Restrictions On Smoking Expected To Pass

A proposal that would tighten Cambridge's existing anti-smoking laws by make smoking illegal in public areas and workplaces is likely to become law at Monday night's City Council meeting, officials said this week.

The proposed ordinance, similar to one passed in San Francisco and other cities, is designed to protect non-smoking employees from any work situation forcing them to breathe tobacco smoke within city limits.

Under Cambridge's current smoking regulations, restaurants with more than 25 seats must reserve space for non-smoking patrons. That law has been on the books since 1984, and has prompted only one investigation of its violation, one year ago at Pizzeria Regina.

Council Majority Needed

Five of the nine City Councilors have supported the strict amendment to Cambridge's smoking ordinance since the bill was introduced in September. At that time Surgeon General C. Everett Koop spoke in support of the bill's co-sponsors, David E. Sullivan and Sheila T. Russell.

Three other City Councilors--Saundra Graham, Alice E. Wolf and Francis H. Duehay '55, all members of the liberal Cambridge Civic Association (CCA)--have stated their public support for the pending bill.

"I am optimistic that the ordinance will pass [next Monday]," Sullivan said this week. "The City of Cambridge certainly has the right to protect its citizens." To pass, the regulation needs five votes among the nine city councilors.

In terms of Harvard, local lawmakers said this week that the new ordinance would affect University offices and libraries, but that dormitories and dining halls would be exempt from any additional bans.

At present, smoking is prohibited in theCollege's classrooms, and several graduateschools--like the Kennedy School of Government,the School of Public Health, and the GraduateSchool of Education--have severely restrictedsmoking on their premises.

Constitutional Question?

Independent Councilor Thomas W. Danehy, whodescribes himself as "an occasional smoker," toldthe Cambridge Chronicle yesterday that he alsowill vote for the ordinance. Before a hearing heldtwo weeks ago on the subject, Danehy said he waslikely to favor the proposal, although hequestions its constitutionality.

"What are we going to regulate next?" he askedthe council, noting that drunk drivers arestatistically more dangerous than smokers.

"We would think any constitutional issuesbelong to the health of the non-smoker," saidPatricia Kates, president of the MassachusettsGroup Against Smoking Pollution (GASP). She saidthe air in work-places should be regulated for thesame reasons that restaurants must conform tohealth standards. "It will be a good nudge toHarvard to pay attention to the health needs ofthe students and faculty," she added.

Although smoking is explicitly banned in mostHarvard libraries, Kates said she has receivedcomplaints about smoking in the Widener readingroom.

Of the remaining three councilors, all of whomsmoke, Mayor Walter J. Sullivan and Vice MayorAlfred E. Vellucci are at a conference in SanAntonio, Texas, and could not be reached forcomment.

Vellucci objected during the hearing to theproposal's definition of "public places" as "anyplace to which the public is admitted or invited."At his urging, the council has already adopted aseparate amendment to the smoking ordinance thatexempts VFW posts, Beano parlors, and privatefunctions such as weddings from regulations onsmoking.

The third, City Councilor William H. Walsh,said he plans to introduce amendments to make theordinance more enforceable. He said the proposalin its current form would hurt small businessesbecause they would find it difficult to createseparate smoking and non-smoking areas foremployees and patrons. He compared it to thecity's restaurant regulations,.

"There's not a great deal of emotion on eitherside," said Walsh, adding that he has receivedonly 13 letters on the subject, compared to 600about the use of animals in scientific research