Anti-Smoking Alliance Turns to Ashes Over Legislation

Until two weeks ago, no one would have questioned Assemblyman Gerald N. Felando’s credentials as a champion of the anti-smoking cause.

In 1989, the San Pedro Republican won a two-year fight to ban smoking on the Assembly floor and now loudly complains whenever he spots a colleague puffing in the Assembly chamber.

Felando, a onetime smoker, increasingly has pushed for anti-smoking legislation, stepping up his efforts as an anti-smoking crusader after his 1989 disclosure that he had a blood-related cancer.

But Felando’s reputation as an outspoken foe of smoking has been tarnished by his effort to seek passage of a bill vigorously opposed by anti-smoking and health groups. And Felando, wounded by criticism from his former allies, has said anti-smoking advocates are no longer welcome in his office.

Felando calls his measure, which would allow the state to license tobacco dealers, “the toughest piece of anti-smoking legislation in the nation.” But opponents maintain that it was written by the tobacco industry and would probably weaken existing anti-smoking laws.

For two weeks, the legislation has been at the eye of a political storm stirred up when a controver-sial internal tobacco industry memo came to light. In the memo, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown was quoted as advising cigarette officials on how to write a sham anti-smoking bill. Brown, a San Francisco Democrat, has denied giving any such advice.

Anti-smoking advocates contend that some of the language in Felando’s bill bears an uncanny resemblance to language in the memo.

Felando denies any connection between his bill and any effort to push through a bogus bill.

Still, without support from anti-smoking groups, the Gerald N. Felando Tobacco Control Act was turned down last week by the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.

Felando said the fight over the bill has “really left a bitter taste in my mouth for the anti-smoking groups because they really questioned my integrity. . . . I don’t know if I’ll ever have a working relationship with them again.”

The turn of events has come as a surprise to his allies in the anti-smoking movement.

“In recent years we could always count on him being with the anti-tobacco groups,” said Theresa Velo, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society.

In fact, earlier this year Felando introduced two anti-smoking measures. One proposal would increase by 10 cents the tax on a package of cigarettes in an effort to discourage teen-agers from purchasing cigarettes. The other bill would ban smoking in all buildings accessible to the public, including open-air theaters and stadiums.

Both bills, along with other anti-smoking measures, stalled in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee chaired by Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Carson), a chain smoker who regularly ignores the ban on smoking on the Assembly floor pushed through by Felando.

With the anti-smoking measures bottled up in Floyd’s committee, Felando said he decided to attempt to fashion a comprehensive proposal, pulling together pieces from several different measures. The central concept of his proposal was that the state would license tobacco retailers in much the same way it regulates establishments selling alcohol. As part of the licensing, the state would preempt local smoking restrictions.

“I took a bit of everyone’s bill and tried to make one bill,” Felando said.

But two weeks ago anti-smoking groups began to question Felando’s role after the disclosure of the internal tobacco industry memo.

The six-page memo was released by three health organizations and purportedly details a June 28 telephone conference call involving cigarette companies, tobacco industry officials and their Sacramento lobbyists. The subject, according to the memo, was how to craft legislation that would appear to control tobacco use while actually stopping cities and counties from enacting tough anti-smoking ordinances.

Anti-smoking advocates--including the California chapters of the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Assn. and the American Lung Assn.--said Felando’s proposal was just such a measure.

In the memo, written by the president of the Washington-based Smokeless Tobacco Council, a lobbyist for tobacco giant Philip Morris said the idea of drafting the legislation evolved from suggestions made by Speaker Brown when he visited cigarette executives in New York City last fall.

Floyd, who accompanied Brown, said the meeting “had nothing to do with this particular bill.”

Danielle Walters, a spokeswoman for the California Medical Assn., said the language in Felando’s anti-smoking measure was almost verbatim the wording suggested by the tobacco industry lobbyists in the memo.

Cancer Society lobbyist Velo said her group “knew it was a tobacco industry bill when we saw the amendments . . . that’s their language.”

“He (Felando) had to know that this was a tobacco industry bill,” Velo said.

But Brennan Dawson, a spokeswoman for the Tobacco Institute, characterized the bill as a tough anti-smoking measure. The institute is a trade association representing cigarette manufacturers.

Dawson distanced herself from an assertion in the memo that the smoking industry’s strategy was to give the appearance of being against the bill. She noted that with the preemption provision in the bill her group had “reluctantly” supported the legislation as a way to obtain a uniform smoking policy statewide.

As a result of the controversy swirling around the bill, Felando dropped the preemption provision, prompting the institute to revive its opposition.

Felando questioned the authenticity of the memo, but indicated that its disclosure may have doomed his legislation.

“What idiot would put something like that in black and white,” asked Felando, who maintained it was part of a “deliberate charade” to kill his bill.