Posted on 07/11/2002 3:39:16 PM PDT by SheLion
The more the experts study smoking, the more harmful it's shown to be -- for smokers and nonsmokers alike.
In the face of this onslaught of evidence, it seems almost bizarre that government still permits smoking in any indoor place open to the public.
Yet government does allow smoking in many places, apparently afraid to take on certain business interests despite the overwhelming desire of the public to be protected from others' smoke.
What will it take to get government to act?
The latest analysis of the effects of smoking comes from the respected World Health Organization, which conducted what is being called the most comprehensive assessment of smoking hazards ever done.
Analyzing the results of more than 3,000 studies, W.H.O. determined that smoking doesn't just cause cancer of the lung, throat and bladder but also cancer of the stomach, uterus, liver and kidney, along with leukemia.
More relevant to government's role of protecting the nonsmoker, the W.H.O. report said passive smoking increases the risk of contracting lung cancer by 20 percent, with the greatest risk for those working or living among smokers.
Based on the known hazards of secondhand smoke, state governments have prohibited smoking in many public places. And, of course, most businesses have prohibited smoking on their own.
But state governments have caved when it comes to banning smoking in restaurants and bars. The hospitality industry must be very powerful.
Rather than push for a statewide ban, the state Department of Public Health says it is more effective to work on a town-by-town basis. The agency points to the fact that more than 200 of the state's 351 communities have enacted regulations that are tougher than the state standard requiring a certain percentage of restaurant space to be reserved for nonsmokers.
`` When a community decides to enact smoking restrictions, it's going to enjoy better and more widespread support than some kind of state mandate or dictate,'' says Roseanne Pawelec, spokeswoman for the state Tobacco Control Program.
The problem is many communities are afraid to stand up to bar and restaurant owners and end up taking half measures. That produces a patchwork of regulations, enabling businesses to argue that they'll lose customers to more lenient towns. That can be enough -- it was in Attleboro -- to stall moves for a total ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
(It doesn't matter that the argument has been proven wrong; it still carries weight with municipal officials.)
To try to meet this objection, anti-smoking organizations have been trying to get contiguous communities to enact similar regulations. The regional approach has worked on Cape Cod and is making inroads in these parts, but it's a cumbersome and difficult process.
It would make so much more sense -- and be fairer to business -- if there were a statewide ban.
The state Tobacco Control Program is afraid to go that route. It fears such an effort could backfire, with the tobacco industry allying with the food and beverage industry to persuade the Legislature to enact a watered-down law that would make the situation worse.
That's not necessarily the case, however. Two states have banned smoking in all restaurants and bars. One is California, which has long set the standard for healthy smoking regulations.
The other is Delaware, which now has the toughest anti-smoking law in the country. Delaware's law takes effect later this year. It bans smoking in nearly all indoor places. This small state has stood up to business and sided with the public.
Not unexpectedly, there was a last-ditch effort to gut the law and exempt bars, restaurants and casinos from the smoking ban. That move was defeated in the Republican-controlled House -- now there's a novel concept -- and the law will go into effect Nov. 27.
Lawmakers were perhaps mindful that the Clean Indoor Air Act enjoyed the support of 77 percent of Delaware's residents.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts is touted across the country and around the world as a model for its anti-smoking efforts. In reality, it is weak-kneed and nowhere near as progressive as California and Delaware.
How the state can let the public and especially employees of these businesses be exposed to carcinogens day in and day out I just don't understand.
NED BRISTOL is editor of The Sun Chronicle. Contact him at nbristol@thesunchronicle.com or 508-236-0344.
Let’s write to this pompous ass, shall we?
Respected? BY WHO?
OH REALLY??!!
Or maybe, just maybe most of them KNOW how the Federal COURT threw out the EPA's Biased Study on Second Hand Smoke:
TONIGHT (6pm pdt/9pm edt) on UNSPUN!
ANN COULTER and JESSE LEE PETERSON!
Click HERE and Listen LIVE while you FREEP!
ALSO! RadioFR's new CHAT SERVER IS UP! Come on in and CHAT!
I hear ya. Who let this so called "Editor" out of his box?!
What a cutie...........NOT!
Good question. They have a marvelous track record in Africa.
Legions are closing? This is SO sad, Great Dane. How a certain few can really stick it to people.
While at the same time, requiring the known carcinogen MTBE to be added to gasoline. Sigh.
Hail Hitler!
What KNOWN hazard? The WHO couldn't find anything. Nothing.
Because the report had nothing, they simply stashed it. It's all propaganda because some from the Socialist left are "offended."
If it's money for medical care they're really concerned about, let's start after those who spread the AIDs virus. That costs even more!
All the greats are gone now.
More relevant to government's role of protecting the nonsmoker, the W.H.O. report said passive smoking increases the risk of contracting lung cancer by 20 percent, with the greatest risk for those working or living among smokers.
Based on the known hazards of secondhand smoke, state governments have prohibited smoking in many public places. And, of course, most businesses have prohibited smoking on their own.
Which W.H.O. report was this? The last one I remember hearing about said that there was no appreciable risk to non-smokers. What hazards is this man talking about? State governments have banned smoking because of the lobbying efforts of anti-smoker nico-nazis.
The problem is many communities are afraid to stand up to bar and restaurant owners and end up taking half measures. That produces a patchwork of regulations, enabling businesses to argue that they'll lose customers to more lenient towns. That can be enough -- it was in Attleboro -- to stall moves for a total ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
(It doesn't matter that the argument has been proven wrong; it still carries weight with municipal officials.)
Where does this guy get his information? I'd really like to know.
I'm gonna HAVE to write this fellow a letter and ask him for his sources just so I can hear him go, "Well, ummm, uhhh, I don't have to tell YOU."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.