Louisville Courier Journal Applauds A Statewide "Smoking Ban". In As Much As We HATE Cigarette Smoke, We Beg To Differ.
The bill to impose a statewide ban on smoking in indoor workplaces in Kentucky should be a no-brainer. Instead, of course, it will face a steep, and perhaps insurmountable, uphill fight.
The price that tobacco-related illnesses exact is frightening. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, the annual death toll is 443,000 Americans, making smoking the leading preventable cause of death. Of that number, about 49,000 people lose their lives due to the effects of secondhand smoke. On average, deceased smokers are robbed of between 13 and 14 years of life. For every death caused by smoking, there are about 20 Americans suffering a tobacco-related illness.
The financial costs are staggering as well, as calculated by the CDC. Each year, direct medical costs total about $96 billion, and the price tag of lost productivity is about $97 billion.
In Kentucky, the statistics are worse than national averages. The state is tied with West Virginia for the nation's highest adult smoking rate — 25.6 percent, compared with a 20.6 percent national rate — and as a result Kentucky ranks among the top states for lung and cardiovascular disease.
Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have some form of statewide smoke-free laws. Support for a state ban is growing even in Indiana, tied with Missouri for the nation's fifth-highest adult smoking rate at 23.1 percent. This is a national trend Kentucky should join.
As the tobacco industry has declined in Kentucky, the state's politicians are no longer as reflexively opposed to anti-smoking measures as they were in years past. But there is still a strong historical and emotional link to tobacco farming and cigarette manufacturing in the state, and smoke-free policies remain controversial and unpopular in many quarters.
One argument against the ban — that it interferes with “personal freedom” — can be easily dismissed. Secondhand smoke poses lethal threats to many people beyond smokers themselves — especially children, anyone with respiratory conditions such as asthma, and employees in restaurants and bars. There should be no “freedom” to endanger them.
A second objection — that smoking bans should be pursued by local governments — has some merit. Indeed, 28 Kentucky communities — including Louisville in 2007 — have enacted various public smoking bans, and even some of the proponents of a statewide ban concede that local actions and enforcement are at the core of effective smoking restrictions. Nevertheless, a state ban would fill in gaps where bans are not in effect, set minimum standards for anti-smoking policies and be a guard against backsliding.
Bans don't put a halt to tobacco use, but by eliminating areas where smoking is allowed, they do cut down on smoking. That could only be a healthy development.
Editor's comment: we ABHOR cigarette smoke, but believe that business ought to be allowed to decide on their own, whether or not to go smoke-free, and patrons should decide whether or not to patronize the businesses who make the decisions they like.
End of story.
The price that tobacco-related illnesses exact is frightening. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, the annual death toll is 443,000 Americans, making smoking the leading preventable cause of death. Of that number, about 49,000 people lose their lives due to the effects of secondhand smoke. On average, deceased smokers are robbed of between 13 and 14 years of life. For every death caused by smoking, there are about 20 Americans suffering a tobacco-related illness.
The financial costs are staggering as well, as calculated by the CDC. Each year, direct medical costs total about $96 billion, and the price tag of lost productivity is about $97 billion.
In Kentucky, the statistics are worse than national averages. The state is tied with West Virginia for the nation's highest adult smoking rate — 25.6 percent, compared with a 20.6 percent national rate — and as a result Kentucky ranks among the top states for lung and cardiovascular disease.
Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have some form of statewide smoke-free laws. Support for a state ban is growing even in Indiana, tied with Missouri for the nation's fifth-highest adult smoking rate at 23.1 percent. This is a national trend Kentucky should join.
As the tobacco industry has declined in Kentucky, the state's politicians are no longer as reflexively opposed to anti-smoking measures as they were in years past. But there is still a strong historical and emotional link to tobacco farming and cigarette manufacturing in the state, and smoke-free policies remain controversial and unpopular in many quarters.
One argument against the ban — that it interferes with “personal freedom” — can be easily dismissed. Secondhand smoke poses lethal threats to many people beyond smokers themselves — especially children, anyone with respiratory conditions such as asthma, and employees in restaurants and bars. There should be no “freedom” to endanger them.
A second objection — that smoking bans should be pursued by local governments — has some merit. Indeed, 28 Kentucky communities — including Louisville in 2007 — have enacted various public smoking bans, and even some of the proponents of a statewide ban concede that local actions and enforcement are at the core of effective smoking restrictions. Nevertheless, a state ban would fill in gaps where bans are not in effect, set minimum standards for anti-smoking policies and be a guard against backsliding.
Bans don't put a halt to tobacco use, but by eliminating areas where smoking is allowed, they do cut down on smoking. That could only be a healthy development.
Editor's comment: we ABHOR cigarette smoke, but believe that business ought to be allowed to decide on their own, whether or not to go smoke-free, and patrons should decide whether or not to patronize the businesses who make the decisions they like.
End of story.
Labels: Constitutional Rights, Public health
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 2:00 PM
1 Comments:
’They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
Le Parisien
Post a Comment
<< Home