The advocacy group that led the push for the looming D.C. smoking ban is urging the D.C. Council to reject proposed regulations for administering the prohibition.
Smokefree DC, an organization focused on banning smoking in District workplaces, is reacting with disdain to rules submitted by Mayor Anthony Williams earlier this week. They will be automatically adopted after 60 days if the Council takes no action.
“We hope that you will do everything in your power to ensure that the D.C. Council rejects this draft and adopts a better set of regulations that are truly consistent with the intent of the law,” Angela Bradberry, Smokefree DC co-founder, wrote in a Dec. 4 letter to Council Member David Catania, chairman of the health committee.
The smoking ban takes effect Jan. 2 in all bars, restaurants and most indoor workplaces. Mayor-elect Adrian Fenty, a strong supporter of anti-smoking laws, takes office the same day and could rewrite the regulations if they haven’t already been approved.
With regard to Williams’ proposal, Bradberry is especially concerned with the process by which a business would obtain an economic hardship waiver – away around the ban.
To be eligible for a waiver, Williams wants proof of a 5 percent sales reduction over three consecutive months, plus evidence of either unanticipated revenue losses, falling food or alcohol sales, or reduced staffing levels. But anti-smoking activists are demanding that D.C. mirror New York’s law, which requires a 15 percent drop in sales with no wiggle room for other considerations.
The mayor’s plan would “undermine” the ban by establishing “a wide-open process that would grant permanent waivers with a very low threshold for demonstrating ‘damage,’ ” Bradberry wrote.
“On this matter, I will follow the lead of the advocates,” said Council Member Phil Mendelson. “I’ve been very supportive of what they’re trying to do.”
In his transmittal letter to Council Chair Linda Cropp, Williams said he sought protections for the hospitality industry to ensure “it does not suffer indiscriminately because of this policy decision,” which he opposed.
