[Vision2020] US Surgeon General's Report on Second Hand Smoke: Economic Impact of Smokefree Bars

[Joe Campbell]

Again, I'm kind of split on this issue -- and I like both Ted and  
Bear, and both have good points to make. But I want to say a few things.

First, we all agree about the dangers of second-hand smoke.  
Unfortunately, that causes a problem for the freedom-lovers among us.  
There is a clash of rights: the right to work and dance in a safe  
environment and the right to smoke or generally live your life as you  
wish, without interference. There are good points on both sides.

Second, I love the Alley. They are not evil, they provide a needed  
service for folks on the Palouse. And that is because they offer a  
superior product: amazing bands at a low cost and a fun, comfortable  
environment.

Third, I fear that the right to health trumps the right to freedom. No  
one has a right to deprive the rights of others. Maybe I'm wrong about  
that, so let's leave it open for debate. Nonetheless, that it is a  
debate makes it a matter for the city council to consider, which is  
all they are doing so far.

Lastly, what we need is a solution. Not merely the claim that there is  
a solution. Not finger-pointing. (As a finger-pointer myself, I'm on  
safe ground here.)

Of course, many folks have offered solutions, I'm just trying to  
direct the discussion back to that. One that stands out is the Bucer's  
solution, which is brilliant, works for them, and is just a part of  
what makes them special. It won't work for the Alley, but what will  
work?

Joe Campbell

On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:54 PM, bear at moscow.com wrote:

>
> Ted,
>
> Just a couple of points. First, I agree that smoking/second hand
> smoke/third hand smoke is bad, OK?  But do we need another law?
>
> And going with what you said, "Of course, there are serious ethical  
> questions
> regarding a business that endorses addictive drug use that presents
> dangerous health risks resulting in hundreds of thousands of premature
> deaths, for the sake of profits" , then lets pass a law closing the  
> bars!
> I can throw out just as many statistics on why bars should be closed
> because of alcohol and all its associated dangers, but do we need more
> laws?
> How would you feel about passing a local law that holds responsible  
> the
> person that served the last drink to drunk drivers? Not so long ago  
> we had
> someone from one of the bars here passed out in a parking lot and run
> over. Where was the hue and cry over stopping bars from selling  
> alcohol?
>
> All I'm saying is there is good data on why smoking is bad and why
> drinking is bad, and we don't need any more "big brother" legislation
> about either. There are already enough laws controlling them.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Some argue that smoking restrictions in bars will hurt these  
>> businesses or
>> put them out of business.  Of course, there are serious ethical  
>> questions
>> regarding a business that endorses addictive drug use that presents
>> dangerous health risks resulting in hundreds of thousands of  
>> premature
>> deaths, for the sake of profits.  But to reduce this to a purely  
>> economic
>> analysis, the economic impact of a bar becoming non-smoking is not
>> necessarily negative.  While those wishing to drink and smoke may not
>> patronize a non-smoking bar (though they can step outside between  
>> drinks
>> for
>> a smoke, correct?), there are many who avoid smoking bars because  
>> of the
>> smoke.  And given tobacco smoking rates have been declining in recent
>> years,
>> those who don't smoke and want to socialize and drink in a non- 
>> smoking bar
>> should be a sizable group.
>>
>> But what have the studies revealed regarding the economic impact of  
>> bars
>> becoming non-smoking?
>>
>> One of the most well known reports on this subject is a 2006 US  
>> Surgeon
>> General Report on second hand smoke, that looked at the economic  
>> impacts
>> of
>> bars (and restaurants, hospitality businesses) becoming non- 
>> smoking, while
>> also presenting a scientific case that second hand smoke is a very  
>> serious
>> health risk (there is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke, and
>> systems to separate smoking and non-smoking sections in  
>> establishments are
>> ineffective).  I offer a list of important medical findings (not  
>> economic)
>> from this report regarding second hand smoke at the bottom.  I  
>> could not
>> quickly locate the exact part of the report regarding the economic
>> impacts,
>> so I reference other sources to present the conclusions regarding  
>> economic
>> impacts of non-smoking establishments:
>>
>> The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A
>> Report
>> of the Surgeon General June 27, 2006
>>
>> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/
>> --------------
>>
>> http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/Economic_Impact.pdf
>>
>>> From website above:
>>
>> According to the 2006 US Surgeon General's Report, "The Health
>> Consequences
>> of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke," adopting smokefree  
>> workplace
>> policies is a wise business decision.  The results of all credible
>> peer-reviewed studies show that smokefree policies and regulations  
>> do not
>> have a negative impact on business revenues
>> --------------
>>
>> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/06/28/secondhandsmoke_hea.html?category=health&guid=20060628090000
>>
>>> From website above:
>>
>> And a key argument of some business owners' legal challenges to  
>> smoking
>> bans
>> is that smoking customers will go elsewhere, cutting their profits.
>>
>> But the surgeon general's report concludes that's not true. It  
>> cites a
>> list
>> of studies that found no negative economic impact from city and state
>> smoking bans — including evidence that New York City restaurants a 
>> nd bars
>> increased business by almost 9 percent after going smoke-free.
>>
>> To help make the point, Carmona's office videotaped mayors of smoke- 
>> free
>> cities and executives of smoke-free companies, including the  
>> founder of
>> the
>> Applebee's restaurant chain, saying business got better when the haze
>> cleared.
>>
>> --------------
>>
>> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
>> The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A  
>> Report
>> of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human  
>> Services 6
>> Major
>> Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report
>>
>> Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and  
>> death. In
>> this
>> report, *The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco  
>> Smoke:
>> A
>> Report of the Surgeon General*, the Surgeon General has concluded  
>> that:
>>
>>   1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still
>>   exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite
>>   substantial progress in tobacco control.
>>
>>   Supporting Evidence
>>      - Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of  
>> secondhand
>>      smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In
>> national
>>      surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have
>> detectable levels
>>      of cotinine.
>>      - Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almos 
>> t 22
>>      million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
>>      - Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United  
>> States
>> are
>>      not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.
>>
>>   2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in
>>   children and adults who do not smoke.
>>
>>   Supporting Evidence
>>      - Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be  
>> toxic
>> or
>>      carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene,
>> vinyl
>>      chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
>>      - Secondhand smoke has been designated as a *known human
>> carcinogen*(cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental  
>> Protection
>> Agency, National
>>      Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on
>> Cancer
>>      (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and  
>> Health
>> has
>>      concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
>>
>>   3. 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.
>>
>>   Supporting Evidence
>>      - Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling  
>> many of
>>      the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers.  
>> Because
>> their
>>      bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially
>> vulnerable
>>      to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
>>      - Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies  
>> who are
>>      exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die
>> from sudden
>>      infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to
>> cigarette
>>      smoke.
>>      - Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed  
>> to
>>      secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed
>> babies, which
>>      increases the risk for many health problems.
>>      - Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause  
>> bronchitis and
>>      pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
>>      - Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have
>> asthma
>>      to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
>>
>>   4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse  
>> effects
>>   on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease  
>> and lung
>>   cancer.
>>
>>   Supporting Evidence
>>      - Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are
>> higher
>>      in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
>>      - Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have
>> immediate
>>      adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with
>> the normal
>>      functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways
>> that increase
>>      the risk of a heart attack.
>>      - Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at  
>> work
>>      increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30  
>> percent.
>>      - Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at  
>> work
>>      increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30  
>> percent.
>>
>>   5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free  
>> level
>> of
>>   exposure to secondhand smoke.
>>
>>   Supporting Evidence
>>      - Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood  
>> platelets to
>>      become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease
>> coronary flow
>>      velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability,
>> potentially increasing
>>      the risk of a heart attack.
>>      - Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly  
>> irritate
>>      and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can  
>> result
>> in
>>      upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more
>> frequent and
>>      more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
>>
>>   6. 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.
>>
>>   Supporting Evidence
>>      - Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large  
>> particles, but
>>      not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand  
>> smoke.
>>      - Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air  
>> conditioning
>>      system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
>>      - The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
>> Air-Conditioning
>>      Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation  
>> issues,
>> has
>>      concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to
>> control health
>>      risks from secondhand smoke exposure.
>>
>> *The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A
>> Report
>> of the Surgeon General* was prepared by the Office on Smoking and  
>> Health,
>> National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
>> Centers
>> for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by  
>> 22
>> national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report  
>> chapters
>> were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was  
>> reviewed by
>> 30
>> independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for
>> Disease
>> Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human  
>> Services.
>> Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address
>> reviewers’
>> comments.
>>
>> *Citation*
>> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. *The Health  
>> Consequences of
>> Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon  
>> General*.
>> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease  
>> Control
>> and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and  
>> Health
>> Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
>>
>> For more information, please refer to the Resources page. Additional
>> highlight sheets are also available at www.cdc.gov/tobacco.
>>
>> Last revised: January 4, 2007
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================