Smoking bans are government prohibitions or voluntary bans decided by establishment management on tobacco smoking in public or quasi-public indoor areas such as offices, restaurants, hotels, or even outdoor public areas such as parks and sports stadiums. In most jurisdictions the sale of tobacco to minors, or minors under a certain age, is prohibited. Such laws have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with legislators citing health statistics that show tobacco smoking is often fatal for the smokers and also for those subjected to passive smoking (also known as secondhand smoke). Additional bases for smoking bans are reduced risk of fire and reduced quantities of litter. However, some countries hardly enforce their smoking prohibitions, and continue to profit from tax on tobacco products. Tobacco advertising is also banned or restricted in many countries. A list of smoking bans shows that various countries, states and cities have enacted a wide variety of smoking bans.
Medical and scientific basis for bans
The detrimental effects of smoking have been known for decades, including causing and/or exacerbating a wide variety of medical problems, such as lung cancer, bronchitis, emphysema, and heart disease.
Anti-tobacco organizations have generated strong (and growing) scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (e.g. smoke passively inhaled by non-smokers after it was exhaled by active smokers) causes a similar variety of medical problems. Secondhand smoke contains more than 4000 chemicals, including 69 known carcinogens such as formaldehyde, lead, arsenic, benzene, and radioactive polonium 210. It is a scientifically proven cause of serious health problems, including lung cancer, heart disease and lung ailments such as bronchitis and asthma. A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that nonsmokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. [1]
The growing trend of legislatively banning smoking in public places stems largely from limiting detrimental health effects of tobacco smoke; however, other rationales include fire prevention and litter reduction.
Research indicates that bans on smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) states that New York's statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only secondhand smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline. [2] The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoking bans.
Another study showed that in New Jersey (which had not yet enacted its ban), bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution compared with those in neighboring New York City, which had banned smoking in those establishments. [3] Such findings may be responsible for the phenomenon whereby indoor smoke seems more noticeable (and less tolerable) in locales adjacent to regions with smoking bans. Thus, this research may partly explain the growing momentum of laws banning indoor public smoking.
In addition to the various studies showing that smoking bans improve indoor air quality, additional research indicates that the improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees. [4] For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that enacted smoking bans, tests showed improved (decreased) levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to the ban). [5]
Medical and scientific critique of bans
The largest and most detailed epidemiological study on ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke or passive smoking) and tobacco-related mortality ever to appear in a medical journal was published in March 2003 by the British Medical Journal, whose editorial board was sufficiently impressed by the paper to flag it on the front cover under the headline “Passive Smoking May Not Kill”. The study by Professor James Enstrom of the School of Public Health at California University, and Assistant Professor Geoffrey Kabat of the Department of Preventive Health at the State University of New York was based on a 39-year survey of 118,000 Californians originally recruited by the American Cancer Society in 1959.
Enstrom and Kabat’s conclusion was: “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect.”
Some critics of this study point out that the last few years of Enstrom and Kabat’s work were funded in part by British American Tobacco. The authors point out in reply, first that they are renowned epidemiologists of almost 30 years’ standing, and second, that the earlier years of their study were financed by the US Tobacco-Related Disease and Research Programme. The TRDRP, it seems, refused to continue its funding when it became aware of the direction the research was taking.
Others critics maintain that official bodies in the field of public health have shown a biased approach to the issue. In 1988, the World Health Organisation published research on passive smoking with a press release headlined “Don’t Let Them Fool You: Passive Smoking Does Cause Cancer”. However, the study itself showed no statistically significant results to justify that headline, and the only statistically valid conclusion reached by the study was that the children of smokers had a lung cancer rate 22 per cent lower than children of non-smokers. The official abstract characterised that statistic as having “no association”.
History
Pope Urban VII's short papal reign gave way to the world's first known public smoking ban (1590), as he threatened to excommunicate anyone who "took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose."
Much attention has been given to the anti-tobacco efforts of the Nazis, and the relevance to the modern-day issues of smoking bans is discussed within the "Debate about smoking bans" section, below. An anti-smoking campaign was the Nazi anti-tobacco movement (1933-44), encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising, restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and a comprehensive national anti-tobacco poster campaign, as a means of protecting the 'Aryan' race from 'external poisons'. Hitler disapproved of smoking, as a Nazi propaganda poster affirmed: "Our Führer Adolf Hitler drinks no alcohol and does not smoke.... His performance at work is incredible." [6]
However, smoking rates rose dramatically in the first six years of Nazi rule, and it is suggested that smoking may have functioned as a kind of cultural resistance (to Nazi rule), though it is also important to realise that German tobacco companies exercised a considerable economic and political power [7].
In the 20th century, as the research studies on the health risks of tobacco smoking were made public, tobacco industries launched courtesy awareness campaigns (asking if people around you are bothered by smoke before lighting up, blowing smoke away from other people), which were later proven to be ineffective.
Different attempts at accommodating both smokers' desire to smoke where they wished and the need to effectively protect against the health risks associated with environmental tobacco smoke have been suggested and tested in practice: designated smoking and non-smoking sections, ventilation systems, enclosed smoking rooms, awareness campaigns. None of these have proven to be fool-proof effective both in theory and in practice (smoking room doors left open, ventilation shut down to minimize heating/cooling costs), which spurred many public and private establishments to voluntarily implement an in-house smoke-free policy without governmental legislation.
By the year 2000, smoking bans were often limited to individual cities that passed a wide variety of laws. Since then, there has been an increasing trend for entire countries to pass laws banning smoking in various indoor public sites and workplaces, including bars, restaurants, and social clubs. Within the United States, there has been a similar trend on the state level, with a rapidly growing number of statewide bans against smoking in such indoor public places. By January 2006, 11 states in the USA had enacted such laws. Many areas that do not have statewide bans still have bans on a city-by-city basis. On December 28, 2005, USA Today reported that "six states enacted indoor smoking bans in 2005, more than in any previous year, as public sentiment appears increasingly anti-tobacco." That same news article states that 39% of U.S. citizens live in areas that "are covered by statewide or local laws limiting smoking, according to Americans for Non-smokers' Rights. In 1985, there were fewer than 200 such state and local laws in the USA. Today, there are more than 2,000. Of those, 118 state or local governments ban all smoking in restaurants, bars and other workplaces. It's all part of a growing sentiment for a smoke-free environment at work, in public places, even outdoors." [8]
The increased momentum for such bans seems to be due to a combination of factors, including medical research repeatedly demonstrating adverse health effects of second-hand smoke, successful implementation of bans in many locales thus prompting others to enact similar bans, and various economic studies generally showing that such bans do not adversely effect the local economy. There also appears to be an increased sentiment that local, state, or national laws should protect employees from exposure to second-hand smoke in the workplace (including workplaces such as bars and restaurants), similar to protections typically provided against other preventable exposures to workplace toxins. Thus, the issue is often viewed as a matter of worker's rights. Along these lines, workplace smoking bans often note that they do not seek to stop people from smoking in general, but instead seek to prohibit smokers from smoking in an employee's work environment.
Thus, for a variety of reasons, there is a growing trend for regional (country-wide or state-wide) smoking bans, with site-specific details outlined in the "Legislative action" section below.
Alternatives to bans
Some suggest that warnings for passive smokers may suffice instead of bans. The argument relies on the logic of assumed risk. For inhaled tobacco smoke, the argument goes, the smoker accepts the dangers from tobacco by lighting up, but the passive smoker makes no such choice. Some argue that an equivalent assumption of risk could be achieved if property owners could post warnings that smoke may be present, similar to warnings on cigarette packs. This argument assumes that nonsmokers could then decide not to enter a restaurant or marked area. However, it is rejected as insufficient by those campaigning for a ban.
While some businesses have suggested that no-smoking sections could be an alternative to outright bans on smoking in bars and restaurants and other public places, research has shown that such partitions are rarely effective at limiting all smoke toxins from non-smoking sections. Often, the sections share a common ventilation system. Many clean-air advocates compare non-smoking sections in bars/restaturants to hypothetical "non-peeing sections" in public swimming pools, thus highlighting the ineffectiveness of the "section" approach. Further, even if smoke's toxins theoretically could remain fully within the smoking sections, employees working in those smoking sections would fail to be protected from the detrimental health effects of secondhand smoke. Thus, overall, the strategy of offering smoking versus non-smoking sections is losing ground compared with the approach of outright banning smoking indoors within such establishments.
Debate about smoking bans
In the U.S., smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer disastrously from smoking bans, with many of them going broke. Restauranteurs argued that smoking bans would increase the rate of dine and dashes. Others have countered that even if this occurred it could decrease the leisure (non-eating) time spent in the restaurants, resulting in increased turn-over of tables, which could actually benefit total sales. The experiences of Delaware, New York, California, and Florida have shown that most businesses do survive (and many hospitality businesses show increased revenues) while very few businesses fail as a result of the bans. Within regions with smoking bans, some degree of opposition often persists among smokers, bar owners, and even some non-smokers (such as libertarians), and among those favoring freedom of choice for the private business owner. However, in most regions enacting bans, the bans become accepted over time, by not only non-smokers and businesses, but often are accepted by most smokers as well.
Discussion of the "Debate on Smoking Bans" would perhaps not be complete without acknowledging and discussing the Nazi references that repeatedly arise within the context of this debate. [9] In a public relations move that has mostly backfired, some pro-smoking advocates have tried to frame the issue by comparing clean-air advocates with Nazi's. [10] Many smokers and non-smokers alike find the comparison extreme, misleading and offensive. [11] The following response to the Nazi comparison is typical: "To use the phrase “Nicotine Nazi” to describe those who are trying to protect people from the hazards of secondhand smoke is insulting to the memory of the millions of people who were murdered by the real Nazis. The historical fact that Adolf Hitler disliked smoking is as irrelevant to this debate today as is the historical fact that the Soviet tyrant Josef Stalin was a smoker." [12] "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies" indicates that a group has lost the debate when their approach stoops to trying to demonize opponents by comparing them to Hitler or Nazis. Some clean air advocates have further replied that "The intent of the Nazis was to purge their society of an ethnic group through mass slaughter. Our purpose is to save lives, not end them." [13] [14]
Total smoking bans
Recently there has been a growing desire by some anti-smoking activists and health officials to prohibit the sale and consumption of all tobacco products, regardless of where they are used. US Surgeon General Richard Carmona stirred some controversy in June 2003 when he publicly called for all tobacco products to be banned nationwide. A similar view is held by the British medical journal The Lancet, which called for a similar total ban in the UK in the December 2003 issue. In November 2004, Bhutan became the first country to ban tobacco sale completely. There is a 100% import tax on tobacco products brought into the country for personal consumption.
Such a comprehensive ban in these countries may face considerable problems. The experience of the US prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s shows that banning a harmful but popular product leads to widespread drug trafficking, which generates crime. Possibly more relevant is the fact that several US states have banned cigarettes in the past, yet all such bans were abandoned just as was Prohibition. Iowa banned cigarette manufacture and sales in 1897; Tennessee, Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan were other states that banned cigarette sales at various times between 1897 and 1907.
A more recent anti-alcohol campaign in the USSR in 1985-1987 led to considerable public health benefits despite large scale illegal home-brewery of alcohol. Despite the potential benefits, it is argued that such a ban would violate personal freedoms, particularly if it is considered a victimless crime. The main arguments against smoking being a victimless crime are the health risks of passive smoking and increased health costs borne by all members of society. However, whether smoking actually increases health care costs is a matter of debate among experts. Certain studies suggest that complete smoking cessation might actually result in an increase in total health care costs in the long run [15]. This seemingly paradoxical possibility stems from the fact that nonsmokers live longer on average and can thus incur higher health care costs at advanced ages. Furthermore, an argument for smoking being a victimless crime is that no adults are subjected to smoke without their consent. This argument ignores its effect on children, who are often unable to choose whether to enter a restaurant or store where there is smoking, and who are not prepared to make informed decisions in this matter. Considering the potential effect on children, some argue that smoking should be criminalized altogether.
The debate over whether a total ban should be implemented is still ongoing in many countries.
Effects on tobacco use
A 1960 document from Phillip Morris, 'Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence', summarized the results of its long-running research into the effects of a ban. "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry [i.e., smoking industry] volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11% to 15% less [smoking products] than average and quit [smoking] at a rate that is 84% higher than average."[16]
Effects on businesses
Although one of most common sources of resistance to bans comes from businesses concerned that they will suffer financial losses due to lost customers, research seems to offer them some reassurances.
In Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans, along with a minority of pub-goers. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intent of protecting others, particularly workers, from passive smoking ("secondhand smoke"). There was very vocal opposition by the representative body for publicans and some public representatives before the ban; however, promoters of the ban countered accusations that the ban would interfere with personal freedom by phrasing their argument in terms of workplace safety and workers' rights, rather than public health. By and large, since the ban's introduction it has become accepted, due in part to "outdoor" arrangements at many pubs (involving heated areas with shelters). It is viewed as a success by the government and much of the public, and many other European governments are considering similar legislation. Public health lobbyists in Northern Ireland have lobbied for a similar ban there also.
Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "An evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure [the March 2004 national ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc]. Bar retail sales in volume terms have increased during the last three-month period (year-on-year) following a four-year decline. The numbers employed in this sector in the first quarter of this year have increased to 23,200 – up 1,400 from the previous quarter. This represents the most significant quarterly increase in employment since the second quarter of 2002." [17] Thus, even in a country with a relatively high percentage of smokers, the smoking ban did not seem to have a negative effect on business in bars or restaurants.
According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, by a margin of almost 6 to 1, respondents said that they eat out more often now because of the city's smoke-free policy. [18]
Thus, overall research generally indicates that business incomes are generally stable (or even improved) after smoking bans are enacted, and most customers appreciate the improved air quality.
Smoking is prohibited on streets in some areas of Tokyo, hence smokers retreat into smoking lounges.
However, public opinion polls cannot be considered totally conclusive. While most businesses have remained stable in terms of income and number of employees, some individual establishments may endure financial hardships.
Outdoor smoking bans
In some places with long-established strict indoor smoking bans, many areas have begun to experiment with outdoor smoking bans in specific contexts, especially in public or government-owned spaces. The U.S. state of California, known to be a leader in its strict anti-smoking history, has been one of the most concentrated areas of innovative outdoor smoking policies in recent times, although it is not the only area to have outdoor-smoking bans. The advent of outdoor smoking bans has been seen as one of the final frontiers in the anti-smoking movement.
An additional motivation for the ban on outdoor smoking is litter reduction. Beach cleanup efforts often find the majority of beach trash to be discarded cigarettes and butts. Besides being unsightly and requiring cleanup resources, these discarded tobacco products can leak unwanted chemicals into the environment.
See also
External links
