A PROPOSAL REGARDING PUBLIC SMOKING AREAS
ABSTRACT
This eight-page proposal recommends separate areas for smokers and non-smokers which will respond to the ever-alive debate of where to allow smokers to smoke without bringing discomfort and imposing health hazards to the otherwise non-smoking population. Particularly, this proposal is directed at restaurants and pubs who, under some states, are not obliged to follow the smoke-free regulation.
BACKGROUND
Attitudes of non-smoking people toward smoking in public places, in time, have varied from mere indifference to utter indignation due to the increased knowledge of the dangers of second-hand smoke to the health and comfort of non-smokers. Changes in public attitudes both to the health and comfort aspects of exposure to tobacco smoke mean that it is now common practice for smoking to be banned in workplaces such as offices and in other enclosed public places such as cinemas, buses and trains. In fact, as of October 6, 2006, there are 2,344 municipalities in the United States with laws in effect that restrict where smoking is allowed (American Non-Smokers’ Rights Foundation, 2006). Although this is so, a study conducted by Hummer, Krueger, Pampel & Rogers in 2005 revealed that smoking in public continues to be a major health threat in the United States, one that resulted in as many as 340,000 deaths in the year 2000 and vastly reduced life expectancies among smokers compared to non-smokers. Smoking in restaurants and pubs have not been altogether stopped by the legislation as well, for there are only some state laws where municipalities have ordinances or regulations that completely do not allow smoking in restaurants and attached bars or separately ventilated rooms and do not have size exemptions.
Evidence on the health effects of passive smoking comes from population studies. The book by Viscusi (1992) expounded on the effects of passive smoking. Passive smoking has been found to cause a range of respiratory disorders, including reducing lung function and increasing respiratory symptoms such as coughing. Passive smoking can also exacerbate asthma. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home has been found to be harmful to children, being linked with low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, and middle ear disease. Likewise, national and international public health bodies along with many in the scientific community have interpreted the results of population studies as clear evidence that passive smoking can seriously harm health (Levy & Marimont 1998). In the 1980s, Congress began to require stronger warning labels on all print advertising; soon afterward it banned smoking on domestic air flights and in 1988, a report of the Surgeon General of the United States recognized nicotine as an addictive substance, leading the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider treating nicotine as any other addictive drug and implementing stricter regulations (‘Smoking’, 2004). The authority of the FDA to regulate smoking was, however, denied by the Supreme Court. The habit of smoking continues to increase in the young despite the illegality of cigarette sales to those less than 18 years of age in all 50 states.
The problem therefore lies in the assignment of public areas in which to allow people to smoke without having to expose non-smokers to tobacco and cigarette smoke. The ability of the government to restrict smoking in public areas where smokers and non-smokers alike come in contact could only do so much if the laws that are being passed do not explicitly list the particular places where smokers are allowed to do their thing. States can either take to implement 100% smoke-free public areas or require that businesses set up separate smoking sections with ventilation systems. This proposal is a bent on the latter option, as the author realistically understands the need for other people to somehow smoke, given that they do it together with fellow smokers and not having to bother and discomfort citizens who do not engage in such activity. Realistically also, this proposal would not altogether dispose of the harmful cigarette and tobacco smoke out of the breathing air, but it would significantly reduce non-smoker exposure to such noxious smoke.
PROBLEM
Specifically, the problem that this proposal aims to solve is the lack of proper assignment of public places where smokers are allowed to smoke freely, without inconveniencing the larger non-smoking population. The target audience for this particular proposal is the general public, smokers and non-smokers alike. If this proposal becomes realized, smokers would be able to determine the right places where they are allowed to smoke, thus equally benefiting non-smokers, who would not have to worry about the hazards of passive smoking anymore. Particularly, this proposal is directed at restaurants and pubs who, under some states, are not obliged to follow the smoke-free regulation, no matter their size.
OBJECTIVES
This proposal attempts to address the issue of the assignment of public areas that would allow smoking within the premises. The designation of a separate smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants and pubs would be the ultimate solution to the ever-alive debate of where to allow smokers to smoke without bringing discomfort and imposing health hazards to the otherwise non-smoking population. Although admittedly, this solution does not totally eradicate the hazardous smoke that the smoking activity emits, this proposal will significantly improve air quality and provide a more comfortable environment for customers and staff of restaurants and pubs. In order to make the restaurant and pub experience a pleasant one for both sides of the population, the assignment of separate areas where they will be free to do what they have to do should be realized for restaurants and pubs all over the country, most especially for states who do not have 100% smoke-free laws.
SCOPE
This proposal is limited to the United States only, and will only cover restaurants and pubs all over the United States who do not yet have separate rooms for their smoking and non-smoking patrons.
METHODS
Many restaurants and pubs provide separate smoking and non-smoking areas. This ranges from offering separate rooms to allocating areas as smoking or nonsmoking. Larger venues, and those that have more than one room, have more flexibility over how they provide smoking and non-smoking areas. Some venues vary their policies with the time of day. For example, non-smoking areas may be extended when food is served at lunch times. Others focus on reducing staff exposure to tobacco smoke by banning smoking at the bar. With separate areas, customers and staff are still exposed to tobacco smoke, but at a reduced level. While this may mean that customers are more comfortable, ASH, drawing on evidence from the BMA and others, believes that there is still an unacceptable risk to health. The hospitality industry suggests that it would not be practical for all venues to offer separate areas, particularly for smaller pubs and bars.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment