Prop. 188: the tobacco industry’s initiative
By Ramona Tan
As I was flipping through the California ballot pamphlet,
Proposition 188, an initiative on statewide regulation of smoking
and tobacco products, caught my eye.
When I think about smoking, I think about the people in my
family or in the magazines I read who are struggling against an
addiction that truly makes them suffer. I think about how my father
tried  unsuccessfully  to quit smoking after a violent
heart attack. I think about a ninth-grade girl who started smoking
in the sixth grade and is now having a hard time quitting.
I thought to myself that tough regulation on smoking and tobacco
products is definitely needed. My decision to vote for Prop. 188
was going to be an easy call, I thought. To my surprise, the more I
read about the initiative, the more I realize that Prop. 188 is not
what it appears to be. It was drafted by the tobacco company Philip
Morris, which attempts to make the proposition look like a tough
regulation on smoking and tobacco products.
However, in reality, the initiative would actually provide
looser regulations than the existing laws. Its purpose is only to
ensure a continuing public consumption of tobacco products and,
consequently, a higher revenue for the dwindling tobacco
industry.
The tobacco industry is trying to sell Prop. 188 the same way it
has been selling cigarettes all along: It attempts to disguise the
proven harmful effects caused by smoking while portraying smoking
as an attractive experience.
By emphasizing solutions to the confusion caused by the current,
haphazard smoking regulation laws, what the initiative does not
reveal is that once Prop. 188 is passed, it will prevent any
further intervention by either local or state governments.
Existing laws place tough standards on both restaurant and
workplace smoking: With only minor exceptions, no smoking is
allowed. On the other hand, the makers of Prop. 188 want to ensure
that 25 percent of seating areas are reserved as smoking sections
in every California restaurant.
In addition, Prop. 188 would permit smoking in the workplace by
allowing smoking in conference rooms and private offices with the
occupants’ consent. The current law allows smoking when only up to
six people are in private offices and have the occupants’ consent.
Prop. 188 lifts the limit so smokers may light up in groups of any
number, as long as they get consent.
Does this mean that as long as there are a few smokers present,
even in a room as large as 15 to 20 people, every nonsmoker has to
face the challenge and the pressure of voting, to either go along
with their smoking fellows or stand up for their right to breathe
clean air in a conference room?
Furthermore, Prop.188 states that smoking may be allowed in
completely separate areas in the workplace, as long as certain
ventilation standards are met. But sadly, the ventilation standards
are only a bait put out by the tobacco industry to attract voters.
A chairman of one California health organization points out that
"the ventilation required by Prop. 188 will not protect our health.
The proposed standards require only the smell of tobacco smoke be
removed from the air, not the cancer-causing chemicals."
The tobacco industry also claims the initiative keeps tobacco
away from children because it bans cigarette vending machines in
unsupervised public places where minors are allowed. But compared
with current laws, this initiative puts little restriction on where
cigarette vending machines are allowed. In fact, according to the
California ballot pamphlet, "43 cities [already] prohibit the sale
of tobacco products from vending machines and 53 cities have passed
laws placing some restrictions on the use and accessibility of such
vending machines."
The official summary prepared by the Attorney General states
that Prop. 188 bans public smoking with significant exceptions.
Proponents of Prop. 188, however, do not mention the hazardous
nature of smoking and the avoidable health care costs that result
from tobacco use. They only emphasize the need for uniform
regulation, which has the potential to override the much tougher
laws that currently exist.
While they support the rights of business owners and
restaurateurs, at the same time, they ignore the rights of
nonsmokers to breathe clean air. The intention of Prop. 188 is not
to promote the good of the general public  it is proposed by
the tobacco industry and cleverly drafted to ensure that the
consumption of tobacco products’ brings in a higher revenue for the
industry. To protect our health, it is imperative that Californians
vote "no" on Prop. l88.
Tan is a fifth-year psychobiology student.