The Calabasas smoking ban: A local ordinance points the way for the future of environmental tobacco smoke regulation

Southern California Law Review

Volumn 80, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 393-423

  Raphael, Jordan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947630227     PISSN: 00383910     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (241)

1. Gasper v. La. Stadium & Exposition Dist., 418 F. Supp. 716, 722 (E. D. La. 1976), aff'd, 577 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1978).
2. CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE §§ 8.12.030-.040 (2006), available at http://www.bpcnet.com/ codes/calabasas.
3. Id.
4. Id. §§ 8.12.070-.080.
5. Id. §§ 8.12.030-.050.
6. Much of the literature regarding smoking regulations refers to proponents of smoking regulations as "antismoking advocates." This term is not quite accurate because these individuals are not necessarily advocating a ban on smoking per se, but rather pushing for regulation of smoking, particularly in public places. Accordingly, this Note will refer to them as "smoking- regulation advocates."
7. Press Release, Ams. for Nonsmokers' Rights, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Celebrates 30 Years of Advocacy (Mar. 1, 2006), available at http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=486 [hereinafter ANR Press Release].
8. Bob Pool, Smoking Ban Moves Outdoors, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 18, 2006, at A1.
9. Prior to the 1990s, cigarette makers won the majority of smoking-related lawsuits (primarily in tort). See PHILIP J. HILTS, SMOKESCREEN: THE TRUTH BEHIND THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY COVER-UP 175 (1996). Since then, individual and class action suits have resulted in multimillion- and multibillion-dollar judgments and settlements. Robert A. Kagan & William P. Nelson, The Politics of Tobacco Regulation in the United States, in REGULATING TOBACCO 11, 11 (Robert L. Rabin & Stephen D. Sugarman eds., 2001). The litigation history of the tobacco industry has been amply described elsewhere and is beyond the scope of this Note.
10. Kagan & Nelson, supra note 9, at 16.
11. See id.
12. See id. at 20.
13. GIDEON DORON, THE SMOKING PARADOX: PUBLIC REGULATION IN THE CIGARETTE INDUSTRY 5 (1979).
14. RICHARD KLUGER, ASHES TO ASHES: AMERICA'S HUNDRED-YEAR CIGARETTE WAR, THE PUBLIC HEALTH, AND THE UNABASHED TRIUMPH OF PHILIP MORRIS 8 (1996).
15. Id. at 9.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 10.
18. JAMES I, A COUNTER-BLASTE TO TOBACCO 11 (The Rodale Press 1954) (1604).
19. Id. at 36.
20. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 10.
21. Id.
22. See id. at 10-11.
23. See id. at 18.
24. Id. at 19-20. Prior to the introduction of the Bonsack machine, cigarettes were hand-rolled. One company, Allen & Ginter, employed hundreds of girls as rollers. The Bonsack machine was capable of turning out "the equivalent of what forty to fifty workers could produce among them." Id.
25. Id. at 19. Chewing tobacco and its byproduct, spitting, were viewed as spreaders of tuberculosis and other contagions, and "cigar fumes were newly offensive amid thronged city life. The cigarette, by contrast, could be quickly consumed and easily snuffed out on the job as well as to and from work." Id.
26. DORON, supra note 13, at 7.
27. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 63-64.
28. DORON, supra note 13, at 7.
29. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 65.
30. DORON, supra note 13, at 7.
31. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 62.
32. See Peter D. Jacobson & Lisa M. Zapawa, Clean Indoor Air Restrictions: Progress and Promise, in REGULATING TOBACCO, supra note 9, at 207, 208.
33. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 38. By the end of the century, most states had enacted laws that outlawed the sale of cigarettes to minors. Id. at 40.
34. Rivka Widerman, Tobacco Is a Dirty Weed. Have We Ever Liked It? A Look at Nineteenth Century Anti-cigarette Legislation, 38 LOY. L. REV. 387, 389 (1992).
35. DORON, supra note 13, at 7.
36. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 69-71.
37. Widerman, supra note 34, at 389.
38. David B. Ezra, "Get Your Ashes Out of My Living Room!": Controlling Tobacco Smoke in Multi-unit Residential Housing, 54 RUTGERS L. REV. 135, 144 (2001). See also KLUGER, supra note 14, at 114 ("During the war years, the cultural habituation of Americans to their cigarettes was seductively advanced by Hollywood.").
39. HILTS, supra note 9, at 1.
40. Ezra, supra note 38, at 144.
41. See DORON, supra note 13, at 12-15.
42. U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH, EDUC., & WELFARE, PUB. HEALTH SERV. PUBL'N NO. 1103, SMOKING AND HEALTH: REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMM. TO THE SURGEON GEN. OF THE PUB. HEALTH SERV. 33 (1964), available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_1964/sgr64.htm.
43. Id. at 37. The advisory committee reviewed more than 7000 articles on smoking and disease, and found that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, laryngeal cancer, and chronic bronchitis. Office on Smoking and Health, CDC, History of the 1964 Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/30yrsgen.htm (last visited Dec. 9, 2006).
44. DORON, supra note 13, at 15.
45. See id.
46. Id.
47. Id.
48. Comprehensive Smoking Education Act, Pub. L. No. 98-474, 98 Stat. 2200 (1984) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1333 (2000)).
49. Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-222, 84 Stat. 87 (1970) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1335 (2000)).
50. See Ezra, supra note 38, at 146-47.
51. STANTON A. GLANTZ ET AL., THE CIGARETTE PAPERS 391 (1996).
52. Id. at 391-92.
53. Id. at 393.
54. Id. at 410. For example, a 1981 study published in the British Medical Journal found that passive smoking caused lung cancer. In response, the Tobacco Institute hired another scientist to critique the work, and then publicized those criticisms in a press release and full-page advertisements in newspapers and magazines. Internal industry documents "show that, although the tobacco industry was publicly attacking [the 1981 study], several of its own experts were privately admitting that [its] conclusions were valid." Id. at 413-15.
55. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 469.
56. GLANTZ ET AL., supra note 51, at 392. One study found an increased rate of respiratory diseases among children exposed to ETS. Other studies showed that nonsmoking women were more likely to die from lung cancer if they were married to smokers rather than nonsmokers. Id.
57. See KLUGER, supra note 14, at 501. "The failure of the tobacco-control movement to gain momentum early on was plainly traceable to the softness of the scientific case against secondhand smoke." Id. at 375.
58. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 36-601.01 (2003). See also KLUGER, supra note 14, at 374; Ezra, supra note 38, at 146.
59. MINN. STAT. § 144.414 (2005). See also Ezra, supra note 38, at 146-47. The cigarette companies fought back and defeated proposed nonsmoking laws in Illinois and Maine. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 375.
60. GLANTZ ET AL., supra note 51, at 416-17. More than ninety-nine percent of the money used to oppose Proposition 5 came from cigarette companies. Id. at 418. The tobacco industry spent six million dollars to combat Proposition 5, more than twenty times the amount spent by smoking-regulation advocates. Proposition 5 was defeated fifty-four percent to forty-six percent. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 477. For a detailed history of the battles over Proposition 5 and Proposition 10, see GLANTZ ET AL., supra note 51, at 417-31.
61. Ezra, supra note 38, at 147.
62. GLANTZ ET AL., supra note 51, at 431.
63. Id. "The [San Francisco] victory was accomplished despite an expenditure of $1,250,000 by the tobacco industry, including a sizable contribution from Brown and Williamson, which set a new national record for a local ballot measure." Id.
64. Kagan & Nelson, supra note 9, at 20.
65. Id.
66. Id. at 21.
67. Id.
68. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 555.
69. CAL. LAB. CODE § 6404.5 (West 2003). See Damon K. Nagami, Enforcement Methods Used in Applying the California Smoke-free Workplace Act to Bars and Taverns, 7 HASTINGS W.-NW. J. ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 159, 159, 163-64 (2001).
70. Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 216. At the state level, legislatures have pushed for more laws that preempt local ordinances and that prevent discrimination against smokers (for example, in the employment setting). By contrast, there has been a "diffusion of tobacco control laws within local regions." Id.
71. ANR Press Release, supra note 7; Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, Municipalities with Local 100% Smokefree Laws, http://www.no-smoke. org/pdf/100ordlisttabs.pdf (last visited Dec. 9, 2006).
72. ANR Press Release, supra note 7.
73. Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 221.
74. Leanna Frankland, City Examples: Localities Seek Bans on Smoking, NATION'S CITIES WEEKLY, May 9, 2005, at 10.
75. Paula Story, Del Mar Split over Smoke-free Proposal, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Feb. 11, 2006, at B5.
76. See infra Part III. See also Amanda Covarrubias, Calabasas Snuffs out Public Smoking, L.A. TIMES, Jan. 21, 2006, at B1.
77. See Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 221; E-mail from Pete Hanauer, Policy Analyst, American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, to author (Mar. 13, 2006, 10:53 PST) (on file with author).
78. HILTS, supra note 9, at 177. In part, this is because the large number of towns, counties, and cities makes it impractical for protobacco groups to fight all local antismoking initiatives. Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 223.
79. HILTS, supra note 9, at 177. A notable example from a later congressional session: in 1994, Representative Henry A. Waxman introduced a bill called the Smoke Free Environment Act, which "would have joined all the [local] smoking bans nationally, at a stroke." Id. at 107. The Energy and Commerce Committee, whose members had received a disproportionately large amount of contributions from tobacco groups, killed the bill. Id. at 177-78.
80. Id. at 177.
81. Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 208-11.
82. See KLUGER, supra note 14, at 473, 500.
83. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., Environmental Tobacco Smoke and the Press, in CLEARING THE AIR: PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE 75, 75 (Robert D. Tollison ed., 1988).
84. W. Allan Crawford, Complexities in Developing Public Health Programs: A Public Health Consultant's View, in CLEARING THE AIR: PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE, supra note 83, at 15, 21.
85. See also Mark J. Reasor, Scientific Issues Regarding Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Human Health, in CLEARING THE AIR: PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE, supra note 83, at 7, 14 ("The present data do not show a clear association between ETS and lung cancer, much less meet the criteria for judging causality."). On the other hand, as Richard Kluger points out, although it was difficult to gauge the toxicity of ETS, "the acute effects of ETS were manifest to those who suffered tearing eyes, sore throats, stuffy or runny noses, headaches, nausea, and other symptoms." KLUGER, supra note 14, at 473.
86. See also ROY J. SHEPHARD, THE RISKS OF PASSIVE SMOKING 84-90 (1982) (discussing studies on the effects of cigarette smoke on the eyes and noses of nonsmokers).
87. U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, RESPIRATORY HEALTH EFFECTS OF PASSIVE SMOKING: LUNG CANCER AND OTHER DISORDERS 1-1, 1-4, 1-5 (1992), available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfrn? deid=2835.
88. Id. at 1-1. The toxic agents found in ETS include benzene, nickel, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. Id. at 2-1.
89. See Joaquin Barnoya & Stanton A. Glantz, Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke: Nearly As Large as Smoking, 111 CIRCULATION 2684, 2694 (2005);
90. Ruth Bonita et al., Passive Smoking As Well as Active Smoking Increases the Risk of Acute Stroke, TOBACCO CONTROL, Summer 1999, at 156, 159, available at http://tc.bmjjouraals.com/cgi/ reprint/8/2/156?ijkey=s5i8mmfH77IGE;
91. Stanton A. Glantz & William W. Parmley, Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Epidemiology, Physiology, and Biochemistry, 83 CIRCULATION 1, 10 (1991).
92. Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 208-10.
93. See, e.g., City of Zion v. Behrens, 104 N.E. 836, 837-38 (Ill. 1914) (invalidating a local ordinance that prohibited public smoking within city limits because it was "an attempt . . . to regulate and control the habits and practices of the citizen without any reasonable basis for so doing"); Hershberg v. City of Barbourville, 133 S.W. 985, 985-86 (Ky. 1911).
94. See, e.g., Players, Inc. v. City of N.Y., 371 F. Supp. 2d 522, 536-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. City of N.Y., 315 F. Supp. 2d 461, 495-96 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Washington v. Tinsley, 809 F. Supp. 504, 509-10 (S.D. Tex. 1992); Operation Badlaw, Inc. v. Licking County Gen. Health Dist. Bd. of Health, 866 F. Supp. 1059, 1063-69 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff'd, 991 F.2d 796 (6th Cir. 1993).
95. NYC C.L.A.S.H., 315 F. Supp. 2d at 495-96. Although it entertained the plaintiffs "fixation" with discrediting the reports and death tolls relied on by the defendants, the court wrote that "the evidence against ETS is consistent, profound, and widely-accepted," and described the plaintiff's attempt "to cast serious doubt on the mountainous evidence over the past two decades" as "akin to trying to scale Mount Everest with a ball of string." Id. at 495, 497.
96. Id. at 495.
97. Players, 371 F. Supp. 2d at 547 (internal citation omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
98. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955).
99. See SHEPHARD, supra note 84, at 125-26. See also KLUGER, supra note 14, at 552-53 (explaining that when asked to stop smoking, many smokers declined to do so, "assuming that it was their right to feed their habit when and where they chose and thereby breeding a latent resentment among nonsmokers").
100. ROBERT D. TOLLISON & RICHARD E. WAGNER, SMOKING AND THE STATE: SOCIAL COSTS, RENT SEEKING, AND PUBLIC POLICY 69 (1988).
101. Id. at 99-101, 114. "Disputes formerly resolved efficiently through the efforts of profit-seeking entrepreneurs in private markets have increasingly become battlefields across which rent-seeking interest groups struggle for political favoritism. Id. at 76.
102. Id. at 114. In Tollison and Wagner's view, tobacco regulation is just one example of "unlimited government intervention into the peaceful domain of social life." Id. at 115.
103. See KLUGER, supra note 14, at 506.
104. Tollison and Wagner argue that if, despite the risks of harm, nonsmokers continue to associate with smokers, "it must be true that they perceive themselves better off by doing so." TOLLISON & WAGNER, supra note 96, at 75. But this line of reasoning disregards the plight of nonsmokers who may not have the freedom or mobility envisioned by Tollison and Wagner's ideal-market model, such as nonsmoking employees, waiters, bartenders, children, and prisoners. See Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 214.
105. Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 214. "[S]ome products are so harmful that governmental neutrality is neither obligatory nor desirable. Just as public policy seeks to marginalize illicit substance use, it is appropriate for government to design policy mechanisms to marginalize tobacco use." Id.
106. See, e.g., Grusendorf v. Okla. City, 816 F.2d 539, 541-42 (10th Cir. 1987); Players, Inc. v. City of N.Y., 371 F. Supp. 2d 522, 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); City of Tucson v. Grezaffi, 23 P.3d 675, 681 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001); City of N. Miami v. Kurtz, 653 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1995); Fagan v. Axelrod, 550 N.Y.S.2d 552, 559 (Sup. Ct. 1990) ("There is no more a fundamental right to smoke cigarettes than there is to shoot-up or snort heroin or cocaine or run a red-light.") (internal citation omitted); Craig v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., 343 S.E.2d 222, 223 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986) ("The right to smoke in public places is not a protected right . . . .").
107. Kurtz, 653 So. 2d at 1028 (internal citation omitted).
108. See, e.g., Fed. Employees for Non-Smokers' Rights v. United States, 446 F. Supp. 181, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1978); Gasper v. La. Stadium & Exposition Dist., 418 F. Supp. 716, 721-22 (E.D. La. 1976), aff'd, 577 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1978); King v. Hofer, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 719, 721 (Ct. App. 1996) (declining to treat "nonsmokers as a protected class in the area of civil rights"); GASP v. Mecklenburg County, 256 S.E.2d 477,479 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).
109. Gasper, 418 F. Supp. at 717.
110. Id. at 721.
111. Id. "This Court feels that, unlike the right of privacy as it relates to the institution of marriage, the 'right' to breathe smoke-free air while attending events in the Louisiana Superdome certainly does not rise to those constitutional proportions envisioned in Griswold v. State of Connecticut." Id. at 722.
112. Id. at 722.
113. SHEPHARD, supra note 84, at 11.
114. Id. See also KLUGER, supra note 14, at 680.
115. KLUGER, supra note 14, at 680-81. "[J]ust as peer pressure had once worked to spread the cigarette habit across the land, and then the globe, now it was operating in reverse." Id. at 681.
116. See, e.g., CAL. LAB. CODE § 6404.5 (West 2003) (stating that the Legislature's intent was "to reduce employee exposure to environmental tobacco smoke"); Calabasas, Cal., Ordinance 2006-217, 4 (2006), available at http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/pdf/ agendas/council/2006/021506/item2-O2006-217.pdf (stating that the city council's intent was to discourage smoking near nonsmokers and children, reduce the likelihood of children associating smoking with a healthy lifestyle, protect the public from smoking litter, and affirm the city's "family-friendly atmosphere").
117. John A. Tauras & Lan Liang, The Impact of Physician Intervention and Tobacco Control Policies on Average Daily Cigarette Consumption Among Adult Smokers 16-20 (Nat'l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 9790, 2003), available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w9790.
118. Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 227.
119. Id.
120. See RODDEY REID, GLOBALIZING TOBACCO CONTROL: ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGNS IN CALIFORNIA, FRANCE, AND JAPAN 31 (2005). Other factors in the decline of smoking rates include social marketing campaigns, health promotion, tax increases, and advertising restrictions. Id. at 8.
121. HILTS, supra note 9, at 1.
122. Kagan & Nelson, supra note 9, at 11.
123. J.P. PIERCE ET AL., TOBACCO CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA: WHO'S WINNING THE WAR?: AN EVALUATION OF THE TOBACCO CONTROL PROGRAM, 1989-1996, at 2-11 to 2-13 (1998), available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/tc/surveys/CTC1989-96/.
124. Janet Wilson, Tobacco Foes See an Opening, L.A. TIMES, Feb. 6, 2006, at B1.
125. Press Release, Nat'l Ass'n of Att'ys Gen., Cigarette Sales in U.S. Reach Historic 55-year Low (Mar. 8,2006), available at http://www.naag.org/ news/pdf/pr-20060308-cig-decrease.pdf.
126. Calabasas, Cal., Ordinance 2006-217, 1-4 (Feb. 15, 2006), available at http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/pdf/agendas/council/2006/021506/item2- O2006-217.pdf.
127. Id. at 4. The ordinance was instigated by a city resident who complained about rampant smoking in the outdoor eating area of a local mall. Interview with Michael G. Colantuono, City Attorney, in Calabasas, Cal. (Mar. 15, 2006) [hereinafter Colantuono Interview].
128. Calabasas, Cal., Ordinance 2006-217, at 5-7 (codified at CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE § 8.12 (2006)).
129. CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE §§ 8.12.030-.040, available at http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/ calabasas.
130. Id.
131. Frequently Asked Questions About the Comprehensive Second-hand Smoke Control Ordinance, http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/secondhandsmoke-faq.html (last visited Dec. 9, 2006).
132. See id.
133. CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE § 8.12.080.
134. CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE §§ 1.16.020, 8.12.070 (2006), available at http://www.bpcnet. com/codes/calabasas. According to one city official, however, warnings and fines will make up the bulk of the penalties, and "there are no foreseeable instances where the City would arrest people and put them in jail for smoking under this ordinance."
135. Posting of Jacob Sullum to Hit & Run, http://www.reason. conVhitandrun/2006/03/we_could_put_sm.shtml (Mar. 9, 2006, 18:10 EST).
136. CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE § 8.12.080(a).
137. Id. § 8.12.080(b) (emphasis added).
138. Id. § 8.12.080(e). Every day that a violation continues counts as a separate violation. Id.
139. Id.
140. Id.
141. Covarrubias, supra note 76, at B1; John Banzhaf, ASH Supports Calabasas' Comprehensive Smoking Ban, http://www.no-smoking.org/Feb06/02-16-06-1.html (last visited Dec. 9, 2006).
142. Jacob Sullum, Clean Air Calabasas: A Smoke-free, Family-friendly Atmosphere of Moralistic Intolerance, REASON ONLINE, Mar. 8, 2006, http://www.reason.com/sullum/030806.shtml.
143. Letters, Readers Around the Country Fume over New Law, ACORN, Feb. 23, 2006, available at http://www.theacorn.com/news/ 2006/0223/Letters/008.hrml. One reader wrote: "When they outlaw cars, buses and all industry pollutants, then and only then can they make the argument that smoke from cigarettes should be banned. Otherwise it's total hypocrisy targeted toward a certain group of Americans." Id.
144. For an argument that legislators should ban smoking outright rather than behaving hypocritically by enacting smoking bans while remaining dependent on tobacco excise taxes and industry contributions, see Justin C. Levin, Protect Us or Leave Us Alone: The New York State Smoking Ban, 68 ALB. L. REV. 183, 198-206 (2004).
145. See TOLLISON & WAGNER, supra note 96, at 111-14; Walter E. Williams, Cigarettes and Property Rights, in CLEARING THE AIR: PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE, supra note 83, at 39, 47.
146. See TOLLISON & WAGNER, supra note 96, at 67-69.
147. Williams, supra note 139, at 51-52.
148. CAL. GOV'T CODE § 7597 (West 1995 & Supp. 2006); CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 104495 (West 2006); CAL. LAB. CODE § 6404.5 (West 2003).
149. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LEGAL CTR., PUB. HEALTH INST., HOW TO PROTECT YOUR COMMUNITY FROM SECONDHAND SMOKE: AN INTRODUCTION TO A COMPREHENSIVE SECONDHAND SMOKE MODEL ORDINANCE 1 (Oct. 2003), available at http://talc.phlaw.org/pdf_files/0048.pdf [hereinafter MODEL ORDINANCE].
150. CAL. CONST. art. XI, § 7.
151. Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 550 P.2d 1001, 1009 (Cal. 1976).
152. City of San Jose v. Dep't of Health Servs., 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 609, 613 (Ct. App. 1998).
153. Nat'l Ctr. for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion, State Comparison Report, Preemption - on Smokefree Indoor Air, http://apps.nccd.cdc. gov/statesystem/systemindex.aspx#Legislation (last visited Dec. 9, 2006). For an example of explicit state preemption, see VA. CODE ANN. § 15.2-2803 (2005) (providing that local ordinances "shall not contain provisions or standards which exceed those established" by state law). For an example of implicit state preemption, see Michigan Restaurant Ass'n v. City of Marquette, 626 N.W.2d 418, 419-21 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (holding that a state law mandating a minimum number of seats for nonsmokers in restaurants preempted a municipality's absolute ban on smoking in restaurants).
154. CAL. LAB. CODE § 6404.5(i) (West 2003); CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 104495(h) (West 2006).
155. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 104495(h).
156. See NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. City of N.Y., 315 F. Supp. 2d 461, 482-83 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Fagan v. Axelrod, 550 N.Y.S.2d 552, 560 (Sup. Ct. 1990) (finding antismoking legislation does not create a "suspect" class of nonsmokers); supra Part II.D.1-2.
157. See, e.g., NYC CL.A.S.H., 315 F. Supp. 2d at 482-83.
158. City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976).
159. Id. at 304-05 (discussing quality of life); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 450 (1961) (discussing public morals); Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 487 (1955) (discussing public health).
160. City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 26 (1989).
161. Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640 (1937).
162. NYC C.L.A.S.H., 315 F. Supp. 2d at 495.
163. Press Release, Cal. Air Res. Bd., California Identifies Second-hand Smoke as a "Toxic Air Contaminant" (Jan. 26, 2006), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr012606.htm. The Air Resource Board describes ETS as "an airborne toxic substance that may cause and/or contribute to death or serious illness." Id.
164. Players, Inc. v. City of N.Y., 371 F. Supp. 2d 522, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
165. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955). See supra Part II.D.1.
166. ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 660 (2d ed. 2002).
167. Phillips Chem. Co. v. Dumas Indep. Sch. Dist, 361 U.S. 376, 385 (1960).
168. See Dan M. Kahan, Gentle Nudges vs. Hard Shoves: Solving the Sticky Norms Problem, 67 U. CHI. L. REV. 607, 626 (2000).
169. See Michele L. Tyler, Blowing Smoke: Do Smokers Have a Right? Limiting the Privacy Rights of Cigarette Smokers, 86 GEO. L.J. 783, 809 (1998).
170. Id.
171. Id.
172. Id. at 809-10.
173. Id. at 810.
174. SHEPHARD, supra note 84, at 11.
175. See, e.g., Osborne M. Reynolds, Jr., Extinguishing Brushfires: Legal Limits on the Smoking of Tobacco, 53 U. CIN. L. REV. 435, 456-63 (1984).
176. Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Commc'ns, Inc., 634 N.E.2d 697, 699 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).
177. McCrackenv. Sloan, 252 S.E.2d 250, 252 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).
178. Id.
179. Pool, supra note 8.
180. Id.
181. Kahan, supra note 162, at 607.
182. Id.
183. Id. at 608.
184. Id. Thus, in the smoking ban context, even mild antismoking regulations empower nonsmokers to informally assert and enforce their right to be free of ETS. Id. at 628.
185. Id. at 608.
186. Id. at 626.
187. Id.
188. Id. at 627.
189. CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE §§ 1.16.020, 8.12.080.070 (2006), available at http://www. bpcnet.com/codes/calabasas.
190. See supra text accompanying note 130.
191. Pool, supra note 8.
192. See MODEL ORDINANCE, supra note 143, at 4-5.
193. See Ezra, supra note 38, at 138; Colantuono Interview, supra note 123.
194. See Tyler, supra note 163, at 795-96.
195. U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
196. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86 (1965).
197. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 565-68 (1969).
198. Id. at 565.
199. See supra Part II.D.1-2.
200. Ezra, supra note 38, at 155. Children and other residents in the smoker's unit may also be affected by ETS, but that topic is beyond the scope of this Note. For a discussion of ETS and children's health, see Allison D. Schwartz, Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Its Effect on Children: Controlling Smoking in the Home, 20 B.C. ENVTL. AFF. L. REV. 135 (1993).
201. Ezra, supra note 38, at 155-56.
202. Id. at 156-61.
203. Id. at 156-57.
204. Thomsen v. Greve, 550 N.W.2d 49, 51 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
205. Id. at 55.
206. Merrill v. Bosser, No. 05-4239, at 1-2, 5 (Fla. Broward County Ct. June 29, 2005), available at http://ash.org/merrillcase.pdf.
207. Id. at 5.
208. Ralph Ranalli & Jonathan Saltzman, Jury Finds Smoking Grounds for Eviction, BOSTON GLOBE, June 16, 2005, at B1.
209. UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-38-1(3) (2002).
210. Id.
211. Ezra, supra note 38, at 138, 153.
212. Id. at 178; Utah Smoke-free Apartment and Condominium Guide: Owners and Managers, http://www.tobaccofreeutah.org/aptcondoguide-lom.htm (last visited Dec. 9, 2006).
213. See Ezra, supra note 38, at 154.
214. See, e.g., Smokefree Apartment House Registry, http://www.smokefreeapartments.org (last visited Dec. 9, 2006).
215. See supra Part II.D.3.
216. Mark J. Horvick, Note, Examining the Underlying Purposes of Municipal and Statewide Smoking Bans, 80 IND. L.J. 923, 934-35 (2005).
217. Alan B. Horowitz, Comment, Terminating the "Passive" Paradox: A Proposal for Federal Regulation of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 41 AM. U. L. REV. 183, 190 (1991).
218. See Nagami, supra note 69, at 167.
219. Jacobson & Zapawa, supra note 32, at 222.
220. See id. at 231.
221. Nagami, supra note 69, at 167-68; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LEGAL CTR., PUB. HEALTH INST., THE BENEFITS OF ADDING A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION PROVISION TO LOCAL TOBACCO CONTROL ORDINANCES 1 (June 2006), available at http.//talc.phlaw.org/pdf_files/0050.pdf [hereinafter PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION].
222. MODEL ORDINANCE, supra note 143, at 5.
223. CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE § 8.12.080 (2006), available at http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/calabasas.
224. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, supra note 215, at 1 (emphasis omitted).
225. CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE § 8.12.080(e).
226. Id.
227. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17204 (West 2003) (current version at CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17204 (Supp. 2006)).
228. Id. § 17200.
229. Christian Berthelsen, Prop. 64 Would Limit Suits Against Businesses, S.F. CHRON., Oct. 19, 2004, at D1.
230. Id.
231. See Marc Lifsher, Election 2004; State's Businesses Are Given a Lift by Voters, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 4, 2004, at C1.
232. See CALABASAS, CAL., MUN. CODE § 8.12.080 (2006), available at http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/ calabasas.
233. Id. § 8.12.080(h).
234. Id. § 8.12.080(d).
235. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 950 P.2d 1086, 1111 (Cal. 1998) (Brown, J., dissenting).
236. Id.
237. Id.
238. Id. at 1112.
239. Id.
240. Id.
241. See, e.g., People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court, 705 P.2d 347, 351-53 (Cal. 1985) (disqualifying a city attorney due to his contingent fee arrangement with the city because his direct, personal interest was "antithetical to the [prosecutor's] standard of neutrality").