(A) The Board of Commissioners finds that:
(1) In June 2006 the U.S. Surgeon General issued a report reviewing the health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. The report concluded that:
(a) Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and adults who do not smoke;
(b) Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe asthma;
(c) Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer;
(d) The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke;
(e) Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke;
(f) Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to second hand smoke.
(2) Numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution. Breathing secondhand smoke is a cause of disease in healthy nonsmokers. These diseases include heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease and lung cancer. The National Cancer Institute determined in 1999 that secondhand smoke is responsible for the early deaths of up to 65,000 Americans annually. (National Cancer Institute (NCI), “Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: the report of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 10,” Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (NCI), August 1999.)
(3) The Public Health Service’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) has listed secondhand smoke as a known carcinogen. (Environmental Health Information Service (EHIS), “Environmental tobacco smoke: first listed in the Ninth Report on Carcinogens,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service, NTP, 2000; reaffirmed by the NTP in subsequent reports on carcinogens, 2003, 2005.)
(4) Secondhand smoke is particularly hazardous to the elderly, individuals with cardiovascular disease and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease. Children exposed to secondhand smoke have an increased risk of asthma, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, developmental abnormalities, and cancer. (California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), “Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke”, Tobacco Control 6(4): 346-353, Winter, 1997.)
(5) The Americans with Disabilities Act, which mandates access to public places and workplaces for persons with disabilities, deems impaired respiratory function to be a disability. (Daynard, R.A., “Environmental tobacco smoke and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Nonsmokers’ Voice 15(1):8-9.)
(6) The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that secondhand smoke cannot be reduced to safe levels in businesses by high rates of ventilation. Air cleaners, which are only capable of filtering the particulate matter and odors in smoke, do not eliminate the known toxins in secondhand smoke. (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Indoor air facts no. 5 environmental tobacco smoke,” Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), June 1989.)
(7) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that the risk of acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease associated with exposure to tobacco smoke is non-linear at low doses, increasing rapidly with relatively small doses such as those received from secondhand smoke or actively smoking one (1) or two (2) cigarettes a days and has warned that all patients at increased risk of coronary heart disease or with known coronary artery disease should avoid all indoor environments that permit smoking. (Pechacek, Terry F.; Babb, Stephen, “Commentary: How acute and reversible are the cardiovascular risks of secondhand smoke?” British Medical Journal, 328: 980-983, April 24, 2004.)
(8) A significant amount of secondhand smoke exposure occurs in the workplace. Employees who work in smoke-filled businesses suffer a twenty-five percent (25%) to fifty percent (50%) higher risk of heart attack and higher rates of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer, as well as increased acute respiratory disease and measurable decrease in lung function (Pitsavos, C.; Panagiotakos, D.B.; Chrysohoou, C. Skoumas, J; Tzioumis, K; Stefanadis, C.; Toutonzas, P. “Association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and the development of acute coronary syndromes: The CARDIO2000 case-control study,” Tobacco Control 11(3): 220-225, September 2002.)
(9) Smoke-filled workplaces result in higher worker absenteeism due to respiratory disease, lower productivity, higher cleaning and maintenance costs, increased health insurance rates, and increased liability claims for diseases related to exposure to secondhand smoke. (“The high price of cigarette smoking,” Business & Health 15(8), Supplement A: 6-9, August 1997.)
(10) A study of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction in Helena, Montana before, during, and after a local law eliminating smoking in workplaces and public places was in effect, has determined that laws to enforce smoke-free workplaces and public places may be associated with a reduction in morbidity from heart disease. (Sargent, Richard P.; Shepard, Robert M.; Glantz, Stanton A., “Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study,” British Medical Journal 328: 977980, April 24, 2004.)
(11) Numerous economic analyses examining restaurant and hotel receipts and controlling for economic variables have shown either no difference or appositive economic impact after enactment of laws requiring workplaces to be smoke-free. Creation of smoke-free workplaces is sound economic policy and provides the maximum level of employee health and safety. (Glantz, S.A.; Smith, L., The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 87:1687-1693, 1997; Colman, R.; Urbonas, C.M., “The economic impact of smoke-free workplaces: an assessment for Nova Scotia, prepared for Tobacco Control Unit, Nova Scotia Department of Health,” GPI Atlantic, September 2001.)
(12) Smoking is a potential cause of fires; cigarette and cigar burns and ash stains on merchandise and fixtures cause economic damage to business health 15(8), Supplement A: 6-9, August 1997.)
(13) The smoking of tobacco is a form of air pollution, a danger to health and a material public nuisance.
(14) The use of electronic smoking devices has increased significantly in recent years, as evidenced by the fact that:
(a) Between 2011 and 2012 the percentage of all youth in grades 6 to 12 who had tried electronic smoking devices doubled;
(b) Six and eight tenths percent (6.8%) of all youth between sixth and twelfth grades report trying electronic smoking devices;
(c) Ten percent (10%) of high school students have tried electronic smoking devices;
(d) Nine and three tenths percent (9.3%) of youth who have used electronic smoking devices have never smoked conventional cigarettes; and
(e) Between 2010 and 2011, rates of both awareness and use of unregulated electronic smoking devices by adults also increased significantly.
(15) Existing studies on electronic smoking devices’ vapor emissions and cartridge contents have found a number of dangerous substances including:
(a) Chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, lead, nickel, and chromium; PM2.5, acrolein, tin, toluene, and aluminum, which are associated with a range of negative health effects such as skin, eye, and respiratory irritation, neurological effects, damage to reproductive systems, and even premature death from heart attacks and stroke;
(b) Inconsistent labeling of nicotine levels in electronic smoking device products; and
(c) In one (1) instance, diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze and toxic to humans.
(16) More than one (1) study has concluded that exposure to vapor from electronic smoking devices may cause passive or secondhand vaping.
(17) Some cartridges used by electronic smoking devices can be re-filled with liquid nicotine solution, creating the potential for exposure to dangerous concentrations of nicotine, and as a result:
(a) Poisonings from electronic smoking devices have increased dramatically in the last three and a half (3 ½) years from “one (1) a month in September 2010 to two hundred and fifteen (215) a month in February 2014;" and
(b) Analysis of reports of poisonings from electronic smoking devices finds that calls reporting exposure to electronic smoking devices are much more likely to involve adverse health effects when compared to calls reporting exposure to conventional cigarettes.
(18) Clinical studies about the safety and efficacy of these products have not been submitted to the FDA for the more than four hundred (400) brands of electronic smoking devices that are on the market and for this reason, consumers currently have no way of knowing:
(a) Whether electronic smoking devices are safe;
(b) What types or concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals the products contain; and
(c) What dose of nicotine the products deliver.
(19) The World Health Organization has strongly advised consumers against the use of electronic smoking devices until they are “deemed safe and effective and of acceptable quality by a competent national regulatory body.”
(20) The World Medical Association has determined that electronic smoking devices “are comparable to scientifically-proven methods of smoking cessation” and that “neither their value as therapeutic aids for smoking cessation nor their safety as cigarette replacements is established.”
(21) A study published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health suggests that electronic smoking devices “may have the capacity to ‘re-normalize’ tobacco use in a demographic that has had significant denormalization of tobacco use previously.”
(22) Electronic smoking devices often mimic conventional tobacco products in shape, size, and color, with the user exhaling a smoke-like vapor similar in appearance to the exhaled smoke from cigarettes and other conventional tobacco products.
(23) The use of electronic smoking devices in smoke-free locations threatens to undermine compliance with smoking regulations and reverse the progress that has been made in establishing a social norm that smoking is not permitted in public places and places of employment.
(B) The Board of Commissioners adopts the foregoing findings of fact as the Board’s basis for its action, and states that the purpose of the adoption of this chapter is:
(1) To protect the public health and welfare of those we serve but more important our children by prohibiting smoking and the use of electronic smoking devices in public places and places of employment; and
(2) To guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air; and
(3) To recognize that the public’s need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the individual’s desire to smoke.
(Ord. 0-2007-028, passed 9-24-07; Am. Ord. 031, 2007, passed 10-9-07; Am. Ord. 0-2016-004, passed 3-28-16)