Document type: Report

XEROX TELECOPIER 295 ; 11- 1-89; 2:27 PM: 217 544 0874 > 6360907 ; #14 IL TOBACTO + CANDY DIt TEL No.217-544-0e74 Nov. 1.89 14:26 F.14 The Coalition on Smoking er Health 18 an organization funded by the American Cancer Society, Amer Ad American Lung Aggociation to lobb on tobacce related REVIEW OF HB 1696 BY COALITION OW SMOKING OR HEALTH , Matt Myers iesues at the federal jeve!. and Cliff Souglas, are @ attorneys. t Pr expertisa in this area: and knowledge of case precedence, we felt they could help us identify any potential problems with our legislation, especially Section 9 dealing with discrimination. We were hoping they could give us additional information that would help people fee! more comfortable with that section. Cliff and Matt offered some interesting insights thet are very important as we negotiate with the tobacco people. Unfortunately, they are not very reassuring. They feel Section 9 has to be considered in Tight of the rest of the bili. They have a number of cautions ebout the bi] which are outlined below. C. They do not see the bili as being @ private work place bill. Section 3c Cefines public place and would appear to include private work places. However, Sectien 4 states that the law “shall not apply to factories, werehouses and simitar places of work not usually frequented by the genera) " Matt and Cliff fee) a good case could be made that this law does not cover private companies, 4.6. insurance companies, lawyers’ offices, our offices, because these are not places where the public generally comes. Because of the way the b111 18 worded, the intent of the legislation is not clear. The language in Section 5 which refers to the proprietor of a private structure that includea a public place could be seen as strengthening this argument, It is their feeling that the tobacco industry would jump at the first opportunity to test this in court. ; Section 5 permits the establismment of a designated smoking erea and further states tnat exieting barriers can be used to minimize the intrusion of smoke into areas where it is not permitted. This creates many potential problems. It establishes smoking in certain areas as the norm. A smoker could use this language with that in Section 4 regarding places not usually frequented by the public to challenge an employers’ right to make a building totally nonsmoking or to not hire a smoker, especially if the discrimination section 1s left tntact. Another scenario ts that of the smoker who works on the edge of a smoking section right next to the nonsmoking section in a place of employment. If _ existing Garriers and ventilation are not adequate to keep smoke out of the nonsmeking section, nonsmokers would essentially be powerless. They wouldn't be able to do anything because the law allows a smoking section, the person 15 tn the amoking section, barriers only have to minimize intrusion of smoke and the amoker can not be discriminated against. Consequentiy, the very people we are trying to protect could be left unprotected without any alternatives. In Pittsburgh, the tobaceo industry has mounted a massive campaign promoted as “Accommodation ~ We are fair to everyone”. Using ads, posters, stickers for doors and windows, etc., they are using the law there to encourage cesignated amoking areas everywhere. TIILBC 020263 a ee