DC Council/Mayoral Candidate Questionnaire Limiting Exemptions to Smokefree Workplaces The city’s new smokefree workplaces law (the Department of Health Functions Clarification Amendment Act of 2005, http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20060113145752.pdf) includes an economic hardship waiver. If it becomes clear that the waiver is being abused and has become a popular loophole by which to avoid the law, would you support tightening the rules under which waivers or granted? Response: Yes, I would support tightening the rules under which such waivers are granted in the case of a clear showing of widespread abuse. The economic waiver provision has no time limit or sunset clause. Would you support amending the law to phase out the economic hardship waiver by 2010? Response: Yes, I would support phasing out such a waiver. Restricting Tobacco Bars “Tobacco bars” are defined in the law as restaurants, taverns, brew pubs, clubs, or nightclubs that generate 10% or more of their total annual revenue from the on-site sale of tobacco products. The idea was to permit smoking in cigar and hookah bars. If it becomes clear that establishments that are not true cigar or hookah bars are using this provision to avoid the law, would you support amending the law to raise the required sale of tobacco in tobacco bars to 25% of total revenue? Response: Yes, I would support amending the law to raise the requirement to 25% of total revenue as a means of avoiding compliance on the part of businesses. Would you support amending the law to prohibit tobacco bars from requiring minimum tobacco purchases? Response: No, while I support the spirit of such a requirement, I would be concerned about so closely regulating the business practices of lawfully operating businesses and the rights of patrons who decide to frequent such operations. While I am open to being better educated on the potential positive impact of such a provision in addressing tobacco-related challenges in the District, at present I see it as somewhat of an unnecessary intrusion into individual business decision-making. I believe the overall objective, of course, is about encouraging persons to not utilize tobacco products at all but where is the difference between this requirement and the minimum drink or food purchase requirements that may be found at many traditional bars, nightclubs, etc.? Again, I understand the spirit of such a requirement but would be concerned about it being too much of an intrusion into an otherwise lawfully operating business. Would you support amending the law to prohibit the sale or transfer of tobacco bar licenses? Response: Yes, I would support amending the law to prohibit the sale or transfer of tobacco bar licenses with qualifications. I believe that the public health concerns in this arena are significant enough that the issue of a tobacco license in any part of our city should be individually vetted each time a license is south to be sold or transferred. Expanding Smokefree Areas Would you support amending the law to prohibit smoking within 25 feet of commercial building entrances in areas of the city where doing so would still give smokers sidewalk space to smoke? Response: Yes. Tobacco Prevention Program Funding Studies, and experience in state after state, show that higher cigarette taxes are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking among both youth and adults. Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce youth smoking by about seven percent and overall cigarette consumption by about four percent (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/.) The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that smoking-caused health costs total $8.44 per pack sold and consumed in the United States. The District tax on a pack of cigarettes is $1 per pack. Would you support an increase in the tax on cigarettes to fund smoking prevention programs? Response: Yes. Tobacco use costs the District $224 million a year in health care costs, including $72 million in Medicaid expenditures to treat sick smokers. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that the District of Columbia spend between $7.5 million and $14.6 million a year to have an effective, comprehensive tobacco prevention program, but D.C. allocates just a fraction of that for tobacco prevention, ranking last among the states in the funding of tobacco prevention programs. Tobacco settlement money has never been used in the District for its intended purpose, which was supposed to be tobacco prevention and control. Instead it has gone to the general fund (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/state.php?StateID=DC.) D.C. needs a media campaign to encourage adults to quit and teens to never start smoking, to counter the $20 million that the tobacco industry spends in the District marketing tobacco products. Would you support the allocation of at least $7.5 million of the settlement money for tobacco prevention and control? Response: Yes, I would support allocating tobacco settlement funding for tobacco prevention and control to at least $7.5 million (the minimum CDC recommended annual funding level).