In an accompanying editorial (Smoking Ban Associated With Rapid Improvement in Health of Bar Workers ), Mark D. Eisner, M.D., M.P.H., of the University of California, San Francisco, comments on the erroneous arguments made against banning smoking in certain places.
"Three common arguments are advanced against mandating smoke-free bars, restaurants, and other hospitality businesses. Each is fallacious.
First, laws to prevent smoking in bars will not be effective. Four years after the California ban on smoking in bars, adherence with the law was high: 99 percent of bars in restaurants and 76 percent of freestanding bars were smoke-free. Near perfect adherence has been reported in Boston, Ireland, and New Zealand.
Second, the general public will not accept smoke-free bars and restaurants. In fact, a series of international studies shows that most people do support smoke-free bars and restaurants. Moreover, public opinion becomes increasingly positive following smoke-free legislation.
Third, smoke-free laws will cause bars and restaurants to lose money. Using sales tax and other objective financial data, studies now conclusively demonstrate that bars, restaurants, and hotels do not lose revenue after becoming smoke-free. In fact, some of these studies actually show a growth in income.
In sum, smoke-free legislation is effective, accepted by the public, and has no negative economic impact."
"Mandating smoke-free workplaces will decrease secondhand smoke exposure and will improve respiratory health, prevent chronic disease, and extend life span. Important salutary health effects occur in as little as 1 month after cessation of secondhand smoke exposure. The comprehensive body of research documenting the serious adverse health effects of passive smoking provides a powerful rationale for prohibiting smoking in all public places. The time has come to clear the air," Dr. Eisner writes. (JAMA. 2006;296:1778-1779.)
Comments
Post new comment