Smoke-Free Policy

          The impact that cigarette smoking has on nonsmokers is possibly even more devastating than on smokers because nonsmoking individuals typically do not choose to be exposed to secondhand smoke. The toxic chemicals that the smoke contains can remain in the air for hours, which provides ample opportunity for exposure (Mayo, 2012). One of the arguments against smoke-free policies is that nonsmokers are only exposed to ETS for the short time that they are in the bar or restaurant, so they should not experience any effects. However, the 2006 Surgeon General's Report stated that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and that even short-term exposure can potentially increase a person's risk for disease (ALA, 2013). This includes an increase of 20-30% for the risk of developing lung cancer (Texas Oncology, 2013). There are also many other significant effects. 50,000 nonsmoking adults die as a result of secondhand smoke exposure each year, the majority from lung cancer and heart disease (Texas Oncology, 2013). Children are also at risk for exposure and its consequences. 53.6% of children were exposed to secondhand smoke from 2007-2008 (“Secondhand smoke facts,” 2013) This is of particular concern for children who suffer from asthma. 400,000-1,000,000 children experience an aggravation of asthma every year as a result of ETS (ALA, 2013). Another form of exposure that is common among children is “thirdhand” smoke. This involves children coming into contact with the residue that remains on hair, clothing, and other surfaces after cigarettes are smoked and then ingesting that residue (Mayo, 2012). The dangers of secondhand smoke pose such a significant threat to the health of people of all ages that individuals who choose not to smoke cigarettes should not be exposed in public locations that are shared by all people.

          

          The best possible way to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking in public by creating and implementing smoke-free policies. According to the CDC, eliminating cigarette smoking in indoor areas is the only way that nonsmokers can be entirely protected from ETS (“Secondhand smoke facts,” 2013). Separating smokers and nonsmokers, cleaning the air, opening windows, and ventilation do not eliminate secondhand smoke, and nonsmokers will still be exposed to ETS (“Secondhand smoke facts,” 2013). Twenty-nine states currently have comprehensive smoking bans in place, and they have demonstrated success on a number of different levels (Texas Oncology, 2013). A key concern for many when a smoke-free policy is proposed is that it will not be supported by the public and facilities will not comply with the policy, but the opposite has been shown to occur. Prior to the implementation of a statewide smoke-free law in New York in 2003, only 31% of facilities were smoke-free, but that number increased to 93% within one month and 97% within one year (“Smoke-free policies result,” 2011). Support for the law also increased during the first two years among nonsmokers from 74% to 86% and from 25% to 37% among smokers (“Smoke-free policies receive,” 2011). Another common argument is that a smoking ban will result in a loss of business for bars and restaurants. However, a study of multiple states with smoke-free laws determined that restaurants experienced no change in sales (“Smoke-free policies do,” 2012). A second study revealed that the city of Pueblo, Colorado experienced a 20.3% increase in sales tax revenue from bars and restaurants after a smoking ban was implemented (“Smoke-free policies do,” 2012). In addition, smoking bans have been associated with improved health outcomes among nonsmoking bar and restaurant workers in studies conducted in Scotland, Ireland, and California, including improved lung function and reduced respiratory symptoms (“Smoke-free policies improve,” 2011). An association was also shown between the implementation of these smoking bans and a reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks (“Smoke-free policies improve,” 2011). Implementing and enforcing smoke-free policies is the only way to prevent secondhand smoke exposure in public places, and it can be done without significant negative consequences.

References

American Lung Association. (2013). Secondhand smoke. Retrieved from http://www.lung.org/stop-

          smoking/about-smoking/health-effects/secondhand-smoke.html 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007, June 14). Secondhand smoke. Retrieved from 

          http://www.cdc.gov/datastatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013, June 10). Secondhand smoke facts. Retrieved from   

          http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012, February 6). Smoke-free policies do not hurt the 

          hospitality industry. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/

          secondhand_smoke/protection/hospitality/index.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011, March 11). Smoke-free policies improve health. 

          Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/

          secondhand_smoke/protection/improve_health/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011, March 9). Smoke-free policies receive public 

          support. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/

          secondhand_smoke/protection/public_support/index.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011, March 9). Smoke-free policies result in high levels

          of compliance. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/

          secondhand_smoke/protection/compliance/index.htm

Mayo Clinic. (2012, March 20). Secondhand smoke: Avoid dangers in the air. Retrieved from  

          http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023

Texas Oncology. (2013). Smoking bans. Retrieved from http://www.texasoncology.com/media-

          center/fact-sheets/smoking-bans.aspx