FUMO URGES REJECTION OF SMOKING-BAN LEGISLATION

            HARRISBURG, May 12 – Possible compromise state legislation creating an indoor smoking ban would override a much stronger Philadelphia anti-smoking ordinance of which Mayor Michael Nutter is the chief proponent, and should be defeated for that reason, state Senator Vince Fumo (D-Philadelphia) said today.

            Fumo urged the six members of the conference committee on smoking legislation not to sign the bill if the final version is the same as a confidential draft that is currently being circulated.
 
            Philadelphia's city ordinance is more comprehensive, thorough, and better thought out, Fumo said. There is no compelling reason to pre-empt the city ordinance. The areas affected are only within the city, and the rules have been in place for more than a year without incident.

           The draft state smoking ban would permit smoking in many types of establishments where it is now prohibited in Philadelphia. It would remove the citys ability to enforce tax payment and tax collection for any business seeking a smoking-ban waiver, and would eliminate the citys right to sets its own fines and penalties. It would also deny the city Fire Department the right to prohibit smoking in certain areas, and would remove the ability of the city to declare smoke-free any public outdoor area, such as parks, music venues, promenades and other city-owned outdoor space.

            It would be a step backward for the city. Philadelphia has a strong ordinance that should be the model for the rest of the state, rather than Harrisburg dictating to Philadelphia on a matter on which the city has been more proactive, Fumo said.

            Among the types of venues where smoking is prohibited under the city ordinance, but where the state would permit smoking outright or in designated areas, are long-term care facilities, residential adult care facilities, community mental health care facilities, drug and alcohol treatment facilities, residential health care facilities, casinos, sports facilities, theater and performance venues, and areas within 20 feet of a building entrance.

            Regarding private clubs, the draft conference committee bill would permit smoking, whereas the city ordinance permits smoking only if two-thirds of the voting club membership agrees, and if all city taxes are paid up to date. Concerning drinking establishments at which no more than 20 percent of gross sales are for food, both would permit smoking, but the city ordinance is stronger in that it requires city taxes to be up to date, and bans smoking if ownership of the liquor license is transferred, or moved.

            The city ordinance also contains a more expansive definition of public places.  One of the most contentious issues has been smoking on the floor of casinos. While Philadelphia keeps them smoke-free, the state draft would designate 25 percent of space for smoking, increasing to as much as 50 percent based on market demand.

            I have to admire how influential Philadelphia's casinos lobbyists have become, Fumo said. They have been able to exempt themselves from the city ordinance under this draft. But it is not in the best interests of the health of casino workers and patrons.

            The Senate and House of Representatives each passed differing versions of the smoking ban last summer, and the legislation (SB 246) was referred to a conference committee. The six conferees three from the Senate and Three from the House -- have been unable to resolve differences in negotiations since then.

# # #

A chart showing differences between the Philadelphia ordinance and the state draft conference committee report is below.

Conference Committee Report Comparison

 Public Venue            Phila. Ordinance               Conf. Comm. Report