I SMOKED a cigarette once in my life and haven't made the same mistake since. Smoking over a long period of time poses about as many health risks as frequenting a toxic waste dump. Yet while individuals can control how many cigarettes they themselves smoke, they have little influence over secondhand smoke. The Virginia state senate took a great step last week toward eliminating secondhand smoke in Virginia by passing a bill that, if successful in the House of Delegates, will prohibit smoking in many indoor places. Despite progress on a state-wide level, the U.S. federal government owes its citizens a federal law to ban smoking in public places.
According to USA Today, 39 percent of Americans are covered by over 2000 local or state limits to smoking in public places as of Dec. 28, 2005. In 1985, less than 200 such laws existed. Six states banned smoking in public places in 2005, more states than any previous year. Clearly, the trend seems to be moving towards banning smoking in public places, but not quickly enough. According to a 1997 California Environmental Protection Agency report, 53,800 people die from secondhand smoke every year. Indeed, with every passing day without action, the damage of secondhand smoke accumulates.
Yet the federal government's efforts have been lackluster, to put it kindly. The American Lung Association graded the federal government's attempts to curb tobacco use with startlingly negative results. One measured category, given a D grade, was progress in passing the Framework Convention of Tobacco Control. The World Health Organization's treaty "asserts the importance of demand reduction strategies as well as supply reduction issues," according to its Web site. One aspect of the treaty is the protection of a nation's citizens by banning smoking in public places. President Bush has signed the treaty but has not sent it for Senate approval. In other words, it was a largely symbolic act without any ramifications whatsoever.
American law in this regard is based on "reasonable expectations." People who choose to visit establishments where smoking is allowed cannot reasonably be expected to understand how the secondhand smoke is affecting them. No statistics exist on people's understanding of secondhand smoke, but the plethora of restaurants that contain smoking and non-smoking areas seem to indicate that simple separation solves the problem.
In reality, the National Cancer Institute reports that separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space reduces, but does not eliminate, the effects of secondhand smoke. The dangerous chemicals in cigarette smoke can be ventilated to affect people at much farther distances than generally thought. The American legal system protects those who suffer without reasonably expecting the consequences. In this case, nonsmokers deserve to be protected against smokers and against the establishments that allow people to smoke freely.
Critics of smoke-free laws typically bring up one primary argument: Businesses will suffer economic losses if their patrons cannot smoke. This claim has been invalidated by countless studies. In general, businesses that ban smoking do not see economic losses, according to studies cited by Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. In some cases, businesses even see a positive impact.
Even if you do believe businesses will suffer, the economic cost of secondhand smoke far outweighs any rare losses in business profits. The Society of Actuaries determined that secondhand smoke costs an estimated $10 billion per year in medical costs and lost wages. Cigarette and secondhand smoking also cost $92 billion in productivity losses, according to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. These statistics indicate the potential for a significant economic lift with even reduced secondhand smoking effects.
When people are dying and money is lost, corrective measures usually follow. The federal government has stagnated for one reason: tobacco lobbyists. If smoking were banned in indoor places, consumption of tobacco products would inevitably decrease, as well as its general acceptability in public. Unfortunately, tobacco lobbyists hold great power in this nation at local, state and federal levels. A joint report by the Tobacco-Free Actions Fund and Common Cause determined that the tobacco industry gave more than $2 million in contributions directly to federal candidates in the 2003-2004 election cycle alone.
These contributions directly affect the decision making of these politicians. For example, recent legislation to grant the FDA authority over tobacco products was turned down by a House-Senate committee. Those who voted against the legislation in the committee received an average of $27,255 versus approximately $5,505 for committee members who voted for the resolution. Though correlation does equate causation, the statistic does raise some suspicions about where these Congress members' interests lie: with tobacco industry contributors or with the American people who elected them.
As more and more states address smoking in public, we must question the viewpoint of our own federal government. These other nations have taken the necessary steps to ban public smoking to protect the health and well-being of their citizens. Meanwhile right here at home, the United States federal government seems more concerned with keeping those generous tobacco companies happy.
Rajesh Jain is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. He can be reached at rjain@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
