoke increases the risk of stroke in non-smokers. arteries and other parts of the • Regular exposure to secondhand smoke, such as in restaurants and bars, increases one's cardiovascular system,IS.20 chance of stroke by as much as 50 percent. ® The U.S. Surgeon General • There exists a strong dose-response between breathing secondhand smoke and the risk has concluded that breathing of a stroke. "·13 This means that even breathing smaller amounts of secondhand smoke secondhand smoke is a can produce changes in the cardiovascular system significant enough to increase the public health hazard, yet is risk of stroke - some studies have shown this risk to nearly double in healthy people! completely preventable. A person's exposure can be Vascular Problems, Damage to Arteries I4-IS dramatically reduced by eliminating smoking in all • Breathing secondhand smoke for just a few minutes increases arterial stiffness, enclosed public places and promotes the tendency of blot to clot, reduces blood flow to the heart, and makes workplaces,IS.20,21 arteries more prone to damage.
Smoke-free Indoor Air Laws Protect Against Heart Disease 16·17 • Recent studies in Helena, MT and Pueblo, CO observed immediate and significant reductions in heart attack admissions at primary local hospitals AFTER smoke-free indoor air ordinances were enacted within the city limits . • For more in/ormation, please contact: hid¥, Oll_,KJl'!')~?;,(,r,,·i', -~J'; ;.:-~- ---0~_>---- ' '<:(;- -·'-z:i-:C::--, ,'. Christine Nevin-Woods, DO, MPH :)'_In deelated Pueblo City-County Health Department Jarii¥u1i993 ,tii~u:$'E'nYiJ:()!llJlel1tai'ProlectionAgel1cy 151 Central Main seC9~dhandsmok" a knownh~tnaitca)'ciIJJ~gen. The ElM callS . Pueblo, CO 81003 se~omlhandSriroke,.as~ribus.andsl,lljsumiiaLhealthriskfor. norisrnqK~rs, par~cu(tirIYchilcf;e'n. ' . ' , (719) 583-4513 ,_ 0", "-c-"'. , __ '_._,~ _ ,,' ',"','., _ SOURCES cited for this publication: 1. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease: epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry. Circulation 1991; 83:1-12. 2. Glantz S, Pannley W. Passive smoking and heart disease: mechanisms and risk. JAMA 1995; 273: 1047-53. 3. Law M, Morris J, Wald N. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. BMJ 1997; 315: 973-980. 4. He J, Vupputuri S, Allen K, Prerost MR, Hughs J, Whelton PK. Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:920-926. 5. Glantz S, Pannley W. Even a little secondhand smoke is dangerous. JAMA 2001; 286: 462-463. 6. Rosenlund M, Berglind N, Gustavsson A, Reuterwall C, Hallqvist J, Nyberg F, et ai. Environmental tobacco smoke and myocardial infarction among never~smokers in the Stockholm heart epidemiology program (SHEEP). Epidemiology 2001; 12: 558-564. 7. Otsuka R, Watanabe H, Hirata K, Tokai K, Muro T, Yoshiyama M, Takeuchi K, Yoshikawa J., Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults; JAMA 2001; JuI25;286(4):436-41. 8. Pitsavos C, Panagiotakos DB, Chrysohoou C, Skoumas J, Tziomis K, Stefanadis C, et ai. Association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and the development of acute coronary syndromes: the CARDI02000 case· control study. Tob Control 2002; II: 220-225. 9. Miller, Karl, M.D., Impact of Secondhand Smoke on Inflammation, in American Academy 0/ Family PhysiCians, Journal, November 15, 2004. 10. Panagiotakos, DB, et al. Effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on markers of inflammation: the ATfICA study. American Journal ofMedicine, February I, 2004;116:145-50. 11. National Cancer Institute. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 10. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 1999. NIH Pub. No. 99-4645. 12. Bonita R, Duncan J, Truelson T, Jackson RT, and Beaglehole R. Passive smoking as active smoking increases risk of acute stroke. Tobacco Control 1999; 8:156-160. 13. Zhang, X. et aI., "Association of Passive Smoking by Husbands with Prevalence of Stroke among Chinese Women Nonsmokers," American Journal o/Epidemiology 2005; 161(3): 213~2J8. 14. Otsuka R, Watanabe H, Hirata K et al. Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults. JAMA 2001;286:436-441. 15. Mahmud A, Feely J. Effects of passive smoking on blood pressure and aortic pressure waveform in healthy young adults: influence of gender. British Journal a/Clinical Pharmacology 2004;57:37-43. 16. R. P. Sargent, R. M. Shepard, S. A Glantz. Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study. British Medical Journal. AprilS, 2004. 17. Bartecchi Carl MD, Alsever Robert N MD, Nevin-Woods Christine DO MPH, Thomas William M PhD, Estacio Raymond 0 MD, Bucher-Bartelson Becki PhD, Krantz Mori J MD. A Reduction in the Incidence of Acute Myocardial Infarction Associated With a Citywide Smoking Ordinance (2005) 18. Surgeon General's Report on the Health Consequences 0/ Involuntary Smoking, 1986. 19. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1992. 20. CDC. 211d National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals: Tobacco Smoke. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Environmental Health; 2003:80. NCEH Pub No. 03-0022. 21. Hopkins DP, et., al. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Am J Prey Med 2001 ;20 (2 suppl): 16-66. Lives saved by Smoke-Free Workplace Law Study shows 577 fewer heart attack deaths each year in Massachusetts
study conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Harvard School of Public Health shows that there were 577 fewer than expected heart attack deaths A annually after the Massachusetts Smoke-Free Workplace Law was implemented in 2004.
Data on heart attack deaths during the period of 1999 to 2006 for all 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth was evaluated. The study grouped towns into three categories: • municipalities that passed strong local laws before the statewide law was enacted in July 2004 • those that had weaker secondhand smoke laws prior to 2004 • and those with no laws prior to 2004.
The rate of decrease in heart attack deaths varied depending on whether a municipality had implemented a local smoke-free workplace law prior to the implementation of the state law, or went smoke-free when the state law was implemented in 2004.
In municipalities with either weak laws or no laws prior to the state law, the decrease in deaths before the state law was relatively slow. However, these same municipalities saw a sharper decrease after implementation. Municipalities with pre-existing strong laws saw much of their decrease in heart attack deaths after implementation of the strong local law and prior to the state's Workplace Law being implemented in 2004.
When municipalities with pre-existing strong laws were compared to municipalities with either weak laws or no law, researchers found that, though heart attack deaths did decline overall, a strong smoke-free workplace law was the single factor that indicated a sharp decline in deaths.
By the end of 2006, there was virtually no difference in heart attack death rates across Massachusetts communities.
The study concludes that it is likely that reduced exposure to secondhand smoke had a significant effect in reducing heart attack deaths.
The Department will release the full report early in 2009, with estimates of local impact and cost savings to the Massachusetts health care system.
(1)'/'::--" Massachusetts Department of Public Health {~.' Tobacco Control Program \;' .J (617) 624-5900 www.mass.govjdphjmtcp "'. . Drop in Heart Attack Deaths by Type of Local Law
...... :.-. Smoke-Free Workplace '. law Implemented , ...... -,.. . -...... " .... -...... - •
7151'199510 7/5/199B to 7/512001to 7/512004 to 71512005 to 7/411998 714/2001 714.12004 71412005 TZ13'V2006
!_ .• --Strong Laws [;l Weaker laws ------.- No laws I
History of the Massachusetts Smoke-Free Workplace Law By the end of 2001, only nine Massachusetts communities had enacted comprehensive local laws.
Beginning in 2002, the Boston Public Health Commission and Cambridge Public Health Department, in conjunction with other local leaders, formed the Clean Air Works Coalition to promote a regional approach to enacting smoke-free laws. The Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program offered technical assistance to Massachusetts municipalities to draft new smoke-free regulations or ordinances. In 2003, the Boston Public Health Commission enacted a comprehensive smoke-free workplace law. Cambridge and Somerville passed similar laws later that year.
Due the success of the Coalition, a regional approach was adopted by other communities across the state, resulting in 45 communities implementing comprehensive laws between 2002 and 2004, bringing the total number of communities with strong laws to 54. An additional 98 communities implemented weaker laws that covered some types of workplaces.
A groundswell of local and legislative support led to the passage of the Massachusetts Smoke-Free Workplace Law, implemented on July 5, 2004.
Reports related to this topic can be found at www.mass.gov/dph/mtcp.
""m ;;: Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Laws
Benefits to Health: • Before California bars went smokefree in 1998, 74% of San Francisco bartenders reported respiratory symptoms, including wheezing, dyspnea (shortness of breath), morning cough, cough during the rest of the day or night, and phlegm production. These complaints dropped almost 60% within just two months of bars going smokefree.' • While smoke-free workplace ordinances have a positive impact on the health of non-smokers, smoke-free workplaces also make it easier for smokers to reduce or stop smoking. In addition, smoke-free workplaces have been shown to improve worker morale. ' • Reduce sick leave caused by exposure to secondhand smoke' • The American Academy of Actuaries estimated in a 2005 study that the medical costs and economic losses to nonsmokers who are suffering from lung cancer or heart disease due to secondhand smoke is nearly $6 billion a year. 8
Economic Benefits: • Reduce the risk of lawsuits being filed by employees who become ill working in the smoking section and breathing secondhand smoke; eliminate disability claims based on secondhand smoke exposure.3 • Reduce the incidence of fires. Smoking caused 4.5% of the 500 restaurant fires from 19934 to 1997 - reSUlting in $7.2 million in property damage, six injuries, and one death.' • 21 peer reviewed studies based on objective measures, such as taxable sales receipts, where data points several years before and after the introduction of smoke-free policies were examined, where changes in economic conditions are appropriately controlled for, and where appropriate statistical tests are used to control for underlying trends and fluctuations in data - found NO NEGATIVE economic impact of smoke-free policies in restaurants and bars. Just a few studies using objective measures have found negative effects; each of these is methodologically flawed. Studies concluding a negative economic impact have predominately based findings on outcomes predicted before the introduction of policies or on subjective impressions or estimates of changes rather than actual, objective, verified or audited data. These studies were funded predominately by the tobacco industry or organizations allied with the tobacco industry. Almost none of the studies finding a negative impact are published in peer-reviewed journals.' • The tobacco industry has orchestrated a well-funded campaign to deceive the public, business owners, and policy makers about the economic impact of smoke-free laws. Smoke-free laws are designed to protect the health of residents, visitors, and workers. The only business that loses is the tobacco business. Economic studies of smoke-free policies enacted in Colorado and throughout the country indicate that revenues remain stable.'
Colorado Studies on the Economic Impact: • Studies of sales tax data from Aspen, Snowmass and Telluride have demonstrated that smoke-free ordinances in restaurants had no negative effect on revenues. (Glantz, S "Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinances Do Not Affect Restaurant Business. Period." Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, January 1999 Vol. 5. No. I. Additional sales tax data from the Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution (GASP) shows that the smoke-free ordinance in Boulder, CO also had no negative impact on sales.7
When Smoke-Free Laws are Further Strengthened: • When Fort Wayne, IN, strengthened its smoke-free bar and restaurant law, sales receipts increased 39% across the county compared to sales in the same month for the previous year.' • When municipalities with pre-existing strong laws were compared to municipalities with either weak laws or no law, researchers found that, though heart attack deaths did decline overall, a strong smoke-free workplace law was the single factor that indicated a sharp decline in deaths.1O References:
1 Eisner, M., et ai, "Smoke-Free Bars and Tavern's Effect on Health of Bartenders," Journal of the American Medical Association; 1998; Vol. 280, No. 22 2 GASP of Colorado; "II More Smart Reasons Smoke-Free Policies Make Good Business Sense," Colorado Restaurant Times & Health News; issue 7 3 National Restaurant Association, February 12, 1993 memo. 4 New England Journal of Medicine 329: 1543, 1993 and Consumer Reports, 1995 5 Scollo and Lal, VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, Melbourne, Australia; "Summary of Studies Assessing the Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry" August 2003; available at http://vctc.org.au/tc-res/Hospitalitysummary.pdf 6 Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance; "Smoke Free Economics," September, 2003 7 Communication for Jane Siegfried, Honeywell, Inc. to Dr. Clark dated June 12,2000 in relation to debate over ventilation provision in the Duluth, MN City Council. 8 Behan, D.F., Eriksen, M.P., and Lin, Y.; 2005. "Economic effects of environmental tobacco smoke, from http://soa.orglccmlcontentlareas-of-practice/life-insuranceIresearch/economic-effects-of environmental-tobacco-smoke-SOA 9 Lanka, B., 2007. Sans smoking, Allen receipts up 39%. Journal Gazelle. As referenced in "The Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Business nd Health"; Indiana Center for Health Policy. 10 "Lives Saved by Smoke-Free Workplace Law - Study shows 577 fewer heart attack deaths each year in Massachusetts" from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health Tobacco Control Program; retrieved from www.maass.gov/dph/mtcp 9/28/09. I N D I A N A
CENTER FOR HEALTH POLlCY RESEARCH FOR A HEALTHIER INDIANA MARCH 2009 The Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Business d Health Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is a significant public implicated in increasing the risk far stroke, subclinical vas health Caneem affecting millions of Americans, many of whom cular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cer are Hoosiers. A considerable amount of medical research has vical cancer, and breast cancer.l-~ In children, SHS expo demonstrated that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke. sure from a parent has been found to cause sudden infant According to the most recent report on SHS by the US Surgeon death Syndrome, lower birth weights, higher rates of res General, the best way to deal with the problem of SHS is to piratory illness, asthma, poorer lung function, and other encourage states and local communities to enact ordinances breathing problems, and higher rates of middle ear infec which ban smoking in public places and all workplasrs includ tions, including otitis media.1 ing restaurants, bars, and casinos-workplaces that are often Clearly the most Significant health consequence related exempt from smoke-free legislation.l The purpose of this brief to SHS is death. Some 50,000 nonsmokers die annually in report is to summarize what researchers have concluded regard the United States due to SHS-related illnesses.2.~ In 2007, 5 ing the economic impact smoke~free legislation has on the hos 1,194 Hoosiers died from diseases definitively tied to SHS. pitality industry and on health-related expendihlres both Because of the serious health problems that can result nationally and in Indiana. from SHS exposure, more and more states are working to deal with the issue by enacting ordinances that eliminate What is Secondhand Smoke? smoking in public places and workplaces. The goal of such SHS contaminates indoor air spaces and outdoor environ measures is to provide workers, particularly nonsmoking ments, where it is inhaled by nonsmokers. This inhaled smoke workers, with a safe working environment. Restaurants, is made up of a mixture of sidestream sI11pKe released by the bars, and casinos are worksites and public places where smoldering end of a tobacco product and}narostream smoke smoking is often allowed, either throughout the premises exhaled from the lungs by a smoker. /\ {,:r or in restricted areas that do not effectively reduce expo Ogarette smoking is the most cornrn,~~o~ of SHS in the sure to SHS. Servers, bartenders, dealers, and other work United States, followed by pipes, ogars'.i''.. ;p.:,qter products. ers in these environments may regularly be exposed to Analyses of the chemical makeup of SH QW that it contains high levels of SHS.l The levels of SHS smoke in bars are over 4000 chemicals, more than 50 of w, 'F'h'are\nown cancer 240-1850% higher than those in other workplace smok causing agents. Due to its chemical makeup, the Environmental ing environments, such as offices, factories, warehouses, Health Infonnatian SelVice has classified SHS as a Group A car hotels, and other service-oriented places. Casinos have dnogen, a substance known to cause cancer'in humans.1 SHS levels 300-600% higher, while restaurant smoke lev els are 160-200% higher than those in other workplace l ti Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke smoking environments. . The health effects of SHS helVe been exl:en:,iv"ly' In Because of the high SHS levels in these establish adults, SHS has definitively been linked to an . lisk ments, they have become the focus of many smoke-free for lung cancer and coronary heart disease, aJcljjJ~:}vitn\j1,,,al ordinances being proposed nationwide. As of January sinus cancer and eye, nose, and throat iI'Tit,ati"n\,SIiS>i/l\plso 2009, 15 US states, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and CENTER fOR HF.ALTH POl.K Y
331 municipalities (cities, towns, or counties) have enacted cases, such as in New York City, sales have improved. Economic 100% smoke-free laws in all workplaces, restaurants, and bars? studies conducted in the state of New York and the cities of Within Indiana, nine cities have implemented smoke-free laws Lexington, KY, have demonstrated that smoking bans do not for all indoor workplaces, restaurants, and bars. 8 adversely affect the hospitality industry's revenue and employment.
Economic Studies of Hospitality Industry New York The debate regarding the economic impact of smoke-free laws In 2003, the state of New York passed one of the strongest has focused on the hospitality industry. specifically restaurants, smoke-free ordinances in the country, banning smoking in all bars, and casinos. Business owners, especially owners of alco public and private restaurants, bars, bowling facilities, taverns, hol-serving restaurants where smoking is common, believe that and bingo halls. Studies in 1999, 2000, and 2003, including a smoke-free ordinances would discourage and alienate smoking study on New York City's original 1995 partial smoke-free ordi customers, diminishing sales and resulting in higher unemploy nance, concluded that smoke-free ordinances were not eco ment rates among industry workers.liquor licenses, jobs, by restaurateurs and bar owners in both moke-free laws add and business tax payments. The report stat ll n Quebec, Canada, and Western Australia. . Svalue to establishments. ed that tax receipts increa<>ed 8.7 percent Owners also believe that enforcing smoking Restaurants in smoke-free from April 1, 2003, to January 1, 2004, com bans unfairly burdens restaurants. pared to the same period in 2002-2003. Proponents argue that nonsmokers, who cities have a higher market Furthennore, employment in restaurants outnumber smokers 3 to 1, would recover or value at resale (an average and bars increased by about 10,600 jobs increase any sales lost from smokers, because of 16% higher) than com (about 2800 seasonally adjusted positions) nonsmokers have been aVOiding establish- parable restaurants located between March and December 2003.2(1 A ments that allow smoking. 2006 study by the state of New York found 4 Although restaurant and bar owners may in smoke-filled cities. similar results: Business had improved fear losing business in the face of smoke-free despite the smoking ban, and the law had workplace ordinances, most customers expect to continue patron not had an adverse financial impact on bars and restaurants. 21 izing restaurants and bars at the same rate, even if these establish Additionally, the studies showed a 97% compliance rate, ments go smoke-free. The 2006 Zagat Survey of 115,000 with the vast majority of New Yorkers supporting the ban.w Americans reported that 58% of respondents would dine out just Respondents also indicated they were more likely to patronize as often if restaurants were smoke-free, and 39% would dine out establishments that were smoke-free. A Zagat survey in 2004, more. Only 3% said they would dine out less often. 13 Plior to which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, Massachusetts implementing its ordinance to ban smoking in all showed that New Yorkers eat out six times more often now workplaces, including bars and restaurants, Biener and Siegel because of the city's smoke-free policy, and 58 percent say they l demonsb·ated that 61 % of swveyed residents would not change would frequent bars less often if smoking was permitted. ) their use of restaurants; 30% believed they would increase their Support has also grown among bar and restaurant owners. use. Only 8% predicted a decrease in their patronage of restau On February 6, 2005, James McBratney, President of the Staten rants. Similarly, when discussing their use of bars, 69% of surveyed Island Restaurant and Tavern Association, was quoted in the New Massachusetts residents predicted no change if a smoke-free ordi York TImes saying, "I have to admit, I've seen no falloff in business nance went into effect; 20% thought they would visit bars more in either establishment [restaurant or bar]." According to The frequently; and 11 % stated they would visit bars less frequently.1~ Times, "He went on to describe what he once considered unimag Nearly identical results have been found from surveys conducted inable: Customers actually seem to like it, and so does he."2~ in Hong Kong prior to its smoke-free workplace ordinance and in various parts of Australia. 12.1S,16 Lexington, Kentucky Studies analyzing the economic impact of smoke-free work Since April 2004's inception of a comprehensive law making place ordinances have shown that, contrary to the fears of business restaurants, bars, pool halls, and bingo parlors completely smoke owners, the hospitality industry has not lost revenue; in some free, businesses in Lexington-Fayette County's bars and restau rants have remained stable. 2 CfN'rER FOR HEALTH PO! ICY
In 2007, a study published in TIle Journal ofTobacco Control remained constant, and the number of licensed restaurants and found that employment in Lexington restaurants grew by 3 per~ bars opening and closing remained stable.26 cent after the smoke~free law went into effect with approximately A public opinion study conducted by the University of 400 employees added per month, while bar employment remain Kentucky also found a significant increase in public support for ed steady; no changes in employment ocrurred in either restau the smoke-free law: an increase from 56.7 percent before the rants or bars in the six counties neighboring Lexington-Fayette. legislation to 64.0 percent six months after the ordinance took There also was no significant difference between restaurant and dfect in April 2004. 26 bar openings and closings before and after the laws enactment, regardless of whether or not the establishment served alcohol.23 Economic Impact on Casinos Although Lexington is located in a tobacco-producing state with Casinos and gaming venues have become large businesses, high rates of smoking, the study concluded that no significant eco employing thousands of workers while bringing in significant nomic hann had resulted from the smoke-free legislation. revenues to local and state economies and Native American com The recent report's findings parallel those of a 2005 study by munities. A .. more cities, counties, and states enact smoke-free the University of Kentucky. According to the study, which workplace laws, casinos and gaming venues such as racetracks, looked at employment figures, business openings and closings, racinos (racetrack establishments that include other types of gam and payroll withholding taxes for restaurants and bars before bling), and bingo and card clubs have been receiving more atten and after the ban, the smoke-free ordinance did not unfavorably tion. Currently, 15 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico affect Lexington's hospitality industry. The study found restau have enacted 100% smoke-free laws for gaming establishments, 6 rant employment increased while the number of bar employees with more anticipated in 2009. Casinos, like restaurants and bars, have been concerned vvith losing revenue as gamblers step outside - away from the tables Fort W.,ne~djiltii~~'ei~f~~iaii~ and slots - to have a cigarette. Many casino operators fear that by On· Jun".1;20b''i}'£rtWaYrt'' ¢xpanded.jtsel
review. Pakko did not analyze data from a complete, one-year busi junction with other laws to control spending among low-income ness cycle, making accurate comparisons with previous business patrons in gaming venues. Other studies showing a negative eco cycles impOSSible. Additionally; Pakko, attributed a 2006 flattening nomic impact have been based on subjective infonnation, have of revenue trends to the smoke-free law, which did not go into included estimates based on unverified data, have been published effect until January 2007." Lastly. in a 2005 report regarding the in journals that are not peer-reviewed, and have mostly been effect of the Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky smoking ban on funded by the tobacco industry or its affiliates.42 alcohol sales, Thalheimer reported a 9.8% to 13.3% drop in on Based on these and other economic impact studies, The premises alcohol sales after implementation of the ban. Surgeons General's 2006 Report on The Health Consequences of Thalheimer's conclusions have been dismissed for a number of Invo[unimy Exposure to Tobacco Smoke concluded that: "Evidence methodological reasons including poor sampling of alcohol distribu from peer-reviewed studies shows that smoke-free policies and tors, a lack of a comparison group, failme to analyze food sales regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the
which could compensate for any alcohol-related losses, and changes hospitality industry." 1 in the price of alcohol over time.3-1 Although limited research has been conducted on smoke-free Other Economic Costs/Benefits for Smoke-Free Business laws' economic impact on casinos and the gaming indust:J.y the Although the debate on the economic impact of tobacco-free available research sho\NS no negative revenue impact.A 2005 study workplaces has focused primarily on customer-based revenues, by Mandel, Alamar, and Glantz showed no effect on total gambling businesses may overlook other ways in which a tobacco-free ordi revenues, nor on the average revenue per machine.3S Another study nance could help their bottom line. Both smoking and nonsmok released the same year on the Massachusetts Smoke-Free ing employees who work in environments where smoking is per Workplace Law concluded that the regulation has not adversely nutted report a number of health complaints including runny affected keno sales or the number of dollars waged each month:'l9 nose, irritated eyes, sore throat, cough dUling the day or night, Tn 2003, 16 years of charitable bingo economic trends were exam shortness of breath, wheezing, and other sensory and respiratory 45 ined in Massachusetts before and after the smoke-free ordinances problems. "47 Such health complaints can lead to more medical took effect; a decline in revenue occurred before the ban, and it was ly-related absences. In fact, smokers and workers exposed to SHS determined that the ordinance had no effect on bingo revenues ..jo take more days off due to chest-related illness and have more 411 5o Furthermore, the California Board of Equalization found that bars, absences overall than workers in smoke-free workplaces. - casinos, and gambling clubs continued to enjoy increased revenues, Smoke-free workplaces are estimated to save employers based on sales tax receipts in establishments setving alcohol, since $1,045.46 in medical expenses on average for each nonsmoking the smoke-free law took effect in 1998.~1 employee and $2,069.42 in medical expenses on average for each 51 Lastly, smoke-free laws in casinos and gaming facilities have smoking employee. ,s2 Savings come primarily from improved received significant support from the public. In New Jersey; 70% health after businesses go smoke-free and from improved pro Q of voters supported extending smoke-free Jaws to cover casino ductivity and attendance.-I5.46A .S3 By going smoke-free, businesses gaming floors. Additionally, 91 % of Californians indicated that can reduce the health risks for all their employees, including they would be more likely to visit smoke-free hibal casinos, or those who smoke. Over time, smokers who work in smoke-free 42 that their patronage levels would stay the same. ..n workplaces reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke per day,
Literature Analysis Indicates No Significant Economic Impact An analysis of the studies conducted and published on the eco nomic impact on the hospitality industry found that 47 of the 49 studies concluded that smoke-free laws had not adversely affect ed the industry. Researchers used objective measures to compare the studies, including sales receipts, data before and after the ordinances, and application of appropriate statistical methods to control for trends, economic conditions, and fluctuations. The mo studies that met the criteria but found a negative impact had sig nificant limitations. One study had a biased sample; the other measured the effects of smoking poliCies implemented in con-
4 CENTER FOR HEALTH POLlCY experience a reduced desire to continue smoking. experience that California's tobacco control program was associated with more quit attempts, and are more likely to succeed at quitting.S4 &0 healthcare expenditures that were $86 billion lower over a IS-year Both the elimination of SHS and the reduction in the amount period than would have been expected without the program.hS of cigarettes consumed by employees create a healthier work force, which in tum can result in employers' paying less in work ~ Economic Costs to the State of Indiana ers' compensation premiums and insurance payments.~l,62 An analysis of the SHS costs to the State of Indiana determined Businesses that go smoke~free report lower overhead and that the overall cost of SHS-attributed hospitalizations for adults maintenance costs than those that continue to pennit smoking. in Indiana was $61.51 per capita, based on the estimated popu According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, a smoke lation of 6,345,289 in 2007. free restaurant can save approximately $190 per 1,000 square feet each year due to lower cleaning and maintenance costs.f>3 In a Table I: Cos~ of SHS-Attributed Healthcare in Indiana for Adults and Children, 2007' SUlVey of cleaning and maintenance costs of 2,000 companies that Total health care com attributable to setondhand smoke == 282.5 million dollars went smoke-free, 60% repOlted a decrease in expenditures. Total loss of life costs attributable to secondhand smoke"" 107.8 million dollars Additionally. companies like Unigard Insurance and Merle Overall cost of health care and premature loss of life attributed to secondhand smoke Nonnan stated that after going smoke-free, their cleaning and for Indiana residents in 2007 = $390.3 million dollars. maintenance costs declined significantly.63,1>4 Another significant advantage of smoke-free laws is the value Hoosiers Support Smoke-Free Venues they add to establishments. Restaurants in smoke-free cities have Community support for laws eliminating smoking in work a higher market value at resale (an average of 16% higher) than places has increased over time. Recent data from the Indiana 65 comparable restaurants located in smoke-filled dties. Tobacco Prevention and Cessation's 2008 Adult Tobacco Survey (ATS) indicate that three out of four Hoosiers support a law in National Economic Impact their community that would eliminate tobacco smoke from all Nationally, SHS creates a tremendous economic burden on the indoor workplaces. Similarly, 72.3% of the respondents in the healthcare system. A recent study by the American Academy of survey said they would support a state law that would eliminate Actuaries estimated that the medical costs and economic losses tobacco smoke in all workplaces, including casinos. TI1e results to nonsmokers who are suffering from lung cancer or heart dis indicate that most residents of Indiana would support a ban on ease due to SHS is nearly $6 billion a year. During 2004, close to smoking in all workplaces, induding hospitality venues. $2.6 billion was spent on the medical care of nonsmokers who had developed lung cancer or cardiac illness due directly to SHS Conclusions exposure. Behan et al. determined that in 2004, the total cost due SHS is a significant public health concern leading to an increased to premature death, disability, lost wages, and fringe benefits risk of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other health prob resulting from exposure of nonsmokers to SHS totaled at least lems. One way to curb the problems associated with secondhand $3.2 billon.'" smoke is to pass ordinances requiring all businesses to provide Citing the staggering SHS health-related costs to the US, completely smoke~free workplaces to their employees. The hospi~ Ong and Glantz (2004) attempted to predict the cardiovascular tality and gaming indusnies are tw'O where the rate:s of SHS expo~ health and economic impact if all workplaces in the US went sure are generally high. For that reason, considerable effort has smoke~free. Accorcling to their estimates, if all vlOrksites in the US been placed on making restaurants, bars, and casinos smoke~free. became smoke-free, a total of 6,250 myocardial infarctions and While ovvners of these businesses often fear that they will lose 1,270 strokes would be prevented in both smokers and nonsmok profits due to a loss of clientele, there is strong evidence that ers exposed to SHS over a 7-year period. Ong and Glantz deter smoke~free laws do not harm restaurants, bars, or casinos, nor do mined that within seven years of implementing a 100% smoke they affect tourism and other sectors of business. In fact, smoke free workplace law, a total of $280 million in healthcare costs free workplaces reduce absenteeism due to smoking~related ill could be saved, $132 million of which would be accounted for by nesses and can help employers save money by reducing insurance savings for nonsmoking workers exp::!sed to SHS.6i rates and maintenance costs. Implementing srnoke~free work Implementing a strong tobacco control program which places statewide could help Indiana Significantly reduce the $390 emphasizes smoke~frce workplaces can also help states save million dollars spent on SHS-related healthcare casle;. money. When California was compared to states that did not have significant comprehensive tobacco control programs, it was found
5 CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY
References 18. Hvland, A., Pub, v., Cummings, M., & Sciandra, R. (2003). New Y;rk's smoke-free regulations: Effects on employment and sales in 1. us Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). TIre hen/th the hospitality industty. Comell Hotel mid Restaurant Administration consequences of illvoluntary exposure to tobacco smoke: A report of the Quarterly, jll/W, 9-16. ;;lIrgeml ~Ileml. Atlanta, GA. 19. Hyland, A, Vena, c., Cummings, M., & Lubin, A. (2000). The effect 2. Glantz, S., & Pam,ley, W. W. (1991). Passive smoking and heart ot the dean air act of Erie County, New York on restaurant disease: Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry. Cirallatiml, employment. jOllrna/ of Public Health Management mul Practice, 83.1-12. 1999(5), I. 3. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2005). Heillth 20. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (2003). rffects ofe:<:posure to etrvil'Ol1melltal labaa'o smoke. Berkeley, 0\: Initial effects of New 'Ibrk City smoking ordinance, from California Environmental Protection Agency. http://\'vww.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdfIJ03NYC.July03.pdf -1. Taylor, A E., Johnson, D. C., & Kazcmi, H. (1992). Environmental 21. New York State Department of Health (2006). The health and tobacco smoke and cardiovascular disease: A position paper from economic impact of New York's dean indoor air act. Retrieved the council of cardiopulmonaIY and critical care, American Health February 10, 2009, from http;l!www.health.state.ny.us/prevention/ Association. Cin:u/atiOlI, 86, 699-702. tobacco_controlldocslciass_irnpact_report.pdf 5. Zollinger, T. W., Saywell, R. M., Muegge, C. M., & Przybylski, M. j. 22. Rutenberg. j., & Koppel, L. (2005). Almost two years into cigarette (2008). Estimating the economic impact ofsecondhand smoke on ban, New York City bars thrive, and many smokers shrug. New lndimw in 2007: the Bowen Center. Yrwk TImes. 6. Americans for Non-Smokers Rights. (n.d.). Casinos and gaming 23. Pyles, M. K., Mullineaux,. D. ]., Chizimuz(), T., Okoli, c., & Hahn, venues. Retrieved Febru;uy 16, 2009, from http://wv..W.no-smoke. E. J. (2007). Economic effect of a smoke-free law in a tobacco off) goingsmokefree. ph p ?id=104 grmving community. Tobacco Control, 16, 66-68. 7. Americans for Non-Smokers Rights. (2009). US 100% smokefree 24. Lmka, B. (2007). Sans smoking. Allen n"ceipts up 39%. Journal laws in workplaces and restaurants and bars. Retrieved February Gazette. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http:lhvww.in.gov/itpc/ 17,2009, ITom http://www.no-smoke.orglpdUWRBLawsMap.pdf 2480.htm. 8. Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation. (2009). Indiana (OWI 25. Smith, B. (2009). Plainfield's smoking ban may be helping town's ties' sltlokefree laws. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Tobacco Prevention food and beverage tax. official says. The Indianapolis Star, February and Cessation. 19,2009. Retrieved March 23, 2009 from http://;vww.indy..1ar.com/ 9. Williams, A., Peterson, E., Knight, S., Hiller, M., & Pelletier, A apps/pbcs.dll/article?AIDo::=W09902190324 (2004). Survey of restaurants regarding smoking policies. jOlll1lal of 26. Hahn, E.]. (2005). l.JK Study: No significant economic impact from Public Health Management and Practice, 7O,35-4U. smoke-free law on Fayette County restaurant and bar business, 10. Dunham, ]., & Marlow, M. L. (2000). Smoking laws and their dif from http://www.mc.uky.cdurrobaccofblicylNcwRelease.HI1v1 ferential effects on restaurants, baTS, and taverns. Contemporary 27. Pritsos, C A, Pritsos, 1<. L., & Spears, 1<. E. (2008). Smoking rates Economic RJlicy, 18(3),326-333. among gamblers at Nevada casinos mirror US smoking rate. 11. Cremieux, P-y', & Ouellette, P. (2001). Actual and perceived Tobacco Control, 17{2), 82-85. impacts of tobacco regulation on restaurants and firms. Tobacco 28. Pakko, M. R. (2005). Smoke-free law did affect revenue from gam Conh'O/, 10, 33-37. ing in DeJOlware. Unpublished working paper. 12. Allen, K, & Markham, V. (2001). Public opinions IIIld atrih/des 29. Fakko, M. R (200S). No smoking at the slot machines: The effect towards creating sl110kejree bars in Western Australia. Wei>t Perth, of a smoke-free law on Delav·:are gaming revenues. Applied Western Australia: Australian Council on Smoking and Health. £collomics, 40(14), 1769-1774. 13. Khan, S. (2005). Zagat 2006 Survey Names lop Restaurants. NY1 30. Saul, T. (February 12, 2008). Smoking ban may be to blame for News. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.nyl.com/ Illinois casino revenue declines. Quad City TImes. Default.aspx?SecIDo::=10oo&ArID:=54298 31. 'Ihalheimer, R, & Ali, M. S. (2008). The demand for casino gaming 'l4. Biener, L., & Siegel, M. (1997). Behavior intentions of the public with special reference to a smoking ban. Economic 1I1quily, 46(2), after bans on smoking in restaurants and bars. Ameriam joumal of 273-282. Public Health, 87(12), 2042-2044. 32. Americans for Nonsmokers'Rights (2008). vVho is Michael 15. Lam, T H., Janghorbani, M., Hedley, A, Ho, S. Y, McGhee, S. M., Pakko? Retrieved March 21, 2009 from http://\vww.no-smoke.orgl & Chan, B. (2002). Public opinion on smoke-free policies in pdflpakko.pdf restaurants and predicted effect on patronage in Hong Kong. 33. Kentuckv Center for Smoke-free Fblicy, University of Kentucky Tobacco Coutrol, 11(3), 195-200. College ~f Nursing (n.d.). Smoke and mirrors: Exposing the 16. Philpot S. J., Ryan. S. A, TOITe, L. E., Wilcox,. H. M., Jalleh, G., & Thalheimer report. Jamrozik, 1<. (1999). Effect of smoke-free policies on the behaviour 34. Marlow, M. L. (1998). The economic effects of smoking laws on of social smokers. Tr:bacco Control, 8, 278-281. bars and taverns. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from 17. Hyland, A, Cummings, M., & Nauenberg. E. (1999). Analysis of http://www.tobaccoscam.ucst.edu/pdf/069-Marlnw.pdf taxable sales receipts: Was New York City's smoke-free air act bad 35. American for Nonsmokers'Rights (2004). F.conomic impact studies for restaurant business? ]ol/nUlI ofPublic Health MmUlgement and circulated by the tobacco industry. Retrieved March 21,2009, irom Practice, 5(1), 14-21. http://www.no-smoke.orglpdfm_econ.pdf (, ,ENTER FOR HfALTH POliCY
36. Pakko, M. R. (2007). The economic impnct of a smoking ban in 53. Hahn, E. J., Rayens, M. K.,Ynrk, N., Okoli, C.T. c.. Zhang, M., Columbia, Missouri: A preliminaJy analysis of sales tax data. Dignan, M., et a1. (2006). Effects of a smoke-free law nn hair nico CRE8 Occasional Report No. 2007-02. Federal Reserve Bank of tine and respiratory symptoms of restaurant and bar workers. St. Louis; Center for Regional Economics. JOllmal l~fOCcllplltional and Environmental Medicine, 48(9), 906-913. 37. Mandel, L. L., & Glantz, S. (2004). Hedging their bets: Tobacco 54. Bauer, J. E., Hyland, A, Li, Q., Steger, c., & Cummings, K. M. 7 CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY Indiana.s Future: Identifying Choices and Supporting Action to Improve Communities The Indiana University Center for Health Policy is a nonpartisan applied research organization in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Researchers at CHP work on critical policy issues that affea the quality of health care delivery and access to health care. CHP is one of three applied research centers currently affiliated with the Indiana University Public Policy Institute. The partner centers are the Center for Urban Policy and the Environment and the Center for Criminal Justice Research. Publication ofthis report was funded by a grant from Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation. The Center for Health Policy and the Public Policy Institute are grateful to Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation for funding publication and distribution of information for leaders and policymakers in Indiana. This report was prepared independently by the authors, and the views presented reflect those of the authors and may not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor. Please direct questions to Eric R. Wright, PhD, Director, Center for Health Policy, School of Public and Environmental Affairs,lndiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (lUPUI), 334 N. Senate Ave., Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46204; Phone: (317) 261-3000; FAX: (317) 261-3050; E-mail: [email protected] Authors: Harold E. Kooreman, M.A., Policy Analyst; Ann Marie Judson-Patrick, B.A., Graduate Student; Eric R. Wright, Ph.D., Director for the Center for Health Policy. Non Profit US Postage Paid Indianapolis, IN CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Permit No. 803 334 North Senate Avenue, Suite 300 lndianapolls, IN 46204·1708 www.urbancenter.iupui.edu SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 1NDIANA UNIVERSITY IUPC! 09-G4 AMERICANS FOR NONSMOKERS ' RIGHTS Defendin9 your right to breathe smokefree air since 1976 CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE SUPPORT SMOKEFREE AIR AS A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION November 2006 • "The business community understands that, ultimately, comprehensive smoke-free laws promote economic growth by reducing the employer health care costs and lost productivity," said Chip Carlisle, Chairman, Greater Houston Partnership. I • "We believe that this piece oflegislation ". has reasonable controls and is responsible in terms of really making a difference in the community and ultimately helping us reach our vision of becoming an economic hot spot," Greater Louisville (KY) Inc.'s chamber President Steve Higdon said in an interview.z • Michael Maurer, President of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, said: "[ have read and agree with the many studies that show that there is no adverse economic impact on businesses in cities where smokefree ordinances have passed. In fact, studies show an increase in revenue in most situations .... We have enormous potential to lower the healthcare costs that our businesses must pay. The creation of smokefree workplaces will help us do that.. " There are thousands of cities, some states, Canadian providences and a number of countries that have adopted complete smokefree ordinances with no exemptions. I urge you to do the same.,,3 • Robin Comstock, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce (NH), said, "We believe this [smokefree] bill will not adversely impact the business community,'''' • Jim Rich, President of the Greater Beaumont (TX) Chamber of Commerce said, "A number of cities in Texas have enacted this [smokefree] ordinance. It has not impacted business. We want Beaumont to be at the forefront, not the last community to respond to what has become a significant public heath issue."s • The Board of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce unanimously endorsed Washington State's Measure 1-901, which would make all workplaces, including restaurants and bars, 100% smokefree indoors. The Chamber noted, "In this case, we can do something to create a truly healthy environment for employees and customers while also helping businesses with their bottom-line." Steve Leahy, President & CEO of the Greater Seattle (WA) Chamber of Commerce.6 • Bloomington and Monroe County, IN enacted 100% smokefree laws. "First, supporting and enacting public smoking bans is good public policy for a number of excellent health, economic and liability reasons. The latter reason is one that few businesses have thought about. I believe businesses that continue to allow smoking risk lawsuits for exposing employees/customers to known carcinogens. One simply cannot rationally argue against these reasons and businesses are placing themselves in economic peril ... [1]n spite of gloomy predictions, the world does not end when smoking is banned in public places. On the contrary, while the evidence is still being gathered, some Bloomington bars and restaurants are reporting increases in post-ban business ... [1] believe Chamber endorsement of the ban provided the 'tipping point' stimulus that gave 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J. Berkeley, California 94702· (510) 841-30321 FAX (510) 841-3071 www.no-smoke.org • [email protected] lawmakers the necessary political shelter to vote for the ban ... We certainly gained community respect," wrote Steve Howard, President ofthe Greater Bloomington (IN) Chamber of Commerce.7 • "Tempe's hospitality community does not suffer in the least bit from the ban. We are actually encouraged by the fact that so many international destinations have chosen to pass smoking bans in their communities. This makes Tempe a leader on a local level and not simply a follower. That. .. falls in line with our reputation as a progressive and inclusive city. It is a pleasure going into restaurants and bars without smelling like a cigarette afterward. Our residents and visitors feel the same and there has not been any negative 'backlash' for the ban," wrote Stephanie Nowack, President and CEO of Tempe Convention and Visitors Bureau.s • "The facts prove that banning smoking in public places will not adversely affect business. In fact, one year after New York City enacted its smoking ban, business activity actually increased in restaurants and bars and 10,000jobs were added. We understand the angst of some establishment owners, but we truly believe that this will be positive for businesses in Philadelphia, both in terms of bottom-line performance and the related health benefits to patrons and employees. This is both a sound business position and a serious public health concern. From the Chamber's standpoint, it makes sense to support a smoking ban. I applaud the Mayor and the Councilman Nutter for their farsighted leadership on this matter," Mark Schweiker, President & CEO, Greater Philadelphia (PA) Chamber ofCommerce.9 • Dan Allen, President of Muncie-Delaware County (IN) Chamber of Commerce, stated: "The time has come; there is plenty of evidence that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, especially in young people. It is a trend across the nation, and a ban would give us an opportunity to differentiate ourselves from other communities that are dragging their feet."lO • "We feel it has worked out quite well for everyone. It protects the public health and it allows businesses to make accommodations to their customers that wanted to smoke in their facilities," said Jeffrey S. Ciuffreda, Vice President ofthe Greater Springfield (MA) Chamber of Commerce, regarding a one-year old smokefree law. ll • "[Restaurant] and bar business is so vital that I think it [Boulder, Colorado's smokefree law] actually made it [business] stronger," said Stan Zemler, President of the Boulder (CO) Chamber of Commerce.12 • "Secondhand smoke is a real danger ... I know some of us in the business community were given pause by this new [100% smoke free] ordinance. After all, new mandates too often can raise costs, interfere with productivity and intrude unnecessarily on the private sector. But I want to suggest that stopping smoking and demanding clean air are business issues. Nothing is better for business than a healthy, productive work force .... In business, we recognize that it is essential today to create a workplace culture that values employees. We ought to be clear that we also value the health of our employees .... We should be proud that we live in a community that is leading the way in the push for a better, healthier quality of life. Together we are creating the workplace we all want for the future," said Jim Hinton, Chairman of the Albuquerque (NM) Chamber of Commerce. 13 • "We [the Chamber of Commerce] were trying to look what was best for our members and what was best for the community. We felt. again, the health issues [sic] was an important issue we needed to address because even our smaller members are affected by this [secondhand smoke] one way or another," said Dave Long, Executive Vice President of the 300 member Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, (IN) Chamber of Commerce. 14 • "[A]t the time the ordinance was presented, we [the Chamber of Commerce] were extremely wary of it. We feared that the ban on smoking would cost the community revenue, jobs, tax dollars, tourists and tourist-generated income. We ended up coming out in support of the ordinance, seeing it as a leap of faith that wouldn't hurt business. Suffice it to say, our initial fears were unfounded and today, I'm pleased to report that the effects have been extremely positive," wrote David Garth, President/CEO of San Luis Obispo (CA) Chamber ofCommerce. 15 • "Everybody knows it's coming, it's a non-issue to a great extent," said Scott McCammon, Executive Director of the Burlington (Ontario, Canada) Chamber of Commerce. The article in which MccCammon was quoted added, "A recent survey showed 85 percent of Chamber members responding support a complete ban.,,16 • The Tempe Chamber of Commerce and Arizona Restaurant & Hospitality Association decided to support Proposition 201, a comprehensive smokefree measure that would restrict smoking in all workplaces. A rival ballot question, Prop. 206, is backed by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and would exempt bars from the statewide smoking ban.17 REFERENCES I Greater Houston Partnership. "Partnership Supports Smoke-Free Ordinance in Houston." Press Release. September 6, 2006. 2 Gerth, J. "Chamber to back smoke ban: Business group's stance is new," Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal, June 4, 2005. Downloaded at http://www.courier-journal.comiapps;pbcs.dll!aI1icle?AID~/20050604INEWSOI!506040422. Accessed on June 6, 2005. 3 Maurer, M., "[Letter to Greenfield City Council re: smokefree ordinances.j," October 7, 2005. 4 [n.a.j, "House prepares for vote on smoking ban," TheWMURChannel.com, March 8, 2006. 5 [n.a.), "Beaumont Chamber of Commerce supports smoking ban," KBTV NBC 4, March 20, 2006. 6 Leahy, S., "1-90 I: Good for Business in Washington," Healthy Indoor Air Washington, November 3,2005. Download at http://www.healthyindoorairwa.orgli 901 good for jobs and business!. Accessed on November 3, 2005. 7 Howard, S.,. "[Letter to whom it may concern re: Smoking Bans are Goodj," [n.s.], February 1,2005. • Nowack, S., "[President and CEO of Tempe Convention and Visitors Bureau re: Letter to Cynthia Hallett, Executive Director of ANR.)," [n.s.], June 22, 2005. 9 [n.a.j, "Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Supports City Council Bill to Ban Smoking in Public Places," PRNewswire, March 4, 2005. 10 McBride, M., "Chamber backs curbs on smoking," Star Press, January 14,2006. 11 Goonan, P., "Restaurants mark 1 year smoke-free," Union-News, March 3, 2002. 12 Sovak, K., "Clearing the air: restaurant owners divided over no smoking issue," Minot Daily News Online, March 28,2001. 13 Hinton, J., "Stopping smoking is a business matter," Business Outlook, July 22, 2004. 14 [n.a.), "Chamber of Commerce Gets Involved in Smoking Ban Debate," WLFI-Lafayette (IN), June 17, 2005. " Garth, D., "Letter to Nebraska Senators from San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in favor of Smoke free Legislation," January 29, 2001. i6 Smith, D., "Workplace smoking ban a 'non-issue' for local business," Burlington Post, October 28, 2002. Downloaded at http://www.haltonsearch.com/bp/storvi685102p-812994c.html. 17 Sunnucks, M., "Tempe Chamber, restaurant group back total smoking ban," Business Journal of Phoenix, October 4, 2006. [FS-24] Wfiles/mareriallfacr sheer/Chamber of Commerce Support Smokefree A ir. doc Summary of Areas of the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act Which Should be Strengthened to Reduce Tobacco-Related Health Risks The document which follows has been prepared by the Tobacco Prevention Initiative (TPI) team at Jefferson County Public Health (JCPH). The document is a fairly extensive review of the areas of the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act (CCIM) that the TPI recommend be strengthened through local ordinances in order to assure protection from secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. Below please find a one-page summary of the recommendations made in the document. 1. Tobacco Businesses - The exemption for tobacco businesses is strongly recommended for removal. In most cases, doing so allows these businesses to operate, but just requires that smoking be permitted only in appropriate outdoor areas. This exemption is responsible for the significant increase in smoking lounges, including hookah bars, since the CCIM's effective date in 2006. This is an unintended effect ofthis exemption. Several Colorado communities, including the City of Arvada have either removed this exemption or are working to reduce proliferation of smoking lounges. 2. Cigar Bars - It is strongly recommended that the exemption for cigar bars be removed. Doing so does not impact the potential of a business that primarily operates as a bar or tavern to continue operating, but requires that smoking occur only outside the establishment, just as other bars/taverns are required to do. 3. Smoking in certain bar/restaurant patio areas - it is strongly recommended that all patio areas adjacent to bars and restaurants, where patrons gather to consume food and beverages, be made smoke-free, regardless of any type/degree of enclosure or structure. This action protects patrons and workers in these establishments from concentrated levels of SHS. 4. Outdoor transit shelters/platforms - it is strongly recommended that all transit shelters and platforms be made smoke-free. 5. Smoke-Free Entranceway Perimeters - increasing the smoke-free perimeter around all public entrances, intake vents and other air-exchange sources to 25' is strongly recommended. 6. Prohibiting entry of minors into tobacco businesses is strongly recommended. 7. Exemption for non-public access businesses with three or fewer employees - It is strongly recommended that this exemption be removed in order to provide equal protection to all workers and visitors to these 8. It is also recommended that other outdoor public areas be included in local smoke-free laws. Included for consideration should be: parks, public access areas adjacent to hospitals, trails, playgrounds, beaches, outdoor recreation/entertainment areas, athletic fields, and service lines. In some cases, making these areas "tobacco-free" is merited to further protect children from modeling/normalizing tobacco use of any form. 9. It is recommended that steps be taken through formal and voluntary policies to reduce youth access to tobacco products. These policy actions include, but are not limited to: requiring all tobacco products be placed behind counters (no self-serve), prohibiting the distribution of free tobacco product samples, requiring that tobacco retailers be licensed to sell tobacco, etc. For further explanation, please refer to the attached document or contact the Tobacco Prevention Initiative of Jefferson County Public Health at (303) 275-7555. Consideration of Local Action to Further Protect Communities from Secondhand Smoke in Jefferson County Background: Strong, comprehensive, and effective smoke-free public place and workplace laws prohibit smoking in all workplaces and public places, and are considered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be priority Best Practice strategies to reduce death and disease caused by tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure (SHS). The Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act (CClAA) does not meet the standard as a strong, effective law, according to the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Global Smoke Free Partnership. Rather, as a moderately strong law, the CCIAA helps prevent disease and premature death in Colorado by making most workplaces and indoor public places smoke-free. Research complied by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has found that prohibiting smoking in workplaces and public places also helps reduce youth initiation of tobacco use and supports adults in quitting by helping to "de-normalize" smoking. The CCIAA is not considered a comprehensive law because not all workplaces or public places are covered by the intended protections in the law. In addition to limiting the health impact of the law, exemptions and lack of clarity in the language of the CCIAA have made areas of the law difficult to interpret, comply with, and enforce. An unintended consequence of the limitations and lack of clarity in the law is that thousands of workers and the public continue to be exposed to the toxic effects of SHS in our communities. In response to this, many jurisdictions across the State have taken or are in the process of taking action to strengthen the law at the local level by clarifying language and removing exemptions, both for the benefit of public health and to make enforcement simpler. In October of 2008, the City of Arvada strengthened its law by removing an exemption for tobacco businesses. Closing this loophole helps protect workers and employees in these businesses and stops the proliferation of hookah bars and other smoking lounges. Efforts to strengthen smoke-free laws at the local level are both possible and advised and, according to the Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution (GASP) in Colorado more than 30 communities have enacted local laws that are stronger than the State law. Our State's lawmakers specifically intended and included a provision in the language of the CCIAAso that the law may be strengthened to assure that the goal of protecting the public and workers from SHS be maintained and expanded as needed at the local level. JCPH is providing the following summary related to the CCIAA as a guide to consider policy actions that address exemptions and clarify language in the State law at the local level to increase protection from secondhand smoke, de-normalize tobacco use and prevent youth initiation, and provide further benefit to the health ofthe workforce, residents and visitors in Jefferson County. Items A - F: Describe the exemptions that should be removed ond parts of the CCIAA that need clarifying language. A. Exemptions for "Tobacco Businesses" (aka "Tobacco/Smoke Shops·, Pipe/Tobacco shops, smoking lounges, hookah bars, etc.) - This exemption enables tobacco retail businesses to allow patrons to sample tobacco products (usually loose and pipe tobacco) prior to purchasing. It was not the intent of the law to allow tobacco retail businesses to become "smoking lounges". Concerns: As a consequence of this exemption, the door is open for tobacco businesses to become/operate a smoking lounge. Some create special seating, Internet access, and limited beverage and snack service. A particular type of tobacco business known as a "hookah bar" has become a highly popular hangout for youth and young adults, and the number of these businesses has been increasing in our communities. There has also been an increase in the number of nuisance complaints from residents living near these establishments as well as from conjoined businesses resulting from SHS intrusion from these lounges. Recommendations: Remove the exemption for tobacco-businesses. Local jurisdictions, while continuing to allow tobacco businesses to sell tobacco products, have removed this exemption by making tobacco businesses, including hookah bars, cigar lounges, cigarette shops, etc., smoke-free to protect workers and patrons. This action also helps cease the proliferation and conversion of tobacco businesses into smoking lounges, such as of hookah bars, thus reducing youth access to tobacco products. The Cities of Greeley and Arvada have removed the smoke-free exemption for these businesses and Arvada has also strengthened protections for youth by prohibiting entry of minors into these establishments (see G, below). In communities where hookah bars are operating, several options exist which allow these businesses to operate with limits (grandfathering plus limiting smoke intrusion into neighboring businesses, for example), while stopping the proliferation of new hookah bars and smoking lounges. However, public health evidence strongly supports fully removing the exemption for all tobacco businesses, including hookah bars, without any exceptions. In the City of Wheat Ridge: The Department of Revenues' Tobacco Enforcement Unit estimates that there are four (4) known tobacco businesses in Wheat Ridge, at least two of which have converted areas of their store into smoking lounges. It is probable that a number of other establishments operating as tobacco businesses are taking advantage of the lack of controls and allow smoking and/or have converted to smoking lounges, "under the radar". The greatest majority of these businesses do not need to permit smoking in their establishments in order to conduct business. B. Exemption for "Cigar Bars" - This exemption allows for traditional, established cigar bars to continue as smoking-allowed until the close or sale of these businesses. Concerns: It was not the intent to allow bars/taverns or other establishments not previously known/operating as cigar bars to use this exemption. A number of requirements were set forth in the Act to determine qualification as a cigar bar, including the requirement that the proprietor have proof of revenue generated as of December 31, 2005 from the rental of a humidor (for temperature-regulated storage of patrons' fine cigars). Businesses claiming to be cigar bars continue to operate in our County, despite the fact that a) many of these establishments were not known as a cigar bars prior to December 31,2005, and/or do not appear to meet all provisions for claiming exemption, b) smoke from these establishments intrudes into neighboring businesses, affecting workers and patrons, and c) local building code ventilation requirements are not being consistently applied for these, and other smoking-allowed establishments. In several municipalities, citations have been effectively disputed by owners of these establishments, because of lack of clarity of the law's language, resulting in unnecessary and costly city staff time. Recommendations: Remove the exemption for cigar bars. Several municipalities across the State have passed ordinances allowing no exemptions for cigar bars (e.g., Arvada and Greeley); these establishments can continue operating, but must be smoke-free, just as other bars are. In the City of Wheat Ridge: The there is no known bar claiming the exemption as a cigar bar, however, as there is no requirement to register such establishments with the City, County or DOR, it is possible that these establishments may be operating. C. lack of clarity around smoking in certain bar/restaurant patio areas -The CCIAA prohibits smoking in most public indoor areas. There has been a proliferation of partially enclosed patio areas where smoking occurs. Even though the CCIAA defines that an indoor area does include "any enclosed area, or portion thereof, the opening of windows or doors or the temporary removal of wall panels does not convert an indoor area into an outdoor area," business owners are permitting smoking in these enclosures. Concerns: Outdoor exposure for workers and non-smokers, alike is a hazard. The completed studies on outdoor tobacco smoke exposure are uniform in their assessment that exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke can sometimes rival exposure to secondhand smoke occurring indoors. There has been an increasing number of bar/restaurant "patio enclosures" that allow smoking. The diversity of interpretations of the definition of "enclosed area" has caused enforcement of this stipulation of the law to be extremely difficult. Patrons and employees entering these areas are exposed to high levels of SHS. Recommendation: Require all patio areas adjacent to bars and restaurants where patrons gather to consume their food or beverages (regardless of any partial/temporary enclosure) to be smoke-free areas. Several communities, including Arvada, louisville, and Broomfield have enacted strong patio area stipulations in their laws. Improving the clarity and specificity of the definition of an "enclosed area", is also recommended and has been recently accomplished in the City of Boulder, which defines any structure with more than two walls and a roof an "indoor" area. This definition results in most bus shelters being smoke-free. We also strongly recommend that all transit shelters and platforms be made smoke-free {See G, below}. D. lack of clarity around smoke-free entranceway perimeters - The CCIAA stipulates that there will be no smoking within 15 feet of the "main {one} entrance". This has allowed smoking at multiple entrances of many buildings at a distance that is not adequate to prevent exposure. Additionally, since smoke-free signage was not a requirement of the law, smoking at entranceways goes unchecked in many places. Concerns: The work to determine a minimum standard for smoke-free entranceway "buffer zones" has been led by James Repace and other researchers, including Neil Kleipis at Stanford University. Their work has identified a 20 foot smoke-free entranceway buffer as the minimum adequate distance. The lack of clarity in the CCIAA has allowed harmful areas of dense smoke at some building entranceways as well as intrusion of SHS into workplaces and public places, exposing workers and patrons to the hazards of SHS. Recommendation: Increase the smoke-free perimeter around all public entrances to 25 '. Which is slightly exceeds the "minimum adequate" distance of 20' and is consistent with the City of Arvada's smoke-free law. We also strongly recommend adding a requirement that business owners and property managers post signage regarding smoke-free entranceways and to add language in the law to include all intake vents and other air exchange sources within the 25' smoke-free zone to assure that smoke is not easily drawn back into the bUilding. E. Exemption for non-public access businesses with three or fewer employees - This exemption allows worker exposure to toxic smoke as well as smoke intrusion into neighboring bUSinesses. Concerns: Individuals who visit, even if infrequently, or do business in the establishment {such as cleaners, bookkeepers, maintenance staff, etc.} are also exposed to the dangers of SHS. This exemption is also allowing new business to open as smoking-allowed "private clubs" Recommendation: Eliminate the exemption and treat all business equally, regardless of number of employees or non-public access. Items F- H are recommended as important tobacco control measures and are consistent with tobacco control research and policy trends across the nation. F. Including certain outdoor public areas as smoke- or tobacco-free, including public transit shelters and platforms, public right of ways adjoining hospitals, parks, trails, playgrounds, beaches, outdoor recreation/emertainment areas, athletic fields, and service lines is merited for several reasons. Research shows that outdoor smoke exposure can be a significant health threat, particularly for youth, those suffering from asthma or other respiratory conditions and those who are medically compromised. Additionally, many outdoor public places support activities involving infants and youth (public pools, parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, etc.); requiring these to be smoke-free reduces exposure to SHS, reduces influential adult modeling of smoking and may help with reducing the risks of infant contact with toxic cigarette butt litter. The City of Arvada includes these areas (including City-owned golf courses and skating rinks) in their smoke-free law. The city of las Animas (in Bent County, Colorado) recently made these outdoor areas fully "tobacco-free" in order to minimize youth exposure to all forms of tobacco. Jefferson County Public Schools prohibit the use of all forms of tobacco on their grounds and prohibit minors from possession all forms of tobacco while on grounds or at school sponsored events. In states with longer-standing tobacco control programs and laws, it is now normative to include these outdoor areas in their smoke-free workplace and public place laws (for example, as of July, 2009, across the nation 429 local jurisdictions have laws making parks smoke-free, and 139 make outdoor transit shelters/platforms smoke free). In addition to the Colorado communities of Arvada and las Animas, several other communities (i.e., Steamboat Springs, Summit County, Denver, TImnath, Greeley, Avon, Eagle County, City and County of Broomfield) include some outdoor public areas in their local laws. Recommendation: At a minimum, public transit shelters and platforms, public right of ways adjoining hospitals and all public outdoor areas supporting youth-involved recreation, sporting, entertainment and educational activities should be made smoke-free. Prevalence of other forms of tobacco use should be considered to inform decisions about making these areas tobacco-free, as well. G. Entry of minors into tobacco businesses is currently allowed by law - There is currently no stipulation in the CCIAA prohibiting minors from entry into tobacco businesses, though the Teen Tobacco Use Prevention Act (TTUPA, effective July, 2008) makes possession of tobacco (containing) products by minors illegal. Concern: In addition to minors' exposure to SHS, exposure, minors are exposed to the highly effective marketing tactics of the tobacco companies and are influenced to see tobacco use as "normal" or glamorous. Recommendation: Anyone under the age of 18 be prohibited from entering into tobacco businesses. People under the age of 18 are prohibited from entering tobacco retail businesses in Arvada and Pueblo. Even in communities with smoking-allowed tobacco businesses, prohibiting minors reduces the normalization of tobacco use for youth. This provision will help minimize one source of tobacco advertising and "normalizing" messages from reaching youth. H. Provisions to further reduce youth access to tobacco products and minimize the impact of tobacco marketing influences on youth -In addition to strengthening the provisions of smoke-free public/workplace laws, much can be done to reduce youth initiation of tobacco. Laws which require all tobacco products be placed behind counters, out of view of patrons (in visually occluded cabinets, for example), helps reduce youth tobacco use and adult consumption. This youth access law also helps reduce the influence of tobacco displays which "double" as powerful marketing/promotion devices. Requiring tobacco retailers to be licensed is a cost effective means to reduce illegal sales of tobacco. Other "youth access" laws include prohibiting distribution of free tobacco product samples and discount coupons in communities. The cities of Greeley, Salida, Lamar and Arvada have variations of this prohibition in their local laws. Many communities in our State and many states across the nation have effectively implemented various versions of youth access laws and are seeing further reductions in youth and adult tobacco use. Recommendation: Efforts should be undertaken to address youth access to tobacco at multiple levels, including through formal laws and voluntary policies. Statewide tobacco control organizations should be contacted to help assess community need and to identify youth access laws showing greatest impact on youth initiation. Including components of youth access laws into local smoke-free laws is a good first step to more comprehensive policy approaches. Currently, coalitions are organized and rallying to support their policymakers in several communities across Colorado to take steps to strengthen ordinances which may include many of the provisions addressed, above. The public health benefits of these local laws are significant and tobacco control staff in local health agencies is available to assist with education, awareness and other activities to support the policy campaign process. For more information, contact the following: Tobocco Prevention Initiotive ot Jefferson County Public Heolth: Susan Sobkoviak - 303-275-7558 email: [email protected] Ed Ellis - 303-275-7565 email: [email protected] Jeremy Vann - 303-275-7556 email: [email protected] Donna Viverette- 303-275-7555 email: [email protected] Flo elsan - 303-275-7509 email: [email protected] Tobocco-Free Jeffco - on ollionce of tobacco control coolitions ond portners in Jefferson County: [email protected] Hookah -A single or multi-stemmed (often glass-based) water pipe for smoking shisha (a type of tobacco). Not currently regulated by the FDA, research shows that a 45 minute hookah smoking sessions exposes the smoker to approximately the same amount of tar and nicotine as one full pack of cigarettes. An exemption for tobacco businesses in the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act (CClAA) has lead to a proliferation of smoking lounges, including Hookah bars. According to the CClAA, a tobacco business is an enterprise "engaged primarily in the sale, manufacture, or promotion of tobacco, tobacco products, or smoking devices or accessories, either at wholesale or retail; and in which the sale, manufacture, or promotion of other products in merely incidental." These exemptions, once considered standard for traditional pipe tobacco shops, have opened the door for the conversion of smoke shops into elaborate smoking lounges as well as the opening of hookah bars. Though the name is misleading, hookah bars in Colorado cannot have food service or liquor licenses, but their atmosphere, hours of operation and their array of candy-like tobacco flavors tell another story. Examples of How Hookah Bars are Promoting their Products and Misleading the Public: Hundreds of Flavors: Atmosphere and Advertisements - "Back to school special: bring in your current student 10 between now and Thursday and get 50% off your first hookah" Posted: August 17 Exhale Hookah -Florida and Wadsworth - 3 blocks from Alameda High School Operating Hours Mimic Dance Clubs and Adult Bars (from an online sample hookah bars): 3:00 P.M. to 3:00 A.M. 7 Days a Week Mon -Thu 11 :OOam - 11 :OOpm Fri - Sat II:OOam - 3:00am Sun 1l:30am - 10:00PM Other Web-Based Promotional Ads/Comments - (from Facebook/My Space sites) "We have Starbuzz, Alfakher, Herbal/or under 18 smokers, and more. Come Explore a buzz 700 years in the making!" From websites with quotes from hookah business entrepreneurs: "With a hookah lounge, there are really only 2 ways to go: - You can give it a Middle Eastern theme to give it an exotic feel. - Or you can give it a classy, upscale feel, like a VIP lounge." "Personally, I think I will go with the upscale feel, mostly because it is easier and cheaper to furnish. I live in a college town, with 40,000 undergraduate students." "- Juice, wine, or liquor is very good in the base. Just make sure the wine and liquor is diluted - Milk is supposed to thicken the smoke, but I've never noticed a big difference. Plus, if you don't clean it out soon, it gets disgusting" "Hookah is a growing thing in my college town, and the towns expanding very rapidly with new businesses left and right! its crazy, and we already have 2 hookah bars .... " "My business partner and I know every little thing there is to know about hookah lounges and we are looking to expand and franchise. There are many loopholes to get through California laws but they are hard to find. If you want a business partner and need the money and get the lounge up, i would be willing to go check out your area and let you know what you need to do, the hookah business is growing at a fast pace and in the next year or 2 it will be too late, there are still states that don't have hookah lounges yet! There is no "NAME" hookah lounge which means if done properly it can be big. write me and let me know and possibly we can work something out. .. " Want to read more about the booming business of hookah bars? - do a web search on: advice for opening a hookah bar hooked on hookah ....or anything related to hookah businesses BusINEss JOUBNAL Friday, March 14, 2008 Smoker Friendly lighting up stores with new lounges Denver Business Journal - by Noelle Leavitt Denver Business Journal Kathleen Lavine I Business Journal Three members of the family-owned business at Smoker Friendly, Kathleen Gallagher, vice president, business development; Dan Gallagher, vice president operations; and Mary Szarmach, vice president trade marketing; in the cigar lounge at the Thornton store at 120th Street and Colorado Boulevard. View Larger Although a statewide ban on most indoor smoking has left those who light up out in the cold, a local tobacco retailer is starting to retrofit many of its shops to live up to its name: Smoker Friendly. Smoker Friendly -- a Boulder-based tobacco retailer -- recently added a smoking lounge with free wireless Internet access, couches and large flat-screen TVs to one Denver-area location, and plans to repeat that in select stores. "We felt like people needed to have an opportunity to have a place to sit down and have a smoke," said Dan Gallagher, vice president of operations for Smoker Friendly. The changes started shortly after the state extinguished smoking in public establishments last July. Tobacco retailers such as Smoker Friendly and bars classified as "cigar-tobacco bars" are exempt from the law. Denver International Airport smoking lounges also are exempt. Casinos were exempt until January when the state extended the ban to them. Smoker Friendly -- managed by Cigarette Store Corp. -- sells tobacco accessories, cigarettes, pipe tobacco, cigars, humidifiers and hookahs. In 2007, the company rang in $127 million in sales, up from $110 million in 2006 and $105 million in 2005. Although Smoker Friendly sales have steadily increased, the number of smokers in Colorado has declined. In 2006, roughly 17.9 percent of adults in Colorado smoked, a drop from the 22.3 percent who smoked in 2001, according to the Colorado Department of Health and Human Services. The 17.9 percent was lower than the national average of 20 percent in 2006. That's credited to "Colorado's approval of the tobacco tax increase for the health department to do public information campaigns" about health risks associated with smoking, said Mark Salley, spokesman for the health department. But Smoker Friendly hopes to attract more customers to its stores with its new smoking lounge model. Currently, Smoker Friendly has only one store in the Denver area with a smoking lounge - its 2,800-square-foot location in Thornton at 120th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. "We expanded our walk-in humidor and added two distinct separate smoking lounges," Gallagher said. "It has a separate feel from the retail store." The company hopes to add more, but still is deciding which stores are best for the remodel. Last summer, Smoker Friendly acquired 13 tobacco stores from S.R. Flaks, a small tobacco retail company based in Colorado Springs, bringing its company-owned stores to 100 in four states. Several of Smoker Friendly's recently acquired stores in southern Colorado -- Pueblo, Security, Trinidad, Canon City and Colorado Springs -- are being remodeled with lounges. S.R. Flaks was owned by brothers Greg and Rick Flaks, who were anxious to get out of the tobacco industry. Their father opened S.R. Flaks in 1950. Originally, the company was a wholesale candy and tobacco distributor. After years of selling tobacco, the brothers wanted to do something different, because with "the smoking bans, the raise in taxes ... [it] had gotten to be a harder business," Rick Flaks said. Rick Flaks has gone into the real estate business, and Greg Flaks retired. "I wanted to do less and have less responsibility," Greg Flaks said. "The tobacco business isn't as fun as it used to be. It's continually overly regulated. Between the anti-smoking legislation and the high taxes, it's a difficult business right now." Yet Smoker Friendly is going strong, partly because it has stores in other states, many of which don't have smoking bans. Smoker Friendly licenses its trade name to tobacco stores across the nation through Smoker Friendly International LLC. "There's no upfront licensing cost, but tobacco retailers must carry at least $2,000 of Smoker Friendly products, and buy a $500 Smoking Friendly sign," Gallagher said. In 2007, there were 550 stores that use the Smoker Friendly name, up from 300 in 2006. "We've really been expanding our offerings at a number of stores, on the premium side of the business both in cigars and in premium cigarettes," Gallagher said. The smoking retailer sells its own Smoker Friendly brand cigarettes and cigars. Cigarettes cost around $2.79 a pack and cigars run $1.59 to $2.59 each. The privately held tobacco chain is owned by the Gallagher family -- Terry Gallagher Sr.; his wife, Nancy Gallagher; and their children, Terry Gallagher Jr., Kathleen, Dan, Mary and Mike Gallagher -- and partners Dave Bershof and Phil Harbison. In 1990, the Gallaghers decided to convert several of their Gasamat stations into Smoker Friendly stores. The family turned the majority of its stores into tobacco outlets, but still sells gas at 21 of its Smoker Friendly locations that are called Smoker Friendly/Gasamat. The Gallaghers are fourth-generation Boulderites, who got into the gasoline business in the 1950s. Each year, the company holds a Smoker Friendly conference and tobacco festival at the Millennium Harvest House in Boulder, where tobacco retailers from across the nation showcase new tobacco products. The 2007 convention drew about 350 attendees plus 80 tobacco manufacturer booths. "It's all open-air so people can sample products," Gallagher said, adding that though Boulder prides itself on being a healthy city, Smoker Friendly has encountered little opposition. The company has 400 employees, 250 of whom are based in Colorado. Because the retailer sells tobacco and is exempt from the state's smoking ban, Smoker Friendly employees can smoke while working. All contents of this site © American Cley Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. Cigar-Tobacco Bar Exemption The Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act exempts "Cigar-Tobacco Bars" from the smoking restrictions. ACigar-Tobacco Bar is defined as: • "'Cigar-Tobacco Bar' means a bar that, in the calendar year ending December 31,2005, generated at least five percent or more of its total annual gross incorrre or fifty thousand dollars in annual sales from the on-site sale of tobacco products and the rental of on-site humidors, not including any salesfromvending machines. In any calendaryear after December 31,2005, a bar that fails to generate at leastfive percent of its total annual gross income or fifty thousand dollars in annual sales from the on-site sale of tobacco .products ,and ther~ntalofpn-sitehulnidors shaH not be defined as a."cigar-tobacco bar;' and,shallnot thereafterfie.ihclude~jnthedefinition, regardless of sales ligures," ... ' . . ...,...... '. '.' . The lawg6es onto~ay: .' • "A cigaHobaccobarshal[ not expand its size (lr change its location trom the: size and location in whic.h it existed as of December 31,2005." • In any calendar year after December 31, 2005, a bar that fails to generate at least 5% of its total . annual gross income or $50,000 in annual sales from the on-site sale of tobacco products and the rental of on-site humidors shall nolbe defined as a "Cigar-Tobacco Bar" and shall not thereafter be included in the definition regardless of sales figures. For a copy of the law, go to: www.SmakeFreeCalarada.arg Assessment of Wheat Ridge - Cigar Bars and Tobacco Businesses that Could be Impacted by Removing Exemptions to the Smoke-Free Law Cigar Bars Name 1 Address J Ownerlphone # I Status None Known or Defined as Cigar Bars in Wheat Ridge Tobacco businesses Name Address Owner/phone # status World Class Cigar CO 4800 Wadsworth Blvd. #100 303-403-9000 Retail tobacco. DOES have Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Cigar/Smoking lounge The Cigarette Store 3294 Youngfield St. 303-238-3424 Retail tobacco, DOES have #136 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Cigar/Smoking lounge In-N-Out Cigarette 3875 Wadsworth Blvd. 303-596-6456 Retail tobacco, no smoking lounge Store Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 DS Tobacco & Pipes 5020 Kipling Street 303-423-2447 No answer via phone. Unable to Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 verify information SMOKE-FREE LAWS ENCOURAGE SMOKERS TO QUIT AND DISCOURAGE YOUTH FROM STARTING "The debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard." - U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona To reduce smoking and protect nonsmokers, many state, county, and municipal governments have already implemented smoke free laws that prohibit smoking in most indoor public spaces, and many more are considering new smoke-free laws. At the same time, the cigarette companies and their allies are vigorously opposing any new smoke free laws and are also trying to repeal those already in place. While the debates over these laws continue, it is important that decision makers and the public know that smoke free laws have a strong, documented, positive impact on helping smokers quit and on preventing children and adolescents from ever starting. As shown in more detail below, smoke free laws: • Prompt more smokers to try to quit; • Increase the number of successful quit attempts; • Reduce the number of cigarettes that continuing smokers consume; and • Discourage kids from ever starting to smoke. Effectiveness of Smoke-Free Laws for Reducing Adult Smoking • The Surgeon General's 2006 Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke concluded that, ''workplace smoking restrictions lead to less smoking among covered workers." The report cited numerous studies that found "an association between workplace smoking policies, particularly more restrictive policies, and decreases in the number of cigarettes smoked per day, increases in attempts to stop smoking, and increases in smoking cessation rates.'" • The Surgeon General's 2000 Report on Reducing Tobacco Use found that smoke free laws "have been shown to decrease daily tobacco consumption and to increase smoking cessation among smokers.',2 • According to the National Cancer Institute's exhaustive review of the scientific literature related to population-based cessation programs: "Multiple workplace observations have demonstrated that instituting a change in workplace smoking restrictions is accompanied by an increase in cessation attempts and a reduction in number of Cigarettes smoked per day by continuing smokers. Once restrictions on smoking in the workplace have been successfully implemented, they continue to have effects. Observations ... demonstrate that being employed in a workplace where smoking is banned is associated with a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day and an increase in the success rate of smokers who are attempting to quit."' • A 2005 study in the journal Tobacco Control of the smoke free law in Ireland found that, "Approximately 46% of Irish smokers reported that the law had made them more likely to quit. Among Irish smokers who had quit at post-legislation, 80% reported that the law had helped them quit and 88% reported that the law helped them stay quit.'" • A study in the May 2000 issue of the American Journal of Public Health on the impact of California's clean indoor air laws on cessation efforts found that: 1400 I Street NW - Suite 1200 - Washington, DC 20005 Phone (202) 296-5469 . Fax (202) 296-5427 . www.tobaccofreekids.org Smoke Free Laws Encourage Smokers to Quit & Discourage Youth From Starting/2 "Laws with comprehensive restrictions led to more worksites with smoking policies and increased the likelihood that workers would quit smoking. An estimated 26.4% of smokers who worked in communities with strong ordinances quit smoking within 6 months of the survey and were still abstinent at the time of the survel" compared with only 19.1 % of those who worked in communities with no ordinance: • A study in the July 1999 American Journal of Public Health that examined the impact of smoke-free laws and policies on smoking in the United States and Australia. Its authors concluded that: "All of the 19 studies we reviewed reported either declines in daily cigarette consumption by continuing smokers or reductions in smoking prevalence after bans on smoking in the workplace were introduced ... Because of the duration of time spent at work, workplaces are probably the most significant sites where smoking restrictions cause smokers to reduce their tobacco consumption."· • A 1999 study published in Tobacco Control found that "Requiring all workplaces to be smoke free would reduce smoking prevalence by 10%. Workplace bans have their greatest impact on groups with the highest smoking rates.,,7 A separate study published in a 2001 issue of Tobacco Control concluded that, "employees in workplaces with smokin~ bans have higher rates of smoking cessation than employees where smoking is permitted." • A study in the September 1999 issue of American Economic Review found that, ''workplace bans reduce smoking prevalence by 5 percentage pOints and daily consumption among smokers by 10 percent."g • A study in the September 2001 issue of the American Joumal of Public Health found that in Finnish workplaces that instituted smoking bans, "daily smoking prevalence among employees decreased considerably" and "employees with less education showed a proportionally larger decrease in smoking prevalence" after the smoking bans were implemented. 10 • A 1991 study in the Australian Journal of Public Health found that a smoke-free workplace law "produced a reduction in workday cigarette consumption of between three and four cigarettes a day" and the reduction was maintained for at least 1.5 years. During the course of the study period (covering 2 years), smoking prevalence decreased about 5 percent, which the authors estimated to be twice the average of the surrounding geographic area without smoke-free workplace laws. 11 • A 2000 study in the journal Health Economics found that clean indoor air laws "had a negative and Significant impact on per capita consumption in all models" tested. Further, the study found that the "reduction in Cigarette consumption from the anti-smoking laws had increased from 1985 to 1995, as these laws became more restrictive and comprehensive." The study concludes with the observation that ''without anti-smoking laws, total cigarette consumption would have been 4.5% greater in 1995.,,12 Effectiveness of Smoke-Free Laws for Reducing Smoking Among Youth • A study in the August 9, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that, "The results from these national surveys [on youth smoking] strongly suggest that smoke-free workplaces and homes are associated with significantly lower rates of adolescent smoking.,,13 • A 2000 survey published by ImpacTeen concluded that, "restrictions on smoking at home, more extensive bans on smoking in public places and enforced bans on smoking at school may reduce teenage smoking."" Smoke Free Laws Encourage Smokers to Quit & Discourage Youth From Starting / 3 • A study of smoking on college campuses published in the April 2001 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that, "smoke free residences may help protect those students who were not regular smokers in high school from smoking in college." The study also found that smoking prevalence was "significantly lower among residents of smoke-free housing (21 percent) as compared with residents of unrestricted housing (30.6 percent).,,'5 Even The Tobacco Industry Knows That Clean Indoor Air Laws Help People Quit • In its April 21, 2006 webcast for investors, Philip Morris indicated that recent smokefree laws overseas, particularly Ireland and Italy, have resulted in a 3 percent decline in consumption. In the U.S., Philip Morris indicated that, while it is more difficult to assess the impact of smokefree laws on sales, they believe smoke free laws may be responsible for an acceleration in annual declines in smoking (from approximately 1.5 percent per year to 1.8 to two percent per year) and that the fractional increase may be due, at least in part, to the increasing number of smokefree laws. 16 • Philip Morris' own research found that prohibiting smoking in the workplace not only reduces consumption but also increases quit rates. A 1992 memo summarizing these findings states: "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affect industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11 %-15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average.,,17 The memo goes on to state that, "If smoking were banned in all workplaces, the industry's average consumption would decline 8.75-10.1 % from 1991 levels and the quitting rate would increase 74% (e.g., from 2.5% to 4.4%).,,'8 • Industry documents from the Tobacco Institute (the tobacco industry's former lobbying and public relations arm) echo Philip Morris' concern that smoke-free workplace laws will reduce smoking and shrink cigarette-company profits. "What do these health claims, the heightened public sentiment for smoking restrictions, increasing non-smoker annoyance toward smokers mean for this industry? Lower sales, of course. . .. restrictive smoking laws accounted for 21 percent of the variation in cigarette consumption from state to state during that time [1961-1982].",9 The Tobacco Institute also examined data in the 1980s to try to gage the impact of smoking restrictions on consumption, "Those who say they work under restrictions smoked about one-and-one quarter fewer cigarettes each day than those who don't. That may sound light, but remember we're talking about light restrictions too. . .. That one-and-one-quarter per day cigarette reduction then means nearly 7 billion fewer cigarettes smoked each year because of workplace smoking restrictions. That's 350 million packs of cigarettes. At a dollar a pack, even the lightest of workplace smoking restrictions is costing this industry 233 million dollars a year in revenue. ,,20 The Role of Smoke·Free Laws in Comprehensive Tobacco Prevention Programs • It is critical to understand that implementing effective smoke free laws is part of a recognized and proven strategy to lower the incidence of tobacco use and tobacco-related disease in the U.S. Specifically, in its description of what constitutes a comprehensive tobacco control program, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that: "The goal of a comprehensive tobacco control program is to reduce disease, disability, and death related to tobacco use by: - Preventing the initiation of tobacco use among young people. - Promoting cessation among young people and adults. - Eliminating nonsmokers' exposure to ETS. - Identifying and eliminating the disparities related to tobacco use and its effects among different population groups ... 21 Smoke Free Laws Encourage Smokers to Quit & Discourage Youth From Starting / 4 • As part of its recommendations to reduce tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke (published in 2001), the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (an independent Task Force appointed by the Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), strongly recommended the adoption of smoke-free laws and related smoking restrictions to limit smoking and exposure to cigarette smoking to designated areas. The Task Force observed a "significant reduction in daily consumption of cigarettes by workers subject to a smoking ban or restriction." In addition, the Task Force noted that several studies have found that smoking bans have resulted in "increases in tobacco use cessation and/or reductions in tobacco use prevalence."22 Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, July 27, 2006/ Matt Barry More infonnation on Secondhand Smoke and Smoke-Free Laws is available at http://www .tobaccofreekids.orq/research/factsheetslindex.php ?CategoryIO=19 , U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), The Heaffh Consequences 01 Involunlary Exposure 10 Tobacco Smoke: A Report 01 Ihe Surgeon General, Atlanta, GA: HHS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006, httoJIwww.cdc.govltobacco/datastatistics/sgrlsgr2006/mdex.htm. 2 HHS, Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report olthe Surgeon Generel, Atlanta, GA: HHS, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health2000, http://www.cdc.gov/tobaccoldatastatistics/sgr/sor2000lindex.htm. J National Cancer Institute, Population Based Smoking Cessation: Proceedings of a Conference on What Works to Influence Cessation in the General Populalion, Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. t2, NIH Pub. No. 004892, November 2000, h!tO:tlcancerconlrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/12/index.html. 4 Fang, GT, et aI., "Reductions in tobacco smoke poUution and increases in support for smoke·free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: findings from the ITC Ireland/UK survey: Tobacco Control 15:iii51-;;;58, June 2006. 5 Moskowitz, J, et al., "The Impact of Workplace Smoking Ordinances in California on Smoking Cessation," American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) 90(5):757-761, May 2000. 6 Chapman, S, et aI., "The Impact of Smoke-Free Workplaces on Declining Cigarette Consumption in Australia and the United States: AJPH 89(7):1018-t023, July 1999. 7 Farrelly, M, et al., "The impact of workplace smoking bans: results from a national survey: Tobacco ConlroI8(3):272-277, September 1999. • Long, DR, et aI., "A prospective investigation of the impact of smoking bans on tobacco cessation and relapse,' Tobacco Conlro/1 0(3):267- 272, September 2001. 9 Evans, W, et aI., "Do Workplace Smoking Bans Reduce Smoking?" American Economic Review 89:728-747, September t999. 10 Heloma, A, et al., "The Short-Tenm Impact of National Smoke-Free Workplace Legislation on Passive Smoking and Tobacco Use,' AJPH 9t(9):t416-t418, September 2001. " Borland, R, et al., "Changes in smoking behaviour after a total workplace smoking ban,' Auslralian Journal of Public Heaffh 15(2): t 30·134, 1991. " Yurekli, A & Zhang, P, "The Impact of Clean Indocr Air Laws and Cigarette Smuggling on Demand for Cigarettes: An Empincal Model: Hea/lh Economics 9'.159-t70, 2000. 13 Farkas, A, et aI., "Association Between Household and Workplace Smoking Restrictions and Adolescent Smoking,' Journal of the American Medical Association 284(6): 717-722, August 9, 2000. 14 Wakefield, M, et aI., "Effect of restrictions on smoking at home, at school, and in public places on teenage smoking: cross sectional study,· British Medical Jouma/32t :333-337, August 5, 2000, http://bmj.comlcgiireprinV321/7257/333.pdf. 15 Wechsler, L & Rigotti, N, "Cigarette Use by College Students in Smoke-Free Housing - Results of a National Study,' American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20(3):202-7, 200t, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/casIDocumenls/smoke free/ajpm620.pdf. 16 Based on question and answer segment of an April 21, 2006 Altna webcast for first quarter eamings for 2006. Text of eamings report (which does not reflect question and answer interaction) is available at http://altria.com/investors/02 00 NewsDetaiLasp?reqid-845160. 17 Heironimus, J, "Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence: Philip MorrIS, Bates No.:2023914280, January 22, t992, http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/20239142804284.html. " Heironimus, J, "Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence: Philip Morris, Bates No.:2023914280, January 22, 1992, http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/20239t4280-4284.html. 19 "Public Smoking: The Problem: Tobacco Instnute, Bates No.: TIMN0014554/4565, Undated, http://tobaccodocuments.org/tVTIMN0014554- I Ii The Problem: Tobacco Institute, Bates No.: TIMN0014554/4565, Undated, http://tobaccodocuments.org/tifTIMN0014554- 4565.html. 21 CDC, Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Controf Programs, August 1999, http://www.cdc.qov/tobacco/lobaccocontrolproorams/stateandcommunity/bestpractices/index.htm. 22 Task Force on Community Preventive Services, 'Recommendations Regarding Interventions to Reduce Tobacco Use and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: American Journal of Prevenlive Medicine, 20(2) Supplement St:10-15, 2001. Downloaded from !ObaCCoconlrol.bmj,com on 29 September 2009 Effect of local restaurant smoking regulations on progression to established smoking among youths M Siegel, A B Albers, D M Cheng, L Biener and N A Rigotti Tob. ControI2005;14;300-306 doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.012302 Updated information and services can be found at: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/contentifuII/14/5f300 These include: References This article cites 22 articles, 11 of which can be accessed free at: http://tobaccocontrol.bmJ.com/cgilcontentifull/1415/300#BIBL 13 online articles that cite this article can be accessed at: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj,com/cgi/contentffuII114/5f300#otherarticles Rapid responses You can respond to this article at: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/eletter-submitf14/5/300 Email alerting Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the service top right corner of the article Notes To order reprints of this article go to: http://journals,bmj.com{cgifreprintfonn To subscribe to Tobacco Control go to: http://journals.bmJ.com/subscriptions/ Downloaded from lobaccoconlrOLbmj.com on 29 September 2009 300 RESEARCH PAPER Effect of local restaurant smoking regulations on progression to established smoking among youths M Siegel, A B Albers, 0 M Cheng, L Biener, N A Rigotti Tobacco Con~oI2005;14:30o-306. do;: 10.1136/1,.2005.012302 Background: While smoke-free restaurant laws are intended to protect the public from secondhand smoke exposure, they may also discourage smoking among adolescents. There is no evidence from longihJdinal studies to fest this hypothesis. Objective: To examine the effect of local restaurant smoking regulations on progression to established smoking among adolescents. Design, seHing, and subjects: A cohort of 2623 Massachusetts youths, ages 12-17 years at baseline, wos interviewed via random digit dial telephone survey in 2001-2002 and followed up two years later. A See end of article for authors' affiliations generalised estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression analysis was used and controlled for potential individual, household, and town level confounding factors. Main oultome measure: Progression to established smoking during the two year follow up period {defined Correspondence to: Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, as having smoked 100 or more cigarettes in one's life}. Social and Behavioral Results: Compared to youths living in towns with weak regulations, those living in towns with strong Science~ Deportment, regulations (complete restaurant smoking bans) had less than half the odds of progression to established Boston University School of Public Health, 115 Albany smoking (odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% con~dence interval {CI} 0.24 to 0.66). The association was stronger Street, TW2, Basion, for youths in towns with strong regulations in effect for' two or more years (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.37), Massachusetts 02118~ although it was still present for those in towns with strong regulations in effect for less than two years USAi [email protected] {OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to O.90}. No relationship was found between living in a town with a medium Received 9 July 2004 restaurant smoking regulation (restriction of smoking to enclosed, separately ventilated areas) and rates of Accepted 29 June 2005 progression to established smoking. Conclusions: Local restaurant smoking bans may be an effective intervention to prevent youth smoking. o protect non-smokers from the hazards of secondhand relationship between the presence of regulations and the smoke,'-' more than 300 cities have adopted clean indoor observed levels of smoking. Furthermore, the measure of Tair laws: regulations or ordinances that eliminate regulation strength used in these studies groups differem 4 smoking in workplaces or public places. S The strongest smoking restriction sites (for example, worksites, schools, and most controversial of these laws prohibit smoking in restaurants, public places) together and docs not clearly restaurants and bars. More than 200 cities and nine states differentiate between total and partial smoking hans, or have adopted laws that specifically eliminate smoking in between state and local laws. 4 restaurants. , Although these laws arc intended to protect To the best of our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal the public from secondhand smoke exposure. some have study to examine the effect of local restaurant smoking hypothesised that they may also reducc youth smoking by regulations on progression to established smoking among altering smoking related social norms.<-'>' Clean indoor air YOUlhs. Because we examine differences in smoking beha laws may decrease the number of smokers youths see in viour over time between youths with varying bascline public scttings, rhus decreasing the perceived prevalence of restaurant smoking policies in their [Owns, the direction of smoking.6 In addition. these laws may send a message to any observed associations is clear. In addition, we improve youths that smoking is not socially acceptable." Since upon the existing literature by: (1) examining the specific restaurants are the predominant social setting in which effect of local smoke-free restaurant regulations; (2) control youths may see smokers, I<> restaurant smoking regulations ling for both individuallevcl and town level factors that may are hypothesised to be particularly important in influencing confound the relationship between adoption of restaurant community norms regarding smoking.'''''' As smoking remains smoking regulations and youth smoking behaviour; and (3) the leading cause of death in the USA" and nearly a quarter investigating differences in the effect of regulations of of high school students become smokers, I~ 11 it is critical to varying strength. understand whether or not -local restaurant smoking laws represent an effective youth smoking prevention strategy. METHODS Despite hypotheses that smoke-free regulations may Sample reduce smoking among youths, strong evidence is not Between January 200 I and June 2002, the Center for Survey available. The existing evidence, derived from cross sectional Research, University of Massachusetts Boston, obtained a studies. demonstrates an association between restrictions on probability sample of Massachusens youths by random digit smoking in public places and youth smoking prcvalence.' .... '9 dialling. Interviewers attempted to interview all resident Thus, it is impossible to detennine whether the regulations youths ages 12-17 years in each eligible household identified caused the reduced smoking or whether states and towns through an initial screening interview with an adult house with lower smoking rates arc more likely to adopt such hold resident. Screening interviews were completed for 66% regulations. These studies arc also limited by their failure to of sampled households. yielding a sample of 6006 eligible control for town level factors that may confound the youths. Parental permission was obtained La interview 76% of www.tobaccoconlrol.com Downloaded from tobaccocontroLbmj,com on 29 September 2009 Effect of restaurant smoking regulations on youth 301 eligible youths and interviews were completed with 84% of smoked (at baseline); (6) education level of household those. resulting in a baseline sample of 3862 adolescents. The informant (college graduate or not); (7) household income number of youths interviewed per household was one for (~ $50000 v > $50 ~O~); (8) exposure to anti-smoking 73.9% of households, two for 23.3%. and three for 2.7%. messages at school (yes or no); and (9) baseline smoking Between January 2003 and July 2004, we attempted to re· status (non·susceptible non-smoker, susceptible non-sma· interview all 3838 of the youths in the baseline sample for ker, puffer, experimenter, or current smoker). whom baseline smoking status had been obtained. While none of the subjects included in the analysis had Interviews were completed with 2793 subjects, for a follow smoked 100 cigarettes at baseline, some had experimented up rate of 72.8%. Respondents surveyed later at baseline were with cigarettes. We controlled for subjects' baseline predis· surveyed later at follow up to achieve a consistent two year position to smoking by including in the analysis a set of follow up period. indicator variables reflecting their baseline smoking status. The research protocol was approved by the institurional For this purpose, non-smokers were defined as respondents review boards of the University of Massachusetts Boston and who had never puffed on a cigarette, puffers as those who Boston University Medical Center. All subjects gave informt'd had puffed but nOl smoked a whole cigarette, experimenters consent or assent (for youths) and a waiver of the as those who had smoked at least one whole cigarette but requirement for written consent was obtained from both none within the past 3D days, and current smokers as those institutions. who had smoked at least one cigarette including one or more within the past 30 days. Non-smokers were further classified Measures based on a measure of susceptibility to smoking that has Town of residence been shown to predict progression to established smoking Town of residence at baseline and follow up was obtained reliably.~I-n Non-smokers were classified as non-susceptible using the reponed zip (post) code. The overwhelming to smoking if they answered "no" to the question "Do you majority (95.8%) of re·interviewed youths lived in the same think that you will try a cigarette soonT' and "definitely not" town at baseline and follow up; 2.5% moved within to the questions "If one of your best friends were to offer you Massachusetts and l.7% moved out of statc. a cigarette, would you smoke it?" and "At any time during the next year do you think you '''lill smoke a cigarette?". Strength of local restaurant smoking regulation The strength of the local restaurant regulation in effect in Potential town level confounding variables each respondent's town of residence on the date of their We controlled for the following town level variables baseline interview was recorded. We reviewed the local (included as continuous variables except where noted): restaurant smoking regulations in effect during the study (1) the percentage of each town's adult residents with a period for each of the 351 cities and towns in Massachuseus college degree; (2) the percentage of each town's voters who and categorised their stringency as follows: (1) strong voted "yes" on Question 1, a 1992 ballot initiative that regulations-no smoking allowed in restaurants and no increased the cigarette tax and created a statewide tobacco variances allowed; (2) medium regulations-smoking control programme; (3) the percentage of white residents in restricted to enclosed, separately ventilated areas or no each town; (4) the percentage of youth (age less than 18 smoking allowed but variances allowed; and (3) weak years) residents in each town; (5) the number of restaurants regulations-smoking restricted to designated areas or not in each town « 5 v ~ 5); and (6) to"\o\'l1 population restricted. Details of the development of the database and « 20 000, 20000-50000, > 50 DOD). Of a large number of coding of regulations havc been published.l www.tobaccocontrol.com Downloaded from lobaCcocon!rOl.bmj,com on 29 September 2009 302 Siegel, Alben., Cheng, el 01 Table 1 Baseline characteristics of Massachusetts youth cohort* by strengtht of local restaurant smoking ,regulation w.. kt Mediumt St.o"9't To .. 1%1 1%1 1%1 n=2623 n=1584 n=605 n=434 Individual level variables Age 01 baseline {yeors) 12-14 1405 53.9 55.4 49.8 15-17 1218 46.1 44.6 50.2 Sex Mole 1328 50.0 52.6 50.2 Female 1295 50.0 47.4 49.8 Roce/ ethnicity Non-Hi~ponic while 2126 77.8 87.2 877 O/he, 478 22.2 12.8 12.3 Smoking slatus Non-susceptible non-smoker 1581 61.7 60.0 55.3 Susceptible non-smoker 453 15.3 19.3 21.4 M .. 308 12.5 11.4 9.5 Experimenter 200 7.1 7.1 10.1 Current smoker 81 3.3 2.2 37 ~ Peer smoking No c~ friend smokes 1942 73.6 76.4 72.6 At least one dose friend smokes 681 26.4 23.6 27.4 Expc)$ure 10 anti-smoking messages at school No- ' , 775 30.2 31.0 27.9 Yo. 1806 69.8 69.0 72.1 Household level variablfl. Household smoking , No adult smolw in household 1804 66.9 70.2 73.5 Adult smoker in household 819 33.1 29.8 26.5 Education of adult info'nnanl Not collegeatoduale 1367 56. .4 .49.1 45.6 College Sf ate 1215 43.6 50.9 54.4 HOu$8ho1d income ,,'$50000 568 30.0 21.9 21.0 >$50000 1565 70.0 78.1 79.0 Town level variables Percentage of town resident! who are college graduatest .42.9 39.1 47.7 50.3 Percentage of town "yes" vole on Question 1t 5).2 .49.2 53.2 55.6 Percentage of town residenl3 who are while:j: 87.9 85,4 9l.9 91.9 Percentage of town residenl3 who are youthst 2.4.6 2.4.7 2.4.9 23.6 Number of reslauranb ~5 2280 83 ..4 9.4.2 89.6 <5 343 16.6 5.8 10..4 Population <20000 103.4 38.1 44.5 37.3 20000-50000 934 29.3 .42.0 .49.8 >50000 655 32.6 13.5 12.9 ~Cohaf includes only youths who were not established smokers (that is, had smoked fewer than 100 cigaretles in their life) at baseline. tStrengfh of local reslauranl smoking regulation was defined as strong if il banned smoking completely in all I"I:IstourOllI5 with no variances, medium if it banned smoking but allowed variances or restricted smoking to endosed, separately ventilated areas, end weak if it required only designated smoking areas or did not restrict smoking at all. :j:Meon percentage shown in each column. households. Since households are nested within towns. we for each covariate so that the same subset of respondents was selected town as the clustering level. The robust, or empirical, examined in each analysis. standard errors derived from the GEE approach allow that individuals within a town may be differentially correlated. l.l_U RESULTS Thus. the GEE results will be valid even though youths from Of the 2623 youths in the sample, 1584 (60.4%) lived in a the same household may be more correlated than youths town with a weak restaurant smoking regulation at baseline. from different households. We used a GEE model and the 605 (23.l%) lived in a to\vn with a medium regulation, and resulting robust variance estimators since the robust estima· 434 (16.5%) lived in a town with a strong regulation (table I). U tor produces consistent point estimates H and standard Of the 351 towns included in the sample, the numbcr of errors"-" even if the working correlation matrix is mis towns in each of the regulation categories as of the end of the specified. We used a compound symmetry, or exchangeable baseline interview period was: weak 208 (59%); medium 73 working correlation matrix. (21%); and strong 70 (20%).1" Data were weighted using baseline sampling weights that While 8.0% of youths living in a town with a weak local accounted for non-response and for number of telephone restaurant smoking regulation and 8.2% of youths living in a lines in the household. Ninety five per cent conl"idencc town with a medium regulation progressed to established intervals (CiS) for odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using smoking during the two year follow up period, only 4.9% of standard errors estimated by the wald test. ". We used youths living in towns with strong regulations progressed to indicator variable.~ to create a category for missing values established smoking (table 2). In bivariate analyses, there W'WVII.tobaccocontrol.com Downloaded from tobaccocontrol.bmj.com on 29 September 2009 Effect of restaurant smoking regulations on youth 303 Table 2 Progression to established smokinf among Massachusetts youth cohortt by strength:t: of local restaurant smoking regulation and potential confounding variab es P'"9 ...... Did not proems· Unadjusted OR§ Adju5fed OR,. r-I r-I (95%Cq (95% Cli Main predictor variable Sirength+: of local re5louronl smoking regulation W~I¢ 8.0 92.0 1.00 1.00 Medium; 8.2 91.8 1.0.d (0.73 10 1. .d7) 1.06 (0.70 to 1.62) Strong; 4.9 95.1 0.59 (0.3S to 0.92) 0.39 (0.24 to 0.661 Individual level variables Age al basetme (years) 12-14 5.0 95.0 1.00 1.00 15-17 10.5 89.5 2.21 {l.63 10 3.001 1.15 (0.80 10 1.661 $e, Ma~ 8.1 91.9 1.00 1.00 Fema~ 7.0 93.0 0.86 10.63 to 1.161 0.73 (0.51 to 1.031 Race/ ethnicity Non-Hispdnic white 7.4 92.6 1.00 1.00 01h" 7.6 92.4 1.02 (0.63 to 1.65) 1.-43 (0.81 to 2.531 Smoking status Non-susceptible non'smoker 2.2.' 97.8 I.W . 1.00 susceptible'nan-smoker 6.8 93:2 3.27 (1..89 to 5:661 3.42 (1.96 to 5.991 Puffer 10.9 89.1 . 5.45.(3.19 to 9.331 .d.22 (2;40 10 7.431 .. Experimenter 29;4 70.6' - 18.611 1.6 to 29.7) 13.6 (8.Q3 10 23.01 Clirrent smoker 5.d.4' 45.6 ?l.2 (28.8 10 98.3) 42.8 (2l.1 'to 8&9) Peer smoking No dose friend smokes. 4.2 95.8 1.00 1.00 AI least one dose friend'smokes.' 17.5 82.5 4.91 (3.68 10 6.54) 1.99 (1,38 10 2.89) o.posure to onn.:smoking me5~s ot Khool Na 8.9 91.1 1.00 1.00 y" 7.1 92.9 0.79 {0.56 10 1.111 0.70 (0.4710 1.031 Household level variables Household smoking No adult smoker in household 5.8 94.2 1.00 1.00 Adult $ITIOker in household 11.2 88.8 2.04 11.52 to 2.73) 1.47 (1.05 to 2.05) Educotion of adu~ informanl Nol college graduate 8.6 91..d 1.00 1.00 College grodvale 6.4 93.6 0.73 (0.53 to 0.991 0.9610.6810 1.361 Household income .:;:$50000 7.5 92.5 1.00 1.00 >$50000 7.2 92.8 0.97 (0.67 to 1 ..40) 1.15(0.7610 1.72) Town level variables Percentoge of town residents who are coUege graduates" 0.94 (0.86 to 1.02Y 0.80 (0.60 10 1.06) Percentoge of town "yes" vole on Question I'· 0.95 10.82 to 1.11) 1.33 (0.80 to 2.231 Percenlage of Iown residents who are while'" 1.13(1.0510 1.22) 1.29 (1.0610 1.56) Percentage of Iown residents who ore youths" 0.77 (0.54 to 1.101 0.78 (0.52 to 1.1 n Number of restaurants ~5 7.4 92.6 1.00 1.00 <5 8.3 91.7 1.13 (0.75 to 1.69) 0.71 (0.41 to 1.23) population <20000 8.8 91.2 1.00 1.00 20000-50000· 6.7 93.3 0.7.d (0.53 10 1.04t 0.67 (0,43 to 1.03) >50000 6.8 93.2 0]4 (0.53 10 1.03) 0.90 (0.50 10 1.61) ·Progression 10 established smoking was defined as smoking 100 or more cigareHes in oile'slife. Data ore weighted to.occount for base/ine probability of resfX'ldent selection., '" . " . 1Cohort includes. iJhly youth! ...... no·were not establMled smokei!,lthat,is, had smoked fewer than' 10(lcigarelte!..In'their life) at bOseline. ;Strength of /oc:al restaurant smoking regula~on ~ defined os strong if if banned smoking completel)' in all restaurants witk no variances, inedju',y, 'jf it banned smoking but aUowed varionces or restricted smolcirtg 10 ~ncIosed, separalely ~tilated areas, and weak if it teqlired' only desi,gmted smoking areas or did not restrid smoking ,at all.. "", . .. . , - §Unodjusled odds ratio for progression to e5loblished smoking. Odds ratio is derived from generalised estimating equations (GEE) logistic regre5sion model thot accounts for dustering of responses within' lawns. Data are weighted to ac'count for· baseline probabilitY of respondent'selection. fiOdds ratios are odjus1Bd for all other varioble$ in the table. "Odds ratio corresponding to each 10 percentage point increase_ el, confidence interval; OR, odds rallo. was no significam relationship between medium regulations established smoking compared to youthS living in towns with and progression to established smoking (OR 1.04, 95% Cl weak regulations (OR 0.39,95% CI 0.24 to 0.66) (table 2). 0.73 to 1.47), but youths living in towns with strong The magnitude of the association between strong regula regulations had a little more than half the odds of tions and decreased odds of progression to established progression to established ~moking compared to youths smoking increased notably with the amount of time that living in towns with weak regulations (OR 0.59. 95% CI the regulation had been in effect. In multivariate analyses, 0.38 [0 0.92). youths Jiving in towns with strong regulations in effeet for The significant association between strong regulations and less than two years at baseline had about half the odds of decreased progression IO established smoking persisted after progression to established smoking compared to youths controlling for potential individual. household, and [Own living in towns with weak regulations (OR 0.55. 95% CI level confounding factors: youths living in towns with strong 0.33 to 0.90), while youths living in towns with strong regulations had less than half the odds of progression to regulations in effect for two or more years had one tenth the www.tobaccocontrol.com Downloaded from tobaccocontrol.bmj.com on 29 September 2009 304 Siegel, Albers, Cheng, et 01 Table 3 Relationship between duration of local specific to complete smoking bans and the magnitude of restaurant smoking regulations and progression to tIle effect was substantially higher with smoking bans of established smoking* among Massachusetts youth g-rcater duration (about a 90% reduction in progression to cohortt established smoking among youths in towns with restaurant smoking bans in effect for two or more years). OR; 195% CI) There are several reasons why we believe these fmdings Strenglil§ and duration of local restaurant represent a true effect of restauranr smoking regulations, smoking regulation rather than a product of bias or confounding. First. the WeakS 1.00 observed association is not explained by a wide range of Medium§ 1.04(0.68 10 J .59) potential individual, household, and town level confounding Sirong§-in effect <2 years 0.55 (0.33 to 0.90) factors, including baseline smoking status, susceptibility to Strong§-in effect ~2 years 0.11 10.03 to O.3n smoking, parental education, household income, peer and 'Progression to eslablished MrlOking was defined as smoking 100 or parental smoking, baseline educational status in each town, more cigarettes in one's life. town population, number of restaurants in each town, and Kohort indudes only youths who were not established smokers {that IS, the percentage of town voters who voted for a 1992 cigarette hod smoked fewer than 100 cigaretles in !heir life) at boset.ne. :f;Odds rolio for progression to elfobJidJed smoking. Odds ratio is tax initiative, a measure that controls for the baseline anti derived from GEE logistic regnwion model thol Qccounb for duslering of smoking sentiment in a town, and likely reflects baseline respon5EIs, within towns. Data are weighted 10 account for ba$8/ine levels of smoking prevalence as well." If> Although this probabilily of respondent sel,ection. Odds ratios are adjusted for all other, measure of baseline anti· smoking sentiment is based on a variables in the analysis. §Strength of local restaurant smoking regulation''NIlS deRned as slrong if 1992 phenomenon, we have found it to predict strongly the il banned smoking completely in all reslO1Jranl$ with no varianc65; adoption of smoke·free regulations through 2002.~· '" medium if it banned smoking but allOwed variances or restricted'smoking Moreover, analyses of data collected in Massachusetts 10 enclosed, separately venfi/ated areas, and weak if it required only between 1993 and 1998 have demonstrated that individual designated smoking al'eO$ or did no! restrict smoking of all. support for tobacco tax increases is strongly associated with support for other kinds of tobacco control policies, even after odds of progression to established smoking (OR 0.1 1. 95% CI controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and smoking 0.03 to 0.37) (table 3). status. ", The relationship between strong regulations and decreased Second, the findings arc specific to strong regulations and progression to established smoking persisted when youths the strength of the observed association is related, in the who moved during the follow up period were excluded from expected direction, to the duration of regulation. There is also the analysis, when sample weights were excluded, when all a strong conceptual rationale as well as a reasonable observations with missing data were deleted, when the mechanism by which smoking bans could lead to decreased analysis was restricted to youths who had nevcr puffed on a smoking initiation/ as youths in Massachusetts towns with cigarette at baseline, and when the analysis was restricted to restaurant smoking bans have a lower perception of adult youths who had never smoked at baseline and were non· smoking prevalence and view smoking as less socially susceptible to smoking (all in multivariate models) (table 4). acceptable." Nevertheless, it is possible that an unidentified confoun der, associated with both the adoption of smokevfree DISCUSSION regulations and with youth smoking initiation, explains the In what we believe is the first longitudinal study of the effect observed findings, or that the measures we used to control for of restaurant smoking restrictions on youth smoking identified potential confounders-such as basciine cduca· behaviour, we found substantially lower rates of progression tiona I status and smoking related attitudes in cach town~ to established smoking (about a 60% reduction), after two were not adequate in controlling completely for these factors. years of follow up, among Massachusetts youths who lived in Still, the observed association in this study is strong and towns with restaurant smoking bans. This finding was robust, and it would take an extremely strong confounder to explain it. Table 4 Analysis of robustness of main study flndings: Although the degree of enforcement of youth access adjusted odds ratios'" for. e~ ohtrongt local restaurant· regulations at the local level might be hypothesised to have smoking regulations, on progression to established a confounding effect on the observed association between smokingt local restaurant smoking bans and youth smoking initiation, this is not the case in our study. Strength of enforcement of 0"195% CI) youth acceSs regulations was not related to progression to Primary analysis 0.39(0.2410 0.66) established smoking (data not shown). Results when all youths who moved Ifrom baseline The strong magnitude of the effect of restaurant smoking 10 follow up) In .. 103) are excluded 0.40 (0.2410 0.68) bans observed in this study is consistent with the conclusions Results when sample weights ore e.xduded 0.39 (0.24 10 0.64) Resulls when 011 observation, with missing dala of tobacco industry documents, which reveal that the (n - 5391 are deleted (stepwise elimination) 0.34 (0. 19 to 0.60) industry views smoking bans in public places as being one Results when 011 ever smokers jat baseline), of the most important threats to cigarette consumption: including puffeB, {n = 5891 are excluded 0.26 (0.10 10 0.68) "What do these health claims, the heightened public Results when all ever smokers and susceplible non-smokers (n .. 1042) ore excluded 0.07 (0.0110 0.521 sentiment for smoking restriction, increasing non-smoker annoyance toward smokers mean for this industry? Lower -Odds ralio for progression 10 eslObnshed smoking. Odds ratio is derived sales, of courst'. The Tobacco Merchant's Association took a from GEE logistic regression model that accounts for clustering of look at smoking restriction legislation and cigarette con responses within Iowns. Data are weighted 10 account for baseline probability of respondent selection. odds ratios are adjusted for all other sumption between 1951 and 1982. Restrictive smoking Jaws variables in the analysis. accounted for 2% of the variation in cigarerte consumption tSfrength of locol resfaurant smoking regulation was defined as slrong if from state to state during that time. . At a dollar a pack, it banned smoking comJ;let&ly in all restauranl!. with no varion.::es. even the lightest of workplace smoking restrictions is costing =l:Progression 10 established smoking was defined as smoking 100 or more cigarettes in one's lim. this industry 233 miHion dollars a year in revenue. How much more will it cost us with far more restrictive laws such as www.tobaccocontrol.com Downloaded from tobaccocontrol.bmj,COm on 29 September 2009 I Effect of restaurant smoking regulations on youth 305 and to live in a town with a restaurant smoking ban (17% v What this paper odds 14%). However, these ob~erved differences between youths who While smoke-free restaurant lOws are intended 10 protect the were and were not successfully re-interviewed should not public from secondhand smoke exposure, some have bias the study rcsulIs because all of these differing hypothesised that by changing social norms regarding characteristics were controlled for in the analyst'S. In smoking, these laws may_ hove the additional benefit of addition, the rate of folJmv up was not significantly different discouraging smoking' among adolescents. Several cross between youths living in towns with medium (75.2%) and sectional studies have reported on association-between clean strong (76.1%) regulations, even though there was a twofold indoor air, polides' dnd youth -'smoking-" prevol,ence. difference in progression to established smoking between Unfortunately" ther~ -is cur~Em~y- -no eVidenCe from -..lon 9"'· youths in these towns. Based on this observation, the itudinal studies tQ_ test.this-hypothesis.- . '. ' assumption that loss to foUow up is not related to probability Thi.s two yeor .Iongiludinolsludy Rnds tho.! Mossoch~seHs. of progression to established smoking appears reasonable. yOuths.-living' inv towns' with _loco,l- resfcJur0n!' :smoking bens Furthermore, once household education and income were were _5ubstcri,tiailx,. less _.!ikely,- to ,progress ,to,___ 'established accounted for, there was no relationship between strength of 9 local restaurant smoking regulations and the probability of smokiIi -Jhan.', Y()I.J.th.. S".i.V .. in. 9.. in t.awn.;... s..' wi_th wee...... k.. ~.r.reg ... Yla.".'.o. os.; Since ,the studY,confT:o/led for '0 ~ide- rar:'g~ ,of po~~ial being successfully followed up (data not shown). individl,lol arid:~ level_~onfouncJing fOctors, we belieye it . In spite of these limitations, this paper provides the prOvides evidence that locai-'restaurant,smoking bons may be strongest evidence to datc that strong, local re.,taurant an effective· intervention ,to-prevent youth, smoking. smoking regulations (those which completely eliminate smoking in restaurants) may be associated with substantial reductions in progression to established smoking among youths. Confirmation of this finding in other settings is those in Suffolk Coumy and Fort Collins now being necessary [0 help rule Out the possibility that the observed cnacted?")? relationship is a spurious one. Nevertheless, we believe that The finding that strong regula dons in effect for less than the strength and robustness of the findings presented here twO years still had an effect on progression [0 established suggest that strong, local dean indoor air regulations are an smoking is plausible, since the very process of ordinance effective intervention to reduce youth smoking. adoption may have an influence on smoking related social norms and becau5e compliance with 5mokt'-free ordinances ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS has been found to be immediate.\~ This work was supported by grants from [he National Cancer Our finding that strong, but not medium, regulations are In.~titute, State and Community Tobacco Control Intervention.~ associated with decreased progression to established smoking Research Grant Program (grant number 5 ROJ CA86257-(4) and is consistent with our previous fmding (using the basdine the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (F!\MRI). dataset) that strong, but not medium, regulations are associated with lower perceived adult smoking prevalence Authors' affiliations and lower perceived social acceptability of smoking among M Siegel, A B Albers, Social and Behavioral Sciences Deportment, 6 youths. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA These findings, if accurate and generalisable to other D M Cheng, Biostatistics Department, Bostan University School of Public populations, have important public health implications. They Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA suggest that adoption of local smoke-frec regulations, while L Biener, Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts primarily intended to protect non-smokers from secondhand Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA smoke exposure, may represent an effective intervention to N A Rigotti, General Medicine Division and Tobacca Research and prevent youth smoking. They provide further justification for Treatment Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mossachusetts, USA state and local efforts to enact clean indoor air policies, and for state tobacco control programmes to include a substantial Competing interests: none declared focus on supporting local secondhand smoke policy efforts. The primary limitation of this research is that it is not clear whether the results arc generalisable to other populations. REFERENCES us Department of Health and Human Services. Health effect$ of expo$ure to Local clean indoor air regulations in Massachusetts were environmental tobacco smoke: the report of the California Environmental adopted under the umbrella of an aggressive statewide anti· Protactjon Agency, Smoking and tobacco control monograph 10. Bethesda, smoking campaign that included funding for boards of Mary/and: National Cancer Institute, ,1999. 2 In!emational Agency for Research on Cancer. Involuntary smoking: wmmary health throughout the state to promote restaurant smoking of dato reported and evaluation. lyon, France: International Agency for regulations as well as a prominent anti-smoking media Research an Cancer, 2002. campaign that aimed to de-normalise smoking and educate 3 US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory heolth effects of passive smoking: lung cancer and other disorder$. Washington DC: US Environmental the public about the hazards of secondhand smoke. It is nor Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmentol hsessment, 1992, clear whether restaurant smoking laws would have similar (EPA publication 600/6·90/D06F.). effects on youth smoking behaviour in state.~ where wide 4 American Nonsmokers' Rights foundation. Municipalities with local 100% smokefree laws: cumulative number effective by year 1990--2004. Berkeley, spread anti-smoking programmes arc not present. CaliFornia: American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundotion, 2004, http://www.no· A second potential limitation is the significant loss to smake.org/l00ordgroph.pdf (Accessed Nov 4, 2004). follow up. Youths who were successfully re-interviewed were 5 American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. Municipalities with local' 00% smokefree laws; currently in effrM:t 05 of October 5, 2004. Berkeley, significantly more likely to be in the }'ounger age group at California: American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, 2004, hllp://www.no· baseline (54% v 49%). to be white (82% v 69%), to be nOl1- smoke.org/10Clordlisttabs.pdf (Accessed Dec 8, 2004). susceptible to smoking (60% v 51%), not to have a close 6 Albers AB, Siegel M, Cheng OM, et a/. Relation between local restaurant smoking regulations and ollitudes towards the prevalence and social friend who smokes (74% v 67''{'), not to have a smoker in the acceptability of smoking: a study of youths and adults who eat out household (69% v 55%), to have reported exposure to anti predominandy at restaurants in their town. Tobacco Control smoking programmes at school (70% v 65%), to live in a 2004;13:347-55. 7 Jacobwn PO, Zapowo 1M. Cleon indoor air restrictions: progress ond household whose screener was a college graduate (47% v promise. In: Rabin Rl, Sugarmon SO, eds. Reguloting tobacco. New York: 28%),10 live in a household with higher income (73% v 52%), Oxford University Press, 2001 :207-44. www.tobaccocontrol.com Downloaded from lobaccocontrol.bmj.com on 29 September 2009 306 Siegel, Albers, Cheng, et 01 8 Jacob~n PO, Lantz PM, Warner KE, al 0/. Combating reen smoking; research 23 Choi W5, Pierce JP, Gilpin EA, et 0/. Which adolescent experimenters and polio/strategies. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Mkhigan Press, progress to established smoking in !he United Slates? Am} Prev Moo 2001, 1997;13:385-91. 9 Glantz SA. Preventing tobacco use - the youth access lrap [editorial. 24 Pien::e JP, Farkas AJ, Evans N, et 0/. An improved surveillance measure for Am J Public Health 1996;86:156-7. adolescent smoking? Tobacco ConlraI1995;4(suppl 1):547-56. 10 Schofield MJ. Smoking bans in restaurants: who is responsible and who needs 25 Siegel M, Biener l. The impact of an antismoking media compoign on protection? Tobacco ConlroI1995;4: 113-4. progression 10 estobljshed smoking: results of a longitudinal youth study. 11 Mokdad AH, Marks J5, Stroup OF, at 01. ActuQI CO\l$eS of death in the United Am J Public Health 2000;90:38Q-6. Slates, 2000. JAA1A 2004;291: 1238-45. 26 Siegel M, SiEmer l, Rigotti NA. The effect of local labacco sofes lows on 12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use among high school adolescent smoking initiation. Prev Med 1999;29:334-42. students - United Slates, 1991-2003. MMWR Mom Mortal Wk/y Rep 27 Choi W$, Ahluwalia lS, Harrh KJ, et 0/. Progression to established smoking: 2004;53:499-502. the inAuence of tobacco markeling. Am J Prev Med 2002;22:228-33. 13 Centeno for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth risk behavior surveillance 28 Wellman RJ, DiFronzo JR, Savageau lA, at d. Short term patterns of early - United Slates, 2003. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 2004;53:1-96. smoking acquisition. Tobacco Control 2004;13:251-7. 29 Skeer M, George 5, Hamilton Wl, at 01. Town-level charccleristics and 14 Chaloupka FJ, Grossman M. Price, tobacco control policies and youth smoking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Notional Bureau of Economic Research smoking policy adoption in Massochusetts: are local restaurant smoking Working Paper 5740, 1996. regulations fostering disparities in health protection? Am J Public Health 2004;94:286-92. 15 Chaloupka FJ, Pocu[a RL Sex and race differences in young people's 30 Hamilton Wl, Biener l, Rodger eN. Who supports tobacca excise toxes? responsiveness 10 price and tobacco control policies. Tobacco Con/rol Factors associated with towns' and individuals' support in Massachusetts. 1999;8:373-7. Journol of Public Health Management ond Practice (in press). 16 Gruber J, Zinman 1. Youth smoking in the U.S.: evickJnce and implications. 31 Hedeker 0, Gibbons RD, Flay BR. Random-effects regression models for Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research Working clustered dolo with on exomple from smoking prevention research. J Consult Paper n80, 2000. Clin Psycho/1994;62:757--65. 17 Wakefield MA, Chaloupka FJ, Kaufman NJ, e/ 01. Effecl of restrictions on 32 Liang KY, Zeger SL longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear smoking at home, at school, and in pub~c places on teenage smoking: cross models. Biometrika 1986;73: 13-22. sectional slIJdy. 8M) 2000;321 :333-7. 33 Pendergast JF, Gonse SJ, Newton MA, et 0/. A survey of methods for 18 Wasserman J, Manning WG, NewhouseJP, eI aI. The effects of excise taxes analyzing clustered binary response data. International Statistical Review and regulations on cigarette smoking. J Health Econ 1991; 10:43-64. 1996;64:89-118. 19 Giovina GA, Tworek C, Chaloupka FJ, et 01. Smoke-free air policies and 34 Sloia Corporation. 510/ reference manual, release 7: volume 5 Su·z. College adolescent smoking - United Stotes, 1991-2001. Helsinki, Finland: Station, Texas: Stata Press, 2001. Presented at the 12th World Conference on Tobacco or Health, AugustS, 35 Horton NJ, Lipsitz SR. Review of software to ~t generalized estimoling 2003. equation regression models. The American Statislician 1999;53: 160-9. 20 Skeer M, Siegel M. The de~riptive epidemiology of lexal restaurant smoking 36 Hosmer OW, Lemeshow S. Applied linear regression. New York', John Wiley regulations in Massachusetts: an analysis of the protection of restaurant & Sons, Inc, 1989. customers and workers. Tobacco Conlro/2oo3;12:221--6. 37 The Tobacco InstiMe. Public smoking: the problem. Washington DC: The 21 Pien:e JP, Choi WS, Gilpin EA, el 01. Tobacco industry promolion of cigoreftes Tobacco Institute, undated (probably 1985), http:// and adolescent smoking. JAMA 1998;279:511-5. www.lobaccoinstitute.com/getoJlimg.osp?OOCIO = TIMNOO' 4554/4565. 22 Pierce JP, Choi WS, Gilpin EA, et 0/. Validation of susceptibility as a predictor 38 Skeer M, land Ml, Cheng OM, et r;j, Smoking in Boston bars before and after of which adolescents toke up smoking in the United States. Health Psychol a 100% smoke-free regulation: on assessment of early compliance. JOlJrnalof 1996; 15:355--61_ Public HeoltfJ Management ond Practice 2004;10:501-7, The most important papers in the tobacco control field, by S Chapman What are the most important papers in the tobacco control Reid? In May and June 2005, authors who had papers published in Tobacco Confrol since 2001 and the journal's editorial advisory board were invited to nominate the "most important and inRuential papers in tobacco control", The nomination phase saw 658 different papers nominated, These nominations were then thrown open to on online vote, where 2966 votes were recorded for these 658 papers. Tobacco Control online shows the top 10 papers in each of the 12 categories that resulted from this vole. http://www.tobaccocontrol.com/cgi/content/fuJi/ 14/5/e1 www.tobaccocontrol.com Joint Municipal Leaders Exploring Strategies to Reduce the Toll of Tobacco on Communities "Although tobacco deaths rarely make headlines, tobacco kills one person every six seconds. Today, tobacco use causes 1. in 1.0 deaths among adults worldwide - more than five million people a year [from both personal tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke}. By 2030, unless urgent action is taken, tobacco's annual death toll will rise to more than eight million. if current trends continue unchecked, it is estimated that around 500 million people alive today will be killed by tobacco. " World Health Organization Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008 - emphasis added. What: The Joint Municipal Leaders' Tobacco Prevention Workgroup was initially convened in June, 2009, as a result of several elected officials expressing interest in learning more about successful strategies jurisdictions can implement to reduce tobacco use and support health and well ness in their communities. A second meeting of this group was held in July, 2009 and resulted in a plan to work initially within jurisdictions to increase awareness of and support for policy-focused strategies known to reduce tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure. A major goal of the group is to create momentum across jurisdictions for a more coordinated approach to policy implementation throughout Jefferson County. Who: Facilitated by the Tobacco Prevention Initiative staff of Jefferson County Public Health, participation in the Workgroup is open to anyone who has an interest in supporting efforts to reduce tobacco's toll. Currently, officials from unincorporated Jefferson County, and the cities of Wheat Ridge, Golden, Lakewood and Arvada have participated, to date, with the intention that representatives from each jurisdiction become involved. Additionally, representatives from organizations committed to tobacco control, and residents of Jefferson County who are also members of Tobacco-Free Jeffco have been attending the meetings. Become Involved: Together we can prevent the death and disease caused by tobacco. Your input, ideas, and energies are greatly needed to make a positive difference! Your involvement will help ensure that future generations will lead a healthy and productive, tobacco-free life. Make tobacco use a thing of the past by acting today. To learn more and to find out about upcoming meetings and events, please contact the Tobacco Prevention Initiative at Jefferson County Public Health - 303-275-7555 or email at [email protected]. ~\..J..( ~ _ ' City of Ara;Wheat~dge ~OLICE DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council THROUGH: Randy Young, City Manag~ Daniel G. Brennan, Chief of Police Il% FROM: Jim Lorentz, Division Commander Support Services Division DATE: September 22, 2009 (For Study Session on October 5) SUBJECT: Staff Report - Sex Offender Registration Fees EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff is seeking direction from City Council on increasing the initial registration and recurring annual fees for sex offender registration in an effort to collect the actual direct costs for administering this state-mandated program. The Wheat Ridge Police Department has reviewed the current fee schedule for State and federally mandated Sex Offender Registration. The cost of such registration in the City of Wheat Ridge was established in 2004 and has not been increased since the initial implementation. Colorado Revised Statutes 16-22-108 (7) states: "A local law enforcement agency may establish a registration fee to be paid by persons registering and reregistering with the local law enforcement agency pursuant to the provisions of this section. The amount of the fee shall reflect the actual direct costs incurred by the local law enforcement agency in implementing the provisions of this article." The City spends approximately $11,500 per year on this program. As a result of this review, the current charge of $20 for required initial registrations and $20 for reoccurring annual registrations only offsets approximately 28% of the program costs. There are currently no fees for those requiring quarterly registrations, changes of address, or un-registrations/cancellations. It is recommended that City Council consider increasing the fees associated with mandatory sex . offender registration to reflect the actual direct costs incurred by. the Police Department in meeting the provisions of State law. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Because State legislation requires convicted sex offenders to register with local law enforcement, in 2004 the Wheat Ridge City Council implemented a $20 initial registration fee and a $20 annual sex offender registration. No fee was put into place for quarterly registrations, change of address or cancellations. This fee has not been reviewed since its initial implementation and several instances of the sex offender registration program have changed. There also is now an annual address verification process required with each registration which is completed by patrol officers. Officers must respond to the offenders' listed addresses on an annual basis to verify Staff Report - Sex Offender Registration Fees September 22, 2009 Page 2 that the offender does reside there. This process is also completed on a quarterly basis for identified sexually violent predators. A detective works directly with the Sex Offender Registration Program. The detective verifies the address of each new offender as they move into the City, conducts follow up, and completes the filing of criminal charges in cases of non compliant offenders. Due to the addition of the address verification process and the efforts put forth by the detective, the $20 initial registration fee no longer covers the cost of maintaining this program. The following table describes the costs associated with the Sex Offender Registration Program: Activity Tecbnician Costs Patrol Costs Investigation Costs Initial Registrations I bour X 61 X $21.94- $0.00 61 X .5 hours X $33.62 - (61 in 2008) $1,338.34 $1,025.41 Reoccurring Annual Registrations 1 hour X 99 X $21.94- $0.00 $0.00 199 in 2008) $2,172.06 Quarterly Registrations .33 bours X 103 X $21.94- $0.00 $0.00 (103 in 2008) $745.74 Un-Registrations/Cancellations 61 X .33 hours X $21.94 - $0.00 $0.00 (61 in 2008) $441.65 Address Cbanges 6 X .33 bours X $21.94 - $0.00 $0.00 (6 in 2008) $441.65 Address Verifications 146 X.33 hours X $21.94- 146 X.5 bours X $30- 15 X 1 hour X $33.62- (146 in 2008) $1,057.07 $2,190.00 $504.30 Criminal FollOW-Ups $0.00 $0.00 15 X 3 hours X $33.62- (15 in 2008) $1,512.90 TOTAL $6,196.51 $2,190.00 $3,042.61 GRAND TOTAL $11,429.12 Based on the aforementioned figures, the initial fees currently collected for sex offender registrations do not cover the costs associated with managing this program. A survey of surrounding jurisdictions indicates fees ranging from $0 to $140.00 for initial sex offender registrations and reoccurring annual registrations. AGENCY INITIAL FEE RECURRING FEE Adams County SO $0.00 $0.00 Arapahoe County SO $75.00 $25.00 ArvadaPD $0.00 $0.00 AuroraPD $140.00 $40.00 BoulderPD $0.00 $0.00 DenverPD $75.00 $30.00 Douglas County SO $0.00 $20.00 Englewood PD $0.00 $25.00 GoldenPD $60.00 $30.00 Jefferson County SO $50.00 $25.00 LakewoodPD $0.00 $20.00 Littleton PD $75.00 $25.00 Northglenn PD $0.00 $75.00 ThorntonPD $0.00 $0.00 Westminster PD $0.00 $0.00 Wheat Ridge PD (current) $20.00 $20.00 Wheat Ridge PD (proposed) $100.00 $50.00 Staff Report - Sex Offender Registration Fees September 22, 2009 Page 3 Speculation exists that since Wheat Ridge sex offender fees are lower than many other Metro Area cities and counties, perhaps more convicted sex offenders move into Wheat Ridge to avoid the higher fees in other municipalities. This is not supported by the data. In fact, there are some cities that do not charge a fee at all. These cities do not seem to have a disproportionate number of registered sex offenders. While it is estimated that there will be an increase of sex offenders registered in Wheat Ridge for 2009, the data indicates that registration has been fairly consistent for the past five years: Year Number of Sex Offender Re~istrations 2004 52 2005 62 2006 68 2007 59 2008 61 2009 * 72 * (Estimate) FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact to the City of Wheat Ridge of maintaining a Sex Offender Registration Program is approximately $11,500.00 per year. The Colorado Legislature mandates that the City maintain this program. The law allows local law enforcement to charge a fee for this registration, which " ... shall reflect the actual direct costs incurred by the local law enforcement agency in implementing the provisions of the article." ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: 1) Make no changes at this time and continue to collect $20 per registration, amounting to about 28% of the actual direct costs to maintain the program 2) Increase fees by a determined percentage to help offset the costs of the program, but not by enough to fully fund the actual direct costs, e.g. increase fees to $50 3) Increase fees to $100 for initial registration and $50 for recurring annual fees, thereby collecting the actual direct costs incurred by the City to maintain the program. Changes of address and quarterly fees could remain at no charge. The Police Department recommends City Council consider this alternative. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council increase the initial registration fee to $100, and the recurring annual fee to $50. This would cover the direct costs incurred by the City for the Sex Offender Registration Program.· . . \,. \. ".( ~ _ ~ City of • A~Wheat~dge .JVpOLICE DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor Jerry DiTullio, and City Council THROUGH: Randy Young, City Mana~ _d Daniel G. Brennan, ChiefofPolice~O FROM: Jim Lorentz, Division Commander Support Services Division DATE: September 25, 2009 (For Study Session of October 5) SUBJECT: Staff Report - Revision to the Pawn Broker Ordinance Concerning Pawnbroker Recordkeeping and Record Submission Requirements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As is common practice, the City currently requires pawnbrokers to keep detailed records of their inventory and customers. These records must be periodically filed with the Police Department. These records, provided by pawnbrokers, can provide valuable law enforcement information to the Police Department that aids in the identification of criminal suspects and recovery of stolen property. Since the original adoption of the pawnbroker provisions of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, digital photography and electronic recordkeeping have become readily available and affordable to the average business owner. Digital photographs are typically clearer than film photographs and electronic files occupy less space than paper files. The Police Department is seeking direction from City Council on revising the aforementioned ordinance pertaining to required acts of pawnbrokers. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The City's current pawnshop regulations (Article VII of Chapter 11 of the Code of Laws) were adopted 15 years ago. Advances in technology since that time have made the City's current reporting requirements outdated. The development of digital photography and electronic records has become more available and affordable to the average business. Currently, information is not captured in a matter that is most useful to the Police Department, nor does it provide the greatest protection to these businesses. Section 11-183(h) of the City Code of Laws requires that every pawnbroker provide on a weekly basis two copies of the transaction record (original record plus one copy) on a form approved by the Police Department. The form lists all tangible personal property accepted during the preceding week, as well as copies of the customer's declaration of ownership. The ordinance also requires the pawnbroker to obtain the right index fingerprint from the customer and affix it to a box provided for that purpose on the form. Pawnbrokers are currently submitting this information electronically to the department, so a revision to the current ordinance is necessary Revision to the Pawn Broker Ordinance September 25, 2009 Page 2 to reflect this improved practice. The ordinance still requires the submission of an original form with the right index fingerprint affixed to the form to assist in the identification of criminal offenders. Section 11-183(k) of the City Code of Laws requires pawnbrokers to videotape transactions, including those that do not result in a contract for purchase or purchase transaction. The ordinance requires videotapes be kept for a minimum of 90 days and the videotapes are subject to review by members of the Police Department. Videotaping transactions is very helpful to police detectives in identifYing a suspect(s) involved is pawning stolen property. However, problems have occurred when the videotape does not capture the complete image of the seller (customer pawning an item), and when items are not photographed so they can be identified later. This is particularly important when investigating cases involving jewelry and other sensitive items. In an effort to improve the department's ability to identify the criminal offender and identify the pawned property, the department recommends adding the following language to the ordinance requiring that the " .. face of each customer who enters into a purchase transaction or contract for purchase shall be digitally photographed as shall the item(s) pawned The videotape and photograph(s) shall be in a format approved by the Police Department and of such quality that it clearly displays the item(s) and an identifiable frontal impale of the customer." In addition, the revision would require the videotape of the transaction be kept by the pawnbroker for a minimum of 90 days and remain subject to police review; however, if the videotape contains photographic evidence, the revised ordinance would require the videotape be held for 180 days. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City. Digital photographs can be stored on existing hardware. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Amend Section 11-183 of the City Code of Laws to require pawnbrokers to submit digital photographs of property and persons who complete pawn transactions in the City 2. Take no action at this time and continue to operate as in the past RECOMMENDATION The Police Department is seeking direction from City Council on revising the aforementioned ordinance pertaining to required acts of pawnbrokers. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed revision to Section 11-183 of the City Code of Laws JL/db CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ______ Council Bill No. ---- Ordinance No. ---- Series of 2009 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING PAWNBROKER RECORD KEEPING AND RECORD SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND MAKING CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE CODE OF LAWS WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, acting through its City Council, possesses the authority pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City's Home Rule Charter, and C.R.S. § 31-15-501(1)(g) to license and regulate pawnbrokers within the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this authority the Council previously adopted regulations concerning pawnbrokers, including certain record keeping and record submission requirements; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that in the fifteen years since such regulations were originally adopted, digital photography and the creation and maintenance of electronic files have become more readily-available and affordable to the average business owner; and WHEREAS, the Council further finds that digital photography is clearer than film photography and that electronic files, including picture files, occupy less space than paper files and are generally more desirable in the context of pawn broker records; and WHEREAS, the Council therefore desires to require pawnbrokers to digitally photograph pawnors and pawned property and to provide required records to the Wheat Ridge Police Department in electronic form or such other form approved by the Police Department. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection (h) of Section 11-183 of the Code of Laws, concerning pawnbrokers' obligations to provide certain records, is hereby amended as follows: (h) Provision of records to law enforcement. Every pawnbroker shall provide the police department leeal la'N eRfeFeeffieRt a€leRey, on a weekly basis, with twe (2) eel'lies ef tRe records, eFi€liRal I'llus eRe (1) eef}'y" eA a ferm af}f'lrevee By ti'ie leeal la'''''' eAfereemeAt ageAey of all tangible personal property accepted during the preceding week~ including aAe eef}ies ef the customer's declaration of ownership. =FI'Ie ferms si'iall Be Ae smaller ti'iaA 6" x 4" aAe Ae larger ti'iaA 6" x 9". Ti'ie fefm Such records shall be submitted in electronic form. or such other form and number as approved from time to time by the police department, and shall contain the same information required to be recorded in the pawnbroker's register pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, The pawnbroker shall obtain the right index fingerprint from the customer and affix it to a box provided for that purpose on the form. The police department leeal Ia .... ' eAfeFeemeAt ageAey shall designate the day of the week on which the records and declarations shall be submitted. Section 2. Subsection (k) of Section 11-183 of the Code of Laws, concerning the videotaping of pawnbroker transactions, is hereby amended as follows: (k) Videotaping of transactions. Every pawnbroker shall videotape all transactions, including those which do not result in a contract for purchase or purchase transaction. The face of each customer who enters into a purchase transaction or contract for purchase shall be digitally photographed as shall the item's) pawned. The videotape and photograph's) shall be in a format approved by the police department and of such quality that it clearly displays the item's) and an identifiable frontal image of the customer. Any such videotapes shall be kept by the pawnbroker for a minimum of ninety (90) days and shall be subject to police review. If the videotape contains photographic evidence, as determined by the police department. it shall be kept by the pawnbroker for one hundred and eighty (180) days. Section 3. Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to __--, on the 28th day of September, 2009, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for ,2009, at 7:00 o'clock p,m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of , 2009. SIGNED by the Mayor on this ___ day of ______, 2009. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript: Effective Date: