Secondhand Smoke: The Risk and the Controversy. We all know that smoking poses a significant risk to our health. We can make an

Transcription

1 Bernhardt 1 Grace Bernhardt Professor Faigley Technology, Literacy, and Culture March 2001 Secondhand Smoke: The Risk and the Controversy We all know that smoking poses a significant risk to our health. We can make an educated decision about whether or not to smoke, and if we do decide to smoke, we should be willing to accept any negative effects such as lung cancer and heart disease later in our lives. But what about exposure to secondhand smoke? At this point, we don t always have a choice in exposure to the smoke of others. The Office of the Surgeon General has documented a high level of exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmoking adults and children in the United States. Blood tests of nonsmokers for the presence of cotinine, a chemical produced by nicotine, indicate that 88% of nonsmoking Americans are exposed to secondhand smoke (Clean Indoor Air). In 1972, the Surgeon General released a landmark report, The Health Consequences of Smoking, warning of the dangers of smoking. The report also warned of the risks of breathing secondhand smoke, also called passive smoking or environmental tobacco smoke. Throughout the 1970s, numerous studies were conducted that pointed to the risks of breathing secondhand smoke and the risks to unborn children of smoking mothers (summarized by Shephard). In 1986, both the National Research Council and the United States Surgeon General (Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking) published independent reports that secondhand smoke causes respiratory infections in children and reduces their lung capacity. Nonetheless, at the International Symposium on Environmental Tobacco Smoke held at McGill University in 1989, critics of the research argued that studies of the effects of secondhand smoke could not

2 Bernhardt 2 rule out the influences of other pollutants. In the summary of the proceedings volume from the conference, Joseph Wu concluded that research had yet to prove that secondhand smoke is a health hazard (375). Only in 1992 did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issue a report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, asserting that secondhand smoke definitely causes cancer in nonsmoking adults and harms the respiratory health of children. The EPA determined that secondhand smoke is a Group A carcinogen, a classification of pollutants that have been proven to cause cancer. The tobacco industry responded to the report with a well-funded advertising, public relations, and legal counterattack. Since then, controversy over the topic has spread, both politically and socially. But what exactly are the risks associated with secondhand smoke, and how has the American public responded to those risks? Secondhand smoke is most harmful to young children, especially those with asthma or other respiratory diseases. The EPA notes that 43% of children in the United States under the age of 11 live in a home with at least one smoker. Children exposed to secondhand smoke tend to have more bronchitis, pneumonia, respiratory infections, fluid in the middle ear, and asthma. And if both parents smoke, or if the child is frequently exposed to smoke, the child s chances for showing symptoms of these diseases increase (Indoor Air Pollutants). Infants and toddlers up to 18 months of age suffer between 150,000 and 300,000 cases of lung infections because of secondhand smoke, according to EPA estimates. Secondhand smoke produces symptoms of asthma in an additional 200,000 to 1,000,000 children, and it increases fluid in the middle ear, which often requires hospitalization for surgery in children (Indoor Air Pollutants).

3 Bernhardt 3 To determine the risk of secondhand smoke for adult nonsmokers, the EPA considered the results of thirty epidemiologic studies, which examined the effects of secondhand smoke on nonsmoking partners of smokers (Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking). Every study found that the level of risk increased according to exposure to secondhand smoke. When the results of the studies were considered together, the probability of the increased rates of lung cancer among nonsmokers occurring by chance was less than one in a billion. The EPA concluded that approximately 3,000 nonsmokers die of lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke each year in the United States, 800 of which stem from exposure to secondhand smoke at home and 2,200 from exposure in work or social situations (Respiratory Health Effects 4). The EPA s 1992 report was a legal bombshell because it raised the possibility that nonsmokers could sue tobacco companies. The report and other subsequent studies also greatly increased public concern over secondhand smoke. In 1997, the Gallup poll reported that 55% of adults in the United States think secondhand smoke is very harmful, compared to only 36% in 1994 (Saad 4). As a result of increased public pressure, many local governments now ban or restrict smoking in public places and workplaces. Smoking or non? This question used to be part of the standard greeting of waitresses across America. However, following the reports on the harm of secondhand smoke, many cities have banned or restricted smoking altogether in restaurants. Maine, Vermont, and Utah have placed statewide bans on smoking in restaurants, and California prohibits smoking in bars as well as restaurants ( Smoking to Be Banned ). According to the American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation, in early 2001, 221 communities have 100% smoke-free workplaces, 787 have some restriction on smoking in workplaces, and 300 have 100% smoke-free restaurants.

4 Bernhardt 4 These bans remain causes of intense controversy. In New York City, a City Council push to ban smoking at all restaurants in winter 2001 was met with strong opposition including Mayor Giuliani s (Lombardi). Typical of citizen resistance to smoking bans in the United States and Canada is Christa Wagner s letter to the editor over the Canadian ban of smoking in prisons: To ban smoking in restaurants and bars is bad enough. To ban it in prisons is inhuman. What a sad, oppressed society we have become. Others disagree with methods for the enforcement of smoking bans in public places, saying that the government should not and cannot put smoking bans into place. Citing the difficulty in enforcement and the fact that most people don t want it, the writer of an editorial in the Wisconsin State Journal thinks there are more important issues facing the city for its council members to get sidetracked on than an unenforceable piece of feelgood legislation like this ( Place Smoking Ban ). Nonsmokers are perhaps even more adamant that they should not have to breathe secondhand smoke. Dozens of editorials, letters to the editor, and articles about anti-smoking activism that insist on the total elimination of secondhand smoke have been published in recent years. This example from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is typical of the anti-smoking arguments. Myles Lampenfeld writes The current policy of segregating smokers and nonsmokers is ineffective. Yet to be developed is the ventilation system that prevents smoke from finding its way into the nonsmoking section. In some restaurants, the arbitrary boundary between sections results in patrons trying to enjoy a smoke-free meal while sitting next to smokers who light up before, during and after their meals. Smoke-free restaurants have been the standard in many states for several years. Backlash and protest have been short-lived, with no economic impact on the restaurant industry.

5 Bernhardt 5 Regardless of whether government should be the one enforcing smoking bans, many workplaces and restaurants have already put restrictions in place. The Office of the Surgeon General reports that employers are implementing policies for smoke-free workplaces in order to save money. These savings include costs associated with fire risk, damage to furnishings, cleaning, workers compensation, and life insurance. The estimated cost savings are $1,000 per smoking employee based on 1988 dollars (Clean Indoor Air). The legislative initiative against secondhand smoke is also reducing the amount of smoke in the air. In 2000, Congress passed and former President Clinton approved legislation that bans smoking in nearly all public places where federal government gives aid for services to children (EPA, Setting the Record Straight). In addition to bans, other research is being conducted on how the harmful effects of secondhand smoke can be limited. Among the workers who endure the highest concentrations of secondhand smoke in the workplace are those employed by casinos in Nevada. A study is being done with nonsmoking casino workers to see if the use of vitamins can reduce the amount of damage from long-term exposure to secondhand smoke ( Do Vitamins Stem Hazards ). In the decade following the release of the 1992 EPA report, significant steps have been taken to reduce the hazards of secondhand smoke. Nevertheless, there still is a long way to go. Only one state California now meets the nation s Healthy People 2010 objective to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke by banning indoor smoking or restricting smoking to separately ventilated areas (Clean Indoor Air).

6 Bernhardt 6 Works Cited American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation. U.S. Communities with Local Tobacco Control Ordinances. 9 Jan Feb. 2001< Do Vitamins Stem Hazards of Secondhand Smoke? University of Nevada to Conduct Clinical Trial on Casino Workers. AScribe Newswire 8 Nov Lexis-Nexis. U of Texas Lib., Austin. 20 Feb Lampenfeld, Myles. A Ban on Smoking in Restaurants Would Protect Everyone. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 12 July 2000, late ed., A14. Lombardi, Frank. Butts Ban on Menu: Flap Looms over New Restaurant Cig Limits. New York Daily News 25 Jan. 2001, final ed.: 27. National Research Council. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Place Smoking Ban in Political Ashtray: Madison s Proposal to Stamp Out Smoking Is an Unenforceable Intrusion into Citizens Private Lives. Wisconsin State Journal 19 Feb Lexis-Nexis. U of Texas Lib., Austin. 20 Feb Saad, Lydia. A Half-Century of Polling on Tobacco: Most Don t Like Smoking but Tolerate It. Public Perspective 9 (1998): 1-4. Shephard, Roy J. The Risks of Passive Smoking. New York: Oxford UP, Smoking to Be Banned in Restaurants in Maine. New York Times 18 Sept. 1999, late ed.: A18. United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air Pollutants: Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Updated 1 Jan Feb <

7 Bernhardt Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. EPA/600/6-90/006 F. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke Is a Preventable Health Risk. June Updated 26 June Feb < Office of the Surgeon General. Clean Indoor Air Regulations Fact Sheet. 11 Jan Feb < factsheet_clean.htm> The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Public Health Service, The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: US Public Health Service, Wagner, Christa B. Inhuman Ban. Ottawa Citizen 24 July 2000: A11. Wu, Joseph M. Summary and Concluding Remarks. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Proceedings of the International Symposium at McGill University, Ed. Donald J. Ecobichon and Joseph M. Wu. Lexington, MA: Lexington,