A few weeks ago, Surgeon General Richard Carmona added his voice–and the considerable heft of his office–to the debate over secondhand smoke. There wasn’t much doubt about his conclusions. Based on 20 years of scientific evidence, he reported, there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
“The debate is over as far as I’m concerned,” Carmona said. “Based on the science, I wouldn’t allow anyone in my family to stand in a room with someone smoking.”
About 126 million non-smokers in the U.S. are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces, putting them at a 20 percent to 30 percent greater risk for lung cancer and heart disease, according to the report. It attributed an estimated 50,000 deaths per year to secondhand smoke exposure, including 430 babies who die of sudden infant death syndrome. Last week, the World Health Organization announced that it plans to call for smoking bans around the world based partly on a California study that added breast cancer to the list of diseases caused by secondhand smoke.
If Chicago hadn’t already banned smoking in most public places, including restaurants, the surgeon general’s report and the WHO warning would be powerful ammunition. But the city has imposed a ban. Well, almost. A restaurant ban took effect in January, but it won’t apply to restaurants with bars and freestanding taverns until July of 2008.
The grace period is too long. This is something the council will be loath to revisit, especially after the agonizing negotiations that preceded the last deal. The surgeon general’s report, however, provides the impetus city officials should need to tighten the law. Even though some restaurants with bars have begun to clear the air voluntarily, that still leaves many where patrons continue to puff away, to the detriment of non-smoking employees and customers.
Why did the council allow so much lag time? Partly to appease Chicago bar owners, who howled about likely lost business. The council also indulged in a bit of wishful thinking. The law granted a reprieve for any restaurant bar or tavern that could show it had installed air purification equipment that ensured the same air quality inside the bar, where there’s smoking, as the air outside of the tavern.
Such technology didn’t exist last year, it doesn’t exist now and there’s virtually no chance it will exist in two years.
Chicago’s initial experience with the restaurant ban has been good, and there’s no good reason for further delay on the rest of the law.
In a foreword to the surgeon general’s report, Julie Gerberding, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wrote: “Separating smokers and non-smokers in the same airspace is not effective, nor is air cleaning or a greater exchange of indoor with outdoor air.” In essence, the report states, ventilation systems don’t eliminate the health hazards of second-hand smoke. The air is now gloriously clear in many Chicago establishments. Why wait for 2008 to finish the job?
