News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.2K     0 

G

ganjavih

Guest
Secondhand smoke debate 'over'

Updated 6/27/2006 11:28 PM ET

By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Never mind the non-smoking sections or even good ventilation systems in bars, restaurants or offices. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard at any level, a new report from the U.S. surgeon general says.
The 700-page report cites "massive and conclusive scientific evidence" of the "alarming" public health threat posed by secondhand smoke and finds smoking bans are the only way to protect non-smokers.

"The debate is over," Surgeon General Richard Carmona said in issuing the report Tuesday. "The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard."

Although many states and hundreds of cities have passed smoke-free laws, more than 126 million Americans ages 3 and older continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke, according to the report. Nearly 50,000 non-smokers die from secondhand smoke each year.

Carmona said non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of heart disease and cancer by up to 30%. Even brief exposure to smoke damages cells, beginning a process that can lead to cancer, and increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause heart attacks and strokes.

The report expands on the landmark 1986 report from Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, the first to conclude that secondhand smoke causes disease.

Carmona also urged parents not to smoke around children, noting that many children are exposed in the home. He stopped short of calling for specific legislation or other government regulation to restrict indoor smoking, noting that his role was simply to provide accurate information. "The strength of this movement is in the communities," Carmona said.

Anti-tobacco activists said the report is a blueprint for future action. Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said all states and communities should immediately ban smoking in all workplaces: "Anything else leaves Americans' health at risk."

The report does provide strong support for smoke-free laws. Contrary to tobacco industry-financed studies, smoke-free policies do not hurt business for bars, restaurants and other venues, the report concludes. The report strongly criticizes the tobacco industry for financing biased studies to undermine carefully conducted, peer-reviewed research on the economic effects of smoking bans in an effort to "sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus."

Bars and restaurants should be allowed to decide on the policies that best suit their clients, said David Howard, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. "Adults should be able to patronize establishments that permit smoking if they choose to do so," he says. "People who don't want to work around it don't have to work at that establishment."

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco does not dispute the science in the surgeon general's report, Howard said.

The report notes that bartenders, waiters and waitresses are exposed to some of the highest levels of secondhand smoke, putting them at greater risk of disease. "No employee should be forced to choose between making a living and increasing the risk of heart disease and lung disease," Myers said. "No employer should be allowed to place their employees at risk."

Thanks to smoke-free air laws, fewer Americans today are exposed to secondhand smoke, the report says. Yet more than 40% of non-smoking adults and nearly 60% of children ages 3 to 11 are exposed to secondhand smoke.

Because children's lungs are still developing, children exposed to smoke have twice the level of a nicotine byproduct in their blood as adult non-smokers.
 
I've been going though old copies of the Globe and Mail. A study back in 1981 showed that passive smoking doubled the chances of lung cancer of non-smoking wives that lived with smokers versus those who lived with non-smokers.

The debate's been over for a while. And the science has been around for decades.
 
The only uncertainty in this debate is the need to factor in proximity. Of course if you are trapped in a basement with a chain smoker for 20 years you are trouble. However, that does not lead to if you have to walk through a group of people smoking outside your building you are going to get lung cancer and die. I dont smoke and dont really see the appeal, but I do know a lot of people who are a little over-militant on this issue.
 
It's not going to cause me to get lung cancer, but I personally hate how people who smoke outside all congregate right in front of the doors of a building, as if they can't be bothered to spread out a bit. Tobacco smoke stinks and I don't like getting a huge taste of it when I try to enter a public building, so I hold my breath to push my way through that crowd. There is a law about not smoking within 9 metres of a public entrance or something like that (to keep tobacco smoke out of the building and for the health and comfort of others) but it isn't usually enforced. Some people are sensitive or allergic to cigarette smoke, which can also provoke someone's asthma.

It's like the idiots who put bags on the seat next to them on the subway, and then later stand and block the doors - it's just inconsiderate to everyone else.
 
I wonder if somebody can get the smokers who congregate outside of doorways to stop tossing their used butts on the ground.
 
"However, that does not lead to if you have to walk through a group of people smoking outside your building you are going to get lung cancer and die."

Read this:

"Even brief exposure to smoke damages cells, beginning a process that can lead to cancer, and increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause heart attacks and strokes."
 

Back
Top