Assembly OKs Bill to Void New Smoking Bans

In a major victory for the tobacco industry, the state Assembly on Thursday approved legislation that would invalidate new local efforts in Los Angeles and elsewhere in California to restrict smoking.

Assemblyman Curtis Tucker Jr., the Inglewood Democrat who authored the bill, said he expects the legislation to clear the Senate and be sent to Gov. Pete Wilson, although pressure from anti-smoking advocates is certain to become intense.

“I don’t carry bills to die,” Tucker said. “I want it on the governor’s desk.”

Tucker’s bill cleared the Assembly by a 43-33 margin with heavy support from Republicans. The Orange County delegation split, with four voting in favor and three against.

In a vote earlier this week, the bill fell four votes short of a majority in the 80-member Assembly. But Tucker and tobacco lobbyists redoubled their efforts to line up the additional votes. Five members who were absent or did not vote earlier in the week cast their votes for Tucker’s bill Thursday.

The bill would place mild restrictions on smoking in some establishments but leaves such regulation largely up to business owners. The bill also would prevent any local ordinances passed after April 1, 1993, from taking effect--unless they are less restrictive than the measure.

Tucker introduced the bill to draw support from a competing anti-smoking measure, which would ban smoking in indoor workplaces statewide. That anti-smoking bill by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood) remains in legislative limbo but could be taken up next week.

Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) assessed the chances for Tucker’s bill as “nip and tuck” in the Senate. He said the “industry-sponsored” measure is “not as anti-health as it has been characterized by some of its critics.”

Gov. Wilson declined to comment, but his health director, Dr. Molly Coye, called Tucker’s bill “a grave danger to the health of Californians” and said she hopes it dies before it reaches Wilson.

“This is good evidence that the ruthless tactics of the tobacco industry can win some short-term victories,” Coye said. “But I am confident that good public health reasoning and the health of the people of California will win.”

Harvey Shields, the executive director of the American Lung Assn. of Orange County, said: “Unfortunately, there’s a lot of money and interest from the tobacco industry. That was what won, and the public health lost.”

One city that would be affected by the preemption clause in Tucker’s bill is Los Angeles, where the City Council tentatively approved a hard-line proposal that would ban smoking in the city’s nearly 7,000 dining spots. Unless Tucker’s bill is amended, it would invalidate Los Angeles’ proposed smoking ban.

“It’s outrageous,” said Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude, the architect of the city ordinance. “It confirms what we have been saying all along--that the tobacco industry is dominating the political scene in Washington and Sacramento.”

Anti-smoking forces had hoped that they would succeed in winning passage of a smoking ban this year, in light of mounting evidence about the ill effects of secondhand smoke.

With chances of such a victory now dim, an angry Dr. Richard F. Corlin, a board member and past president of the California Medical Assn. (CMA), vowed to put the weight of his organization against Tucker’s bill and said he will push the doctors’ group to sponsor a statewide initiative banning smoking indoors in public places if the Legislature fails to act.

The CMA is among the largest lobbying groups in the state Capitol, spending even more than the tobacco industry on campaign donations and lobbying. The tobacco industry donated $962,500 to candidates in California last year, compared to $1.3 million by the medical association, according to a report by the Institute for Health Policy Studies at UC San Francisco Medical School. The CMA is concerned with a wide range of issues, while the tobacco lobby has a much narrower focus.

An American Lung Assn. analysis of tobacco industry donations shows that members who voted for Tucker’s bill received $460,253 last year. Opponents received $56,000.

Laguna Beach’s smoking ban ordinance passed last year, which will ban smoking entirely in restaurants by 1995, would not be affected, nor would laws in San Juan Capistrano and other Orange County cities requiring nonsmoking areas in restaurants.

Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria), who voted for Tucker’s measure and for Friedman’s smoking ban, predicted that Friedman’s bill would clear the Assembly.

Then, he said, there could be a compromise in which smoking would be allowed in restaurants if there are separate rooms, and conventioneers would be able to decide whether to permit smoking.

But on Thursday, compromise appeared to be far from the minds of Tucker and Friedman.

Tucker took up his bill early in the morning before Friedman arrived on a flight from Los Angeles. When Friedman’s allies protested, Tucker, a smoker, said: “Is Mr. Friedman out having a smoke?”

When Friedman, who has never smoked, reached the Assembly chambers later in the morning, Tucker invoked the rarely used rule that lawmakers must explain their tardiness. Friedman pointedly told the Assembly that he had been in Los Angeles caring for his 6-week-old daughter.

Later, asked why he had not waited until Friedman appeared to take up the bill, Tucker said: “This man has shown me absolutely no courtesy.”

For his part, Friedman said he didn’t see how he “could find common ground with the tobacco industry,” and he denounced Thursday’s action as “an example of the disgusting power the tobacco industry wields in the Legislature.”

Tucker defended his legislation as “good public policy” and noted that under his bill, business owners could ban smoking in their establishments. He cited provisions barring cigarette billboards within 500 feet of schools, increasing fines for sales to minors and limiting placement of cigarette vending machines.

“The notion that this is a tobacco Trojan horse makes good press, but good press should not drive public policy,” Tucker said as he urged support for the bill. “This bill not a smoke screen.”

Tucker’s bill exempts factories, warehouses, bars and any business with 15 or fewer employees. Most California businesses have fewer than 15 employees. Tucker’s bill also exempts restaurants with 50 or fewer seats and would allow larger restaurants to set aside 30% of their space for smokers.

Tucker’s bill requires that large restaurants and other workplaces, such as offices, have ventilation if they permit smoking.

The ventilation standards written into the bill are ones drafted in 1989 by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers Inc., which noted that “with respect to tobacco smoke and other contaminants, this standard does not, and cannot, ensure the avoidance of all possible adverse health effects.”

To date, 247 cities and counties in California have some type of smoking restriction. Another 59 have bans. Dozens of municipalities are considering anti-smoking measures, according to the private group, Americans for Nonsmokers Rights.

The Orange County Assembly representatives who voted in favor of the bill include Doris Allen (R-Cypress), Mickey Conroy (R-Orange), Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach) and Ross Johnson (R-Fullerton).

Voting against it were Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside), Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) and Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove).