CONTRA COSTA SEEKS LAW TO FIGHT TOBACCO ADS

Supervisors want rule that is court-proof

A proposed ordinance aimed at preventing tobacco sales to minors in Contra
Costa moved ahead yesterday without its most legally questionable
restriction.

The Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 with one abstention to pursue a local
law that would limit tobacco advertisements in stores and prohibit tobacco
company sponsorship of youth events. It would also ban distribution of
cigarette company ``gear'' such as clothing and accessories.

In addition to attacking tobacco sales to youngsters, the supervisors
decided to consider including the same restrictions on alcohol advertising
and sales.

The board majority rejected Supervisor Donna Gerber's request to ``bite the
bullet'' and ``go for the maximum'' by requiring permits for any store that
sells tobacco products. The majority instead heeded legal advice that such
requirements would likely be overturned in court.

``We understand these people are sleazy,'' Board Chairman Jim Rogers said
of tobacco advertisers. ``We understand they're trying to hook kids. The
only question is how far can we go in regulating this.''

Contra Costa, like many other California counties and cities, has been
wrestling with the tobacco issue for some time. After debating a 1994
proposal to ban tobacco and alcohol ads near schools, the county reached an
agreement with billboard companies to voluntarily remove the ads in
exchange for county approval of new billboards elsewhere.

The supervisors deleted further restrictions on billboard ads yesterday,
fearing it would look like overkill in any court battle over the proposed
ordinance.

Contra Costa's effort is one of the latest in the Bay Area to clamp down on
tobacco ads.

Oakland approved an outright ban on tobacco and alcohol billboards in
October but revised it in December after opponents threatened to sue.
Patterned after a Baltimore law that survived a court challenge, Oakland's
ordinance prohibits billboards within 1,000 feet of parks, schools,
playfields, churches and day-care centers.

Opponents are still threatening to sue, particularly because the inclusion
of day-care centers leaves few of Oakland's 1,400 billboards available for
tobacco ads.

A state law that took effect January 1 also bans tobacco billboard ads
within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds.

San Francisco supervisors passed a billboard ban and restrictions on store
ads on January 5.

One Contra Costa supervisors said yesterday that he preferred to let other
counties and cities test legally risky advertising restrictions in court.

``I want to be out front,'' said Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier of Concord,
``but I want to be confident that it's a fight that we can win.''

Nevertheless, the county will at least consider limiting tobacco signs
inside stores to those identifying their availability and price.
Supervisors also want to explore requiring new businesses to obtain county
permits before they can sell tobacco. Existing businesses that repeatedly
violate tobacco sales laws may also have to obtain permits.

Supervisors told county lawyers to draft an ordinance and bring it back to
the board within three months. Supervisor Joe Canciamilla of Pittsburg
abstained on the vote, saying he did not understand the changes included by
other supervisors.

The proposed ordinance was suggested by local health advocates and
teenagers, many of whom belong to a group called TIGHT, an acronym for
Tobacco Industry Getting Hammered by Teens.

Those speaking against the proposal yesterday included Jennifer Vaniel, who
sets up Marlboro cigarette displays in stores in central Contra Costa and
Benicia.

``We're not targeting young people. We're just providing a service to the
consumer,'' she said.

High school senior Jennifer Scimia, 18, of San Ramon, said a trip to her
neighborhood store with her 7-year-old sister proves otherwise.

``Right about the same height as where she gets her candy is a Marlboro
ad,'' Scimia said.

)1998 San Francisco Chronicle Page A18