3 Supervisors Favor Passing Ordinance to Regulate Smoking

With a smoking-ordinance proposal coming before them next week, three of Orange County’s four supervisors said Wednesday that they are leaning in favor of a law regulating smoking in private businesses, even though the county Chamber of Commerce opposes it.

An advisory committee of supervisors’ aides, health group officials and county staff members favors such a law, which would cover unincorporated areas of the county.

The issue has been hotly debated for the past three years and is to arise again at next Wednesday’s supervisors meeting. County staff members are recommending that the board vote to have an ordinance drafted within 30 days and submitted for the board’s review and approval.

Chamber Still Opposed

But the chamber continues to be adamantly against such an ordinance. “Our board feels very strongly that they don’t want a mandatory ordinance,” chamber President Lucien D. Truhill said. “They think the voluntary program is working and working well. That is the stand that we are taking.”

A county staff report to the supervisors said an American Cancer Society survey last month of cities in Orange County with smoking ordinances showed that none has experienced “significant enforcement problems” and all have reported “a high level of compliance.”

In a Feb. 5 letter “to whom it may concern” that is included in the staff report, Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude said acceptance of three Los Angeles laws regulating smoking “has grown steadily and compliance levels have been exceptionally high.”

In the past, Orange County supervisors have expressed concern about difficulties involved in enforcing a smoking ordinance and have given the Chamber of Commerce opportunities to show that businesses are voluntarily solving the problem.

But in interviews this week, only Supervisor Don R. Roth, who joined the board in January, declined to express at least qualified support for a smoking ordinance. Roth said he has not studied the issue enough to take a position yet.

“I’ve seen a lot of illogical and emotional rhetoric” from proponents of a smoking ordinance, Board of Supervisors Chairman Roger R. Stanton said in an interview Wednesday. But he added that he has received numerous “personal letters and calls from constituents (saying) that they’re fed up” with people smoking in their presence.

“I’m leaning toward the idea that we’ve given the chamber their shot” at proving that no law is needed, Stanton said. “The gnawing question is how do you enforce it,” he said, but he added that the experience of cities with smoking ordinances indicated that the question “will never be totally answered, but the presence of an ordinance on the books is deterrent enough.”

Wieder’s Position

Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder noted that in the past she, too, has voted to let the chamber develop a voluntary no-smoking program for its member firms on the grounds that government should not interfere with the workings of private businesses.

But “there’s a time when we are going to have to do this,” she said, referring to passing a law. “We’ve given them a chance.”

She said the hazards of smoking have been so well-documented over the years that it is now beyond dispute that by giving some people “the freedom of smoking, we’re taking away another person’s freedom” to avoid cigarette smoke.

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said he also is leaning toward passing a law.

A fifth seat on the Board of Supervisors was left vacant by the resignation of Bruce Nestande in January. Stanton is acting as guardian of Nestande’s 3rd District seat until a replacement is named by the governor.

A county survey last month of 200 businesses with at least 10 workers each showed that 59.3% have a “policy to designate smoke-free work areas for employees,” the county staff report said. The remaining 40.7% have no policy and do not plan to implement one, the report said. The businesses were picked at random, and all were in unincorporated areas of the county.

There were nearly 45,000 workers in unincorporated areas of the county in 1980, according to that year’s census. That number included people working in government, private industry, agriculture and retail. How many would be covered by an ordinance has not been determined, county officials said.