[Vision2020] US Surgeon General's Report on Second Hand Smoke: Economic Impact of Smokefree Bars
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 00:23:20 PDT 2009
Regulation of drugs is a matter of degree, practicality and civil rights.
How far should government go to regulate substance use/sale/abuse, based on
the degree of damage to society; are the regulations or laws practical to
enforce, or too restrictive of civil rights?
Some of the arguments in this discussion objecting to merely restricting
tobacco exposure to workers and the public in bars, could be extended to
advocate for partial or total decriminalization of many drugs now illegal.
Yet I suspect that if these arguments were applied to legalization of
illegal drugs, some of the same writers objecting to regulation for
smokefree bars would be insisting that the damage to society from other
drugs was too great to risk legalization. And how great is the damage to
society from tobacco abuse/addiction?
Some of the laws criminalizing drugs are an exaggerated reaction to the
dangers of the drugs, are not very enforceable, impose huge taxpayer costs,
and have eroded civil rights. Prohibition of alcohol was a stellar
example. But consider there is no advocacy of criminalizing tobacco use for
adults. A smoker can simply step outside the bar to smoke. They can buy
tobacco and smoke at home. They can form a private smoking drinking club
and drink and smoke at will.
Does regulation of tobacco smoke in bars pass the three tests I mentioned;
dangers to society, practicality and civil rights?
The impact on stopping tobacco smoking overall from a regulation on
smokefree bars is probably minimal, but workers rights for safe and healthy
workplaces would be encouraged, and the public would not be as exposed to
second hand smoke indoors, which concentrates the smoke. Given the dangers
and health risks of tobacco, encouraging workers rights to not be exposed
appears reasonable. This experiment conducted in other states has worked
well, for the most part, given what I have read, so it appears to be
enforceable and practical. Many bars now smokefree are still in business.
I don't see any major civil rights issue in restricting tobacco smoke in
bars. If tobacco use was criminalized, and SWAT teams were breaking down
the doors of homes to taser, handcuff and frog march citizens to prison for
tobacco possession, sales or manufacture, as occurs with certain other
criminalized drugs that do less damage to society than tobacco, then
discussion of civil rights violations regarding tobacco would be indicated.
Violations of civil rights associated with tobacco issues are not high on
ACLU's priority list.
You mention outlawing bars due to problems with alcohol use, and "Where was
the hue and cry over stopping bars from the selling alcohol?" after someone
was run over locally apparently while inebriated. Of course, this is a
distraction from the issue of guaranteeing workers health and safety
protections on the job. Maybe outlawing bars would lower alcohol abuse
problems, maybe not. The evidence from Prohibition indicates not.
Speakeasys were common. And of course, tobacco users/addicts who smoked at
bars will smoke elsewhere if no smoking bar is available, or smoke outside
the smokefree bar between drinks. Smokefree bars will not stop tobacco use
or addiction. Smokefree bar regulation protects workers from unwilling
exposure to an addictive drug. You'd have to find a parallel with a worker
unwillingly exposed to alcohol on the job, for an analogous case. And I
would object to that, also.
Speaking of Prohibition, I think totally criminalizing tobacco would result
in a similar impractical outcome. But the smokefree bar regulations in
other states are now working for the most part with many finding this a
positive development. I suppose the main opponents are mostly tobacco
addicts and the tobacco corporations.
You cannot truthfully, if comparing the social costs of tobacco use to
alcohol use, "throw out just as many statistics on why bars should be closed
because of alcohol," because the data clearly reveals that tobacco use
prematurely kills far more people than alcohol use, including deaths from
drunk driving, violent deaths associated with those committing violent crime
under the influence of alcohol, and the medically related deaths from
alcohol abuse (cirrhosis of the liver, etc.) Tobacco is the number one
cause of premature death.
It has been repeated over and over that workers who do not want to be
exposed to cigarette smoke in bars can simply work elsewhere. In an economy
with the high unemployment rate, many workers have to take whatever job they
can get, whether they like it or not, so the level of freedom of choice that
is implied in this argument is not realistic. And even if it was true that
jobs were abundant and job choice always possible, why should profit making
businesses be permitted to encourage the drug addiction of tobacco addicts
by exposing workers to the drug they are addicted to, on the job, while they
breathe? Shouldn't workplaces be encouraging a healthy work environment?
Those with substance abuse problems should be encouraged to get treatment,
correct? Not given more drugs to continue their addiction? Well, except in
the cases like methadone treatment for heroin addicts, or nicotine patches
for tobacco addicts, which are types of treatment.
It seems smoking tobacco has attained a level of unconscious acceptance of
its normalcy in society that people have blind spots regarding how
incredible it is to fill the air of a business catering to the public with
an addictive drug imposing dangerous health risks to the workers. Of course
jobs have hazards that are known by workers where they work. But worker
safety and health laws should be making progress when practical to improve
worker conditions. Or are some going to advocate that OSHA be eliminated?
Some of the arguments in this discussion are aimed in that direction, it
seems.
It has been claimed that if tobacco use in bars is restricted, next red meat
and fatty foods at restaurants may be outlawed, due to association with
health problems, heart disease, obesity. As if to say, we are on a slippery
slope that will result in Big Brother running everything in our lives. For
one thing, red meat and fatty foods are not addictive drugs. Secondly,
workers at restaurants are not forced to consume the red meat or fatty foods
the customers are eating. And lean red meat eaten in moderation can be a
part of a healthy diet. I don't think anyone needs to worry that Haagen
Dazs ice cream or McDonald's double cheese burgers are going to be outlawed,
because of smokefree bar regulations.
Tobacco has often been given a pass regarding sensible regulations and laws
impacting its sale and manufacture (tobacco companies manipulated nicotine
levels in tobacco to increase addictive potential, for example), and
protections of worker and public health regarding exposure to tobacco smoke
(but efforts are underway, which may or may not be effective:
http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m6d11-Senate-passes-FDA-tobacco-regulation-bill-Obama-will-sign-it
).
Tobacco addiction/abuse kills more people prematurely (I keep repeating this
fact because no one else in this discussion is) than any other cause. While
numerous other drugs are criminalized as a horrific menace to society, the
sale, possession or manufacture of of which deserve long prisons sentences,
ruining peoples lives and costing taxpayers millions for prisons,
tobacco smoking in bars and use in general is sometimes defended as though
it is a sacred civil right guaranteed in the US Constitution. As we have a
"War on Drugs" the drug killing more people prematurely than any other drug
by far remains legal for adults and ubiquitous, with underage use common,
and legal penalties for underage sales minimal. You can buy it at your
local grocery store, with your eggs, milk and bread. Bizarre!
Ted Moffett
On 6/20/09, bear at moscow.com <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Ted,
>
> Just a couple of points. First, I agree that smoking/second hand
> smoke/third hand smoke is bad, OK? But do we need another law?
>
> And going with what you said, "Of course, there are serious ethical
> questions
> regarding a business that endorses addictive drug use that presents
> dangerous health risks resulting in hundreds of thousands of premature
> deaths, for the sake of profits" , then lets pass a law closing the bars!
> I can throw out just as many statistics on why bars should be closed
> because of alcohol and all its associated dangers, but do we need more
> laws?
> How would you feel about passing a local law that holds responsible the
> person that served the last drink to drunk drivers? Not so long ago we had
> someone from one of the bars here passed out in a parking lot and run
> over. Where was the hue and cry over stopping bars from selling alcohol?
>
> All I'm saying is there is good data on why smoking is bad and why
> drinking is bad, and we don't need any more "big brother" legislation
> about either. There are already enough laws controlling them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Some argue that smoking restrictions in bars will hurt these businesses
> or
> > put them out of business. Of course, there are serious ethical questions
> > regarding a business that endorses addictive drug use that presents
> > dangerous health risks resulting in hundreds of thousands of premature
> > deaths, for the sake of profits. But to reduce this to a purely economic
> > analysis, the economic impact of a bar becoming non-smoking is not
> > necessarily negative. While those wishing to drink and smoke may not
> > patronize a non-smoking bar (though they can step outside between drinks
> > for
> > a smoke, correct?), there are many who avoid smoking bars because of the
> > smoke. And given tobacco smoking rates have been declining in recent
> > years,
> > those who don't smoke and want to socialize and drink in a non-smoking
> bar
> > should be a sizable group.
> >
> > But what have the studies revealed regarding the economic impact of bars
> > becoming non-smoking?
> >
> > One of the most well known reports on this subject is a 2006 US Surgeon
> > General Report on second hand smoke, that looked at the economic impacts
> > of
> > bars (and restaurants, hospitality businesses) becoming non-smoking,
> while
> > also presenting a scientific case that second hand smoke is a very
> serious
> > health risk (there is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke, and
> > systems to separate smoking and non-smoking sections in establishments
> are
> > ineffective). I offer a list of important medical findings (not
> economic)
> > from this report regarding second hand smoke at the bottom. I could not
> > quickly locate the exact part of the report regarding the economic
> > impacts,
> > so I reference other sources to present the conclusions regarding
> economic
> > impacts of non-smoking establishments:
> >
> > The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A
> > Report
> > of the Surgeon General June 27, 2006
> >
> > http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/
> > --------------
> >
> > http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/Economic_Impact.pdf
> >
> >>From website above:
> >
> > According to the 2006 US Surgeon General's Report, "The Health
> > Consequences
> > of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke," adopting smokefree workplace
> > policies is a wise business decision. The results of all credible
> > peer-reviewed studies show that smokefree policies and regulations do not
> > have a negative impact on business revenues
> > --------------
> >
> >
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/06/28/secondhandsmoke_hea.html?category=health&guid=20060628090000
> >
> >>From website above:
> >
> > And a key argument of some business owners' legal challenges to smoking
> > bans
> > is that smoking customers will go elsewhere, cutting their profits.
> >
> > But the surgeon general's report concludes that's not true. It cites a
> > list
> > of studies that found no negative economic impact from city and state
> > smoking bans — including evidence that New York City restaurants and bars
> > increased business by almost 9 percent after going smoke-free.
> >
> > To help make the point, Carmona's office videotaped mayors of smoke-free
> > cities and executives of smoke-free companies, including the founder of
> > the
> > Applebee's restaurant chain, saying business got better when the haze
> > cleared.
> >
> > --------------
> >
> >
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
> > The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A
> Report
> > of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 6
> > Major
> > Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report
> >
> > Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In
> > this
> > report, *The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco
> Smoke:
> > A
> > Report of the Surgeon General*, the Surgeon General has concluded that:
> >
> > 1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still
> > exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite
> > substantial progress in tobacco control.
> >
> > Supporting Evidence
> > - Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand
> > smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In
> > national
> > surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have
> > detectable levels
> > of cotinine.
> > - Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22
> > million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
> > - Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States
> > are
> > not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.
> >
> > 2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in
> > children and adults who do not smoke.
> >
> > Supporting Evidence
> > - Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic
> > or
> > carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene,
> > vinyl
> > chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
> > - Secondhand smoke has been designated as a *known human
> > carcinogen*(cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection
> > Agency, National
> > Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on
> > Cancer
> > (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
> > has
> > concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
> >
> > 3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for
> > sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear
> > problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes
> respiratory
> > symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
> >
> > Supporting Evidence
> > - Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of
> > the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because
> > their
> > bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially
> > vulnerable
> > to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
> > - Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are
> > exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die
> > from sudden
> > infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to
> > cigarette
> > smoke.
> > - Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to
> > secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed
> > babies, which
> > increases the risk for many health problems.
> > - Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and
> > pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
> > - Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have
> > asthma
> > to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
> >
> > 4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse
> effects
> > on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and
> lung
> > cancer.
> >
> > Supporting Evidence
> > - Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are
> > higher
> > in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
> > - Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have
> > immediate
> > adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with
> > the normal
> > functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways
> > that increase
> > the risk of a heart attack.
> > - Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work
> > increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
> > - Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work
> > increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.
> >
> > 5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level
> > of
> > exposure to secondhand smoke.
> >
> > Supporting Evidence
> > - Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to
> > become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease
> > coronary flow
> > velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability,
> > potentially increasing
> > the risk of a heart attack.
> > - Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly
> irritate
> > and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can
> result
> > in
> > upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more
> > frequent and
> > more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
> >
> > 6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from
> > exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers,
> > cleaning
> > the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of
> > nonsmokers
> > to secondhand smoke.
> >
> > Supporting Evidence
> > - Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but
> > not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
> > - Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
> > system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
> > - The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
> > Air-Conditioning
> > Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues,
> > has
> > concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to
> > control health
> > risks from secondhand smoke exposure.
> >
> > *The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A
> > Report
> > of the Surgeon General* was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health,
> > National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
> > Centers
> > for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22
> > national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report
> chapters
> > were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by
> > 30
> > independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for
> > Disease
> > Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.
> > Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address
> > reviewers’
> > comments.
> >
> > *Citation*
> > U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. *The Health Consequences of
> > Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General*.
> > U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
> > and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
> > Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
> >
> > For more information, please refer to the Resources page. Additional
> > highlight sheets are also available at www.cdc.gov/tobacco.
> >
> > Last revised: January 4, 2007
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090622/24d6e2f4/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list