SECONDHAND SMOKE AND

SMOKE-FREE LAWS

Nothing Kills Like Tobacco

Yearly Deaths in the U.S.A.

Cigarettes

Alcohol

2nd Hand Smoke

Car AccidentsSuicide

AIDS

Homicides

430,000105,095

53,00046,300

30,90629,93924,932

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Secondhand tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals 5 regulated hazardous air

pollutants 47 regulated hazardous

wastes 60 known or suspected

cancer-causing agents More than 100 chemical

poisons

Toxic Poisons in SecondhandTobacco Smoke

Methanol Carbon Monoxide Hydrogen Cyanide Acetone Tar DDT Naphthalene Vinyl Chloride Benzene

There is no safe level of exposure to firsthand tobacco smoke or secondhand tobacco smoke

•Formaldehyde•Mercury•Lead•Arsenic•Toluene•Cadmium•Ammonia•Butane•Ethanol

Heart disease Lung cancer Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) Low birth weight Asthma Otitis Media (ear infections) in children Bronchitis and pneumonia Breast cancer in pre-menopausal women. Increased risk of cervical cancer. Cognitive deficits among children even at

extremely low levels of exposure.

Health Consequences of Secondhand Smoke

Short-Term Heart Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure

5 minutes of exposure stiffens the aorta as much as smoking a cigarette.

20 minutes of exposure causes excess blood clotting, increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke.

30 minutes of exposure increases the build up of fat deposits in blood vessels, increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke.

2-hours of exposure increases the chance of irregular heart beat that can be fatal or trigger a heart attack.

In April 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning that all patients with heart disease should avoid exposure to secondhand smoke.

Effects on Workers’ Health Levels of secondhand

tobacco smoke in restaurants and bars is 1.6 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces

Servers have the greatest risk of developing lung cancer and heart disease compared to other occupations

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Pre-law 3 months Post-law

Med

ian

hair

nico

tine

leve

lAfter Lexington’s Smoke-free Law, Hair Nicotine Dropped by 56%

The Average Decrease in Hair Nicotine Was Greater in Bar Workers

*adjusted for cigarettes smoked per day

012345678

Bar Restaurant

Med

ian

hair

nico

tine

leve

l

“I worked as a cocktail waitress in smoky restaurants and bars for 14 years. I have onset emphysema. My doctor says my constant exposure to tobacco smoke contributed significantly to my emphysema. No one should have to breathe tobacco smoke to hold a job.” Suzanne H

Air Pollution Before and After Lexington’s Smoke-free Law

BEFORE

AFTER0

50

100

150

200

250

PM 2

.5 m

icro

gram

per

cub

ic m

eter

•Indoor air pollution in restaurants, bars, and other entertainment venues was 3 times the outdoor air pollution standard, but dropped 91% after Lexington’s smoke-free law took effect.

Ventilation Standards Technical experts have

concluded that “source” control (smoke-free) is the only feasible way to protect the public from secondhand tobacco smoke

No feasible ventilation system can reduce secondhand smoke exposure to safe levels

The current ASHRAE indoor standard (62-1999) assumes no smokingAmerican Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

Percent of Workers Covered by Smoke-free Workplace Policies,

1993-1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1993 1996 1999

Food Service Workers

Non-Food ServiceWorkers

Public Health Benefits of Smoke-Free Laws

Nonsmokers protected Fewer children start to smoke Smokers consume fewer cigarettes More smokers quit

The Economics of Smoke-free Laws

A large number of studies using objective measures show no negative economic impact.

Smoke-free measures have been shown to improve business.

A few studies using subjective measures show negative economic impact.

Economic Benefits of Smoke-free Laws

Smoke-free restaurants and bars are profitable

Smoke-free policies contribute to employee productivity

Facility maintenance costs are lower Most people prefer smoke-free policies

Economic Impact of Lexington’s Law on Fayette County Restaurants and Bars

3% increase in restaurant employment Bar employment remained stable No change in payroll withholding taxes in

restaurants or bars No change in business openings or closures

in alcohol-serving establishments or at non-alcohol serving establishments

Why the Thalheimer Report is Flawed

Analyzed only on-premise wholesale alcohol sales and found a 9.8%-13.3% drop post-law

Significant effect found in only 2 of the 9 distributors in Fayette County (only examined data from 3 of the 9)

No information on types of alcoholic beverages sold Report does not account for change in alcohol price

over time No audit of data provided by distributors (traditionally

close allies of the tobacco industry) Report not peer-reviewed or independently evaluated

Lexington’s Public Support and Knowledge of Health Risks Before and After the Law

56.764.0

70.274.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Public Support SHS as Health Risk

Pre-lawPost-law

Public support for the law increased significantly.

Why the Tobacco Industry Opposes Smoke-free Laws

“Financial impact of smoking bans will be tremendous – 3 to 5 fewer cigarettes per day per smoker will reduce annual manufacturer profits a billion dollars plus per year.” (A Smoker’s Alliance, Phillip Morris, 8/1/93)

“Smoking bans are the biggest challenge we have ever faced. Quit rate goes from 5% to 21% when smokers work in non-smoking environments.” (Bates # 2054893642/3656; Legacy Tobacco Documents Library; 1994. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nyg12a00)

Tobacco Industry Continues to Reject the Scientific Consensus and Suggest Unhealthy Alternatives to Smoke-free Laws

“It is our view that, the scientific evidence is not sufficient to establish that environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer, heart disease or other chronic diseases.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 2003

“Business owners should have some flexibility in deciding how best to address the preferences of non-smokers and smokers through separation, separate rooms and/or high quality ventilation.” Philip Morris, 2002

Kentucky Supreme Court Decision, April 2004

“Among the police powers of the government, the power to promote and safeguard public health ranks at the top…….. The real issue is whether the public health regulation [Lexington’s smoke-free law] is reasonable….. In this case we must conclude that it is.”

“Not since the polio vaccine has this nation had a better

opportunity to make a significant impact in

public health.”

David Satcher, MD, PhD, Former U.S. Surgeon General