[C-U Smokefree] Why we need more smoke-free workplaces

[kdrea at lungil.org]

This story was sent to you by: Kathy Drea

--------------------
Why we need more smoke-free workplaces 
--------------------

Wayne H. Franklin, MD, Pediatric cardiologist, Physician director of continuing medical education, Children's Memorial Hospital,

November 20, 2003

Oak Park -- I read columnist Steve Chapman's "Smoking ban has a strong air of intolerance" Commentary, Nov. 16) and experienced deja vu. His logic on this topic is flawed and is actually very much consistent with the party line of the tobacco industry until the 1998 tobacco settlement.

Smoke-free workplaces are more than just a "fashion that has spread from California to New York City."

For decades, the tobacco industry cited isolated research studies that refuted the association of tobacco smoke with cancer, heart disease and lung disease. Documents from the tobacco industry state that it cited these studies while acknowledging internally that nicotine was addictive and that smoking tobacco caused death and disability. Since the tobacco settlement, the industry now admits that tobacco is dangerous and that nicotine is addictive.

Within medicine one needs to weigh different levels of evidence to come to conclusions regarding cause and effect. Overwhelmingly the evidence supports the assertion that environmental tobacco smoke, also known as second-hand smoke, is dangerous and costly. Each year second-hand smoke is responsible for more than 500,000 physician visits for asthma, 1.3 million visits for cough, 115,000 episodes of pneumonia, 14,000 tonsillectomies or adenoidectomies, 260,000 episodes of bronchitis, 2 million cases of middle-ear infections in children and 5,200 middle-ear operations. Comprehensive reports on environmental tobacco smoke are available through the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Surgeon General.

A popular saying is: A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Unemployment is 6 percent. Many people who are employed are actually underemployed or are employed in two or three low-paying jobs. To make the assertion that waiters and waitresses can just pick up and get another job from one of "countless employers who will accommodate their preferences" is elitist at best.

Chapman is correct that many jobs have inherent dangers. Firefighting, police work and even medicine have inherent dangers. There are regulations in each of these fields to protect the people in those professions by minimizing risk. In addition, the average compensation for workers in each of these fields is greater than for waiters, waitresses and bartenders. Why do they deserve any less protection?

Chapman characterizes tobacco smoking as a "noxious habit"--again a throw-back to the tobacco industry party line pre-1998 tobacco settlement. The evidence supports, and the tobacco industry agrees, that tobacco smoking is a toxic addiction.

Chapman had the wrong fast-food slogan. A more appropriate take-off on a fast-food slogan for citizens in Chicago and other independent suburbs such as Wilmette is, "We deserve a break today."

Let's work toward more smoke-free workplaces in Cook County.


Copyright (c) 2003, Chicago Tribune

--------------------
Improved archives! 

Searching Chicagotribune.com archives back to 1985 is cheaper and easier than ever. New prices for multiple articles can bring your cost down to as low as 30 cents an article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/archives