FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT RESTORING LOCAL CONTROL

Why is it important to allow local government to protect their citizens from secondhand smoke?
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a Class A carcinogen because it contains, benzene, asbestos, formaldehyde and other dangerous chemicals. It is conservatively estimated that at least 53,000 nonsmokers die annually from diseases caused by secondhand smoke.

Over the short term, secondhand smoke is a common trigger of asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia in children. It has also been associated with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace causes more death and disease than all other regulated occupational substances combined.

Locally elected officials should have the right to protect their citizens, especially children, from the detrimental health effects of secondhand smoke.

What are the advantages of having local control?
Local control is a powerful tool that allows communities to educate on the real risks of secondhand smoke and find locally-appropriate, common-sense solutions for protecting health. Local standards are easier to enforce because they emerge from a community discussion about what works best for that area.

Communities in other states that set local standards have seen benefits beyond reducing secondhand smoke exposure. When protections against secondhand smoke are in place people smoke fewer cigarettes. And the increased awareness about the tobacco leads to more people quitting. This leads to a significant improvement in the community’s overall health.

Restoring local control actually removes statewide mandates and government intervention. Communities, through their local government, would have the power to decide what additional health protections they want to enact, not the Iowa Legislature. The current law forces people to accept a one-size-fits-all state standard that does not protect health. Local control gives communities the power to find a solution tailored to the concerns of people in the area.

Tobacco kills 4,600 Iowans every year and drains over $1.6 billion from the state economy in direct medical costs and lost productivity. Local control will allow Iowa to begin reducing this toll.

Why does Iowa State Law prohibit cities and counties from regulating secondhand smoke?
In 1990, the Iowa General Assembly passed legislation providing for non-smoking sections in public places. The powerful tobacco lobbyists successfully implemented these weak provisions while at the same time prohibiting local governments the authority to enact stronger more meaningful ordinances. This is commonly known as "pre-emption."

Simply put, the reason cities and counties are forbidden from regulating secondhand smoke is because Big Tobacco wrote the state law.

Why is Big Tobacco so opposed to local control of smoking regulation?

Internal tobacco industry documents show that prohibiting cities and towns from having any ability to regulate smoking (pre-emption) was the number one priority of the tobacco industry in the early to mid-1990s.

Big Tobacco figured that their best chance to fight the anti-tobacco movement was to "preempt" the field and ensure that the only legislative arena where legislation could be passed restricting smoking was the state level, where Big Tobacco enjoys superior access and a track record of winning more than losing.

What are laws like in other states?
Local governments in 35 states, including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois and Nebraska have the ability to protect their citizens from the dangers of secondhand smoke while 21 states have passed statewide laws prohibiting smoking in public places.

In states where cities and towns are empowered, 2,507 municipalities have passed local ordinances regulating secondhand smoke.

What types of ordinances could cities and counties pass if given the right?
The most common local regulations across the country are smoke free ordinances governing workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars. These ordinances are written in a variety of ways, and often times include exemptions catered to the needs and desires of the community.

Won't having different local ordinances be confusing?
Other states have not experienced problems with different communities passing different local ordinances regarding secondhand smoke. For instance, communities throughout Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska have passed local smoking ordinances that truly protect the health of their citizens.

Cities and counties in Iowa already have the authority to set their own rules on a variety of subject matters, including planning and zoning. Locally elected officials should have the right to protect their citizens from secondhand smoke.

Iowa is a diverse state, and different communities will likely find different solutions. Local control means each community can develop a standard that fits the people in that area.

Won’t ventilation systems be enough?
Modern ventilation systems are not enough. In fact, ventilation systems recirculate carcinogens in secondhand smoke throughout a building. According to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), current ventilation technologies are incapable of removing all secondhand smoke and its toxins from the air.

How are smoke-free ordinances enforced?
Smoke-free ordinances are multiplying across the country because they are easy to enforce. Local control means that a community sets a standard tailored to what people in that area want. A community discussion precedes any decision to adopt a smoke-free policy, meaning people know about the new standard when it goes into effect. Communities that have passed clean indoor air ordinances have found that posting “no-smoking” signs and removing ashtrays are all that is needed.

Do smoke-free restaurants lose business?
There is no statistical evidence that shows that banning smoking in restaurants hurts business. In fact, numerous studies have shown that restaurants make more money when they go smoke-free. There is also substantial cost savings associated with the decrease in employee health problems due to secondhand smoke exposure when a restaurant goes smoke-free.

Many towns that enact smoke-free restaurant ordinances do so in part because they feel it is a workers' rights issue, meaning that a smoke-free environment should be provided for the waiters, waitresses and other employees of restaurants who are otherwise repeatedly exposed to secondhand smoke.

What about restaurants that are already going smoke-free voluntarily?
No one wants food poisoning when they go out to eat. That is why we demand health inspections in restaurants. If we demand food that doesn’t make us sick, shouldn’t we have the right to demand the same of the air we breathe when we go out to eat? Having air that doesn’t poison us shouldn’t be considered a luxury; it should be considered our right.

Why can’t people choose not to go to restaurants that allow smoking?
This is an issue of basic health standards. We expect restaurant employees to wash their hands when they use the bathroom. We expect the food that we’re served not to give us salmonella. We should be able to expect that the air doesn’t poison us when we go out to eat.

Won’t local control take away smoker’s rights?
Everyone should have the right to breathe clean air. This is not about being against smokers; it’s about being pro-health. Most smokers are considerate and don’t want to contaminate the air people breathe around them. In fact, many smokers are some of the strongest supporters for expanding smoke-free environments.

Who is in support of giving cities and towns the authority to protect their citizens from secondhand smoke?
According to the 2004 Adult Tobacco Survey conducted by the Gallup Organization, 87.7 percent of Iowans agreed that people should be protected from secondhand smoke. In addition organizations such as the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Iowa Tobacco Prevention Alliance, League of Cities and many other organizations are all strong supporters.

Who is opposed?
The tobacco industry is the primary opponent of this legislation. In states throughout the country, they have a track record of collaborating with and funding other organizations such as restaurant associations, bowling alleys and other trade groups to fight anti-tobacco legislation.

For additional information, or to get involved, contact C.A.F.E. Iowa CAN at
cafe@cafeiowacan.org or call (319) 338-2366