Prop. 188 clouds smoky issue

Proposition 188, on the Nov. 8 ballot, will let voters decide if city, county and state smoking regulations should be filtered into a single, voluntary standard for all of California.

If passed, the proposition will preempt current smoking ordinances and allow businesses to regulate smoking at their discretion.

Opponents of the initiative argue that it is a smoke screen for tobacco companies. They say the tobacco industry wants to eliminate the effects of state legislation passed this summer, Assembly Bill 13. The bill is set to ban smoking in all restaurants and limit smoking in workplaces and other public buildings on Jan. 1.

The proposition's main financial backer is Philip Morris U.S.A., which has joined with other tobacco companies such as R.J. Reynolds to contribute more than $7 million to the campaign.

Some of the arguments against Prop. 188 are centered around this multimillion-dollar lift from the tobacco industry.

Organizations opposing the initiative include the American Cancer Society and California Medical and Dental Associations.

"It's a fraud; it's a Philip Morris initiative to protect Philip Morris profits," said Judy Tyler, regional coordinator for a group that opposes the initiative.

Supporters of Prop. 188, including some members of restaurant and hotel associations, argue that the initiative will protect the rights of businesses Ñ that it is a fair regulation, providing businesses a choice in how they wish to regulate smoking in their establishments.

"Philip Morris is involved in this effort, there's no question about it, but what I think the opponents fail to mention is that there are about 2,000 local small businesses in California that are actively supporting this proposition," said Robert Paggett, representative for the major pro-188 organization.

The initiative would overturn local regulations as well as the statewide ban, like the one implemented in 1991 in San Luis Obispo that bans smoking in all public facilities and workplaces.

A 1993 Long Beach city ordinance, which prohibits smoking in any enclosed area where the public is invited or permitted, would also become invalid.

AB13, besides creating a smoking ban in all restaurants, would limit smoking in workplaces. Under the new law, smoking would be allowed only in break rooms that meet ventilation standards and in workplaces with less than six employees.

"The tobacco industry actually had a hand in setting the ventilation standards," Tyler said. "[The standards] do absolutely nothing to remove the carcinogenic and poisonous elements of tobacco smoke. All they do is somewhat remove the odor of tobacco."

Even if Prop. 188 fails to pass, people will still be able to smoke in bars for about two years. Most public places will also be smoking restricted, with few exceptions. The sale of tobacco products through vending machines would be up to individual city governments. Billboard advertising would not be regulated.

By comparison, Prop. 188 would allow smoking in private offices and conference rooms, with consent from those present, and in designated areas of employee cafeterias that do not exceed 25 percent of seating capacity. Smoking would also be allowed in designated smoking lounges and in company cars with the consent of all occupants.

"The alternative to our initiative is a 100 percent ban on smoking in all public places, set to go into effect Jan. 1," Paggett said. "Our initiative is a strong regulation, but it is more reasonable for the business person, and it also gives the customer more choices."

"Nothing in the initiative mandates that smoking be allowed; it simply gives the opportunity to accommodate the customers, if they meet ventilation standards," Paggett said.

The initiative would restrict cigarette advertising on billboards from being placed within 500 feet of any public or private elementary, junior high or high school.

"Five hundred feet is the perfect spot to view a billboard," Tyler said. "The only thing you can't see from 500 feet is the small print warning."

Prop. 188 would also let restaurants allow smoking in up to 25 percent of their capacity and in rooms used for private functions, as well as in bars. However, owners of bars and restaurants could still choose to operate smoke-free establishments. The measure would also allow smoking in hotel and motel rooms, unless they are voluntarily designated as non-smoking rooms.

These regulations are similar to current laws. Gaming clubs, such as bingo parlors, racetracks, private boxes and separate lounges in sports arenas, allow smoking under current laws.

Until recent television and radio spots, the campaign has been relatively quiet from both sides.

With polls showing a relative split among the voters, each side is confident that it will prevail. Either way, this vote should go a long way toward deciding the future of smoking in California.