news-record.com

OPINION

Smoking ban in the name of health

Sunday, November 29, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

 

By DR. RICHARD ROSEN

The editorial, "Start planning now to launch controversial smoking rules" (Nov. 12), properly advises proprietors of restaurants and bars to become familiar with how a new law that eliminates smoking in these venues starting on Jan. 2, 2010, will affect them.

It is important to recognize Greensboro, Guilford County and North Carolina have a 20-year, unblemished record of successful implementation of incremental restrictions on smoking in public places. The first compilation of voluntary smoke-free restaurants in Guilford County listed six establishments; that number reached 450 by 2008. The first ordinance was in Greensboro, narrowly enacted by a referendum 20 years ago this month, which made large stores smoke-free and required restaurants to establish nonsmoking sections.

Proof of the regulation's popularity came 15 months later when voters rebuffed a repeal effort by more than 10,000 votes. Since then, many air-quality studies, including some in Greensboro, have shown the damaging particles of secondhand smoke diffuse across any demarcation that attempts to separate smokers from nonsmokers, so having nonsmoking sections does not provide adequate protection.

Progress in eliminating the hazard of secondhand smoke was retarded in 1993 with passage of HB 957, which mandated that state government buildings permit smoking in 20 percent of their space and which pre-empted local governments from passing measures with stricter restrictions. Guilford County circumvented pre-emption and over several years made all of its government buildings smoke-free uneventfully.

In 2003 state Rep. Alma Adams of Greensboro introduced a rule making the North Carolina House floor smoke-free. In subsequent years the General Assembly chipped away at pre-emption in stages by making the entire General Assembly, schools, prisons, community colleges, the state university system, state government buildings and vehicles smoke-free and permitting local governments to make their government buildings smoke-free.

Each change occurred with equanimity, providing optimism that the latest law will be well-received.

Underpinning the progressive restrictions on secondhand smoke have been scientific advances in delineating its dangers. By the time of the publication of the first Surgeon General's report on the threat in 1986, conclusive proof existed that children raised in homes in which parents smoked had more ear infections, emergency room visits, asthma attacks and bronchitis than those from smoke-free homes. The rates of heart attacks and lung cancer were higher among nonsmokers who had spouses who smoked than nonsmokers who had spouses who didn't smoke.

More recently, we have learned that secondhand smoke causes activation of the cells lining blood vessels in 30 minutes, making them more likely to clot. Because of this, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns people with heart disease and at risk for heart disease to avoid even brief exposure to smoke.

The rate of hospital admissions for heart attacks in Helena, Mont., and many other cities dropped after a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places took effect, and in the case of Helena, rose again when the ban was rescinded.

Recent metanalysis concluded that bans on smoking in public places reduce admissions for heart attacks by 17 percent. If a strong national strong ban were in place, America would have 156,400 fewer heart attacks annually.

The 2006 Surgeon General's report concluded that secondhand smoke is a health hazard and should be banned from all public places. Now 23 states have comprehensive bans, covering the majority of Americans.

Buttressed by our history; successful city, county and state limitations of secondhand smoke; and evidence of its profound dangers, I envision Jan. 2, 2010, as a day of major advancement in the health of North Carolinians.

The new law also repeals the odious pre-emption that paralyzed local governments from acting on exposure to secondhand smoke. Starting Jan. 2, local boards of health (with concurrence by county commissioners) and city and town councils, will be free to pass health-promoting bans in their communities.

I look forward to helping this happen here.

 

The writer lives in Greensboro and is the chairman of Smokefree Guilford.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Lakeshia

November 29, 2009 - 3:10 am EST

What kind of ignorant doofus would suck smoke into their respiratory system?

lilbean

November 29, 2009 - 9:43 am EST

the same kind that would swallow it into their digestive system. now, enjoy your bar b-que, your grilled steaks and your "smoked" salmon".

Panacea

November 29, 2009 - 10:04 am EST

Wait for it, wait for it . . .

Get A Clue

November 29, 2009 - 10:35 am EST

Smokers are drug addicts.
If we could conquer drug addiction with signs and laws and common sense, we would not have drug addicts. Nor the billions of dollars it costs to deal with all the issues surrounding drug addiction, and that's just here in America.
Addicts will say anything, do anything to get their fix. Period.
To stop addiction, the cure must tackle many areas of attack. Professionals know that leaving any single door open means that access to the drug will be exploited by the addict.
Drug addicts are the last people to ask since the drug addiction is stronger than their ability to reason in a mature fashion. Every excuse and reason for a drug addict to continue the habit can easily be shown to be a self-delusional attempt to continue access to the drug. But the drug addict doesn't care. That's why their opinion no longer matters with respect to denying access to the addictive drug.

DaveW

November 29, 2009 - 12:34 pm EST

Great article Doc!
I will require my health classes to read it and write a page summary.
Also a pack a day smoker will have an extra $1600 or so if he/she quits in a year.
I also cannot wait until JANUARY 2!

snowbird

November 29, 2009 - 5:17 pm EST

Government power the real health hazard

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or is in fact just a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.

Panacea

November 29, 2009 - 6:02 pm EST

When one free individual imposes the consequences of his behavior on the freedom of another, a line is crossed.

Pro Smoking advocates can't get around this fact.

You can call a place such as a restaurant, bar, inn, etc "private," but the intention of these places is to attract the public inside to spend money. Therefore, these are public places.

Second hand smoke aggravates asthma. It aggravates cardiac disease. Your one study flies in the face of the established medical evidence. It does not prove your assertion, and the authors of the study do not make the extravagant claims that you do that this BMJ article proves that second hand smoke is harmless.

Irrespective of that, smoking smells bad. It penetrates clothing and is objectionable to non-smokers.

You wouldn't spit in public. Smoking is just as disgusting.

Smoke at home.

Get A Clue

November 29, 2009 - 7:08 pm EST

Snowbird is simply a long-winded example of what I stated: drug addicts (smokers) will go to any lengths to continue their disgusting habits. Snowbird sounds a lot like Charles Davenport, both in style and in substance.
I'm just sayin'. (I know it's not him; just making the obvious comparison between the lunatic fringe and drug addicts.) ;-)

CDHP

November 29, 2009 - 9:09 pm EST

Agreed, Panacea. Second hand smoke is definitely aggravating to those with respiratory and/or cardiac difficulties - this is number one on my list of reasons for supporting the anti-smoking policy. Doesn't "Your rights end where another's begin" apply to the smoking situation??

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search