We’re Number Seven:  Rhode Island Goes Smokefree

 

The Public Places and Workplace Safety Act of 2004 prohibits smoking in workplaces and public places in Rhode Island.  The date for implementation of the law was March 1, 2005.  The intended outcome of this law was to reduce death and disease linked to exposure of secondhand smoke by prohibiting smoking in public places and in workplaces. 

 

Policy Initiation

 

After the Surgeon General declared secondhand smoke a Group A carcinogen which kills 200 Rhode Islanders annually, Rhode Island community advocates and key legislators began working on this goal.  NCI and CDC funding from 1991 on identified eliminating secondhand smoke as a goal.  When advocates first began testifying about the harm of secondhand smoke, members of one legislative committee lit cigarettes during the testimony.  Last year many of those same legislators voted in favor of the smokefree law.  Data from the EPA and from the California EPA detail the diseases, hospitalizations, and deaths caused by environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).  Since then, legislators, health department directors and grassroots advocates have been instrumental in educating key decision-makers and the public.  The smokefree workplace legislation was introduced in 1998, and every year after until it passed in 2004.

 

Public Health Agency Roles

 

During the years leading up to passage of the act, Rhode Island Department of Health (HEALTH) provided annual $300,000 multi-media campaigns--radio, television, billboard and print--to educate policy makers and the public about the health effects of exposure to ETS.  The Director of Health, Dr. Patricia A. Nolan, provided key leadership on this issue.  She advocated with consecutive Governors, testified at hearings, sent information to leaders in the General Assembly, appeared on numerous television and radio programs, and was relentless in her advocacy.  In 2002, the media coordinator conducted weekly conference calls with major partners to keep the momentum going and coordinate action.  In 2004, the Program Manager of the Tobacco Control Program served ex-officio on the Steering Committee of the Campaign for a Health RI (CHRI), our advocacy coalition, until individuals from Ocean State Action and the voluntaries began to conduct secret negotiations with a key member of the legislature to introduce the bill for that year.  The partners insisted that the other advocates not be told about the negotiations, which included making compromises before the bill was ever submitted.  A bill was presented to the legislator with exceptions that included small private clubs that can serve the public, half of hotel rooms, smoking bars, retail tobacco stores, and two gaming facilities.  The bill also preempted local control.  The Program Manager resigned in protest after consulting with key decision-makers at HEALTH.  It was HEALTH’s position that advocates are never insiders, that their activity should always be conducted in the broad light of day, and that preemption is never acceptable.  HEALTH continued its media campaign.

 

Major Partners

 

For years, the key players who testified for this policy were the Lung Association, the Heart Association and the Cancer Society.  After the tobacco settlement, the Cancer Society in New England formed a regional coalition joining tobacco control and health care proponents to advocate for funding from the settlement, and later from a cigarette tax increase.  The CHRI coalition included many, but the primary players were 11 agencies funded by the RI Department of Health to conduct comprehensive tobacco control projects (CTCs) in largely urban areas in the state, and three staff in two other agencies funded by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Smokeless States grant.  Initially, the RWJ-funded projects began operating in the same communities as the CTCs which resulted in interference and overlap with the projects.  The CTCs had already mapped their communities and begun work on city ordinances for smokefree workplaces.   HEALTH staff helped the groups join in a coordinated approach. 

 

Official Support

 

In addition to Dr. Nolan, the legislative Liaison and Communications Director for HEALTH were actively involved in this effort.  CHRI reached out to the House Majority Leader to work on the bill.  This was delicate, since Representative Betsy Dennigan who had introduced the legislation the previous 6 years, was having a conflict with the majority leader, but Representative Dennigan was very clear that the law the important thing, not whose name appeared on.  Senator Susan Sosnowski introduced the bill in the Senate and the Chair of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee helped shepherd it through committee and the full Senate.  

 

Results from the Policy 

 

The following are outcomes from the law:

·        Enforcement Outcomes:  People are complying with the law.  Complaints have dropped from 77 in March of 2005 to 11 in January 2006.

·        Air Quality Outcomes:  Harvard School of Public Health loaned us equipment to measure particulate matter before and after March 1.  Respirable suspended particles (RSPs) are very small particles suspended in the air which pose great health risks because they can easily be inhaled deep into the lungs.   A convenience sample of hospitality venues in 7 RI towns were tested.  On average there was a 96% reduction in the levels of respiratory suspended particles (RSPs) less than 2.5 microns in diameter.  (The EPA has set standards for acceptable limits on these particles.)  Before the law total RSP for all sites was 338.  After March 1, the total had dropped to 14.

 

·        Health Outcomes:  The big news is that preliminary data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey of adult smoking has shown a slight but significant drop from 21.3% in 2004 to 19.8% in 2005.  As we look more closely at the data by month, we will be able to better determine the impact of the law.  We are also looking at hospital discharge data for incidence of heart attacks before and after March 1.   If the same pattern as seen in Helena, Montana and Pueblo, Colorado holds true in Rhode Island, we expect to see a decrease almost immediately.

 

Opposition

 

Until this year, opposition to the law was sufficiently intense to cause it not to be passed.  This past session when it finally did pass, there was still plenty of opposition.

1.  Opposition from the tobacco industry was never able to be identified as direct industry activity, but the addition of language preempting local control is a favorite tobacco industry tactic, and even advocates saying that preemption was a non-starter in talks did not keep it from being added to the bill.  Also, language that has appeared in other states describing “smoking bars” wound up in the legislation and could not be negotiated out. 

 

2.  Opposition from bars and restaurants was also strong although for the first time, the Hospitality Association, formerly a front group for the industry, actually talked about supporting the legislation. 

 

3.  Opposition also came from legislators, including the Chairman of the House Labor Committee who would not let the bill out of committee without delaying implementation for 35 Class C bars (that don’t prepare food) and all private clubs.  This resulted in a lawsuit filed on behalf of Class B bars that were not included in the delay that Superior Court agreed with and those bars and private clubs were forced to prohibit smoking.  This was actually helpful to us because there was so much controversy about the different kinds of bars, no one was focusing on attacking the law itself.

 

4.  Opposition came from the 2 gaming establishments in Rhode Island claiming that revenues coming into the state would be severely decreased.  They won their argument and are both able to smoke in separately ventilated areas, with workers being able to work in a smokefree area if they request it.

 

 

Lessons Learned

 

The following were the most important lessons learned in this initiative:

·        Policy change requires persistence and time.  Over a dozen years of education and seven of intense advocacy after the first submission of legislation. 

·        It also takes money.  Community advocates do come out of the air, and funded projects prepare the ground through years of education and media advocacy activity that changes public attitudes. 

·        Policy change is very different from program implementation.  It requires community mapping and organizing skills, advocacy skills, understanding and working with legislative and political systems.  Some health staff prefer conducting programs, and are even uncomfortable with advocacy.

·        Players must include everyone from state government to grassroots activists.  What one cannot do, another can. 

·        Working with multiple partners is harder than it seems.  Communication and a point person to tend relationships are crucial.

·        When conflict cannot be avoided, relationships must be repaired.

·        Sometimes unintended, potentially ominous consequences can save the day.

 

Submitted By 

 

Betty Harvey, Program Manager, RI Tobacco Control Program

RI Department of Health

1 Capitol Hill – Room 408

Providence, RI  02908

 (401) 222-3293

(401) 222-4415 FAX

Betty.Harvey@health.ri.gov

 

Additional Information/Documentation

 

See document titled « Thirteen Years in the Making »