 |
James L. Holly, M.D. |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| James L. Holly,M.D. |
| September 04, 2005 |
| The Beaumont Enterprise |
|
The Enterprise editorial, "City Shouldn't ban smoking in businesses," stated, "smoking...is a habit which is legal...as such, business owners should be able to allow it inside their premises." And, "Employees...if they are bothered by smoke, they have the choice of seeking work elsewhere." Beaumont City Council has been asked to make smoking in public places illegal, just as the city has lease laws for dogs, parking laws for cars and at times restrictions for water use, which makes a legal activity, i.e., watering your water, illegal. It is appropriate for City Council to make it illegal to smoke in public places.
Each puff of cigarette smoke contains billions of destructive free radicals, all of which are damaging to your health. In one of the more amusing events in recent political history, a candidate for public office claimed that he had smoked marijuana but that he had never "inhaled." While that may be a "distinction without a difference," its converse is not. Everyday, millions of non-smokers, people who have never and would never place a tobacco product in their mouth and set it on fire, inhale tobacco smoke.
Many parents, who smoke, are eager to keep their children from smoking, while every day, they cause them to inhale the toxins and poisons contained in tobacco smoke. Recently, a patient indicated an absolute unwillingness to stop smoking. I asked, "Do you smoke around your children?" The answer was, "Yes," to which I responded, "Then, while your children may not be smoking, they are inhaling."
The American Heart Association maintains that physicians have an obligation to tell every smoker to quit smoking in a "clear, strong and personalized manner," and they should also warn non-smokers to avoid all exposure to secondhand smoke. In a tough new set of guidelines for preventing heart disease and stroke, the Heart Association said the goal of every person who wants to avoid cardiovascular disease should be "complete cessation" and "no exposure to environmental tobacco smoke."
Some people who work in environments where an artificial toxin, i.e., tobacco smoke, is present, do not have a choice. And, even if they have a choice, why should one's work environment subject one to health hazards? The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not tolerate unsafe working conditions in industry, why should the City Council ignore the plight of its constituents who are subjected to passive tobacco smoke in their work places?
Community smoking policies that restrict access to cigarettes or the acceptability of smoking are an important component of the social environment that supports nonsmoking among young people. They contribute to the perception by young people that nonsmoking is normal and public smoking is unacceptable. Most schools have policies on smoking; those with more restrictive policies for both students and staff have lower smoking rates. National studies show public smoking restriction is associated with lower smoking rates.
Where bans have been introduced the response has been mostly favorable. In California, 73% of the people were in favor of the ban. In Ireland, where a total national ban is in effect, the feared negative responses have not developed. A small study in Helena, Montana showed that a ban decreased the incidence of heart attacks by half. This was a short and small study but the implications are intriguing.
Furthermore, how ludicrous is it to call a section of a restaurant "non-smoking" when the next table is a smoking section? Every American, even those who smoke, but who love their children enough not to want them exposed to the health hazards of passive smoke, should demand to be seated in a "no-smoke" section of a restaurant, not in a "no-smoking" section which can nonetheless be filled with smoke. Walking through the smoking section of several local restaurants will expose you to harmful tobacco fumes, unless you can hold your breath until you have totally cleared the section.
It is appropriate for City Council to pass an ordinance eliminating smoking in public places. However, if they do not want to take the leadership, follow Dan Wallach's recommendation (Beaumont Enterprise, August 28, 2005, Section E, page 3) and put a smoking-ban referendum on the ballot of the next election. That will allow Beaumont the option of joining the nation-wide and even world-wide move toward a healthier living environment. And, it sends a very strong message to our children that we are really serious about the hazards of tobacco smoke.
James L. Holly, MD
CEO, SETMA, LLP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
