Below, are my responses. I hope that, as you evaluate
my performance as Ward One CM, that you take into account what I think was a
very influential role in the passage of the smoke free legislation. I approached
thsi issue was great care, since I represent the Ward with the second largest
entertainment industry in the city. I discussed the issue widely, and then
convened a town hall meeting at which there were several hundred
people.
It was for my Ward a very sensitive issue. But in the
end, I concluded that this was first, second, and last, a health issue. I am
pleased that the Surgeon General has subsequently declared that we were right to
reach that conclusion in terms of second hand tobacco smoke.
To this date, there are those who have written me to
tell me that I will not have their support for re-election because of my views
on smoke free. But I am confident in my belief that the right action was taken,
and that lives will be saved, and disease and discomfort avoided.
Bests CM Jim Graham, candidate for re-election in Ward
One.
I typically
answer emails before 9 AM on weekdays. If you email me after that, it is likely
that you will hear from me the next weekday. If there is a need to communicate
prior to that, you may wish to call me.
Jim Graham,
Councilmember, Ward One, 1350 Pa. Ave., NW, #105, Washington, DC 20004.
202-724-8181; 202-724-8109 (fax).
Chairman,
Committee on Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. Main Committee Number:
202-724-8198. 1350 Pa. Ave., NW, #112, Washington, DC
20004.
Website:
www.grahamwone.com
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?
Yes. I think we should be prepared to do a thorough review of the
law and its consequences after it has been in operation.. As Chair of the
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Committee, with oversight over alcohol
licensing, I am committed to doing just that.
- 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?
I
am willing to consider that action, again in the context of an overall review of
the law and its consequences.
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?
Yes, if the abuse described is found.
- Would
you support amending the law to prohibit tobacco bars from requiring minimum
tobacco purchases?
That, of course, would amend the original law, and that needs to be
considered in that context. I certainly want to give the law the opportunity to
see how it works. This issue, and possibly other issues, should be evaluated in
that light.
- Would
you support amending the law to prohibit the sale or transfer of tobacco bar
licenses?
Same response as number 4.
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?
Same response as number 4.
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?
Yes. Taxation on tobacco products has
been shown to be a deterrent to especially youthful use of this dangerous
substance.
- 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?
I have repeatedly pressed for
tobacco settlement fund money for smoking cessation programs. One year, I
actually was able to secure $1 million for that purpose although the funding was
lost before final reading on the budget. So the answer is
"yes".