Nationwide Public Smoking Ban 10
Unit 6 Project: Nationwide Public Smoking Ban
Anne Smith
Kaplan University
CM220-03
Professor Johnson
January 5, 2011
Nationwide Public Smoking Ban
The effects of second-hand smoke have been well-known for decades; in fact, the Surgeon General warned the public about its dangers in 1972 (Schick & Glantz, 2005). Do people knowingly have the right to put others’ health at risk? No, they do not. Exposure to cigarette smoke is a public health risk. Therefore, smoking should be banned in all public places, nationwide.
There has been no attempt to impose a national smoking ban by the U.S. government. All current bans are in place because of state and local legislation. Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights lists the various state and local smoking laws that have emerged since the 1980s, and the regulations vary greatly (2010). This is extremely confusing. Some states have strict smoking bans in all public places, some states have regulations that vary from city to city, and some states have no public smoking bans at all. Some states have so many different regulations it is hard to keep track of them all. For example, Kansas passed a state-wide smoking ban in 2010, but that ban still exempts tobacconists, private clubs, and casinos. Prior to the state-wide ban, it had numerous local bans; some included all restaurants and bars, but others exempted restaurants and bars that did not allow patrons under 18 (Koranda & Mann, 2010).
While almost half of the states have passed statewide bans, the exemptions often make the bans useless. For example, Missouri’s Health and Welfare statutes note that people can only smoke in “designated smoking areas” in public places, but a restaurant can have up to 30% of its space designated as a smoking area, and no separate ventilation is required (2010, Section 191.767). The areas not considered “public spaces” include “bars, taverns, restaurants that seat less than fifty people, bowling alleys and billiard parlors” and “any enclosed arena, stadium, or other facility which may be used for sporting events and which has a seating capacity of more than fifteen thousand persons” (2010, Section 191.769). A parent wanting to take a child bowling or an asthmatic wishing to attend a professional hockey game would be out of luck in Missouri since those areas are not subject to public smoking bans. Lenient states like Missouri may be impeding national legislation for a federal smoking ban. These states may be scared of smoking bans because of the fears of local business owners. What they may not realize, though, is that a national smoking ban would eliminate many of these fears.
Currently, the lack of a federal law means that states or regions wishing to impose bans have to worry about the impact on businesses. In 2007, Minnesota imposed a very strict state-wide smoking ban (Zdechlik, 2007).This is good, right? The problem is that the neighboring states did not have smoking bans at the time. Some bar owners feared that the bans would hurt their businesses (Erickson, n.d.). While any ban is better than none, a nation-wide ban is most effective for everyone.
Another concern of local business owners is that patrons will simply stop going out in inclement or snowy weather if they have to smoke outside (Erickson, n.d.). Like most problems, however, it can be overcome with a little creativity and innovation. One bar manager stated that they planned on “building a patio and erecting a shelter to protect smokers from wind and rain” (Erickson, n.d.). In another bar, an outdoor heater was added (Erickson, n.d.).
How will the smoking bans affect employment rates? At the time when the smoking ban took effect, there were worries that restaurants and bars would have to decrease their staff in order to counter-balance their loss in business (“Bars, Restaurants,” 2010). It seems their fear was never realized. A 2010 study done in St. Paul and Minneapolis showed a rise in employment in the hospitality industry of three and five percent, respectfully, over the past two years (“Bars, Restaurants,” 2010). Not only has the smoking ban in Minnesota protected the health of workers and the public, it has also improved the economy.
It is the government’s responsibility to protect the public’s health and safety. It is also their job to protect workers. They have laws to regulate hours and wages; there should be a law to protect workers against exposure to cigarette smoke as well. According to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), “workers are entitled to working conditions that do not pose a risk or serious harm” (n.d.). Yet many states still allow smoking in bars and restaurants, and workers who are constantly exposed to second-hand smoke (SHS) are at a greater risk than someone who “lives with a smoker” (Maskarinec, 2000, p.36). A smoke-filled environment is one which poses serious harm to those who work in it. It is a clear violation of OSHA’s guidelines.
Other groups which are considered high risk for exposure to second-hand smoke are children, pregnant women, and all people with health issues (Wamboldt, 2008). There is no doubt that SMS exposure is dangerous for these groups. What about seemingly healthy people? Is SHS exposure really a public health risk? Let’s state some facts. There are over fifty chemicals in tobacco smoke which cause cancer (“Only 100%,” 2007). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths a year are caused by SHS; these are people who do not smoke themselves but are exposed to SHS at work or home (2010). These numbers just refer to adults; countless children get pneumonia, bronchitis, asthma, ear infections, and allergies due to SHS (CDC, 2010). If that does not signify a public health risk then what does? Some people say that smoking bans violate human rights and freedoms (Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans, 2007). What about the right to live and breathe freely?
There are hospital admission studies, as well, which back up the claim that a smoking ban will benefit society. In Toronto, Ontario, hospital admission rates were studied from three years before a smoking ban until two years after (Naiman, 2010). Admissions for cardiovascular conditions and respiratory conditions went down thirty-three and thirty-nine percent, respectively (Naiman, 2010). With new and startling information about the dangers of smoke exposure being revealed every year, these types of studies are needed in order to show that smoking bans do make a difference.
One of these new dangers is the link between SHS and diabetes. A recent study states that people exposed to SHS “have a 40 percent greater risk of diabetes” (“Where There’s Smoke,” 2006). It seems that the risks of second and third-hand smoke are limitless. It is now known that SHS causes asthma, diabetes, bronchitis, ear infections, respiratory infections, heart disease, pneumonia, emphysema, and lung cancer, among others (Wamboldt, 2008 ). It is hard to believe that anyone exposed to SHS can make it through life without getting at least one of these; there are so many possible risks. This country may not be ready to ban smoking completely, but at the very least, people who choose not to smoke deserve to be protected against exposure to it.
Another new danger from tobacco smoke is third hand smoke (THS). What is third-hand smoke? It is the build-up of tobacco contaminants on surfaces (Ostrow, 2010). This is scary. How can a person avoid something he cannot see? A person can no longer assume he is safe from smoke exposure when no one around them is smoking. In fact, THS can be even more dangerous than SHS (Ostrow, 2010). This is because over time, it can build up on curtains, carpet, and furniture, and with “aging it becomes more toxic” (Ostrow, 2010). When is enough, enough already? There is bound to be more and more research that proves how dangerous cigarette smoke exposure really is. If the government had taken proactive steps when it first learned about the potential dangers of SHS exposure in the 1970s, then countless lives may have been saved.
In 1997, up to 60,000 flight attendants filed suit against the tobacco industry, primarily because of the efforts of one woman. Norma Broin could be considered very healthy; she never smoked or drank and she was a vegetarian and jogger; however, she was diagnosed with lung cancer after working for thirteen years in “airline cabins clouded with suspended cigarette smoke” (Richey, 1997, p.1). Her tragic story is only one of many. How many people need to die before people will admit that smoking is a privilege, not a right? People do not have the right to smoke in public.
What does the word public mean? The Webster’s definition states that it means “of the people as a whole, for the use or benefit of all” (Webster’s, 2003). Any place considered public, such as a restaurant, Laundromat, or park, should not be allowed to exclude certain groups of people. When smoking is allowed in these places, groups of people are excluded. There are people who cannot be around cigarette smoke.
With all of the evidence supporting the claim that second-hand smoke is deadly, it is hard to believe that there are actually people out there who claim that SHS exposure is not a public health risk (Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans, 2007). Every single person who smokes a cigarette knows that its second-hand smoke is dangerous. It is no different from having an STD and exposing someone or having a few drinks and driving anyway. There are laws to protect the public against drunk drivers, why not against smokers as well? With a smoking ban in place, public health will improve, thereby lowering hospital admissions and reducing the amount of money spent on heart attacks, lung diseases, and cancer. Children will be healthier. People will breathe more easily when eating a meal or watching a sporting event. A national smoking ban in public places would inconvenience some at first, but ultimately, the benefits outweigh the costs.
References
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. (2010). Smokefree lists, maps, and data. Retrieved from http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=519
Bars, restaurants see no significant employment change under smoking bans in two cities. (2010, July 12). ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100629131320.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Smoking and tobacco use: Secondhand smoke (SHS). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm
Erickson, M. (2007, November 1). One month later, bar owners weigh law’s impact. Brainerdispatch.com. Retrieved from http://www.brainerddispatch.com/stories/110107/new_20071101042.shtml.
Koranda, J. & Mann, F. (2010, February 26). Statewide smoking ban starts on July 1: House passes bill; governor pushed for it. The Wichita Eagle. Retrieved from http://www.kansas.com/2010/02/26/1199762/house-passes-bill-governor-pushed.html?storylink=omni_popular
Maskarinec, M., Jenkins, R., Counts, R., & Dindai, A. (2000). Determination of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in restaurant and tavern workers in one US city. Journal of Exposure Analysis & Environmental Epidemiology, 10(1), 36-49. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.minnesotansagainstsmokingbans.com/.
Missouri Health and Welfare Statutes. Chapter 191: Section 191.767. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C100-199/1910000767.HTM
Missouri Health and Welfare Statutes. Chapter 191: Section 191.769. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C100-199/1910000769.HTM
Naiman, A., Glazier, R., & Moineddin, R. (2010). Association of anti-smoking legislation with rates of hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(8), 761-767. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (n.d.). Worker’s rights under the OSHA act. Retrieved from http://osha.gov/workers.html.
Only 100% smoke-free environments adequately protect from dangers of second-hand smoke. (2007). Indian Journal of Medical Sciences, 61(1), 372-373. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Ostrow, N. (2010, February 10). The dangers of third-hand smoke. Business Week Online, 13. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Richey, W. (1997, July 17). Secondhand smoke goes to trial. (Cover Story). Christian Science Monitor, 89(162), 1. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Schick, S., & Glantz, S. (2005). Scientific analysis of second-hand smoke by the tobacco industry, 1929-1972. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 7(4), 591-612. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Wamboldt, F., Balkissoon, R., Rankin, A., Szefler, S., Hammond, S., Glasgow, R., et al. (2008). Correlates of household smoking bans in low-income families of children with and without asthma. Family Process, 47(1), 81-94. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2008.00240.x.
Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.). (2004). Cleveland, OH: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Where there’s smoke…(2006). Men’s Health, 21(6), 44. Retrieved from Health Source Consumer database.
Zdechlik, M. (2007, May 16). Governor signs statewide ban into law. Minnesota Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.wahpetondailynews.com/articles/2007/05/24/news04.txt.