BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1819
Page A
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1819 (Hall)
As Introduced February 18, 2014
Majority vote
HUMAN SERVICES 5-2 GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
14-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Stone, Ammiano, Ian |Ayes:|Hall, Campos, Chesbro, |
| |Calderon, Garcia, Hall | |Cooley, Dababneh, Gray, |
| | | |Roger Hern�ndez, |
| | | |Jones-Sawyer, Levine, |
| | | |Medina, Perea, V. Manuel |
| | | |P�rez, Salas, Wilk |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Maienschein, Grove | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, | | |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Holden, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Weber | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Bigelow, Allen, Donnelly, | | |
| |Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Expands the existing prohibition against smoking in a
family day care home from only during the hours of operation to
at any time.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Unknown, likely minor, costs to the Department of Social
Services (DSS) for staff training and any increased complaint
AB 1819
Page B
response against licensed facilities for violation of the
24-hour smoking ban.
2)Any local government costs resulting from the mandate in this
measure would not be state-reimbursable because the mandate
only involves the definition of a crime or penalty for
conviction of a crime.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to increase the safety of family day
care program settings by extending the current ban on smoking
while children are present to a complete ban on smoking in
family day care homes, even during hours of nonoperation.
The dangers of secondhand smoke: It is clear, based on numerous
reports and studies, that smoking and the exposure to secondhand
smoke is detrimental to a person's health, especially the health
of young children. This year, the Surgeon General of the United
States released its 32nd report on the dangers of smoking to
honor the 50th anniversary its first-ever report on the health
risks associated with smoking entitled "Smoking Health Report of
the Advisory Committee of the Surgeon General of the Public
Health Service" in 1964. In the 50th Anniversary report, the
Surgeon General states that:
?smoking is now causally associated with age-related
macular degeneration, diabetes, colorectal cancer,
liver cancer, adverse health outcomes in cancer
patients and survivors, tuberculosis, erectile
dysfunction, orofacial clefts in infants, ectopic
pregnancy, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammation, and
impaired immune function.<1>
He goes on to further state that "exposure to secondhand smoke
has now been causally associated with an increased risk for
stroke." Additionally, a previous report issued by the Surgeon
General in 2006, entitled The Health Consequences of Involuntary
Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, demonstrated that the efforts to
accommodate for smoking and smoke-free areas are ineffective in
combating the consequences of exposure to secondhand smoke:
---------------------------
<1> "The Health Consequences of Smoking - 50 Years of Progress."
A Report of the Surgeon General. United States Public Health
Service; United States Department of Health and Human Services.
2014
AB 1819
Page C
Research reviewed in this report indicates that
smoke-free policies are the most economic and
effective approach for providing protection from
exposure to secondhand smoke. But do they provide the
greatest health impact? Separating smokers and
nonsmokers in the same airspace is not effective, nor
is air cleaning or a greater exchange of indoor with
outdoor air. Additionally, having separately
ventilated areas for smoking may not offer a
satisfactory solution to reducing workplace exposures.
Policies prohibiting smoking in the workplace have
multiple benefits. Besides reducing exposure of
nonsmokers to secondhand smoke, these policies reduce
tobacco use by smokers and change public attitudes
about tobacco use from acceptable to unacceptable.
Emerging findings on the health impacts of thirdhand smoke
exposure: Over the last several years, research has begun to
reveal the health impacts of thirdhand smoke. Described as the
residual chemicals left on indoor surfaces as a result of
smoking, it is commonly considered to be the left over residue
from secondhand smoke, which includes cancer-causing chemicals
such as nicotine and benzene, toxic metals like chromium and
lead, and harmful gases like carbon monoxide and ammonia.
Particularly alarming is the presence and increased health risks
presented by thirdhand smoke. In many cases, thirdhand smoke
can remain long after smoking has stopped and become imbedded in
common household items, such as carpets, curtains, tables, etc.
In the case of children, especially infants and toddlers,
thirdhand smoke presents an even greater health risk. As they
explore and put their hands or toys in their mouths, they could
touch, swallow or inhale compounds from thirdhand smoke. Their
age and early developmental stages make them more vulnerable
than adults to the effects of environmental hazards due to their
developing immune system, and thus, are more likely to be
exposed to thirdhand smoke.
In a report released in June 2013 by the University of
California Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, entitled
Thirdhand smoke causes DNA damage in human cells, it was found
that "thirdhand smoke-the noxious residue that clings to
virtually all surfaces long after the secondhand smoke from a
cigarette has cleared out-cause's significant genetic damage in
human cells." Specifically, the research demonstrated that
AB 1819
Page D
thirdhand smoke has the potential to become more damaging to a
person's health than acute smoke or secondhand smoke exposure
due to the interaction of residual chemicals of thirdhand smoke
with existing indoor pollutants. Long after a person smokes,
the lingering nicotine and other chemicals can become more
condensed and potent, and in some cases become new pollutant
compounds that are carcinogenic, thus presenting greater
long-term health risks, such as uncontrolled cell growth and the
formation of cancerous tumors later in life.
These findings are particularly disturbing, indicating that
thirdhand smoke cannot be eliminated by the airing out of indoor
spaces or restricting exposure to secondhand smoke. Rather, the
safest environment is a smoke-free environment where cigarette
smoke and fumes are never present.
Need for the bill: Stating the need for the bill, the author
writes:
AB 1819 requires licensed family day care homes to
maintain a smoke free environment for the children
that are under their care and protection. The measure
is consistent with similar requirements in nine other
states and the District of Columbia. Exposure to
second and third hand smoke leads to lifelong health
issues that will require continued medical attention
and increased healthcare costs.
This measure will have a direct impact on reducing
childhood exposure to second and third hand smoke and
decrease the chance of a child developing health
issues related to smoking.
Analysis Prepared by : Chris Reefe / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089
FN: 0003152