Any doubt that secondhand smoke is harmful to health was firmly put to rest in 2006, when the U.S. Surgeon General issued the most comprehensive scientific report ever produced on the health impact of secondhand smoke.
The report’s key findings:
- Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in nonsmokers.
- 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.
- Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
- Scientific evidence indicates there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
- 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.
In addition, numerous studies clearly show the dangers of secondhand smoke, and how smokefree policies make a difference in the health of nonsmokers. It is particularly important that smokefree ordinances cover workplaces – including restaurants and bars. Employees should not have to choose between a paycheck or protecting their health. Secondhand smoke exposure is a serious workplace safety issue.
- There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.[1]
- Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals – more than 60 are known or suspected to cause cancer.[2]
- Secondhand smoke kills 53,000 non-smoking Americans yearly.[3]
- Secondhand smoke is a known cause of lung cancer, heart disease, low birth weight, chronic lung ailments (such as bronchitis and asthma) and other health problems.[4]
- Smokefree policies nationwide cover just 76 percent of white-collar workers, 52 percent of blue-collar workers and 43 percent of food service workers.[5]
- Food service workers are 50 percent more likely to die from lung cancer than the general public.[6]
- Younger workers (15-19 and 20-24 years) were least likely to work under a smokefree policy.[7]
- Secondhand smoke levels in bars are 3.9 to 6.1 times higher than in office worksites.[8]
- Smokefree policies are the most economic and effective protection from secondhand smoke exposure – separate areas, air cleaning or ventilation do not eliminate exposure.[9]
- Smokefree workplace laws immediately and notably improved heart health (including fewer heart attack hospitalizations), particularly in nonsmokers, according to studies in Colorado, Indiana, Montana, New York, Ohio, Ireland, Italy and Scotland.[10]
Click here to download the Jefferson City Fact Sheet.doc
Click here to download helpful information in the Heart Attack Reduction.doc
Smokefree Laws are Good for Business
Understandably, business owners are nervous when any law is enacted that affects how they do business. During public hearings on smokefree laws, business owners – especially those who own bars or restaurants – have been vocal opponents. They have been led to believe that going smokefree will harm, if not end, their livelihoods.
Yet numerous studies of objective data, including sales tax receipts, show that going smokefree does not adversely impact the hospitality industry; in fact, these businesses also save money on health care costs, insurance, cleaning and other indirect costs of secondhand smoke.
Revenue Impact
- Studies for two Missouri cities found restaurant/bar business increased in the first year of their smokefree ordinances.
Click here to download the Maryville Economic Report Dec 2004.pdf
Click here to download the Lees Summit Economic Report Sept 2009.pdf
- An overwhelming majority of independent studies have proven that smokefree laws do not negatively affect the bar industry. Research looking at communities in California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, New York, and Florida showed that smokefree ordinances had no negative effect on bar sales.[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16]
- Researchers compared California bar sales for the first five cities and two counties requiring all bars to be smokefree with bar sales of comparable cities and counties in the state that did not require smokefree bars. Smokefree ordinances were found to have no effect on aggregate bar sales.[17]
- In Florida, retail receipts for taverns, night clubs, bars which serve food and liquor stores, remained unaffected by the state’s smokefree law. In addition, employment in Florida’s drinking and eating establishments increased by 4.53 percent after the law’s enactment.[18]
- The City of Houston’s smokefree ordinance (enacted Sept. 1, 2007) has had almost no affect on profits or customer relations in the city’s lodging industry, according to a poll released in March 2008 by the Hotel and Lodging Association of Greater Houston.[19]
Ventilation
- Smokefree policies are the most economic and effective protection from exposure to secondhand smoke – separate areas, air cleaning and ventilating buildings do not eliminate exposure.[20]
- The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. studied the issue of how to ventilate secondhand smoke from buildings and concluded that no current ventilation technologies exist nor should be relied upon to remove or clean all the toxins found in secondhand smoke. Their position document can be read here.
Click here to download the Ventilation ASHRAE statement 6-30-05.pdf
Healthcare Costs
- New York’s smokefree air law led to $56 million savings in direct health care costs in 2004. [21]
- An estimated $2.6 billion was spent in 2004 on the medical care of nonsmokers suffering from lung cancer or heart disease caused by secondhand smoke exposure.[22]
- Medical costs and economic losses to nonsmokers suffering from lung cancer or heart disease due to secondhand smoke are estimated at nearly $6 billion a year. Costs likely rise when including costs connected to diseases and conditions among infants and children caused by secondhand smoke.[23]
Other Business Costs
- If most businesses restricted smoking, $4 million to $8 million per year could be saved nationwide in operating and maintenance costs.[24]
- Employer costs attributed to secondhand smoke or smoking in the workplace include absenteeism; health insurance and life insurance costs and claims; workers’ comp payments and health awards; accidents and fires (plus related insurance costs); property damage (plus related insurance costs); smoke pollution (increased cleaning and maintenance costs); illness and discomfort among non-smokers to secondhand smoke; and liability.
- Economic losses in 2004 due to lost wages and fringe benefits, as well as the value of lost household services, were estimated at $3.2 billion for disability and premature deaths due to lung cancer and heart disease caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.[25]
Sources:
——————————————————————————–
[1] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General – Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
[2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1992). Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.: EPA.
[3] National Cancer Institute. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Report of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph no.10. Bethesda, MD. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, NIH Pub. No. 99-4645, 1999.
[4] Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
[5] Shopland, D.R., Anderson, C.M., Burns, D.M., and Gerlach, K.K. (2004). Disparities in smoke-free workplaces among food service workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 46(4): 347-356.
[6] Siegel, Michael (1993). Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace: A Review of Employee Exposure and Health Effects. Journal of the American Medical Association 270(4): 490-493.
[7] Gerlach, KK., Shopland, D.R., Hartman, A.M., Gibson, J.T., and Pechacek, T.F. (1997). Worplace Smoking Policies in the United States: Results from a National Survey of more than 100,000 Workers. Tobacco Control 6:199-206.
[8] Siegel, Michael (1993).
[9] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General – Executive Summary.
[10] Summaries, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=25.
[11] Glantz, S.A. (2000). Effect of Smokefree Bar Law on Bar Revenues in California. Tobacco Control 9 (Spring): 111-112.
[12] Bartosch, W.J. and G.C. Pope (1999). The Economic Effect of Smoke-Free Restaurant Policies on Restaurant Business in Massachusetts. Journal of Public Health Management Practice 5(1): 53-62
[13] Dresser, J., S. Boles, E. Lichtenstein, and L. Strycker (1999). Multiple Impacts of a Bar Smoking Prohibition Ordinance in Corvallis, Oregon. Eugene: Pacifica Research Institute.
[14] CDC (2004).
[15] New York City Department of Finance, et al. (2004).
[16] Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004). The Economic Impact of Florida’s Smoke-Free Workplace Law. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Warrington College of Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
[17] Glantz, S.A. and L.R.A. Smith (1997). The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars on Revenues: A Follow-Up. American Journal of Public Health (87)10: 1687- 1692.
[18] Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004).
[19] “Smoking ban not clouding up Houston hotel business, poll says.” Houston Business Journal. March 19, 2008.
[20] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General – Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006
[21] Juster, Harlan, et al. (2007). Declines in Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction in New York State After Implementation of a Comprehensive Smoking Ban. American Journal of Public Health, Sept. 27, 2007.
[22] Behan, Donald; Eriksen, Michael; and Lin, Yija (2005). Economic Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Schaumburg, IL: Society of Actuaries.
[23] Behan, Donald; Eriksen, Michael; and Lin, Yija (2005).
[24] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1994). The Costs and Benefits of Smoking Restrictions: An Assessment of the Smoke-Free Environmental Act of 1993 (H.R. 3434). Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
[25] Behan, Donald; Eriksen, Michael; and Lin, Yija (2005).
