bioneural.net

There's a debate going on at the moment about banning smoking in public places. The evidence for the harmful effects of smoking (actively or "passively") appears to be irrefutable and the case for implementing a ban seems watertight—so why are we having a debate?

Kick it in the butt (Photo: FreeFoto)

It is quite literally refreshing that many airlines—whatever their motive—offer patrons the choice of traveling without inhaling carcinogens. But what a shame we have to suffer the stench and smoke from the moment we enter the airport until to moment we board the plane. We all know that smoking is a harmful addiction. It's not the only example of an activity where people make a free choice to inflict self-harm. But it is surely in a class of its own when it comes to inflicting harm upon others at the expense of their own choice (and right) not to take part. This is not to say people who smoke in public are deliberately spiteful; there are a number of reasons why people smoke. Although smoking is linked with deprivation, and deprivation in turn with low educational achievement, you don't need a formal education to understand the concept of consideration for others. The well-off and highly-educated can be just as egocentric and selfish as their fellow addicts at the other end of the social spectrum.

In 2001, nearly one third of adults in the UK smoked. This means there were/ are also a lot of "passive" smokers out there (half of the country's children, about 3 million in the workplace). What a misnomer:

pas.sive adj tending to submit or obey without arguing or resisting.

The word implies a choice. There is nothing passive about at least 1000 "passive" smoking-related deaths a year in the UK alone. A smoking minority are imposing poor health on a non-smoking majority.

For the record, here is a list of some of the health consequences that face smokers and "passive" smokers as reported in the general and medical press over recent months (there are other consequences too - social, environmental, economic, etc). Although numerous other harmful effects have been documented, those listed give some context to the the current "ban smoking in public" debate.

What are the self-inflicted health risks to the smoker?

• A shorter life (by an average of 10 years);
• An increased risk of stroke;
• An increased risk of heart disease;
• An increased risk of cancer (accounting for one third of UK cancer deaths);
• Impotence (inability to get an erection);
• Infertility (inability to get pregnant);
• Miscarriage (unplanned loss of a pregnancy);
• A faster decline in brain power/ mental ability;
• An increased risk of frostbite (freezing of the skin);
• Premature tooth loss (via gum disease);
• Twice the risk of blindness;
• Increased risk of drug interactions (stimulation of cytochrome P450 enzymes can increase drug metabolism, reducing dose effectiveness).

What are the induced health risks to "passive" smokers?

• Death (risk increased by 15%);
• Low birth weight (if smoking in pregnancy);
• Unruly behaviour and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/ ADHD (if smoking in pregnancy);
• Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS, risk increased by nearly 5 times);
• Ear infections and glue ear in children;
• Breathing problems in children (if parents smoke);
• Heart disease (risk increased by 50-60%);
• Lung cancer (risk increased by 20-30%);
• Stroke (risk increased by 82%);
• Miscarriage (unplanned loss of a pregnancy);
• Reduced wound healing;
• Coughing;
• Headache;
• Eye irritation;
• Sore throat;
• Sneezing and runny nose;
• Feeling sick;
• Breathing problems (worsening of asthma, hay fever, bronchitis and emphysema);
• Irregular heartbeat (a particular problem for people with heart disease);
• Nasal cancer in children;
• Age-related macular degeneration, which can cause blindness.

What are the health benefits of smoking/ passive smoking?

• No evidence produced.

How can "passive" smokers reduce exposure?

• Smoking outdoors with the door closed was not a total but the most effective way to protect children from environmental tobacco-smoke exposure;
• Don't frequent pubs, restaurants, or other public places where smoking is permitted: non-smoking zones don't work, reducing smoke levels by up to 50% only;
• Take your employer to court under the Health and Safety at Work Act;
• Support a ban on smoking in public places.

Ban the butt

No smoking (Photo: FreeFoto)

Smoking in (all or some) public places has already been banned in Ireland, Norway, and India.

The Royal College of Physicians say:

• Passive smoking harms children and contravenes their right to grow up in a safe and healthy environment;
• Employees have a right to work in a safe environment. All enclosed public places are also somebody else's workplace, and should therefore be smokefree;
• Smoking in public places imposes tobacco smoke pollution created by the 20% of the population who smoke on the 80% who do not, and denies the right of non-smokers to a smokefree atmosphere;
• Most people, whether or not they are smokers themselves, dislike smoky atmospheres and prefer workplaces and other public places to be smokefree;
• Exposure to the carcinogens in tobacco smoke is not prevented by ventilation systems or the designation of non-smoking areas;
• Voluntary agreements to prevent tobacco smoke exposure in pubs have failed to protect staff or customers;
• Children who grow up in smokefree environments are less likely to become smokers themselves;
• Smoking is a major cause of fires at work, at home and in other public places;
• Smokefree workplaces would cause over 320,000 smokers in the UK to quit smoking, thus preventing 160,000 or more smoking-related deaths.

Actions Send this article link by e-mail Print this article without other content Follow responses to this article: comments Follow tag feeds: health, medicine, Rant, smoking. Share on Delicious Digg Facebook StumbleUpon Twitter Translate this page: DE | ES | FR