COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE HEALTH COMMITTEE HEARING

STATE CAPITOL RYAN OFFICE BUILDING

ROOM 205 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2015

IN RE: HOUSE BILL 682 CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT

BEFORE: HONORABLE MATTHEW BAKER, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE FLORINDO FABRIZIO, MINORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE BECKY CORBIN HONORABLE GARY DAY HONORABLE MARCIA HAHN HONORABLE JOHN LAWRENCE HONORABLE HARRY LEWIS HONORABLE KRISTIN LEE PHILLIPS-HILL HONORABLE PAUL SCHEMEL HONORABLE TARAH TOOHIL HONORABLE JESSE TOPPER HONORABLE JUDITH WARD HONORABLE MARY JO DALEY HONORABLE PAM DeLISSIO HONORABLE ROBERT MATZIE

————————— JEAN DAVIS REPORTING

285 EAST MANSION ROAD • HERSHEY, PA 17033

Phone (717)503-6568

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT:

WHITNEY KROSSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REPUBLICAN CAUCUSGINA SAVAGLIO, LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT,REPUBLICAN CAUCUSNICOLE SIDLE, RESEARCH ANALYST, REPUBLICAN CAUCUSJUDY SMITH, RESEARCH ANALYST, REPUBLICAN CAUCUSREBECCA SAMMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSCAMILA POLASKI, RESEARCH ANALYST, DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSDINA WHITE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS

JEAN M. DAVIS, REPORTER NOTARY PUBLIC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

I N D E X

TESTIFIERS

NAME PAGE

HONORABLE THOMAS P. MURT, 6 PRIME SPONSOR HOUSE BILL 152, 152nd DISTRICT DAVID G. GREINEDER, PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNMENT 9 RELATIONS DIRECTOR, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, GREAT RIVERS AFFILIATE

MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D., F.A.C.S., F.A.C.C. 14 CHIEF OF CARDIOVASCULAR & THORACIC SURGERY, PINNACLEHEALTH CARDIOVASCULAR INSTITUTE

DIANE PHILLIPS, PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNMENT 27 RELATIONS DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, CANCER ACTION NETWORK, INC.

DEBORAH BROWN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 34 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION

CLARKE WOODS, RESPIRATORY THERAPIST, 39 PINNACLEHEALTH SYSTEM

STEPHEN KALINOSKI, MANAGER, NORTH PENN VFW, 41 MONTGOMERY COUNTY

BILL GODSHALL, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 57 SMOKE FREE PENNSYLVANIA

GREGORY CONLEY, J.D., M.B.A., PRESIDENT, 62 AMERICAN VAPING ASSOCIATION

THOMAS W. HELSEL, JR., SECRETARY, 86 PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF NATIONALLY CHARTERED ORGANIZATIONS (PANCO)

TOM BONNER, VICE PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL, 92 GREENWOOD GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY:

CYNTHIA HALLETT, MPH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AMERICANS FOR NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS, HARRAH'S PHILADELPHIA, CITY OF CHESTER, DELAWARE COUNTY

AMY BARKLEY, REGIONAL ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS

GAIL A. VARCELOTTI, BS, RRT, FAARC, PENNSYLVANIA SOCIETY FOR RESPIRATORY CARE

* * *

(SEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY AND HANDOUTS ONLINE.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

P R O C E E D I N G S

* * *

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: The hour of 11 o'clock

having arrived, the Health Committee will come to order.

This is a public hearing. We'll forgo the

traditional roll call as this is a hearing and there are so

many other conflicting committees, Education Committee,

Judiciary Committee, and other committees transpiring, so

we'll get started here very, very soon.

But if we could just quickly have the members

introduce themselves and then we'll get started.

Tarah, would you like to start?

REPRESENTATIVE TOOHIL: Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Representative Tarah Toohil from Southern Luzerne

County, greater Hazleton area, 116th Legislative District.

REPRESENTATIVE MATZIE: Representative Rob

Matzie, 16th District, Beaver and Allegheny Counties.

MS. SAMMON: Becca Sammon, Executive Director,

Democratic Health Committee.

MINORITY CHAIRMAN FABRIZIO: Flo Fabrizio, a

little south of Ontario, actually Erie County.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Matt Baker, Tioga,

Bradford, and Potter Counties.

MS. KROSSE: Whitney Krosse, Republican Executive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

Director, House Health Committee.

MS. SMITH: Judy Smith, House Health Committee.

REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Represent Harry Lewis,

Chester County, 74th District.

REPRESENTATIVE WARD: Representative Judy Ward,

Blair County, 80th District.

REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: Marcia Hahn, Northampton

County, 138th District.

REPRESENTATIVE TOPPER: Jesse Topper, 78th

District, Bedford, Fulton, and Franklin Counties.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you very much,

members.

The first presenter that we're going to have is

the prime sponsor of this legislation, Representative Tom

Murt. This is regarding House Bill 682, Clean Indoor Air

Act legislation.

Representative Murt represents the 152nd

District, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties.

Welcome. And you may proceed, Representative

Murt.

REPRESENTATIVE MURT: Thank you, Chairman Baker

and Chairman Fabrizio and members of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, before I read my remarks, I just

wanted to introduce someone from my District who is here

today. Roger Myers is here. He won't be testifying but

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

he'll be available on the panel with another club manager,

Steve Kalinoski, from the North Penn VFW in case there are

questions.

But I want to thank Roger for coming here from

Montgomery County.

Thank you, Roger.

Mr. Chairman, when Pennsylvania implemented its

Clean Indoor Air Act in 2008, our State prudently took a

major step forward in removing secondhand smoke from most

workplaces and public areas in this Commonwealth.

Unfortunately, the law was riddled with holes or,

in this case, exemptions. The law contained over a dozen

exemptions including sections of casino floors, hotel

rooms, private clubs, and drinking establishments with less

than 20 percent food sales.

Presently, Pennsylvania's Clean Indoor Air Act

contains far more exemptions than any other neighboring

state. Not only do our neighboring states have fewer

exemptions than Pennsylvania, they do not exempt casinos

which operate in those states.

It might be fair to state that we adopted our own

exemptions in 2008 in order to compromise and to get the

bill to the finish line and signed into law. We agreed

back then to revisit this law and address the exemptions in

the future.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

It is now time to take up this discussion again

and to increase the protections we afford to Pennsylvanians

from secondhand smoke.

These smoking exemptions, in addition to creating

confusion, have given some businesses an unfair advantage

in the marketplace. By choosing the arbitrary 20 percent

rule for food services, some small businesses receive an

exemption for smoking, while others do not.

Perhaps even worse is that workers in the

establishments allowing smoking are left totally

unprotected from secondhand smoke.

Under House Bill 682, the only remaining

exemptions will be for private residences, cigar bars,

tobacco shops, and a designated outdoor smoking area of a

sports, recreational facility, and theatre or performance

establishment. These exemptions have been deemed

reasonable by most stakeholders.

It was recommended that this bill contain a

definition of a public place and add it to this

legislation. In addition, electronic cigarettes are

defined and included in the term smoking as these devices

provide a vapor of nicotine for the use of inhalation.

The adoption of this legislation will provide

Pennsylvania with a truly comprehensive and effective

smoking ban law. We would join 25 other states with

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

comprehensive and operative smoke-free laws.

In addition to support from the American Lung

Association, the American Heart Association, the American

Cancer Society, Smokefree Pennsylvania, and many private

clubs support this legislation. We'll hear from some

today.

It's time to afford more protection to

Pennsylvanians from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Mr. Chairman, I believe House Bill 682

accomplishes this objective.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you,

Representative Murt.

Any questions or comments from the members of

Representative Murt's comments?

Seeing none, thank you very much, Representative

Murt.

And we have next David Greineder, Pennsylvania

Government Relations Director, American Heart Association,

Great Rivers Affiliate.

And also we have Dr. Mumtaz, Chief,

Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, PinnacleHealth

Cardiovascular Institute.

Welcome. You may proceed.

MR. GREINEDER: Thank you. I appreciate it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Fabrizio, members of the

House Health Committee, my name is David Greineder. I'm

the Pennsylvania Government Relations Director for the

American Heart Association.

And you have my written testimony, so I'll just

summarize and hit the highlights because I know we have a

lot of folks here who want to present their viewpoints.

But I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

holding this hearing and allowing us to share our views on

House Bill 682. And I want to express my thanks and

appreciation to Representative Murt for introducing this

important piece of legislation, which AHA fully supports.

I also want to thank -- with me here today and

who will be testifying a little bit later -- our coalition

partners from the American Cancer Society and the American

Lung Association.

We are all part of a coalition called Breathe

Free PA. And simply we advocate for the right of every

person in Pennsylvania to breathe clean, safe, smoke-free

air, regardless of where they work.

Our strategic goal at AHA is to improve the

cardiovascular health of all Americans by 20 percent while

reducing deaths from cardiovascular diseases and stroke by

20 percent both by the year 2020.

And we believe one such policy that will bring us

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

closer to this goal is strengthening the State Clean Indoor

Air Law. As we all know, the current law was enacted in

2008 with the intent of protecting the public from

secondhand smoke.

But it was not a perfect bill and it contained

many exemptions. We know additional reforms are needed to

protect everyone from secondhand smoke.

Simply put, exposure to smoke, no matter how

small, can be linked to serious health problems. And you

will hear more about those serious risks from Dr. Mumtaz,

who will be presenting his testimony here in a little bit

shortly.

In regards to the law we have here on the books,

there are many exemptions, many more than other states,

other neighboring states, to be specific. And we believe

that a strong smoke-free workplace law is the only sure

protection to secondhand smoke exposure, protection for the

worker and protection for the public. And the U.S. Surgeon

General supports us in that view.

Back in 2006, the Surgeon General said that there

is, quote, no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

And that report further showed that non-smokers who are

exposed to secondhand smoke at home or in the workplace

increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25

percent to 30 percent.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Smoking sections, separate rooms, and ventilation

systems simply do not remove the hazards of secondhand

smoke. In fact, the American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, which is a

national body that sets the standard for HVAC systems, have

said that HVAC systems and air-cleaning technologies do not

address health hazards related to secondhand smoke.

And just this year, that association, ASHRAE,

updated its indoor air-quality policy to say that even

e-cigarette smoke should not be permitted inside buildings

along with tobacco smoke.

In regards to the economic impact of a strong

smoke-free law, which, as I said, many states do have

currently on the books, there have been many studies

conducted over the last 15 years or so in other states that

show strong smoke-free laws do not have an economic impact

on business.

And, in fact, 200 million Americans already live

in areas of the country where there is no smoking allowed

in restaurants and bars. We even hear testimonials from

AHA volunteers in Pennsylvania who are restaurant owners.

And they tell us that they once previously had

concerns and were, in fact, opposed to the law but now are

very supportive of smoke-free laws because of the positive

impact of going smoke free has had on their business.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

On the health impact side, I'll just briefly

mention one study that was released in regards to New York

State. New York passed their Clean Indoor Air Law back in

2003. And the study was conducted just a year later that

showed an 8 percent decline in hospital admissions which

resulted in health care cost savings of $56 million.

So you can see the immediate impact these laws

had, not only on public health but on healthcare costs.

And Dr. Mumtaz can touch on those rates as well

here in Pennsylvania.

Fortunately, this Committee has the ability to

strengthen our Clean Indoor Air Law by passing the Murt

bill. And I want to thank the individual members of this

Committee, as I have had the opportunity to meet with many

of you in the past couple of weeks to share our views and

to listen to your comments and viewpoints.

I just want to thank you again for being honest

and forthright in your comments and your openness to

working with us and others as this legislation moves

forward in the process.

I also certainly want to offer our association

and the coalition as a resource should you or anybody in

the General Assembly have questions, concerns, or need

information on smoke-free laws. We're certainly happy to

help you along in the process.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the

opportunity to testify. I'll be happy to answer any

questions you may have.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you very much,

Mr. Greineder.

Doctor.

DR. MUMTAZ: Chairman Baker, Chairman Fabrizio,

members of the House Health Committee, my name is Mubashir

Mumtaz. I'm a heart surgeon with PinnacleHealth

Cardiovascular Institute and a volunteer for the American

Heart Association.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on House

Bill 682, which will strengthen the State's Clean Indoor

Air Law.

My brief testimony will focus on my experience as

a heart surgeon and the research that has been done showing

that secondhand smoke can be very dangerous to one's

health.

It is a fact that tobacco smoke contains

thousands of chemicals which could lead to various health

problems including cancer. Exposure to these chemicals has

an immediate and long-term adverse impact on the

cardiovascular system, increasing the risk of heart attack

and stroke.

According to the Center for Disease Control,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

secondhand smoke can cause heart disease, stroke, and lung

cancer. Exposure to secondhand smoke, for example, damages

the lining of the blood vessels and causes blood platelets

to become stickier. These changes can result in heart

attack, stroke, and blockages in other areas of the body as

well.

As a cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon, I

personally see the damage that smoking and secondhand smoke

has on the human body in the operating room where I see

direct evidence of heart and lung damage.

This subsequently causes significant problems

during postoperative recovery of these patients and affects

the overall mortality rates of these patients who undergo a

heart operation.

This is one risk factor of heart disease which is

100 percent preventable and that we can and must control.

Every citizen of Pennsylvania should have the

opportunity to work or enjoy leisure activities in a

clean-air environment without having to be forced to

withstand the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. No one

should have to choose between their health and their

paycheck.

By supporting this law, we stand up for all

Pennsylvania workers and innocent citizens who do not

choose to smoke but are forced to withstand the effects of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

being in a smoking environment.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity

to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions you

may have.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, Doctor. And

thank you for your short testimony. It's always

refreshing.

Just a quick question by myself with respect to

the legislation as it addresses e-cigarettes. Is it your

opinion, your professional, expert opinion, that the health

risks and medical conditions for which you had previously

enumerated apply to that as well, e-cigarettes, inhaling

secondhand smoke, direct and indirect?

DR. MUMTAZ: Great question, Mr. Chairman.

And I was a little worried coming for this

testimony thinking that this would only focus on tobacco

and the effects of tobacco smoke. But as time is passing

by, we're learning every day that the secondhand smoke or

even smoking a vapor cigarette itself has tremendous health

effects of its own.

And every few months there's new research, new

studies, coming out that are showing that not only smoking

the vapor and the chemicals that are contained in it -- for

example, one of the chemicals is formaldehyde -- and that

chemical is higher in the air around the person who is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

smoking the vapor cigarette. And it's not just the effect

of nicotine on these people.

So there are things associated with vapor

cigarettes which we are learning more. And there are

definite studies out there that show that the secondhand

smoke from the cigarettes is also harmful.

So some day we can sit down and have a chat about

it and look at that evidence. But there's certainly -- if

part of this legislation can include the vapor cigarettes,

I think that would be a more comprehensive legislation.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: So within House Bill

682, is that eliminated in terms of the e-cigarettes,

vaping, etc.?

DR. MUMTAZ: Yes.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Thank you.

DR. MUMTAZ: Sure.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Members?

REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you both for your testimony. Just to

piggyback, Doctor, on Chairman Baker's question relative to

the vapor, etc.

I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But it seems to

me that anytime you're inhaling anything outside of clean

air, there is a risk to you individually from a health

perspective. So, you know, there's something that affects

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

folks with vaping. And to offer that as a secondhand smoke

to someone obviously that's not inhaling that on their own

would pose some type of risk in my humble opinion.

DR. MUMTAZ: That's absolutely true.

Even though my testimony focused on the effects

of smoking with cancer and heart disease, if you look at

less severe adverse events from smoking and secondhand

smoke, for example, pneumonia, you know, upper airway

infections, there are very tiny hair cells inside your

breathing pipe that are affected by any sort of smoke or

any sort of vapor that's temperature is higher than the

normal ambient temperature.

And those hair-like cells are affected by any

chemical or any smoke. These are very sensitive

microscopic things.

And what that does is takes away your ability to

clean your secretions. So that's why when you talk to

smokers -- and I have several friends and family members

who are smokers -- they have a smokers' cough.

The reason for that is because they don't have

that automatic mechanism of cleaning the secretions inside

your breathing pipe. So they have to actually cough to

clean your own secretions.

What I see commonly in my surgical patients that

because of the pain after the operation, the patients

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

cannot cough to clear the secretions. And they sort of

drown within their own secretions. So they require more

time on the ventilator, more time in the ICU.

So commonly we don't talk about these effects and

we focus on cancer and heart disease because those are more

objective, sort of hard end points that we can follow. Any

kind of lung problem, upper respiratory problem, the effect

of that is there and is there in studies with smoking and

vaping. It's the same thing that affects it.

REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you, Doctor. One more

question to David.

DR. MUMTAZ: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE: David, when you talk about,

relative to your testimony, talking to restaurants and

other folks who have had concerns when the bill passed and

became law now have a little change of heart, do you have

any -- you know, I've done some unscientific polling

myself. There's a diner in my district who was very

hesitant when the bill came about. He thought it was going

to severely affect his business. And, quite frankly, a

year later after he had to paint his walls and put new

ceiling tiles in and cleaned it up after the fact that

smoking was occurring for 50 years in that diner, his

business actually increased. So that's my unscientific

poll from just one restaurant.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Is it a high number of folks that you've talked

to?

MR. GREINEDER: I can't point to an exact number.

But certainly the testimony that you hear is exactly what

we hear in the field when we go out and talk to specific

AHA volunteers who happen to be restaurant owners, who were

once opposed or had concerns about the impact that the law

would have on their business and now are very supportive

because of the exact same thing that happened and their

business had actually increased.

But, yeah. We don't have any kind of scientific

study or poll. It's a great suggestion. And if there's a

way we can do that, I'm certainly going to take that back

to our folks to see if there's a way that we can quantify

or at least survey our folks to see if we can get a more

hard number on that.

REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you both.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: I would like to

acknowledge the presence of Representative Lawrence, who

has joined the Health Committee; Representative Corbin; and

Representative DeLissio. Good morning.

Representative Topper.

REPRESENTATIVE TOPPER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

David, just to go along with that. If that's the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

case, if we're seeing that businesses that were opposed now

saying this has actually helped our business, what's

preventing the businesses that are currently given

exemptions from saying, look, it's obviously helping other

people's business. Why don't we go smoke free as well?

In other words, why do we have to -- if the free

market system is eventually going to lead these businesses

to say, oh, it's actually beneficial for us to have these

bans in place, then why do we need to act in a legislative

manner?

MR. GREINEDER: Sure. That's a great question

and I appreciate it.

And you'll hear today from other folks who have

that same viewpoint that they're currently exempt from the

law but they made decisions to go smoke free. But there

are 24 other states in the nation that you have pretty

clean comprehensive state laws.

And from our viewpoint, we certainly want to see

Pennsylvania be on the books as far as a strong

comprehensive law that would require businesses to protect

-- I mean, we're looking out for the worker who works in

those workplaces.

So certainly there are examples of folks who have

increased business because they've chosen on their own to

go smoke free. But we also want to look to the health and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

welfare of the folks that are working there.

And we certainly think having a strong

comprehensive law on the books will be helpful to

Pennsylvania in general and certainly help set an example

for the rest of the nation to kind of move in that

direction.

REPRESENTATIVE TOPPER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DR. MUMTAZ: Mr. Chairman, with your permission

can I chime in on that?

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Certainly, Doctor.

DR. MUMTAZ: One reason that people would not

want to do this is ignorance and lack of knowledge about

what the impact is and what's the cost of your business

versus the cost to society of secondhand smoke and smoking

itself.

So I think one needs to weigh everything and look

at the pros and cons and look at the overall cost to

society rather than to a particular business as well.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.

I would also like to note the presence of

Representative Daley this morning. Welcome.

Representative Corbin.

REPRESENTATIVE CORBIN: Thank you for your

testimony, Doctor.

The one question I have is just a clarification

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

of something you said in response to Chairman Baker's

question. Did you say formaldehyde?

DR. MUMTAZ: That's correct.

I actually -- because vapor and vaping is so new,

there is a lot of lack of information and knowledge. I was

looking up the chemicals because there's thousands of

chemicals you can name for tobacco smoke.

And for vaping, you know, people think that --

you know, people think that it's a little bit safer because

those chemicals are not there.

But if you look at the signs in the people who

are studying this, there are multiple chemicals -- again, I

can't name all of them -- including formaldehyde, which was

named, that is present in the environment around you if

you're a smoker.

REPRESENTATIVE CORBIN: Thank you.

DR. MUMTAZ: And I can certainly get you that

reference as well.

REPRESENTATIVE CORBIN: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Representative Toohil.

REPRESENTATIVE TOOHIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Representative Corbin actually touched on

something because I haven't heard that before about the

formaldehyde, I think, because it is new. I know everyone

that's marketing e-cigarettes and vaping in the community

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

is saying, oh, it's good for you. You're going to stop

smoking.

So that's really disconcerting that they are

ingesting formaldehyde and don't even know it.

DR. MUMTAZ: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TOOHIL: And I guess one of my

questions is, is it FDA approved, the e-cigarettes, the

vaping?

DR. MUMTAZ: I'm not sure about that.

REPRESENTATIVE TOOHIL: Okay. Because I thought

it was FDA approved. But that doesn't always mean it's

healthy for you.

My question is for the doctor. We hear a lot in

our district about, like, we'll have a woman with lung

cancer that's never smoked a day in her life or people that

have cancer that never smoked.

Do you find many times that those people actually

worked in restaurants where they were exposed to smoke? Is

there statistics on that?

DR. MUMTAZ: That's an excellent question.

So smoking is not the only cause for cancer or

heart disease. There are multiple risk factors. There are

some risk factors, for example, genetics plays a role. But

there are risk factors that you can modify and you can

change, smoking being one of the risk factors that could be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

100 percent modified. That means, if you don't smoke, you

would reduce that risk.

We do commonly see patients who have not had a

single puff of cigarettes during their entire life. We

don't know 100 percent that they get cancer due to just

their genetic tendency to get that cancer or whether it was

in their family.

Actually, if you talk to them, you will find more

information that as a kid or as a young person or doing

their work, they were exposed to some of the chemicals

during work or otherwise as a kid. Especially as a kid,

when you're growing up, your body is more affected by

secondhand smoke and the chemicals around it.

So certainly if you get the history on these

patients a little bit more in detail and their study on

secondhand smoke and cancer, that the risk of cancer is

higher in people who live in households where there's

smokers present.

There's definite studies in kids that if your

kids are brought up in a household where there's a smoker,

there's an increased chance of upper respiratory

infections, ear infection s. I think some of the studies

point towards the growth effects of that in these young

kids as well.

So there's definitely scientific data that if you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

guys are interested we can definitely make a portfolio and

forward it to you guys. There's no doubt that the smoking

is one single preventable risk factor that affects the

entire bodily system.

So we focus on cancer of the lung, the heart,

most of the time. But any part of the body is affected by

it.

REPRESENTATIVE TOOHIL: Okay. Thank you, Doctor.

And that's an issue for another day, I guess, the

smoking in cars with children. That bill comes up every

year and it never moves. And I think if we had real

statistical data like these children can't control what

goes on with them, but we would be able to limit their

exposure. I don't know.

That's really upsetting to hear.

DR. MUMTAZ: That's a great point. Let's use

this event as a segue to get those approved as well.

REPRESENTATIVE TOOHIL: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Doctor, there seems to

be a lot of interest on the e-cigarette vaping issue. So

whatever expert testimony, research, any longitudinal data

that you can give us, we would very much appreciate seeing

that.

DR. MUMTAZ: I would love to do that.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: We would very much

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

appreciate seeing that especially now knowing that some of

these ingredients can be very, very harmful through

e-cigarette vaping.

DR. MUMTAZ: Yes.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

None. Okay. Thank you very much.

DR. MUMTAZ: Thank you.

MR. GREINEDER: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Next it looks like we

have a panel of four that will be joining us.

Diane Phillips, Pennsylvania Government Relations

Director, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network;

Deborah Brown, President and CEO, American Lung

Association; Clarke Woods, respiratory therapist, Pinnacle

Health System; and Stephen Kalinoski, manager of North Penn

VFW, Montgomery County.

Welcome. I hope we have enough chairs here.

Yes. We have five.

Diane, I believe you have the lead.

MS. PHILLIPS: All right. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Baker and

Chairman Fabrizio and members and staff of the House Health

Committee.

My name is Diane Phillips and I am the Government

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

Relations Director in Pennsylvania for the American Cancer

Society Cancer Action Network also known as ACS CAN. We

are the advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society.

We were very excited to talk this morning about

our support for House Bill 682.

As we've been hearing, secondhand smoke is indeed

a dangerous health risk. The Surgeon General has confirmed

that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke.

And, in fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency has declared secondhand smoke to be a Class A

carcinogen, meaning that it's a substance known to cause

cancer in humans. There are over 7,000 substances in

secondhand smoke. And 69 of those are considered

carcinogenic.

Cancers linked to secondhand smoke include cancer

of the lung, respiratory system, bladder, breast, nasal

cavity, liver, and brain, as well as leukemia. You know,

often folks think of cigarettes as simple objects, tobacco

enclosed in paper. And yet it's well documented that the

industry adds chemicals to these products for a variety of

reasons, one of which is including actually to increase the

effects of nicotine.

Three of the carcinogens in secondhand smoke,

arsenic, benzene, and vinyl chloride, are regulated in the

U.S. as hazardous substances, hazardous pollutants. And as

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

we've also heard, secondhand smoke is a risk factor for

heart disease, stroke, cancer, and lung disease.

When someone smokes in an indoor area, it affects

everyone around that person. And secondhand smoke should

not be permitted or protected in any enclosed setting and

especially not in workplaces in our Commonwealth.

It's really important for us today to consider

the protection of all Pennsylvania workers. Right now

there are two classes of workers in Pennsylvania, those who

are protected by our Clean Indoor Air Act and those who

still are forced to work in smoking environments.

The workplace is a major source for secondhand

smoke for adults. Working eight hours or more in a smoking

environment is a significant health threat. Today in

Pennsylvania, there are over 3,000 exempted businesses in

Pennsylvania.

This means that thousands of persons are without

protection while they're working from secondhand smoke.

And some of the exemptions include casinos, some bars,

private clubs, and hotels. It's the folks in the

hospitality industry that are most at risk .

Without smoke-free coverage, bars and lounges

have among the highest concentration of secondhand smoke in

all public places. And of course, I've got more detailed

examples in our testimony. I'm just really giving a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

summary here.

I wanted to point out a pretty sobering

statistic. Before New York City implemented their

smoke-free ordinance, an air-quality study was conducted by

the New York State Department of Health. And it found that

air-pollution levels in bars permitting smoking were as

much as 50 times greater than pollution levels at the

Holland Tunnel entrance during rush hour. I think that's

pretty amazing.

And of course, casino workers are also exposed to

high levels of secondhand smoke. A study of non-smokers'

exposure to secondhand smoke in Pennsylvania casinos found

that smoke particles were four to six times greater inside

casinos than outside even with ventilation and just a few

people smoking at the time.

There is a cost to allowing smoking in the

workplace. In 2014, the Surgeon General estimated that the

economic value of lost wages, fringe benefits, and services

associated with premature mortality due to secondhand smoke

exposure cost 5.7 billion per year nationwide.

And that estimate actually is still an

understatement of the total impact of secondhand smoke.

Business owners that allow smoking in the

workplace increase their cost of doing business. Employers

pay increased health, life, and fire insurance premiums,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

make higher worker compensation payments and incur higher

worker absenteeism and settle for lower worker

productivity.

Other costs associated with smoking in the

workplace are also increased housekeeping and maintenance

costs for businesses.

I'd also like to talk a little bit about

e-cigarettes. ACS CAN also supports including all

electronic smoking devices and smoke-free laws as outlined

in House Bill 682. There are serious questions about the

safety of inhaling e-cigarette aerosol. Studies are

continually coming out. We know that there still needs to

be more thorough independent testing of e-cigarettes.

The question was asked about the FDA. The FDA

does not yet -- it's not yet regulating e-cigarettes. They

are looking at doing so. And we're really waiting for them

to come out with a statement on that.

But the FDA has said that because e-cigarettes

have not been fully studied, consumers don't know the

potential risks of using them or how much nicotine or

potentially harmful chemicals are inhaled.

Some studies have shown that e-cigarettes can

cause short-term lung changes and irritations, but the

long-term health effects remain unknown. Some studies have

also found the aerosol to contain heavy metals, volatile

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

organic compounds, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines, among

other ingredients. The FDA tests also found nicotine in

some e-cigarettes that claimed to have no nicotine.

In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention reported that including e-cigarettes and

smoke-free laws can preserve clean indoor air because

e-cigarette aerosol can contain harmful and potentially

harmful contents, including nicotine and other toxins.

The report went on to say that e-cigarette

aerosols are not as safe as clean indoor air. And I think

we were just talking about that with the last panel.

Nicotine is a psychoactive chemical with known harms and

irritant effects.

Eliminating e-cigarette use in public places will

prevent the tobacco industry from using devices to create a

new smoking norm. And I think that's really important.

You know, we've done a lot through education, prevention,

smoking cessation programs, to reduce the amount of

smoking, especially modeling for kids. It's not as

prevalent every day, you know, in our society.

So what we want to do is prevent possibly luring

the next generation of young people to a deadly addiction.

I just read a report that the amount of e-cigarette use

among high school students I think has tripled within the

last year. So it's a cause for alarm. And again, most

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which means that that's an

addictive substance.

Prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes in public

places where smoking is prohibited will also eliminate

confusion concerning enforcement of smoke-free policies.

And communities across the country are amending their clean

indoor air policies to prohibit use of e-cigarettes

wherever smoking is prohibited.

So we believe that House Bill 682 would be moving

along the right pathway on this.

In summary, all people should have the right to

breathe smoke-free air. No one should have to choose

between a job and their health. I always like to say --

and we know -- I mean we went through a lot of discussion

in passing the Clean Indoor Air Law in 2008. And we know

there are a lot of concerns, but the sky did not fall.

And, you know, businesses are still here in

Pennsylvania. And research shows that laws are good for

businesses, workers, and customers.

Research in leading scientific journals and the

Surgeon General's Report have also shown consistently that

smoke-free policies have no adverse effects on the

hospitality industry. So we respectfully ask you to

protect the health of all workers in Pennsylvania by

passing House Bill 682.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, Diane.

Next we have Deborah Brown.

MS. BROWN: Good morning, Chairman Baker and

Chairman Fabrizio and Committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the

Committee today. My name is Deborah Brown and I'm the CEO

for the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic and a

Pennsylvania resident.

I stand before you today to be the voice for the

millions of men, women, and children in the Commonwealth

that deserve to have a comprehensive Clean Indoor Air Law

with no exemptions. The American Lung Association in

Pennsylvania supports House Bill 682 because it creates a

glimmer of hope for every Pennsylvanian, especially workers

in the casino industry, to have a smoke-free work

environment.

In 2008, the America Lung Association supported

the intent of the Clean Indoor Air Act but was disappointed

that every Pennsylvanian was not afforded the opportunity

to work in a smoke-free environment, including the more

than seventeen to twenty-five thousand workers.

Pennsylvania's law still leaves many workers in

the hospitality industry exposed. Currently, there are

2,500 application-based exemptions that allow workers and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

patrons to be exposed to secondhand smoke and secondhand

emissions. And when I say application based, that means

that they have to ask the Department of Health for a

waiver. They have to submit an application.

I want to speak to the perception that there is a

direct correlation between a loss in revenue and a

smoke-free casino floor. That is merely an unfounded

perception and is not a reality.

In a recent article, a consortium of casino

owners stated that the gaming markets in New York,

Maryland, and Ohio have been growing and thriving,

therefore creating competition for Pennsylvania casinos.

Ironically, the consortium owners were correct.

The casinos are thriving in those states and more

importantly in states where the casinos are 100 percent

smoke free.

In our neighboring states of New York, Maryland,

Ohio, and Delaware and countrywide, there are at least 500

state-regulated gaming facilities that are required to be

100 percent smoke free. While smoke free, these facilities

have boasted boosts in revenue and patrons.

Smoke-free gaming is a win-win. According to the

Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, the State's casinos

employ anywhere between -- I've seen a couple different

numbers -- 17,000 to 25,000 individuals that should not

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

have to choose between their health and a paycheck.

Companies that operate casinos in Pennsylvania

also operate in smoke-free states and municipalities.

Philadelphia Harrah's is operated by Caesars,

which now has 18 smoke-free casino properties worldwide,

including a number that they opened as smoke free such as

the Horseshoe Baltimore, Horseshoe Cleveland, and Horseshoe

Cincinnati.

Live casinos is co-owned by Cordish Companies

which also owns the highly successful smoke-free Live near

Baltimore. Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course

is owned by Penn National Gaming, which has smoke-free

gaming properties in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Ohio, and Maine. In Ohio, they even have a tobacco-free

workplace policy for their employees.

Presque Isle Downs and Casinos, the developer,

MTR Gaming Group, also owns and operates Scotio Downs in

Columbus, Ohio, and Mountaineer Casino in West Virginia,

which is set to go smoke free July 1st, 2015.

And finally the Rivers Casino and Sugar House is

owned and operated by Rush Street Gaming, which also owns

Rivers Casino, one of Illinois's premier casinos, which

opened smoke free in 2010, as well as a property set to

open in New York in 2016.

It is important to note that as of May 2015, 79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

percent of Pennsylvania's population are non-smokers,

including four out of five casino workers.

Diane mentioned that smoke-free casinos have up

to 50 times more cancer-causing agents in the air than

highways and city streets, clogged with diesel trucks in

rush-hour traffic.

Here in Pennsylvania we did a study of the

indoor-air quality in several workplaces. And it was back

when Scranton went smoke free for about a 30-day time

period. But we did a before and after.

And what we found was the study showed that in

Philadelphia and Scranton hospitality venues before and

after the clean indoor air ordinances were implemented,

there was an 87 percent drop in respirable particles or

small particles that are breathed in regularly.

Casino owners often tried to deem a certain level

of secondhand smoke is safe through implementation of air

handling systems and smoking mitigation measures. However,

the U.S. Surgeon General has stated that there is no safe

level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Ventilation does

not solve the problem.

You heard gaming industry workers typically

suffer higher occupational exposure to secondhand smoke,

putting them at greater risk for lung and heart disease as

well as DNA damage.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

The science is clear. Making casinos 100 percent

smoke free is the only way to completely protect both

customers and workers from the dangers of secondhand smoke

and secondhand emissions.

Even legislators who have states with casinos in

them have approved a landmark resolution. In January of

2009, the National Council of Legislators from Gaming

States, or NCLGS, adopted a regulation to ensure that

casinos are smoke-free workplaces.

This resolution was led by legislators in

Delaware, the same state the opposition holds up as an

example of the state losing money. Would legislators who

witnessed a decline in revenue really lead the effort to

encourage other states to make their casinos smoke free? I

think not.

One other area of the bill that I did want to

address is that the America Lung Association also supports

the inclusion of electronic cigarettes in this particular

bill. We believe that because this unregulated product

does allow secondhand emissions into the environment, we

want to make sure that we are protecting all of those that

we can.

As I leave today, I respectfully urge you to

support House Bill 682. Please help protect

Pennsylvanian's health in three ways:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

First, remove the 2,500 application-based

exemptions and close the loopholes to the Clean Indoor Air

Act.

Second, create a level playing field for all

businesses across the Commonwealth by prohibiting smoking

in all indoor workplaces and public places, with no

exemptions.

And third, at present, the only means of

effectively eliminating health risks associated with indoor

exposure is to remover all smoking activity.

Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, Ms. Brown,

representing the America Lung Association.

I would like to recognize Representative Schemel,

who is here with us as well as a member of the Health

Committee.

Next we have Mr. Woods.

MR. WOODS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and

Committee members.

My name is Clark Woods. I am a registered

respiratory therapist for over 25 years and the chair elect

for the American Lung Association of South Central PA Local

Leadership Board.

The Clean Indoor Air Act passed in 2008 offered

much hope and promise for the air that we breathe. But

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Pennsylvania's law left way too many residents and visitors

vulnerable to secondhand smoke exposure. There are too

many loopholes, including some restaurants, bars, casinos,

and private clubs.

As a healthcare provider, I am here to tell you

that this is unacceptable. As a body of scientific

evidence becomes larger and more precise, it is now

possible to prove that smoke-free policies not only work to

protect non-smokers from the death and disease caused by

exposure to secondhand smoke but also have an immediate

effect on the general public's health.

Recent studies have confirmed that restaurants

and bars located in smoke-free cities have 82 percent less

indoor air pollution than restaurants and bars in cities

that do not have a comprehensive smoke-free protection.

Because of the mountain of evidence from these

peer-reviewed scientific studies, the Center for Disease

Control recently issued a warning for anyone at risk for

heart disease to avoid smoke-filled indoor environments

completely.

I am fortunate that I get to work in a smoke-free

environment every day. But every day I also see the

devastating effects that tobacco use and secondhand smoke

can have on a mother, father, brother, sister, and other

loved ones. I do not wish such disease on my worst enemy.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

I no longer find it acceptable that we cannot

reduce nor eliminate one of the causes of this deadly

disease of cancer.

I ask you to consider this as you discuss the

release of House Bill 682, Pennsylvania's Clean Indoor Air

Act. And I urge you to support House Bill 682 as it is

written.

Pennsylvania residents need and deserve a

comprehensive Clean Indoor Air Act that protects them from

the secondhand smoke.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this

morning.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Kalinoski.

MR. KALINOSKI: Thank you.

You have my written testimony in front of you. I

won't read the whole thing.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sure.

MR. KALINOSKI: I guess this is on, correct?

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yes.

MR. KALINOSKI: So good morning, Chairman and

Committee.

My name is Stephen Kalinoski. I've been the

manager of the North Penn VFW in Glenside, Montgomery

County, Pennsylvania, for the past nine years.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

When I began work with the club, we were on the

verge of bankruptcy. We developed a business plan and

turned the club around. Today we book parties and events

that are all a smoke-free venue.

In January of 2015, our club went smoke free.

People told us we would not survive, but we did. Patrons

told us they would not come back, but they still are.

There is no pushback from veterans. There was nothing but

support. Today members expect a non-smoking environment.

It is what they know and grew up with.

We have not told anyone they can't smoke.

Instead, we have implemented ways to accommodate those who

do smoke. There are areas designated outside for smokers.

We added more park benches, more smoking waste receptacles,

and identified areas as smoking.

With so many options and so little time, if the

new generation does get involved in the VFWs, they will

want to participate in programs that benefit the entire

family. I know many VFW members and spouses who will not

attend post-meetings or events because of secondhand smoke.

I have read many articles about the VFWs being

the last building in town where indoor smoking is still

permitted. And some members quoted in the newspapers that

they are celebrating the fact that we just won the great

battle against government and social interference.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

I ask you to take that thought back home with you

and remember that we are a service organization first and

foremost. And our future rests with attracting new members

who want to believe that the VFW is more than just a bar

and who want to believe that the VFW is an organization

that regards change as the recognition of the future and

not criticism of the past.

These comments support what so many others have

told me over the past several years. Everyone is so afraid

of change and what it will do. I am here to tell you that

change is essential for survival. This change includes

making all private clubs smoke free.

I'm urging you, on behalf of many other

individuals throughout the Commonwealth, to please protect

the lungs of all of those who have served our country and

support House Bill 682.

Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, sir.

Would you like to say a few words?

MR. WOODS: No. He's just here.

CHAIRMAN BAKER: You're passing? Okay.

GENTLEMAN: I'm with the Willow Grove VFW. I've

been with them since 1978, which is 36 years.

We went no smoking about eight years ago. And we

had a lot of people say that we wouldn't be able to survive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

going non-smoking. Well, sure enough, we did survive. We

did that pretty well.

I will say though that three years ago I had a

stroke. I don't know whether it's attributed to the

smoking or not, but I think it is. And that's where we

are.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.

GENTLEMAN: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: And thank you for your

service.

GENTLEMAN: You're welcome.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: I'm sure we're going to

have a lot of questions or comments since we had a lot of

testimony and a good panel here.

So the first person, Representative DeLissio.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm going to share that VFW model with the folks

in my district because I hear two things, that they are

losing business and afraid of survival, when I've attended

meetings in a couple of those posts.

I am very sensitive just to the smell and the

odor. And it's just permeated. It's everywhere, even

though no one was immediately smoking in the room I was in.

And my comment, Mr. Chairman, says that today I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

think that smokers really anticipate, you know, where they

can't smoke. That has changed greatly over the last decade

very much so.

So I'm hoping that this proposed legislation is a

piece of legislation whose time has finally come. I too

have frequented probably two casinos over the last six

years. Again, the smoking section and the non-smoking

section, quite frankly, are a joke. It's a joke.

And, in fact, the first time I went was right

before I came in, was sworn in as a legislator, and

actually came back to look up how this was permitted and

how this could be so commingled and found out that it was a

carveout, you know, when the gambling bill went through.

This was acceptable. And it just is not.

So I have no -- you know, I don't go to the

casinos just for that reason alone. I'm not interested in

being in that environment.

So I appreciate your model. I'd like to share

it. I look forward to getting your contact information so

I can share it with the posts in my district and have them

see a very successful business practice model.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you,

Representative.

Representative Daley.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to share my own story that my husband

passed away from cancer of the larynx 11 years ago. And he

had been smoking since he was, I think, in grammar school.

So it had been a long time smoking. He was 51 years old

when he passed away.

And he went through three years of suffering

through this disease and continued to want to do things

that he thought were the things he liked to do, which was

hanging out at the neighborhood bar on Sunday afternoons

watching football games.

And despite the fact that at that time they were

still filled with smoke, it was something that he really

wanted to do. He even actually tried -- after he had his

laryngectomy, he tried smoking through the hole in his

neck. I think that was the last time he actually tried it.

You know, so moving from having lived with a

smoker to not, the smell of cigarette smoke is just really

difficult for me. So I applaud your efforts.

But I do have a question related to -- you know,

I went into a casino one time or maybe it was one of those

places where you go to place a bet. The Kentucky Derby was

coming up and I wanted to make a bet on Smarty Jones, I

think.

I walked into this place and it was filled with

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

smoke. And apparently I walked into the wrong door because

there was another section that was smoke free. And I went

over to that area to place the bet.

But, you know, you hear that -- and you did touch

on this -- there are really state-of-the-art ventilation

systems in the workplace that clean the air.

So can you just talk a little bit about, is it

really possible to clean cigarette smoke completely out of

the air to make it a really smoke-free environment?

MS. BROWN: Thank you for your comment.

Ventilation systems do not work. And it's just

like the air we breathe outdoors. I mean, there's

pollution in that. But many people feel that these

ventilation systems will help remove some of the toxins and

toxic chemicals and they do not.

And I think you heard testimony earlier that

there's the ventilation group that does not permit or does

not encourage the use of ventilation systems.

And as we said, the Surgeon General has really

come out and said there is no safe level of exposure to

secondhand smoke.

And so I also want to address the walking into a

smoking section. Pennsylvania's original law said 25

percent of the floor would allow smoking, unless there

could be a hardship proven within a certain time frame.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

And every one of the casinos in Pennsylvania have asked for

that waiver and are now at 50 percent of their floor.

The bill is written such that you do not have to

have any type of floor plan. It does not tell the casinos

how they have to put those 50 percent of smoking versus

non-smoking machines. So it could be every other machine.

Sometimes you walk into the smoking section

before you get to the non-smoking section. Sometimes they

are right next to each other. So it really depends on the

casino that you're in.

But again, I want to reiterate there is no safe

level of secondhand smoke, ventilation system or not.

MS. PHILLIPS: If I could add to that. And first

of all, I love Smarty Jones, too. But ASHRAE, which is the

National Association of Heating and Cooling Engineers,

actually issued a report about ventilation. And these are

the folks who understand air quality and the dynamics of

airflow.

They basically said that you cannot rely on

ventilation. There's no ventilation system that will

completely clean the air and remove the harmful elements of

secondhand smoke. And so ventilation systems don't do the

job.

And also the other thing is that, you know, we

think of cigarette smoke as kind of like what we can smell

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

and almost taste. But some of the harmful elements of

secondhand smoke are actually odorless. So again, just

another important thing.

But as Deb said, ventilation doesn't work to

solve that problem.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: I would like to note

the presence of Representative Day who has joined the

Health Committee. Welcome.

Representative Ward.

REPRESENTATIVE WARD: Hi. My question is for the

VFW members. What happened to your smoking members? Did

they come in and agree not to smoke? Did they go

elsewhere? How did you handle that?

MR. KALINOSKI: We decided -- I guess we put the

vote up to the Board in November that it would go

non-smoking as of January 1st. We notified everybody with

signage.

We had a little bit of complaining. They told us

they were going to go other places. But as many of you, if

you've ever been to a VFW, they're probably the cheapest

drink around. The most social part of the club is the

social atmosphere. And they're back. They're all back.

There's no one that's not back.

I would say more have come because they brought

guests with them that are more comfortable in a non-smoking

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

atmosphere. And that is the biggest thing we've noticed.

Like on Friday nights, we'll have a band or

something. And people now will bring their guests with

them that they wouldn't bring before because of the smoking

atmosphere. You would literally leave there on a Friday

night and you'd still smell Saturday morning when you woke

up, your hair, everything.

So that is not there anymore. It's much clearer.

The TVs are much clearer. The whole room is much clearer.

I think the band even sings a little better without choking

on a cigarette. Yeah. That's worked out for us.

REPRESENTATIVE WARD: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Regarding the VFW, it

sounds like you're transforming yourself. And you said you

testified you were on the verge of bankruptcy and you've

turned things around.

Is this one of the, if not the, biggest issue

that's helped turn you around?

MR. KALINOSKI: This was the biggest step we

took, I think. But a lot of other things continuing in the

rooms. I mean, people used to smoke while they played

bingo. We made that non-smoking. We made all the two

banquet rooms completely non-smoking to accommodate.

I mean, we had a manager before I was there. He

would have a cigarette while you were booking your party.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

That would turn you away.

When you walk in the room, you don't have that

sense of smell anymore of what you would consider a VFW to

smell like. Now you smell cleaning products. And you

smell fresh air. Yes, I would say. You have to grow and

change.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: I was around when we

did this the last time. I think it was 2008, correct? And

this bill or its predecessor rather ended up in a

Conference Committee. It was a very controversial, very

dynamic flow of give and take. And it was a long process

until we found a final agreement through the Conference

Committee process.

I'm inclined to try to move this bill if we can

find some agreement. I'm not sure we're going to find

total agreement with this bill.

But one of the concerns back in 2008 and before

that, because it took quite a while to get it to become

law, was the concerns of the American Legions, the VFWs,

the private groups. So I hear what you're saying. And I

like what you're saying personally.

But is that still an ongoing issue with the VFWs?

And I know you can't speak for all of them. But there has

been some time that has transpired.

MR. KALINOSKI: Sure.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Do you see a beginning,

a change of attitude about smoking in the VFWs and American

Legions or are you just comfortable talking about your VFW?

MR. KALINOSKI: I can talk about seven years ago

it was probably the norm to walk into a bar that was

smoking or walk into an area or bar or restaurant. The

norm was to have a smoking area.

And now after seven years, I think everyone

expects to go into a non-smoking or fresh air. You know,

seven years is a generation, let's say. And these kids

even today that are now 22, 23, they now go outside to have

a cigarette, if you choose to smoke at that age. And I

think that's the norm now. I don't think maybe seven years

ago it was.

But I think to move forward and, you know --

reluctantly I can tell you I was at the VFW for nine years.

We weren't ready to go non-smoking nine years ago. But

today we are. And today we have. And it has improved

business for me.

And I can speak for myself. It has improved

business for me and for the community because my VFW is so

community based. It brings more to that. So I would say,

yes.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. I'm sure we'll

be hearing the official position from the VFW and the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

American Legion if and when we start moving the

legislation.

I really appreciate your testimony.

MR. KALINOSKI: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Representative Schemel.

REPRESENTATIVE SCHEMEL: Thank you.

You know, I hate smoking. I think it's a foul

habit. But I also hate government that wants to control

everything.

So I have to ask if you're giving us lots of

evidence that indicates the economics of this is going to

bring about an end to smoking in these facilities, why not

let the private market or the economics simply bring an end

to this practice?

MS. BROWN: Well, knowing that secondhand smoke

is a hazardous substance, one of the things that I think

government -- I think we all agree that government is here

to protect health and safety. And, you know, we certainly

have restaurants that are reviewed for sanitation. And

we've all agreed that that's a good thing to do.

And I just think secondhand smoke, it contains

some of those same products that, you know, you would never

want to see in a restaurant.

REPRESENTATIVE SCHEMEL: Sure. But smoking is a

known quantity. Everyone knows that it's dangerous. And

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

we relegated to very few places within the Commonwealth

that are open to the public where people do it.

So if you want to be a waitress, a bartender,

there are many places, most places, where you can practice

your craft that are non-smoking. There are actually only a

few that are smoking.

So it doesn't seem as though we are preventing

people from pursuing their dream of being a waitress or

bartender if they choose to work in a non-smoking area.

MS. BROWN: I guess I would simply say we know

the hazards. To me, I also look at it like, first of all,

why protect a known hazardous substance. And secondly, I

always view it personally as, you know, change now or pay

later. If we are going to continue to still introduce

secondhand smoke in the environment, it has health effects,

serious health effects.

And that is going to result in increased costs.

We know that the cost of tobacco-related diseases in

Pennsylvania now has approached $6 billion in both private

and public funds. Part of that is medical assistance. So

part of that is government funding.

So, you know, I think we pay. And I think this

is an opportunity for us to protect worker health.

REPRESENTATIVE SCHEMEL: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Just one last question

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

regarding e-cigarettes and vaping. Am I correct in saying

-- and this is what's been conveyed to me. I just need to

have it confirmed or not from the American Cancer Society

and American Lung and so on. And I'm sure we'll hear later

more about this.

Is it the tobacco companies themselves now that

are investing in promoting e-cigarettes and vaping and are

they behind that whole movement?

MS. PHILLIPS: Well, from what I understand,

there are quite a number of manufacturers. But the

industry is starting to buy up some of the e-cigarette

companies.

And I think we can point to smokeless tobacco

where we see it has actually occurred. It used to be -- it

used to be private independent companies. And they've all

been bought out by big tobacco. So I think that that's a

trend.

And again, e-cigarettes contain nicotine.

Nicotine is a derivative of tobacco. And the FDA defines

any cigarette as a tobacco product.

MS. BROWN: And many of these products are being

imported from China and other places where the regulations

are even more lax than we are, finding with the products

right now because they are unregulated.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Do you know if the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

poison centers or any other centers have correlating data

that connects the dots between e-cigarettes and vaping and

people getting sick and hospitalized?

MS. BROWN: That is correct. We are seeing that

there are not only children who are ingesting the toxic

liquid from these cigarettes, but there are also adults who

potentially are getting burns on their arms, etc., as a

result of some exposure to the liquids, too.

So, yes, we have seen an increase in the number

of calls to poison centers.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions, members?

Seeing none, thank you very much for your

testimony.

MS. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

MR. KALINOSKI: Thank you.

MR. WOODS: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Next we have with us

Bill Godshall, Founder and Executive Director, Smoke Free

Pennsylvania; and Gregory Conley, President of the American

Vaping Association. Welcome.

Mr. Godshall, you may proceed.

MR. GODSHALL: Thank you.

I'm Bill Godshall, Founder and Executive Director

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

of Smokefree Pennsylvania. I thank Chairman Baker for

inviting me to testify today.

Since 1990, we've educated the public about the

hazards of cigarette smoking and tobacco smoke pollution,

and we've advocated policies to ban smoking in workplaces,

stop cigarette marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax

rates, and hold cigarette companies accountable in Civil

Court for their egregious actions of the past.

Before founding Smokefree Pennsylvania, I worked

for the Allegheny County Health Department and the American

Cancer Society, where I campaigned to enact and implement

the 1987 Pittsburgh Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance,

which was the first law outside of California to ban

smoking in the vast majority of indoor workplaces.

In 2007, we convinced U.S. Senator Mike Enzi to

amend the Federal Tobacco Control Act to require color

graphic picture warnings on all cigarette packs, a key

health policy that the FDA still hasn't implemented.

For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania

nor I have ever received any funding from any tobacco,

drug, or vapor product company.

We advocated Senator Greenleaf's legislation for

20 years before it was enacted. Seven years have passed

since I stood behind Governor Rendell as he signed the

Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act into law which banned

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

smoking in 99 percent of indoor workplaces.

We urge the House Health Committee and the

General Assembly to eliminate exemptions from the Clean

Indoor Air Act for casinos and several thousand liquor

licensed establishments because millions of nonsmokers are

still involuntarily exposed to tobacco smoke pollution in

those indoor workplaces and public places.

We do, however, strongly oppose provisions in

House Bill 682 that would ban the use of vapor products,

also known as electronic cigarettes, in all Pennsylvania

indoor workplaces by falsely redefining the term smoking to

include smoke-free vaping.

In sharp contrast to some of the claims by

previous testifiers, the scientific and empirical evidence

consistently confirms that nicotine vapor products are 99

percent, plus or minus 1 percent, less hazardous than

cigarettes, have never been found to be associated with any

disease or disorder and they pose no health risks to

nonusers.

Cigarettes kill a half million people a year.

These products have never been associated with any disease

or disorder.

After unsuccessfully urging the FDA to keep vapor

products legal in 2009, we filed an amicus brief with the

D.C. Court of Appeals in 2010 in support of lawsuits by two

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59

vapor product companies challenging the FDA's e-cigarette

import ban.

I don't know if you're aware but U.S. custom

agents seized almost 1,000 shipments at U.S. ports of

e-cigarettes in 2009-2010. They were banned products at

the time.

The Federal Appeals Court unanimously upheld

Judge Richard Leon's ruling striking down the FDA's ban as

unlawful, which is why vapor products are now legal in this

country.

Nicotine vapor products have already replaced

about 2 billion packs of cigarettes in the U.S. And nearly

all of these products are being consumed by smokers and

exsmokers who switched to vaping.

Two recent surveys found that three and four

million Americans respectfully are no longer regular

cigarette smokers thanks to vapor products, which are at

least as effective for smoking cessation as FDA-approved

nicotine products that have a 95 percent failure rate.

Adult and teen surveys consistently find that

smokers and exsmokers account for more than 90 percent of

those who report using an e-cigarette in the past 30 days,

and it appears that more than 99 percent of daily vapors

are smokers or exsmokers who switched to vaping.

Just this past weekend I attended the Pittsburgh

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60

Convention Center. There was a vaping conference of

several thousand vapors who had all quit smoking. That's

why my voice is a little hoarse. I was talking to hundreds

of people asking them how they quit. And every one of them

quit by switching to e-cigarettes.

There's no evidence vapor products have ever

created daily nicotine dependence in any nonsmoker. And

there's no evidence vapor products have served as a gateway

to cigarette smoking for anyone.

In regards to indoor air quality, all of the

following things emit more indoor air pollution than does

an e-cigarette: smoker's clothing and hair, cooking, glues

and paint, carpeting, household cleaning products, printers

and photocopies, dry cleaned clothes, hair sprays,

perfumes, cosmetics, air fresheners, and even a cup of

coffee or a cup of tea.

While all of these things pose negligible or no

health risk to the public, any objective individual,

organization, or health agency that truly desires to

further reduce indoor air pollution would advocate

restricting or banning those products before targeting

life-saving vapor products.

Since vapor product sales began to skyrocket in

2009, adult and teen smoking rates have declined to new

record lows every year.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

Public health benefits every time a smoker vapes

instead of smoking a cigarette. And vapor products have

similar risk/benefit profiles as childhood vaccines, water,

and sewage treatment, and condoms.

Since smokers can simply substitute vapor

products or other smoke-free alternatives instead of

smoking a cigarette, banning smoking in Pennsylvania

casinos and bars won't negatively impact those businesses.

Vapor products benefit many employers because

workers don't waste time on smoke breaks and because vaping

has helped employees quit smoking and reduced employer

healthcare costs.

Besides, unlike smoke-free policies, it's

impossible to enforce vaping bans because vapor products

emit no smoke and there's no visible vapor exhaled if one

holds their breath for just two seconds after inhaling.

The proposed vaping ban in this bill would prompt

many vapers to go outside to smoking areas and be exposed

to the secondhand smoke once again that they desperately

tried to avoid. And it would deceive the public to

inaccurately believe that vaping is just as hazardous as

cigarette smoking and would discourage smokers from

quitting smoking.

We do, however, urge the General Assembly to ban

the sale of vapor products to minors. Pennsylvania is just

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62

one of four states that does not ban the sale of vapor

products to minors.

And we also support banning vaping at preschools

and K-12 schools, as those are reasonable regulations.

In sum, since House Bill 682 bans vaping in all

PA workplaces, while banning smoking in just 1 percent of

the remaining workplaces, we strongly oppose the bill as

introduced. But if the vaping ban provisions of the bill

were removed, we'd strongly support the bill.

Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you very much,

sir.

You may proceed.

MR. CONLEY: Chairman Baker, Chairman Fabrizio

and distinguished members of the Pennsylvania House Health

Committee. Thank you, Chairman Baker, for inviting me to

testify.

My name is Gregory Conley. And I am here today

on behalf of the American Vaping Association, a non-profit

that advocates for small- and medium-sized businesses in

the vapor product and electronic cigarette markets.

In August, I will be celebrating five years as a

nonsmoker. There are two important milestones. First, the

fact that I quit smoking after trying for years with a

nicotine patch, gum, cold turkey, everything under the sun.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

63

And second, I will be celebrating five years being an

advocate for these tobacco-free technology products, the

first three years of which I spent volunteering 100 percent

for the U.S.'s largest consumer advocacy group representing

users of vapor products, overwhelmingly ex-smokers who have

quit with these products.

I'd like to urge you to make a science-based

decision and vote no on House Bill 682 unless the

prohibition on vaping is removed.

When I quit in August 2010, I was shocked to see

that people who called themselves anti-smoking advocates

were the leading voices out urging multiple state

governments to ban the sale of vapor products to adults

while leaving cigarettes freely available on the market.

Thankfully they've long since abandoned that

heartless approach. But they still today come and seek to

mislead state officials about vaping.

I began intensely studying the issue and not long

after came to the conclusion that these purported public

health groups were, in effect, communicating a dangerous

message to smokers: Quit or die.

These groups transitioned to a third choice for

smokers, use of low-risk nicotine, smoke-free nicotine

products was and remains a true public health problem.

The AVA is in agreement with many in the public

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

64

health field that vapor products are our best hope yet to

get millions of American smokers to quit inhaling burning

smoke into their lungs on a daily basis.

Indeed, in the UK, the country's largest

anti-smoking group, Action on Smoking and Health, not only

supports vaping but they strongly oppose government

restrictions on vaping by adults.

Many NHS cessation services in the UK are

actively supporting people who come in and want to quit

smoking through vaping.

Current methods are not working. A recent CDC

study published about a month ago found that from 2011 to

2013, cigarette consumption did decline in 26 states.

Pennsylvania was not one of them. So there are still 21

percent, over 2 million adults, that are smoking in

Pennsylvania.

A favorite tactic of vapor product detractors is

to make reference to scary-sounding chemicals that have

been detected in vapor product liquids or vapor.

Critically they failed to note the actual levels of these

chemicals that have been found. In doing so they ignore

the central tenet of toxicology for about 500 years, the

dose makes the poison.

No study has ever found that exhaled vapor

contains any chemical in a level that is harmful to the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

65

health of those exposed.

In the case of formaldehyde, in my written

testimony there are charts about chemical exposure. Large

amounts, actual dangerous amounts of formaldehyde are only

produced literally when you overheat and burn the liquid

that is in this device. No human can withstand the burning

taste that creates when you overheat the vapor product.

And so we've done more studies. And we found

that human vapors, they recognize the production of

formaldehyde very, very early when the levels are still

trace and at levels that aren't going to harm public

health.

The best analogy I've heard is it's akin to

putting a steak on a grill, turning the heat up, leaving

that steak on the grill for five hours, and then testing

it, finding high levels of carcinogens in that steak that's

now charcoal and saying, well, you shouldn't eat steak

because it's full of carcinogens. It's misleading and it's

harmful to public health.

Let's be clear. Vapor product advocates like

myself are not saying that we deserve the unfettered right

to vape wherever we please. Instead we believe that with

the evidence showing that there is no harm to bystanders

from these products, individual businesses should be able

to set their own policies.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66

As Mr. Godshall said, this weekend we were in

Pittsburgh at the Pittsburgh Convention Center with

thousands of adult e-cigarette users. Hundreds of

thousands of dollars were probably pumped into the

Pittsburgh economy from that.

And that event not only brought money into the

city, it probably created hundreds of ex-smokers. And yet

you had many first-time people coming to that event.

Events like that would not be possible if this was passed.

In conclusion, there's no reason to restrict the

usage of vapor products. And there are a multitude of

reasons not to. States should follow the lead of respected

public health advocates who have studied and published on

this issue. Vapor products are creating ex-smokers every

day in Pennsylvania.

And the State and this committee should actively

avoid any measure that would discourage Pennsylvania's 2

million adult smokers from switching.

Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, gentlemen,

for your testimony.

Representative Day.

REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Having every member of my family pass away from

cancer, probably most of it linked to cigarette smoking,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67

it's an issue that I've always thought as I moved on in my

career that I would eventually try to get our community in

the right place for this.

So I often wondered what it would be like,

Mr. Chairman, to be cast back in time at the time when

there were public hearings like this that talked about the

benign effects of cigarette smoking in the '40s or '50s,

maybe even into the '60s. And I found myself kind of

going back because the arguments were similar.

I'm not educated enough. I'm not going to come

out and interrogate you with a lot of questions because I

need to find out more because if what you just testified is

true and it is moving people away from cigarette smoking,

then I could understand that we would maybe not want to

take as hard line of a stance.

But in your testimony to begin with, I heard a

lot of the same arguments. There are no, you know, things

that prove it's bad right now. So therefore, let's just

let it go.

I look more towards -- and I think you just in

your final comments you mentioned that there are research

reports that show no toxic effect on the human body to

introduce chemicals just because it's not delivered through

a burning flame.

Unlike in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, we've had

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

68

decades of research into chemical exposure and whether or

not what level of chemicals through international and

United States pharmaceutical standards -- we have those

standards for things like the Nicorette inhaler. The

Nicorette inhaler, which is an FDA-approved nicotine

replacement therapy product that Cancer, Heart, and Lung

all endorse, does expose users to formaldehyde and plenty

of other trace levels of scary-sounding chemicals. It's

the dose that matters, not just the mere presence of a

chemical.

Do you think vaping should be administered as a

medicine similar to an inhaler as opposed to a patient

determined, you know, replacement for the habitual behavior

of smoking?

MR. GODSHALL: No. That's what happened when FDA

banned them in 2009. They said it was an unapproved drug.

And basically they said, you know, it's going to be banned.

Once you make it a medicine, and it's not an approved

medicine by the FDA, it's called prohibition. And

basically it was alcohol, marijuana prohibition all over

again in 2009.

And the dilemma here and the scientific issues

here is partly because in 2009, the American Cancer

Society, Heart Association, and Lung Association urged the

FDA to ban the sale and manufacture of all e-cigarettes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69

And the FDA did it. And then they got sued.

In order to justify their ban, they came out and

held a press conference and falsely claimed that

e-cigarettes are being target marketed to the kids, that

they're addicting nonsmokers, that they're gateways to

cigarette smoking, that they don't help people quit

smoking, they have toxic chemicals in and the carcinogens

in and they were all false and misleading fear-mongering

claims to justify FDA's prohibition.

And the Federal Courts -- and by the way, Cancer,

Heart, and Lung submitted an amicus brief against our

amicus brief to the D.C. Court of Appeals. And all the 13

Judges, Federal Judges, reviewed and agreed that the FDA

did not prove any evidence of their claims.

And so -- and by the way, I spent two decades

exposing the lies of the tobacco industry back in the '70s,

'80s, and '90s. And so you're saying, yes, the studies

found this in the '40 s and '50s. Those were the studies

funded by the cigarette companies. And those were the

studies that were misrepresented by the cigarette

companies. So this battle has been going on for many

years, decades.

This e-cigarette issue is very frustrating. The

old anti-smoking movement split into two factions now.

There's those of us who are still trying to reduce the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70

leading cause of disease and death.

And then there's others, Cancer, Heart, and Lung

spent far more money. And by the way, all their funding

for tobacco control advocacy comes from GlaxoSmithKline,

Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and other drug companies that

make money selling the gums, patches, and lozenges.

So this is crony capitalism going on here, too.

You've got one smoking cessation provider saying, let's ban

our competition. And that's what happened in 2009.

They're still up to it today. So I just wanted to clarify

some of the political and legal data.

REPRESENTATIVE DAY: I appreciate that.

My comments about, you know, legislators are put

in a position where we have to make decisions sometimes and

sometimes not all the information is there.

And just as a personal thing, I wanted to share

that I often wonder, how could they be in that position?

Because I had the knowledge that they didn't have. And I

often wonder with decisions that we have whether we're in

those positions here today.

I have one last question, Mr. Chairman, about

what your opinion of vaping and e-cigarettes is. Are they

a recreational product that Pennsylvania should be allowed

to use and enjoy or are they more of a medical treatment

for smoking cessation?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71

MR. CONLEY: They are an alternative to

traditional cigarettes. The best use of these products is

for adult smokers to do what I did five years ago, to pick

them up to stop smoking.

But there are still tremendous public health

benefits for the smokers who use e-cigarettes but don't

quit but they turn from smoking a pack a day to five

cigarettes a day. There are health benefits to that.

So the best position is for these products to be

as widely available as cigarettes are now. But for youth

access measures to be enacted and most importantly

enforced.

REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Why would we want youth not

to use these?

MR. CONLEY: Because there's no real reason. If

youth can obtain cigarettes, then if they truly wish to use

these products to move away from smoking, they will find a

way to get them. But ultimately, we do not need these

products getting into the hands of youth, including even

nicotine-free ones. There's no good reason to leave them

legally available to youth.

REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

MR. CONLEY: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Representative Ward.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72

REPRESENTATIVE WARD: I want to thank you for

your testimony before us today.

I have some anecdotal evidence. I was a cardiac

rehab nurse for many years. I worked in CCU. And I was a

cardiac rehabilitation nurse for 17 years. I saw firsthand

the dangers of cigarette smoking and how difficult it was

for people to quit smoking even in the face of having a

very serious medical event, a heart attack, bypass surgery.

I left hospital nursing and I went into our

family business and I did wellness for our family business.

And it's a trucking business. And we had employees who had

a very hard time stopping smoking. Many of them used the

e-cigarettes and had great success with that.

So I just wanted to offer my anecdotal evidence.

And in my mind, you know, I thought, gee, if they can use

these products and it helps them get rid of their smoking

habit, their tobacco habit, you know, it's a good thing.

Just some anecdotal evidence.

MR. CONLEY: Hearing about your patients' success

is the best news I've heard all day. So thank you.

MR. GODSHALL: E-cigarettes have actually created

more smoke-free policies in the last five years than all

the efforts to ban smoking have because millions of people

have quit smoking by switching. And now lots of children

are no longer exposed when their parents are sitting in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73

their homes and also at workplaces.

I mean, there's violations going on of the Clean

Indoor Air Act. But people who are switching to vaping

aren't doing it.

REPRESENTATIVE WARD: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Representative Hahn.

REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your testimony today. Just a few

questions. I had someone in my office who had just opened

a vaping business in the district and invited me in. I

haven't gone in yet, but I plan to because I found out a

family member who we've been trying to get to quit smoking

went there and is doing much better vaping than smoking.

But since I'm -- I guess we need a Vaping 101 for

Dummies here. Is there heat in that?

MR. CONLEY: There is a battery in here that you

recharge. And it does apply a light heat. But we are

talking about a difference of hundreds of degrees whereas

with a cigarette, you are lighting it on fire and

freebasing the nicotine.

And, literally, Bill, you would know the

temperature that a cigarette burns. But it is ten times

the temperature.

MR. GODSHALL: It's an aerosol. It's

aerosolation instead of combustion technically.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

74

REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: And my understanding is you

can go into one of these stores and if you go in and say

you smoke two packs a day, they can adjust the nicotine and

then decrease that every time you go in and that's what's

helping you get off the cigarettes and stay vaping until

you're down to nothing?

MR. CONLEY: Correct. The most important thing

for public health is to just get people off of cigarettes.

And so if people want to continue using nicotine, they

absolutely can. But many people -- one of the reasons why

some of the surveys that are being done are missing vapors

is that you have vapors who are now no longer vapors nor

smokers, people who have gone down to zero and they're just

tired of it and they put it in a drawer and forget about

it.

REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: The other concern though

that I have is with minors. So there's all kinds of

flavors, right?

MR. CONLEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: So you can go in and ask

for a strawberry or a sweet flavor. So what's to keep -- I

mean, if I go in and I buy with nicotine in and my kids or

grandkids see me smoking and then are using vaping and then

they pick it up and it's like oh, this tastes like

strawberries, what's going to keep them from going back?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

75

That's a concern.

MR. CONLEY: Flavors are extremely important to

me and many adult vapors. In 2009, I tried an e-cigarette

that was tobacco flavored. Within a month I was back to my

normal habit because it just reminded me, man, a cigarette

would taste really good right now.

I quit finally with watermelon. And in my device

right now is a lemon watermelon.

And so it's very important that parents keep

these products, just as they do with their cigarettes, out

of the hands of children. But the best thing for

Pennsylvania's children of the two million adult smokers is

their parents no longer smoking because their parents'

smoking has been found to be linked to children then

becoming smokers when they're teenagers.

MR. GODSHALL: And by the way, most of the teens

that are using e-cigarettes were smokers and are smokers.

And, in fact, smoking among youth has dropped record levels

in annual decline. It's down below 10 percent now.

And the Centers for Disease Control's goal for

2020 for teen smoking is 16 percent. And we're already

down below 10 percent mostly because of e-cigarettes.

REPRESENTATIVE HAHN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.

Representative DeLissio.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

76

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Point of clarification. And maybe this was

presented when the committee meeting got underway. I

wasn't here at that time.

Is this bill solely banning vaping where smoking

is banned, is proposed to be banned?

MR. GODSHALL: The bill will ban smoking in the

remaining exempted facilities like casinos and the

liquor-licensed establishments. But it will ban vaping in

100 percent of workplaces. It's really a vaping ban that

also bans smoking in 1 percent of workplaces.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: 100 percent of

workplaces.

MR. GODSHALL: Including all bars.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: And the smoking ban is

less than 100 percent?

MR. GODSHALL: About 1 percent of workplaces in

Pennsylvania are currently exempted from the Clean Indoor

Air Act, casinos and probably about 2,000 liquor-licensed

establishments.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: But this reduces those.

MR. GODSHALL: It will ban smoking in those

places.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Right.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

77

MR. GODSHALL: We strongly support that part of

the bill. And by the way, when these bills were first

introduced back in 2010, they didn't have a vaping ban.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: It wasn't on the radar

screen the same way?

MR. CONLEY: Well, the Cancer Society, Heart

Association, and Lung Association urged the sponsor of the

bill to add the vaping ban into it and he did. And so

that's why we oppose it now.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: So to answer -- I want

to make sure I understood the answer. Is there parity here

between what's being proposed in the ban between smoking

and vaping?

MR. CONLEY: Yes. Vaping and smoking under this

bill would be banned in these environments.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: There's parity. Okay.

That was Question 1. Thank you.

MR. CONLEY: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Question 2, is there an

addictive element to vaping?

MR. CONLEY: Nicotine is a chemical that can form

dependency. However, the good news is that we're finding

-- as I said, when you light a cigarette on fire, you are

literally freebasing the nicotine. And your nicotine peak

is about five minutes in.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78

In comparison we've done -- there have been

studies. The nicotine gum and patch on people with

Parkinson's, people with Alzheimer's, and then they

discontinue the usage of those products and they find that

they aren't dependant even though they've been getting

consistent doses of nicotine.

There was just an excellent paper that was

authored by Dr. Thomas Eissenberg who's at the Virginia

Commonwealth University, no conflicts of interest, takes

FDA money, and sits on the FDA's Tobacco Scientific

Advisory Committee. His paper looked at all the studies

that have looked at adult vapors and their dependance on

nicotine.

And the conclusion of that paper is that it

appears that because e-cigarettes aren't freebasing

nicotine, that it appears that e-cigarettes either have no

ability to create dependence or very little, about the same

as the gum and the patch.

So nicotine, yes, it can create dependence. But

there is a huge divide when you're talking about freebasing

the nicotine by lighting on fire and aerosol or gum or the

patch.

MR. CONLEY: We're still looking for the first

nonsmoker anywhere in the world that has become a daily

nicotine dependent due to vaping. We still haven't found

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

79

one. Theoretically it's possible. We're going to find one

sooner or later.

But my point is it's so minuscule and negligible

that we still don't know of any.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: I'm a nonsmoker. And

I'm not interested in placing myself in a situation

whereby, it's, you know, something could or may or may not

be harmful. And I'm just trying to follow some logic here.

So the idea of keeping this product away from

minors, I believe it's probably under 18.

MR. GODSHALL: It still doesn't do that, but

there's other bills that do that.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: That do that. Okay.

So that's because there's a concern that some

addiction could occur? It's not like chewing gum.

MR. CONLEY: I would support banning the nicotine

gum, patch, and inhaler to minors unless a parent gives

permission, because, as with these products, there is the

potential for dependence, far less, far, far less dependent

potential than with cigarettes.

But still we don't need nor is -- there's no

benefit to youth having access to these products. It would

only make sense to cut out their ability to go to the store

to purchase them.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: So is your concern that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

80

banning this in the workplace interferes with somebody's

ability to come off the traditional cigarette?

MR. CONLEY: Correct. It's a great incentive.

When they do polls of people who now vape, they ask them

what was one of the main reasons why you started? And

those polls consistently find 30, 40 percent of the people

who use these cigarettes say they started using them to use

them in places where smoking is banned.

For instance, they ask their boss, hey, if I got

this product, can I sit in my office rather than going down

eight floors of stairs to go smoke outside and waste

company time?

If this ban was enacted, I don't think that there

will be many ex-smokers who will return to smoking because

of it. However, you will see less adult smokers being

willing to go out and purchase their first product because

you will have taken away the ability to use it indoors if

the business gives them permission.

And as a result, they will just go outside and

smoke with the smokers. That's our huge concern with

policies like these.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Well, thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Like my colleague, Representative Day, I'm going

to have to absorb a lot of this information and figure out

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81

what it all means.

MR. CONLEY: Pennsylvania is a group that

represents retailers as well as myself and Mr. Godshall.

Any information that you require, we'd be happy to.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Representative Daley.

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you for your testimony.

Congratulations for being able to quit smoking cigarettes.

MR. CONLEY: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: I think it is -- my own

experience, as I outlined before, you know, showed me how

really difficult it is to walk away from it. So I feel

like I've learned, with some of my colleagues, I did not

know that much about e-cigarettes. I don't even know why

they're actually called e-cigarettes.

Can you explain that briefly?

MR. CONLEY: It was a way -- back in 2008 when

these were first introduced, it was a way that smokers

could see them and they'd see the term e-cigarettes. So it

was something that was familiar to them. And it was also

because back then, every e-cigarette product looked like a

cigarette. That's now a very waning, declining market and

these are now the dominant products.

MR. GODSHALL: They don't look at all like

cigarettes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

82

MR. CONLEY: Yeah. And 1.5 billion of the 2.5

billion 2014 industry is in these products and that 1.5

billion big tobacco has nothing do with that segment.

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Okay. So I'm beginning to

understand that even though they contain nicotine, you can

actually control the amount of nicotine and the way that it

comes into the body is different. And so by controlling --

I guess the other products, you know, smoking cessation

products, also contain nicotine and the idea is to lower

the doses. Am I on the right track?

So not really being in a situation where I'm

around, at least that I know of, people who are vaping,

what is -- is there anything coming out into the air?

MR. CONLEY: It is by and large propylene glycol,

which is the same substance -- if you ever go to a concert

and there's a fog machine, that's propylene glycol.

So in my testimony you'll see that some studies

have been done finding levels of chemicals that if it was

five times, ten times, even seven hundred times more, those

levels would be dangerous.

But when you're at trace levels, just like with

the Nicorette inhaler that's FDA approved, we have decades

of studies on those chemicals to show that exposure to

trace levels, whether to the user or the bystander, is not

a danger.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

83

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: But then does that depend

on how many people are vaping in the same area at the same

time?

MR. CONLEY: Well, if you have many people, you

have a larger room.

MR. GODSHALL: I was in a room with 600 people

simultaneously vaping this weekend and it didn't bother me.

And if somebody lit up a cigarette, one cigarette in this

room, I'd be out of here with a headache immediately.

MR. CONLEY: And I've been around Mr. Godshall

when someone has lit up a cigarette around him. And he

gets out very quickly.

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Okay. Thank you.

I would agree. Would it be possible to get a

copy of the paper from the Virginia Commonwealth

University?

MR. CONLEY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Okay. I think that -- is

it written for scientific people or is it written in a way

that we could all understand it?

MR. CONLEY: It looks at surveys.

MR. GODSHALL: It's fairly readable.

MR. CONLEY: Yeah. It is a very simple paper.

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: All right.

MR. CONLEY: I'll get that to you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

84

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: That would be helpful if

you were to send that.

MR. GODSHALL: There's over 200 studies published

on e-cigarettes. And I have a copy of every one of them.

I'll be happy to send anybody as many as you want. It

would take a dolly to bring them all out in here.

REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Let's start with that one.

For me, let's start with that one.

Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.

Just a couple of comments. We are going to --

it's on the schedule actually, the House schedule, to vote

a bill that you actually support. And that is banning

vaping for minors. It's scheduled for a vote this week

actually.

But I have to tell you, when I read that and

heard you say that, if it's bad for youth, why isn't it bad

also for adults? So it just, you know, sounds inconsistent

to me viscerally. And especially it gives me pause when I

heard from the expert cardiologist that says there's

formaldehyde in it.

MR. GODSHALL: There's no formaldehyde. And by

the way, formaldehyde is on the -- every time every one of

you exhale and I exhale, formaldehyde is being omitted.

Formaldehyde is in this carpet. Formaldehyde is in this

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

85

furniture. But the studies show that when used properly,

e-cigarettes don't even emit any formaldehyde.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Well, I suspect we're

going to hear a lot more and we're going to be doing a lot

more research and getting a lot more information on this

issue.

That's one of the reasons we're having this

hearing, is to kind of flush out where the concerns are,

what the issues are, what the points of contention might

be. We're talking about nicotine here, right, gentlemen?

But it's my understanding that you can vape other

ingredients, other chemicals, other harmful things, in

these vaping tools that you have. And so that's a whole

other -- based on the research I read, sometimes we don't

know what's being vaped, so how do you control that?

MR. CONLEY: If someone is using a marijuana

vaporizer or a THC vaporizer, anyone who has been around

someone using such a product can detect it. It's not the

pungent odor of marijuana smoke that some of you may

remember from the '70s. But it is certainly a smell that

will be familiar to anyone who's been around it.

And so we're not seeing, for example, in Colorado

that we're having people use those devices in restaurants

and bars because they'll get caught pretty quickly.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Well, I'm sure

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

86

we're going to be hearing a lot more on this issue. So

thank you, gentlemen. And I apologize. We have a couple

more speakers and we only have ten minutes before we're due

on the Floor of the House. So we're going to try to move

right along here.

Next we have Thomas Helsel, Secretary,

Pennsylvania Association of Nationally Chartered

Organizations, PANCO.

Welcome, sir. You may proceed.

MR. HELSEL: Good morning.

Chairman Baker, Chairman Fabrizio, members of the

House Health Committee, my name is Tom Helsel. I am the

Secretary of the Pennsylvania Association of Nationally

Chartered Organizations. PANCO is compromised of fraternal

and veteran organizations here in Pennsylvania which all

hold national charters.

Our membership consists of individual lodges,

posts, and aeries from the Elks, Moose, Eagles, American

Legion, and VFW. I also serve as the Government Relations

Chairman for the Pennsylvania Elks State Association.

I am here to state our position in opposition to

House Bill 682, which would remove the exclusion of private

clubs from the Clean Indoor Air Act. Since its inception

in 2008, our members have been provided the opportunity to

either permit or ban smoking within their facilities.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

87

Many of our members have voted to permit smoking

while many others have voted to prohibit it. In a few

instances, some have reversed their decision. The

important key is that it's been left to our membership to

make those choices.

While in no way do we wish to diminish or ignore

the hazards associated with smoking, and our members

clearly understand and acknowledge those hazards, we

believe that it is a personal choice left to our membership

whether to allow smoking within our clubs.

I can attest that since the CIAA was established,

many of our clubs have opted to go to smoke free. As we

move further down the road, more of our members are making

that choice. But clearly, the choice and decision to

permit smoking or go smoke free has been that of our

membership of our clubs.

As Secretary to PANCO and as the Government

Relations Chairman for the Elks, I have discussed with many

of my members the problems surrounding this issue. Many of

us have instituted smoking policies within our facilities

limiting smoking to certain areas and/or certain times.

I should note that when we rent our facilities or

when we invite the public in, the Clean Indoor Air Act

prohibits smoking within the facility during that duration.

Our membership cherishes the right for

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

88

individuals to choose whether to smoke or not. We

recognize that many of our members enjoy that right to

gather and socialize with others while enjoying that

privilege.

We also recognize that not all our members engage

in this behavior and many have implemented policies to

accommodate that segment.

A core belief of our organization is that we are

private clubs. In essence, we view our facilities as an

extension of our homes. And as such, we believe that we

should be able to continue to have the choice to engage or

not engage in the use of legal tobacco products.

Since our makeup includes veteran organizations

and a large proportion of our entire membership consists of

veterans, allow me to paraphrase a line from one of my

colleagues, veterans and others should retain the right to

decide whether they share a smoke with their comrades while

discussing their service to our country.

Thank you for allowing me to present this

testimony.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you, sir, for

your testimony.

MR. HELSEL: You're welcome.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Just to clarify for me

personally, your membership consists of individual lodges,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

89

posts, and groups such as Elks, Moose, Eagles, American

Legions, and the VFW.

MR. HELSEL: Yes.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: And are they all of one

opinion at this point in time with this bill, that they

oppose this bill as currently written?

MR. HELSEL: Our parent organizations would much

rather prefer that everybody goes non-smoking. However,

our organization PANCO is based on our individual members,

the individual posts, the individual lodge.

And as the gentleman from the VFW stated earlier,

their post made the decision to go non-smoking. A great

deal of our individual memberships have made that choice.

We would prefer, as the individual groups, that we are

allowed to continue to make that choice.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. So if we were to

caucus, the Chairman of the Democratic Health Committee and

the Republican Chairman of the Health Committee, if we were

to be asked in our caucus, where does the State VFW stand

on this issue or where does the American Legion stand on

this issue? what would be the answer? Are they opposed to

this bill or are they for it?

I heard a little lack of clarity there. Forgive

me if I didn't hear it right.

MR. HELSEL: No. I understand that. It is an

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90

emotional issue within our organizations.

What the national groups ask us to do down to our

State-level organizations and then down to what the

individual lodges and posts should be doing, if this is a

perfect world, there would be no smoking. We understand

that.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Right.

MR. HELSEL: My personal experience has been over

the last seven, eight years since the Clean Indoor Air Act

has been enacted, we have seen a diminished number of

smokers, not just in our local lodges but also the fact

that a lot of our lodges have gone non-smoking.

I think all of us are aware that at some point in

time, smoking is no longer going to be acceptable. And it

is getting closer and closer to that as the day goes on.

We just would like to have the right to make that

choice as to whether to allow smoking or not allow smoking.

A lot of our clubs are an older membership. And

unfortunately, they're the generation that grew up where

when you are in the service, they handed you a carton of

cigarettes and you shoved them in your knapsack to go out

to boot camp. At this point, we're not seeing that in our

veteran communities within the American Legion and the VFW.

The younger members that are coming back are not

smoking. So there is that push from the younger generation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91

to cease it. And in our Fraternal organizations, we're

seeing the same thing.

A lot of the younger members are saying, we don't

want to have it. However, we have the older generation

that is still with us that they're looking for a place to

go to socialize. And this, unfortunately or fortunately,

depending upon how you look at it, is part of how they

interact with their friends.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: So it sounds like we

don't really have a definitive position yet but it's

trending for non-smoking. It's emotional. It's perhaps

even divisive.

MR. HELSEL: In some cases. I hate to say that,

yes, it has been divisive.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.

MR. HELSEL: I applaud what the VFW down in

Montgomery County did. It takes an awful lot to be able to

do that. But they had the membership that was there to

decide that this was the avenue that they wanted to take.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Sure.

MR. HELSEL: And a lot of our other smaller

communities, a lot of our clubs, would prefer to remain

smoking. I do believe as time goes on, that's going to go

away.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you very much,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

92

sir. I don't see any questions. We really appreciate your

testimony.

Thank you, sir.

MR. HELSEL: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: We are going to try to

get our last testifier in even if we have to go over a

little bit. I understand there's some leeway and latitude.

Sometimes they don't open up the House right away. And

they certainly don't start voting right away. So I think

we're okay.

We have with us Tom Bonner, Vice President,

General Counsel, Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, Inc.

Welcome, sir.

MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Thank

you for the opportunity to be here.

I think we can agree that casino gambling in

Pennsylvania has been a huge success that the Legislature

had hoped when it enacted the law. Pennsylvania casinos in

the aggregate produce the most gaming tax revenue in the

United States bar none.

The dire predictions of negative consequences

such as increases in crime simply have not occurred.

Casinos have become integrated into their communities as

legitimate and positive economic forces.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

93

Within Pennsylvania Parx Casino, which I

represent, is the largest casino revenue producer and

gaming taxpayer in the State. Since we opened in December

of 2006, we've paid over $1.6 billion in gaming taxes to

the State just from one property. This year alone, Fiscal

'14-'15, we will pay about 218 million in gaming taxes.

So as an industry leader, we're happy to be here

today to present our comments. And we thank you once again

for the opportunity to do so.

Among the many goals that are enumerated in the

Gaming Act, two are most relevant to our present

discussion, maximize tax revenues for the Commonwealth and

provide new employment opportunities by creating skilled

jobs in a new industry. And we've certainly done both of

those things.

One of the ways that the Legislature has acted to

promote those goals is to enable casinos to offer to their

guests the option of both smoking and non-smoking gaming

areas. And that option is obviously a welcome one for our

patrons as demonstrated by revenue performance.

Although we're permitted by law to have only half

of our gaming floor as a smoking-permitted section, about

68 percent of our total slot machine revenue comes from

machines that are located in the smoking-permitted

sections.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

94

So as you consider the bill to prohibit whether

smoking in all areas of the casino should be prohibited, we

ask, as the Chairman had mentioned, that you keep in mind

the difficult deliberations and discussions that took place

to get where we are today with the bill that does allow

certain exemptions. We also ask that you consider what has

actually happened in other states.

You've heard testimony from other presenters

today. We don't have to speculate what has happened when

smoking prohibitions in casinos have been introduced. We

know that revenues have declined. And there are many

examples of states where that has occurred.

The most recent case is Harrah's in New Orleans.

And that just happened in April. But even recently, their

first month, May, after the prohibition was enacted, the

revenues are down 16 percent. Will they come back over

time? They may.

But all we know is that when you enact the

smoking prohibition in a casino, revenues do decline. And

they decline significantly, in the 15 to 20 percent range.

We know that at Parx Casino, the slot machines

located in areas of the casino where smoking is permitted

perform at a rate that is about 150 percent of the revenues

that come from slot machines located in the

smoking-prohibited sections.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

95

And data like this is what was required back in

2008 and 2009 when the bill was first enacted to enable the

casinos to move from 25 percent smoking-permitted areas to

50 percent areas, which, as you heard in prior testimony,

all casinos have been able to do based on the performance

of the machines relatively between smoking and non-smoking

areas.

In summary, our experience has shown that the

current balance struck by the Legislature is the right one.

The availability of both smoking and non-smoking gaming

areas is what our patrons want.

That availability allows the Pennsylvania casinos

to do exactly what the Legislature intended in its enabling

legislation, maximize the revenues that the Commonwealth

receives from gaming and maintain the many new well-paying

skilled jobs created by the new industry.

The anticipated revenue decline that would result

from a smoking prohibition would frustrate the legislative

intent. We anticipate that gaming tax revenues to the

State would be significantly reduced and significant staff

reduction among the over 17,000 industry employees would

likely be required as the casinos receive lower revenues.

I'd be happy to answer any questions any of the

members may have, Mr. Chairman.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

96

Representative Day.

REPRESENTATIVE DAY: My one quick question is,

why? You said 68 percent of slot gaming revenue comes from

smoking sections; smoking prohibitions introduce reduced

revenues, 15 to 20 percent; 150 percent better performance

in smoking areas. Do you know why?

And I'll lead with a question. We have gambling,

we have alcohol, and we have smoking, three highly

addictive behaviors. And there are things that if you are

just -- well, I'll cut it short there. Why? Why do you do

better with revenues where there's smoking?

MR. BONNER: Revenues are a function of the

behaviors of our customers. There is a disproportionate

percentage of gamblers who are smokers compared to the

general population. We know that. We survey our

customers. I think that's obvious to us all.

So we have more customers who are smokers, who

are gamblers, and they prefer the option of being able to

smoke while they're participating in gaming.

REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you,

Representative.

Representative DeLissio.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Thank you.

My colleague, Representative Day, was leading

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

97

with a question. I was going to lead with a statement.

Those are all addictive behaviors. And I'm not

sure, as we look out for the welfare of our citizens, that

we should be reinforcing addictive behaviors that are not

positive behaviors.

But you talked about the current balance working

for you. We had heard testimony earlier this morning,

Mr. Bonner, that the original amount of non-smoking

footprint in a casino was less than 50 percent, but up to

50 percent could be granted if a hardship was demonstrated.

I'm not clear on what constitutes a hardship. Is

the Parx Casino up to that 50 percent?

MR. BONNER: We are, Representative.

What the industry had to demonstrate when the law

was first enacted in order to be able to move from 25

percent to 50 percent smoking area was that the performance

of the slot machines in the smoking areas was significantly

greater than that of the slot machines in the non-smoking

areas.

I think it might have been a 50 percent

difference. I really don't recall and wouldn't want you to

hold me to that. But we had to show that there was

significant difference in revenue production from machines

in smoking areas compared to machines in non-smoking areas.

And every casino in the Commonwealth was able to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

98

show that and therefore move to the 50 percent split.

REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Thank you.

And I guess that would make sense when you factor

in that addictive behavior.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Thank you,

Representative.

You had indicated in your last comments, sir,

17,000 industry employees. Is that in Pennsylvania?

MR. BONNER: That's based on the Gaming Board's

own most recent annual report, which was '13-'14. I

believe it's higher.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay.

MR. BONNER: But I didn't have any better data to

use so I gave you what I got from the Gaming Board.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: And since this is a

health and welfare issue -- we're dealing with the health

of people in the Commonwealth -- is there within the casino

industry -- and forgive me for not knowing the answer to

this. But is there an employee association, union, or any

group that speaks on behalf of the employees that work in

the casinos that may opine as to whether they would like to

see smoking eliminated or not?

MR. BONNER: To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, there

is not. Nothing has ever come to my attention in my

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

99

position as general counsel from an industrywide employee

group.

There are individual unions and individual

casinos that represent employees. But I'm not aware of any

trade association group at the employee level in the

industry.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Thank you.

And when you say that there could be significant

staff reductions if smoking were prohibited, it would be

hard to estimate exactly?

MR. BONNER: Very difficult.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Yes.

MR. BONNER: But if revenues were to drop by 10

or 15 percent, as we've seen -- in other states it's been

15 to 20 -- it would have to be a meaningful reduction in

labor costs to offset that significant of a decrease in

revenue. Hard to quantify. But they're serious numbers.

And I think that it would be a significant impact to the

staff.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Okay. Thank you.

Representative Schemel.

REPRESENTATIVE SCHEMEL: Yes, thank you.

In our sister states they seem not so concerned

about banning smoking, yet casinos are building large and

very costly facilities.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

100

MR. BONNER: Agreed. You mean in states that

have smoking bans?

REPRESENTATIVE SCHEMEL: That's correct.

Like Maryland, for example, is building casinos.

They're building casinos now. There seems to be enough.

That appears to me to be anecdotal evidence, more than

anecdotal evidence, that this is a financial model that

seems to be able to not only survive but thrive on a

non-smoking model.

MR. BONNER: I wouldn't challenge your comment,

Representative.

REPRESENTATIVE SCHEMEL: Then why does

Pennsylvania need to continue to allow smoking in

facilities?

MR. BONNER: As I said, we know empirically that

the most reasonable thing to expect is a significant

decline in revenue for a period of time. We don't know

when it comes back. There are scholarly articles out there

that talk about the decline and has there been a recovery?

What are the sources of the decline? All the answers don't

seem to be there.

But I think if we -- if you accept the fact that

there's going to be a revenue decline and it either never

comes back or takes time to come back, that is lost revenue

to the State. There are jobs that have been lost that come

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

101

back later, maybe never come back. There's clearly going

to be a loss.

How you quantify it, it's very difficult to do.

I certainly couldn't do it for you now.

REPRESENTATIVE SCHEMEL: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: Seeing no other

questions, comments, I do want to just read into the record

very quickly -- thank you, sir.

MR. BONNER: Thank you.

MAJORITY CHAIRMAN BAKER: -- that written

testimony was submitted by Cynthia Hallett, Executive

Director of Americans for Nonsmokers Rights; Harrah's

Philadelphia; Amy Barkley, Regional Advocacy Director,

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; and Gail Varcelotti,

Pennsylvania Society for Respiratory Care.

The Health Committee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, the hearing concluded.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

102

I hereby certify that the proceedings and

evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes

taken by me on the within proceedings and that this is a

correct transcript of the same.

Jean M. DavisNotary Public