Bernhardt 1

Grace Bernhardt

Professor Faigley

Technology, Literacy, and Culture 321

8 March 2001

Secondhand Smoke: The Risk and the Controversy

We all know that smoking poses a significant risk to our health. We can make an

educated decision about whether or not to smoke, and if we do decide to smoke, we should be

willing to accept any negative effects such as lung cancer and heart disease later in our lives. But

what about exposure to secondhand smoke? At this point, we don’t always have a choice in

exposure to the smoke of others. The Office of the Surgeon General has documented a high level

of exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmoking adults and children in the United States.

Blood tests of nonsmokers for the presence of cotinine, a chemical produced by nicotine, indicate

that 88% of nonsmoking Americans are exposed to secondhand smoke (Clean Indoor Air).

In 1972, the Surgeon General released a landmark report, The Health Consequences of

Smoking, warning of the dangers of smoking. The report also warned of the risks of breathing

secondhand smoke, also called “passive smoking” or “environmental tobacco smoke.”

Throughout the 1970s, numerous studies were conducted that pointed to the risks of breathing

secondhand smoke and the risks to unborn children of smoking mothers (summarized by

Shephard). In 1986, both the National Research Council and the United States Surgeon General

(Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking) published independent reports that secondhand

smoke causes respiratory infections in children and reduces their lung capacity. Nonetheless, at

the International Symposium on Environmental Tobacco Smoke held at McGill University in

1989, critics of the research argued that studies of the effects of secondhand smoke could not

Bernhardt 2

rule out the influences of other pollutants. In the summary of the proceedings volume from the

conference, Joseph Wu concluded that research had yet to prove that secondhand smoke is a

health hazard (375).

Only in 1992 did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issue a report, Respiratory

Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, asserting that secondhand

smoke definitely causes cancer in nonsmoking adults and harms the respiratory health of

children. The EPA determined that secondhand smoke is a Group A carcinogen, a classification

of pollutants that have been proven to cause cancer. The tobacco industry responded to the report

with a well-funded advertising, public relations, and legal counterattack. Since then, controversy

over the topic has spread, both politically and socially. But what exactly are the risks associated

with secondhand smoke, and how has the American public responded to those risks?

Secondhand smoke is most harmful to young children, especially those with asthma or

other respiratory diseases. The EPA notes that 43% of children in the United States under the age

of 11 live in a home with at least one smoker. Children exposed to secondhand smoke tend to

have more bronchitis, pneumonia, respiratory infections, fluid in the middle ear, and asthma.

And if both parents smoke, or if the child is frequently exposed to smoke, the child’s chances for

showing symptoms of these diseases increase (Indoor Air Pollutants).

Infants and toddlers up to 18 months of age suffer between 150,000 and 300,000 cases of

lung infections because of secondhand smoke, according to EPA estimates. Secondhand smoke

produces symptoms of asthma in an additional 200,000 to 1,000,000 children, and it increases

fluid in the middle ear, which often requires hospitalization for surgery in children (Indoor Air

Pollutants).

Bernhardt 3

To determine the risk of secondhand smoke for adult nonsmokers, the EPA considered

the results of thirty epidemiologic studies, which examined the effects of secondhand smoke on

nonsmoking partners of smokers (Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking). Every study

found that the level of risk increased according to exposure to secondhand smoke. When the

results of the studies were considered together, the probability of the increased rates of lung

cancer among nonsmokers occurring by chance was less than one in a billion. The EPA

concluded that approximately 3,000 nonsmokers die of lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke

each year in the United States, 800 of which stem from exposure to secondhand smoke at home

and 2,200 from exposure in work or social situations (Respiratory Health Effects 4).

The EPA’s 1992 report was a legal bombshell because it raised the possibility that

nonsmokers could sue tobacco companies. The report and other subsequent studies also greatly

increased public concern over secondhand smoke. In 1997, the Gallup poll reported that 55% of

adults in the United States think secondhand smoke is “very harmful,” compared to only 36% in

1994 (Saad 4). As a result of increased public pressure, many local governments now ban or

restrict smoking in public places and workplaces.

“Smoking or non?” This question used to be part of the standard greeting of waitresses

across America. However, following the reports on the harm of secondhand smoke, many cities

have banned or restricted smoking altogether in restaurants. Maine, Vermont, and Utah have

placed statewide bans on smoking in restaurants, and California prohibits smoking in bars as

well as restaurants (“Smoking to Be Banned”). According to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights

Foundation, in early 2001, 221 communities have 100% smoke-free workplaces, 787 have some

restriction on smoking in workplaces, and 300 have 100% smoke-free restaurants.

Bernhardt 4

These bans remain causes of intense controversy. In New York City, a City Council push

to ban smoking at all restaurants in winter 2001 was met with strong opposition including Mayor

Giuliani’s (Lombardi). Typical of citizen resistance to smoking bans in the United States and

Canada is Christa Wagner’s letter to the editor over the Canadian ban of smoking in prisons: “To

ban smoking in restaurants and bars is bad enough. To ban it in prisons is inhuman. What a sad,

oppressed society we have become.” Others disagree with methods for the enforcement of

smoking bans in public places, saying that the government should not and cannot put smoking

bans into place. Citing the difficulty in enforcement and the fact that “most people don’t want it,”

the writer of an editorial in the Wisconsin State Journal thinks “there are more important issues

facing the city for its council members to get sidetracked on than an unenforceable piece of feel-

good legislation like this” (“Place Smoking Ban”).

Nonsmokers are perhaps even more adamant that they should not have to breathe

secondhand smoke. Dozens of editorials, letters to the editor, and articles about anti-smoking

activism that insist on the total elimination of secondhand smoke have been published in recent

years. This example from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is typical of the anti-smoking arguments.

Myles Lampenfeld writes

The current policy of segregating smokers and nonsmokers is ineffective. Yet to

be developed is the ventilation system that prevents smoke from finding its way

into the nonsmoking section. In some restaurants, the arbitrary boundary between

sections results in patrons trying to enjoy a smoke-free meal while sitting next to

smokers who light up before, during and after their meals. Smoke-free restaurants

have been the standard in many states for several years. Backlash and protest have

been short-lived, with no economic impact on the restaurant industry.

Bernhardt 5

Regardless of whether government should be the one enforcing smoking bans, many

workplaces and restaurants have already put restrictions in place. The Office of the Surgeon

General reports that employers are implementing policies for smoke-free workplaces in order to

save money. These savings include costs associated with fire risk, damage to furnishings,

cleaning, workers’ compensation, and life insurance. The estimated cost savings are $1,000 per

smoking employee based on 1988 dollars (Clean Indoor Air). The legislative initiative against

secondhand smoke is also reducing the amount of smoke in the air. In 2000, Congress passed and

former President Clinton approved legislation that bans smoking in nearly all public places

where federal government gives aid for services to children (EPA, Setting the Record Straight).

In addition to bans, other research is being conducted on how the harmful effects of

secondhand smoke can be limited. Among the workers who endure the highest concentrations of

secondhand smoke in the workplace are those employed by casinos in Nevada. A study is being

done with nonsmoking casino workers to see if the use of vitamins can reduce the amount of

damage from long-term exposure to secondhand smoke (“Do Vitamins Stem Hazards”). In the

decade following the release of the 1992 EPA report, significant steps have been taken to reduce

the hazards of secondhand smoke. Nevertheless, there still is a long way to go. Only one state—

California—now meets the nation’s Healthy People 2010 objective to eliminate exposure to

secondhand smoke by banning indoor smoking or restricting smoking to separately ventilated

areas (Clean Indoor Air).

Bernhardt 6

Works Cited

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. U.S. Communities with Local Tobacco Control

Ordinances. 9 Jan. 2001. 21 Feb. 2001<http://www.no-smoke.org/ordcount.html>.

“Do Vitamins Stem Hazards of Secondhand Smoke? University of Nevada to Conduct Clinical

Trial on Casino Workers.” AScribe Newswire 8 Nov. 2000. Lexis-Nexis. U of Texas

Lib., Austin. 20 Feb. 2001.

Lampenfeld, Myles. “A Ban on Smoking in Restaurants Would Protect Everyone.” Pittsburgh

Post-Gazette 12 July 2000, late ed., A14.

Lombardi, Frank. “Butts Ban on Menu: Flap Looms over New Restaurant Cig Limits.” New

York Daily News 25 Jan. 2001, final ed.: 27.

National Research Council. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and

Assessing Health Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986.

“Place Smoking Ban in Political Ashtray: Madison’s Proposal to Stamp Out Smoking Is an

Unenforceable Intrusion into Citizens’ Private Lives.” Wisconsin State Journal 19 Feb.

2001. Lexis-Nexis. U of Texas Lib., Austin. 20 Feb. 2001.

Saad, Lydia. “A Half-Century of Polling on Tobacco: Most Don’t Like Smoking but Tolerate It.”

Public Perspective 9 (1998): 1-4.

Shephard, Roy J. The Risks of Passive Smoking. New York: Oxford UP, 1982.

“Smoking to Be Banned in Restaurants in Maine.” New York Times 18 Sept. 1999, late ed.:

A18.

United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air Pollutants: Environmental Tobacco

Smoke. Updated 1 Jan. 2000. 23 Feb. 2001

<http://www.epa.gov/children/air.htm#tobacco>.

Bernhardt 7

---. ---. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.

EPA/600/6-90/006 F. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.

---. ---. Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke Is a Preventable Health Risk. June 1994.

Updated 26 June 2000. 23 Feb. 2001 <http://www.epa.gov/iedweb00/pubs/strsfs.html>.

---. Office of the Surgeon General. Clean Indoor Air Regulations Fact Sheet. 11 Jan. 2001. 23

Feb. 2001 <http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2000/factsheets/ factsheet_clean.htm>.

---. ---. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General.

Rockville, MD: US Public Health Service, 1986.

---. ---. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington,

DC: US Public Health Service, 1971.

Wagner, Christa B. “Inhuman Ban.” Ottawa Citizen 24 July 2000: A11.

Wu, Joseph M. “Summary and Concluding Remarks.” Environmental Tobacco Smoke:

Proceedings of the International Symposium at McGill University, 1989. Ed. Donald J.

Ecobichon and Joseph M. Wu. Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1990. 367-75.