| Concern: |
Response: |
| People have the right to smoke anywhere, anytime. |
People also have the right to breathe smoke-free air. |
| Smoke-free ordinances are needless regulation. |
Smoke-free ordinances are public health ordinances, and local government not only has the right, they have the responsibility to enact them. Smoke-free ordinances are similar to other public health laws that protect us from being exposed to harmful substances in the workplace such as asbestos. |
| There is no need for more government interference. |
Government already monitors the suitability of water, food and cleanliness in restaurants and workplaces. It should be the same for the quality of the air. |
| Let the marketplace decide which restaurant to patronize. |
This is really about the health of food service workers. Studies reveal that
White-collar employees, such as teachers and healthcare worker, have the greatest protections from workplace secondhand smoke.
Food-service employees and blue-collar workers have the least protection from exposure to secondhand smoke while on the job. |
| You can choose to eat in a smoke-free restaurant. |
The public can choose, but employees cannot. Employers have the responsibility to protect their employees from known hazards like asbestos and secondhand smoke. |
| Scientists are still debating the effects of secondhand smoke on health. |
Secondhand smoke kills 53,000 non-smokers each year. (CDC2 )
Short term exposure:
5 min-stiffens the aorta; wheezing; asthma
20 min-activates blood platelets and the clotting process-damage to blood vessels
30 min-lose ability to dilate coronary arteries.
2 hrs-greater risk of irregular heartbeat.
Long term exposure:
Lung cancer
Nasal sinus cancer
Respiratory/asthma
Heart disease mortality
Acute and chronic congestive heart disease |
| Smoke-free ordinances hurt businesses economically. |
Smoke-free businesses are good for the bottom line as shown in tax receipt studies in dozens of cities, including Fort Wayne. Some cities like El Paso, TX and New York have seen an increase in revenue and jobs. There are not studies that have shown a negative impact Businesses are interested in containing escalating healthcare costs. Smoking related costs are one major contributor. In 1999, each adult smoker cost employers $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures according to CDC. |
| An ordinance would be difficult to enforce. |
Most ordinances are enforced on a complaint only basis. Posting “no-smoking” signs and removing ashtrays is the bulk of enforcement activities. In the first year, New York had a non-compliance rate of only 3.8%/ |
| Ventilation can solve the problem. |
The EPA, Natl. Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, American Society of Heating, and Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers agree that the only way ventilation can eliminate exposure to the harmful constituents in secondhand smoke is if smoking is limited to a totally separate/enclosed area with a separate ventilation system. |
| If employees don’t like it, they can work somewhere else. |
Is it fair to tell employees that they have to breathe cancer causing agents to have a job? Employers should make every reasonable effort to reduce known health risks in the workplace. |
| OSHA has not issued regulations. |
OSHA proposed regulations in 1994, but tobacco interests held up promulgation. |
| Smoke-free ordinances discriminate against smokers. |
Smoke-free ordinances don’t regulate people; they regulate behavior and are therefore not discriminatory. |
| Why not promote legislative action from the state level? |
In the other 10 states that have state smoke-free laws, there was first a strong movement as the local levels that then encouraged the state legislators to enact legislation at the state level. Bloomington and Fort Wayne are good examples. |
| |
|
| Shopland, D. Anderson, C. Burns, D. Gerlach, K. “Disparities in Smoke-Free Workplace Polices Among Food service Workers, “ Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 46, No. 4, April 2004. 2Farkas, A., et.al. “Association Between Household and Workplace Smoking Restrictions and Adolescent Smoking,” Journal of the American Medical Association 284(6), August 9, 2000. |
Click Here Back To Top Of Page