SMOKING: INDOOR RESTRICTIONS

In the mid-1970s, the nonsmokers' rights movement began to press for the adoption of laws to control exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)—also know as second-hand smoke. In 1973, Arizona became the first U.S. state to restrict smoking in public places for health reasons. In 1975, Minnesota passed a comprehensive statewide law.

Although a 1972 U.S. Surgeon General's Report raised the issue of ETS, it was in the 1980s that the scientific understanding of the health effects of ETS increased notably. In 1986, the Surgeon General concluded that "involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers." In 1997, the California Environmental Protection Agency concluded that ETS caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 to 62,000 heart disease deaths in the United States each year. Among children, ETS causes bronchitis, pneumonia, and middle ear infections, and induces asthma attacks. ETS has also been linked to new cases of asthma, and to sudden infant death syndrome.

As knowledge of the health effects of ETS has increased, so has the strength of restrictions. The hazards of ETS are entirely preventable, and ETS restrictions protect both workers and the public. Apart from the serious health hazards, most nonsmokers are annoyed by ETS exposure.

The World Health Assembly, parent body of the World Health Organization, has adopted a number of resolutions referring to ETS, including urging member countries in 1978 "to protect the rights of nonsmokers to enjoy an atmosphere unpolluted by tobacco smoke." North America, along with Australia and New Zealand, have been further ahead than most countries in restricting smoking in workplaces and public places, although particular progress has been made in places such as Singapore, South Africa, and Scandinavia.

As of 2000, at least 930 municipal ordinances restricting ETS in varying degrees were in force in the United States, and at least 300 in Canada. Forty-five U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and seven Canadian provinces had laws restricting ETS in 2000.

In 1985, Aspen, Colorado, became the first North American municipality to require smoke-free restaurants. As of 2000, at least 280 U.S. municipalities and twenty-five Canadian municipalities had local laws in force requiring smokefree restaurants. Utah (1993), California (1995), Vermont (1995), and Maine (1999) have passed state-wide laws requiring smoke-free restaurants. Numerous studies have demonstrated that such laws do not adversely impact restaurant sector sales. As of 2000, at least thirty municipalities in the United States and fifteen in Canada require smoke-free bars.

In 1987, Canada (and the United States in 1988) prohibited smoking on domestic airline flights of two hours or less. Canada banned smoking on all domestic flights of Canadian airlines in 1989, and all international flight in 1994. The United States prohibited smoking on all domestic flights of six hours or less in 1990. Worldwide, smoke-free flights have become the norm, with the support of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

There have been a number of legal initiatives by nonsmokers to pursue smoke-free environments, including labor arbitrations, claims under workplace safety and worker compensation laws, and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 1997, the Broin class action lawsuit against tobacco manufactures by flight attendants exposed to ETS resulted in a $349 million out-of-court settlement.

Smoking laws are generally respected and easy to enforce, especially after an initial implementation period. Measures that facilitate enforcement include posting of "no smoking" signs; requiring employers/proprietors to not permit illegal smoking; and prohibiting ashtrays where smoking is banned. Public support for smoking laws is generally high and often increases after implementation.

Smoke-free workplaces may benefit employers through increased productivity among nonsmokers, and through reduced costs due to cleaning, maintenance, property damage, fire risk and insurance, absenteeism, sick pay, and worker's compensation.

Apart from protecting nonsmokers, smoking restriction laws have a major impact in reducing smoking overall; such laws motivate smokers to quit or cut back, reduce smoking's social acceptability, and reduce visible role modeling. Numerous studies have found that workplace smoking restrictions reduce cigarette consumption. In a Philip Morris document, workplace smoking bans were said to result in a 20 percent quit rate.

Recognizing the impact on sales volumes, the tobacco industry has actively opposed ETS restrictions. This has been done by conducting large-scale public relations campaigns denying that ETS is a proven harm, funding studies that cast doubt over whether ETS is harmful, lobbying against laws, funding other organizations or new "front" groups to lobby against laws, and supporting state laws that prevent municipalities from adopting ordinances. The tobacco industry has argued that public smoking restrictions cause economic harm, and that the marketplace should allow proprietors to determine whether or not to restrict smoking.

Rob Cunningham

(see also: Environmental Tobacco Smoke; Tobacco Control )

Bibliography

Barnes, D. E.; Hanauer, P.; Slade, J.; Bero, L. A.; and Glantz, S. A. (1995). "Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Brown and Williamson Documents." Journal of the American Medical Association 274(3):248–253.

California Environmental Protection Agency (1997). Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Final Report. Sacramento, CA: CEPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Available at http://www.oehha.ca.gov.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1986). The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the U.S. Surgeon General. Washington, DC: USDHHS.

—— (2000). Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: USDHHS.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: EPA.