 |
|
A comic based on the
achievement of the smoking ban in
public areas such as bars. Retrieved November10, 2013.
|
We
all know second hand smoke is a huge health hazard that can cause cancer as well as
cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (Potera, 2013). Thankfully smoking has
been banned from all indoor areas in Michigan such as restaurants, bars, and
businesses thanks to the Dr. Ron Davis Smoke Free Air Law
passed in 2010. But is that enough to decrease the risks of second hand smoke,
when the smoking has only moved right next to the building?
Even
with smoke-free policies erupting around both America and the rest of the world
with the World Health Organization, or WHO,
promoting a Tobacco Free Initiative, indoor smoking bans may increase the likelihood that
smokers will gather at the designated outdoor smoking locations such as nearby public
areas, near building entrances. This “relocation” of smokers to outdoor areas
has been hypothesized to increase tobacco smoke levels because of these no
smoking bans, not to mention causing pollution in the process.
 |
|
A man smokes outdoors in
a semi-open, very public area, exposing all passersby to second hand smoke.
Retrieved November 10, 2013.
|
The
article I read looked at multiple studies on the levels of
second hand smoke, examining different factors that could contribute as well as possible evidence to prove it. A couple articles looked at
fine particulate matter that was emitted by tobacco products, via combustion, in
designated outdoor smoking areas, as well as smoke-free indoor areas near these
outdoor smoking areas (Sureda, Fernandez, Lopez, & Nebot, 2013).
These areas are typically packed with smokers and are partially enclosed
outdoor areas with low wind speeds (usually blocked), and near to entrances. These factors cause designated smoking areas to have high levels of fine particulate matter and increased the exposure of second hand smoke to all
individuals nearby and even inside the “non-smoking” area. Another study reported that particulate matter increased by 30% with each additional active smoker within one meter of the area (Sureda
et al., 2013). The article even
looked at studies involving saliva cotinine concentrations on participants
following a recent exposure to outdoor smoking areas and found an increase of
these levels in majority of individuals (Sureda et al., 2013).
 |
|
A New York smoking ban
sign in front of the entrance to a park.
|
Overall
results indicated that there were high levels of second hand smoke at majority
of outdoor smoking areas and adjacent smoke-free indoor areas, even more than
normal background levels. Due to the evidence, the authors proposed that smoke-free
legislation should possibly be extended further to outdoor environments. These risks to people can cause damage to those who may not be voluntarily want to be exposed to smoke.
Should there be a non-smoking ban that extends further into the outdoors areas around frequent smoking environments? Or should there be a regulation on these outdoor areas where there needs to be a certain amount of ventilation provided or distance from other patrons? If there is a change to the regulation of these areas it may decrease the overall second hand smoke exposure, and provide primary prevention in regards to public health.
Should there be a non-smoking ban that extends further into the outdoors areas around frequent smoking environments? Or should there be a regulation on these outdoor areas where there needs to be a certain amount of ventilation provided or distance from other patrons? If there is a change to the regulation of these areas it may decrease the overall second hand smoke exposure, and provide primary prevention in regards to public health.
Many Detroit area hospitals have taken the no-smoking bans even further:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freep.com/article/20120928/BUSINESS06/120928048/
testing employees and potential employees and refusing to hire people who test positive for nicotine. I've been thinking a lot about this and trying to weigh out the pros and cons.
At first glance I worry that people are going to be excluded from this job market based on something that they might be empowered to change with the security of a job and the smoking cessation resources that might be available through their possible future employer.
What do other people think?
Hospitals all over the country are starting to drug test for nicotine.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/hospital-quits-hiring-smokers_n_1187028.html
I am not a smoker, but I can not support drug testing for nicotine. Nicotine is highly addictive and many of these hospital employees have been smoking for quite some time. Requiring them to quit smoking is a bit ridiculous. All of us are familiar with the negative effects of cigarettes, but why stop at cigarettes? Should we test for the consumption of high caloric, fatty foods? Obesity is just as a detrimental to your health. Additionally, I completely support the ban of smoking indoors, but I think we should let smokers continue to smoke outside. If the government is going to put so many limitation on smoking, why not just make it illegal already? It seems to be all about the money. Caitlin made a great point...these outdoor smoking areas should probably be required to have a certain amount of ventilation. It seems our society is moving in the right direction, but I'm not sure this is the way to reduce smoking. Great blog post topic. Thoughts?
I have asthma and back in the days when smoking was allowed in restaurants and bars, I ever rarely went out because not only would I smell like an ashtray but my asthma would flare up.
ReplyDeleteYour article left me to wonder, though, if the actual smokers in these 'designated areas' have an increased exposure to nicotine and particulates in the air then they would be exposed to if they would smoke in more remote areas.
Great points everyone! My father used to smoke in the car when I was younger and would roll down his window in order to "ventilate" the car (which absolutely did not work). After years of refusing to stop smoking in the car I asked my doctor to write a note home explaining exactly how detrimental this was to my seven year old self. After that he finally stopped. I appreciate the impact the ban on indoor smoking has had and see it as a turning point that will hopefully lead to further decline in the number of tobacco users. I understand and agree with the viewpoint Andrew took regarding the highly addictive qualities of Nicotine but would appreciate smoking areas in more remote sections of cities. For example, right outside the hospital on the sidewalk is a designated smoking area. However, it is the only area also designated for pedestrians. Therefore, non-smokers are forced through a cloud of smoke just to make it to the bus stop. I agree that ventilation outdoors is the next step and hadn't even considered the very interesting points mentioned by Caitlin!
ReplyDeleteI agree, Caitlin you bring up some great points! It's interesting how so many people were upset with the ban of smoking in public areas, but now just 3 years later it has become the norm in our society. While I do think it's a great step towards reducing the amount of second hand smoke, I think more can be done to reduce this further. I've noticed that it's incredibly difficult to walk on the sidewalk, especially on a college campus, without getting stuck behind someone smoking and having to navigate around that person to avoid breathing in the smoke. As a non-smoker, it's easy for me to jump to conclusions and feel as though I shouldn't have to work around or be directly affected by somebody else's decision to smoke. On the other hand, designating areas outdoors for people to smoke seems a little extreme. But, this may be the most practical way to control the transmission of second hand smoke while allowing people their freedom to smoke outdoors. This change would most likely have the same effect 3 years from now as the public smoking ban did, meaning people won't even remember what it was like before the change was proposed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the areas around institutions should be protected as well to decrease the instances of second hand smoke. For example, as I was waiting for the bus heading into class the other day multiple UMHS employees were legally smoking at the bus stop. As I started to inhale the smoke I moved further and further away from the bus stop and felt although it was legal, it was clearly rude for them to be smoking at a public bus stop. After this experience I feel that non-smoking areas should be extended further outdoors. I find it hard to comprehend that you can call yourself smoke free facility when non-smoking employees, students and patients are still being exposed to second hand smoke near your facility
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally love all the guys and gals at UMHS by the old helicopter pad that smoke right next to the signs that say "Extremely Flammable! No Smoking". But on a sort of tangent, its still smoke though, is the problem I am now faced with: the dudes in the park smoking weed too close to my children. Its funny how your attitude about things change once you have kids, and i am the last person that wants to get someone in any sort of trouble for smoking some pot. Even if its been sort of decriminalized, that doesn't mean you get to sit at the picnic table closest to the playground and smoke weed all afternoon (West park is huge, go get stoned on the band shell and look at birds). Its not a question of second hand smoke, but it certainly lingers in the air, and on a calm day i can smell it from my front porch. Not a big deal, but im not sure they know that they are less than 100 yards from a school and could really face legal action for that oversite. Like Andrew mentioned is an addiction (nicotine, not THC), and its a tricky subject, but my opinion on the issue certainly has changed recently. Sorry, that was all pretty tangential.
ReplyDeleteThere are some great discussion points proposed by all the comments on public smoking and designated areas to smoke, especially around hospitals for instance. Although it is an issue where smoking should be allowed to occur, I have found that another issue is compliance and enforcement of the current practices in place. As a non-smoker, I think it is our responsibility to enforce the smoke-free campus that is around us. Some of my friends are too timid to tell smokers that are smoking in the wrong areas to please go to the designated areas. I think that it is important for every person to help enforce the smoke-free environments in order to discourage or limit the practice of smoking all together.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post, because it brings up a topic that I think many question. Although smoking is an addicting habit, studies have shown its harmful effects to both those who directly smoke and those who are indirectly effected. Thus, a smoke-free environment will help facilitate the push for a healthier population and a prevention of lung cancer. In fact, restaurants inhibiting smoking has encouraged many to quit. However, a greater movement needs to be conducted in order to eliminate the side effects of smoking and the damage that it causes to one's health.
ReplyDelete