Second-hand smoke exposure and the case for comprehensive restaurant smoking bans

¶ … Banning Smoking in Restaurants in All States

Through this study, the author aims to support a policy regarding ban on smoking in restaurants in all the 50 states of USA. The author is of the view that smoking should be banned in restaurants in all 50 states to lower the rate of second hand smoking related diseases in non-smokers

Due to bad impacts on secondhand smoke, it has been banned on public places and educational institutions in many states. For example, Utah fully banned smoking in restaurants in 1995 and California imposed a complete ban on smoking in restaurants and bars in 1998. No further complete smoking bans were passed by any state till 2002 when South Dakota totally banned smoking in workplaces, and Delaware totally banned smoking in workplaces, restaurants, and bars. As of 2002, the number of states where there is complete ban on smoke at workplace, restaurant and bar has augmented considerably. By January 1, 2009, 22 states totally banned smoking in private workplaces, 28 states imposed a complete ban on smoking in restaurants, and 22 states wholly banned smoking in bars.

Negative Impacts of secondhand smoke

Secondhand smoke is a cause of many diseases in non-smokers. In the United States, the exposure to secondhand smoke caused 150,000 to 300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in kids aging up to 17 months. Similarly, kids whose mothers are in contact with secondhand smoke have greater risk for a number of health issues like cough, breathlessness, and ear infections (http://www.quitlineiowa.org/health_effects.asp)

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) has instant health effects. It has been found to decrease lung function, intensify respiratory diseases, activate asthma attacks, decrease coronary blood flow, and irritate eyes as well as causes headaches, sort throats, dizziness, and nausea (Dockrell, 2007).

In 2003, crosswise the UK passive smoking at work was cause of almost 617 people, 54 of there were long-term workers of the hospitability industry. "In the Unite States, the number of non-smokers annual deaths from SHS exposures is: in excess of 3,400 people die from lung cancer, 46,000 die from cardiac-related illness and 430 children die from sudden infant death syndrome which has been associated with SHS exposure (Whincup, 2004). Another 11,000 deaths were attributable to passive smoking exposure in the home in exposed adults aged 20-65 years" (Jamrozik, 2005).

Instinctive smoking in the course of SHS exposures is the third primary source of avoidable death in the United States. It has been found to cause 53,000 deaths annually: 37,000 of which are deaths from heart disease, 3,700 from lung cancer, and 12,000 from other cancers. Revelation to ecological tobacco smoke in restaurants is three to four times greater as compared to formal workplace exposure, as well as eight to twenty times elevated than domestic exposure. It has been found to cause more deaths then AIDS, motor vehicle accident, drugs, or homicide (Siegel, 1992).

Smoking at restaurants has found to cause higher salivary coniine levels in non-smoking bar workers as compared to those of non-smoking living with smoking partners (Jarvis, 2001). Nonsmoking hospitality employees in organizations that allow smoking have been found to hold salivary coniine levels between 3 and 4 times high then those of non-smoking employees working in smoke-free premises (Bates,2002).

Fagerstrom (2002) also described that smoking cause instant bad effect with some irreparable effects. As regards instant effects, smoking elevates an individual's blood rate, weakens the blood flow to edges, arouses the nervous system temporarily, deteriorates taste and smell, and in some instances is the reason of dizziness, nausea, watery eyes and/or acid in the stomach. Malone. (2003) pointed out that tendency to suicide attempt was found higher in smokers as compared to non-smoker patients.

Successful Examples of Smoking Bans

Republic of Ireland was the first country all through the world which implemented all-inclusive smoke-free legislation in all workplaces, together with restaurants and pubs, and there was no permission for nominated smoking rooms with few exceptions on March, 2004, the (Fong et al., 2006)

As described by Chapman (1999), smoke-free workplaces are at present dependable for a yearly decrease of almost 602 million cigarettes which comes to 1.8% of all cigarettes that might be consumed in Australia if smoking were not banned on workplace. Similarly, in United States a reduction of 9.7 billion cigarettes (2%) was recorded per annum due to bans. Almost 22.3% of the 2.7 billion reductions in cigarette utilization in Australia between 1988 and 1995 can be recognized to smoke-free workplace, as can 12.7% of the 76.5 billion decreases in the United States between 1988 and 1994.

A research performed by Education Development Center at three state universities, Montana State University, Ohio State University, and University of Rhode Island during July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004 confirmed that smoke-free legislations had an optimistic effect on residence halls subsequent policy execution. Positive reports incorporated abridged carpet burns from cigarettes, fewer recurrent harm to window screens, which previous to the ban were cut through as a way to get rid of cigarette butts; reduced burn spoil to the furnishings varnish; and reduced require to redecorated dorm rooms off-cycle (Gerspn, Allard, & Towwim, 2005).

Legislation having complete smoking bans inside enclosed restaurants and bars with additional forbidden smoking rooms has been taken on in seven countries (Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, Bhutan, Uruguay, Lithuania and Iceland), nine Canadian regions and provinces; seven Australian states and districts; in addition to Scotland, Bermuda, Guernsey, and Puerto Rico. Besides, a lot of municipalities in different countries have approved 100% smoke-free legislations for restaurants and bars (Cunningham, 2006).

Additionally smoking bans in the workplace and at home have been found to throw in to abridged utilization, aims to quit, and likelihood increased ending, in addition to distribution of the massage a that smoking is communally intolerable. Though the major objective of smoking bans in public venues is to lessen exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, it may also help to reduce tobacco utilization and help quit smoking (Borland, Mullins, Trotter & White., 1999).

Research confirmed that hold up for smoke-free policies rises following their execution in workplace and in restaurants. For instance, the Irish law caused a spectacular decrease in reported smoking in all locations which include "workplace 62% to 14%, restaurants 85% to 3%, and bars or pubs 98% to to5% Overall, 83% of Irish smokers reported that the smoke-free law is a good or very good thing" (Fong, 2005).

The nonattendance of smoking in public places, in particular those previously linked with indications for smoking, buoyant quitting and augments the possibility of winning quitting. These results recommend that bans on smoking in bars, restaurants, nightclubs, and gaming venues will help to reduce cigarette utilization and boost quitting among smoking who regularly support these settings. These advantageous effects are probable to be strongest among younger smokers (Trotter, Wakefield, & Borland, 2002).

Similarly Fong (2006) reported that almost half (46%) of smoking accounted that the smoke-free legislation help them more possible to end smoking. Among those who had quit, 80% confirmed that the ban was helpful for them to quite and 88% said it helped them stay smoke-free.

Seventy percent of smokers who usually be condescending social places state that they smoke extra in public and social locations and if smoking is banned in these setting it will help them consume less cigarettes. For instance, a quarter of smokers who regularly patronize social settings confirmed that it will be possible for them to quit smoking completely if smoking was restricted in hotels, licensed bars, gaming venues, and nightclubs (Trotter, 2002).

Ong (2004) estimated that effect of bans on smoking at all workplaces in the U.S.A. during the first-years will help to produce about 1.3 million new quitters in U.S.A and stop over 950 million cigarette packs from being smoked per annum, value about & 2.3 billion in pretax sales to the tobacco industry. Thus if all workplace are made smoke free, it will stop almost 1,500 myocardial infarctions and 350 strokes, and bring about almost $49 million to save direct medical costs (Ong & Glantz,2004).

A 2005 study of good service employees established that as New York's state smoking-free workplace law was implemented in July 2003, bar and restaurant employees are suffering less sore throats, runny noses, and irritated eyes. As well, coniine levels was found to be decreased by 78% among the participants of the study during the first years after the law went into effect (Farrelly, 2005).

Further, the U.S. Surgeon General has accomplished that smoke free workplace policies are the only effectual means to get rid of exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace. The Surgeon General has also accomplished that smoking bans at workplace help to reduce smoking among affected workers (http:/www.in.gov/itpc/files/SHSpolicyFeb09.pdf).this also assists in reducing the total expenses to employers while defending employees from secondhand smoke (American Lung Association, 2006).

"Support among smoking before and after the ban rose from 43% to 67%, from 45% to 77% and from 13% to 46% for bans in workplace, restaurants and pubs, respectively. After the ban was implemented, 83% of Irish smokers also said that the legislation was a good or very good thing" (Haw, 2006).

More than 25% Employees of the workplace where smoking was banned were more likely to make a serious effort to quit smoking during 1988 and 1993, and more than 25% more probably to obtain cessations followed by those who employee working in a place where smoking is allowed. Among ongoing smokers, workers in smoke-free workplace used an average of 2.75 smaller amounts of cigarettes per day then those worked in place with a non-restrictive smoking plan (Glasgow, Cummings, & Hyland, 1997).

In conclusion, I recommend complete ban on smoking in restaurants in all the 50 states. It will decrease health risk related to smoking for smokers and secondhand smokers. There are other solution like partial restriction on smoking in restaurants; restriction on smoking during lunch and dinner hours and restrictions on smoking on restaurant workers etc.