To Puff or . . . : Smoking Is Hot Issue for Supervisors

When Rob Saldana moved to Yorba Linda two months ago, it was largely to return home and to escape the heat of Phoenix, he said. But anti-smoking activists interpreted the move as an attempt to escape the label of “outsider.”

Saldana is regional head of the Tobacco Institute, the nationwide organization that represents the tobacco industry, which finds itself facing increasing assaults in Orange County.

One attack will come Tuesday, when an ordinance to regulate smoking in private workplaces, restaurants and county buildings in the unincorporated area of Orange County is up for a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors.

Although the wording of the proposal has been softened somewhat to place “emphasis . . . on voluntary employer compliance,” Saldana said the ordinance is “a bad idea” and “totally unenforceable.”

Measure Supported

But Californians for Non-Smokers’ Rights contends that the measure, in the words of the president of the group’s Orange County chapter, Jay Matchett, will “protect the non-smoker from having to breathe other people’s smoke, while not hurting the businessman at the same time.”

The part of the proposal that would ban smoking in buildings owned and operated by the county, except in designated areas, has not drawn much opposition, county officials said.

But the sections that would require restaurants to set aside half their floor space for non-smokers and would require employers of more than 10 workers to adopt non-smoking policies and publicize them have been controversial.

As originally written by the county staff, the proposed ordinance would merely have “encouraged” employers to bar smoking in restrooms, elevators, conference rooms, hallways, auditoriums and classrooms. It would also have required restaurants to reserve 35% of their space for non-smokers, rather than the current 20%.

Wieder in Opposition

But Supervisor Bruce Nestande called for mandatory restrictions, saying that if smoking is a health hazard, “it doesn’t make any sense to allow voluntary compliance.”

The Board of Supervisors last February voted 4 to 1, with Supervisor Harriett Wieder in opposition, to circulate Nestande’s proposal for comment and a public hearing. Besides making establishment of the no-smoking areas mandatory, the Nestande proposal would require restaurants to set aside 50%, not 35%, of the space for non-smokers.

In addition, individual employees would have the right to declare their own workplaces non-smoking areas.

Thomas F. Riley, chairman of the Board of Supervisors, said he is “leaning very strongly” toward the ordinance, which specifies that infractions are a violation subject to a maximum $100 fine.

Riley said that “the initial rush of communications we received from our constituents was in support of the ordinance.” But in recent weeks, he said, his office has been receiving objections along the lines that “Big Brother is meddling in our affairs,” with government intruding into private business.

“Obviously someone is directing the effort on the reason why government should stay out of one’s life,” Riley said, though he did not specify who the someone was.

Saldana said he has not gotten involved on behalf of the Tobacco Institute in lobbying the board, because chambers of commerce opposed it and “I think the impetus has to come from the business community and the people within the community who are going to be affected by the ordinance.”

Denied Charges

Business opposition “is going to be much more effective in stopping this thing rather than a Tobacco Institute guy coming in from out of town and saying, ‘You shouldn’t pass this,’ ” Saldana said.

But he denied charges by Matchett and other backers of Nestande’s proposal that he relocated the regional office of the Tobacco Institute to Anaheim Hills and moved to Yorba Linda himself to avoid being tagged an outsider.

He said that the move was influenced “to a degree” by the desire to be closer to the county where several cities, as well as the county, are considering measures to regulate smoking but that having lived in Yorba Linda for nine years before moving to Phoenix two years ago, Orange County “is where we consider home.”

Opposed by Chamber

One group that agrees with Saldana in opposing the county ordinance is the Saddleback Regional Chamber of Commerce. Pat Crockett, the chamber executive director, said the organization feels the county has no “right to put those types of restrictions or ordinances on a private business.”

She said the “solution to the problem is education and not regulation” and contended that the number of smokers has dropped without the imposition of laws.

“The thing I have noticed is that smokers have become more and more courteous,” Crockett said. “They’ve become more aware of the effect that their smoke has on people around them.”

Matchett of the Non-Smokers’ Rights group said it was to address the concerns of businessmen that his group came up with additional, softer language for the ordinance when county officials sought opinions from community groups, health advisory organizations and tobacco industry members.

Cost-Free Aspect

A new section says that employers must provide smoke-free areas within existing facilities “to the maximum extent possible” but that employers need not spend money to make physical modifications to provide such areas.

The cost-free aspect is a copy of the wording that was added to the San Diego smoking ordinance at the suggestion of businesses there, Matchett said. When the phrasing was inserted, the businesses supported the law, he said.

Dr. Thomas J. Prendergast, the county epidemiologist who was on the committee that drew up the revised proposal, said the emphasis was on creating “an opportunity for an education about the impact of smoking” and the effect of cigarette smoke on non-smokers, “rather than a new law that somebody intends for uniformed officers to be involved in enforcing.”

Prendergast, who serves on the boards of the local chapters of the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Assn., said most of the people he deals with each day already realize that smoking is probably the main cause of death that can be prevented by individual action.

Want to Take Close Look

The supervisor who started the debate with his tougher proposal, Nestande, said he wants to take a close look at the revised ordinance and the communications he has received.

But Nestande said that “as far as all this pressure, I haven’t felt it. People haven’t been hammering me on it. I don’t think it’s been a heavily lobbied item at all.”

Wieder, who said she thought Nestande’s proposal in February was introduced before the supervisors had sufficient data, said she has not made a final decision on how to vote either.

She said that while controls over smoking in public places are needed, she is worried about how to enforce the broader proposal. Another objection, she said, stems from her belief that “there must be a part of the private sector where government doesn’t interfere.”

Representatives of the county affiliates of the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Assn. said they would testify Tuesday on behalf of the proposal.

Wants Model for Cities

Matchett of the Californians for Non-Smokers’ Rights said his group wants a strong county ordinance so it will be a “model for cities” such as Tustin, Newport Beach, Yorba Linda and others that have talked about similar legislation.

He said Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego, Laguna Beach and other cities and counties that have regulated smoking have reported no problems. But Saldana contended that the reason for a lack of problems has been a lack of compliance by businesses.

“It’s one thing to pass a law, but it’s another thing to get the people to conform,” he said.

“It’s kind of the ‘in’ issue right now,” Saldana said. “If you want to look good just by putting something on the books, that’s fine, but I don’t think you’re assisting the employees” by provoking a confrontation between smokers and non-smokers, employees and employers.