Banning smoke in public buildings coming to a ballot near you
I used to smoke. I’m not proud of this, but at least I quit when I was 22. I admit to a few when I was an intern, but not since. The worst part is, I smoked all through college, and I was not discriminating in where I chose to light up. Like in a crowded lecture hall, where I reached for a cigarette when I was having trouble staying awake. Oh, those poor people who were unfortunate enough to be sitting near me. I cringe whenever I think about me, my cigarettes, and my thoughtlessness. But hey, it was the’60s. Who knew?
Well, we’ve learned a lot since then. Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, contains over 4,000 chemicals, at least 50 of which are known to cause cancer. Every year, 3000 nonsmokers die from lung cancer. The CDC estimates that 35,000 Americans die of heart disease as a result of secondhand smoke. Oh, and then there are the increased risks of coming down with asthma, bronchitis, ear infections, pneumonia, croup and sore throats. Not fun.
How can researchers tell that nonsmokers get cigarette smoke into their bloodstream? They measure a chemical called cotinine. The body makes cotinine from nicotine, and increased cotinine levels indicate exposure to cigarette smoke within the previous two to three days. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, 9 out of 10 nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke as measured by the level of cotinine in their blood.
Which brings me to initiative 901, coming to a ballot near you in Washington this Nov. 8. The ballot measure reads, “This measure would prohibit smoking in buildings and vehicles open to the public and places of employment, including areas within 25 feet of doorways and ventilation openings unless a lesser distance is approved.”
Have you noticed that in establishments that allow smoking in a designated smokers’ section, the smoke doesn’t necessarily follow the rules? And while this ballot measure would make life a lot nicer for us, nonsmokers who want to catch a new music act in a usually smoky venue, or meet our friends for an after-work drink at a formerly smoky bar, it’s really about the employees who are exposed to tobacco smoke day in and day out.
According to the CDC, only a half hour of environmental tobacco smoke exposure can cause heart damage similar to that of regular smokers. A 2004 study in the British Medical Journal found that high blood cotinine levels were associated with a 50 to 60 percent higher risk of coronary heart disease. That’s nothing to sneeze, or cough, at. And employees exposed to this smoke are 30 percent more likely than their nonexposed cohorts to develop lung cancer.
Environmental tobacco smoke can be costly for employers. If they offer health insurance for their employees, they may find themselves faced with higher insurance premiums. They may find an increase in worker’s compensation claims.
They may face lost worker time and productivity, and absenteeism because of smoking-related illness.
If they don’t offer insurance, then we taxpayers end up bearing the burden for the uninsured through higher taxes and higher health costs overall.
New York city took the plunge in 2003 and banned smoking in virtually all workplaces. A year after the ban went into effect, cotinine levels in nonsmoking workers dropped by 85 percent!
Dire predictions of widespread business failures did not come to pass. A March 2004 report issued by New York City found that business tax receipts for restaurants and bars increased 8.7 percent compared to a year earlier (before the ban), employment at NYC restaurants and bars increased by 10,600 jobs, and the Zagat NYC Restaurant survey concluded, “The city’s recent smoking ban, far from curbing restaurant traffic, has given it a major lift.”
Environmental tobacco smoke is a public health issue. Smokers may feel miffed that they can’t light up wherever and whenever they want.
But when their behavior affects the health of others, then we the people have the right to place limits.