The Silent Killer:

            We live in an age of mandatory seat belt laws, distracted driver laws, outrageous product liability law suits and every other law that you can think of to protect us from ourselves but we still believe it's OK to kill thousands of innocent people each and every year in America.  What (or who) is doing the killing?  Is it evil villains running unchecked throughout the streets?  Is it highway tragedies?  Perhaps it's collapsing highway bridges?  Well, the answer is yes, those things are killing people, but what I'm referring to is not a random act of violence or a freak accident causing the collapse of a bridge.  What I'm talking about is something that is completely, one-hundred percent preventable, and could be implemented overnight with zero cost.  What I'm talking about is something that is so simple you'd have to be insane to think it's a bad idea.  My earth shattering idea - ban smoking in all indoor public places.  It's that simple, overnight we can begin preventing the deaths of thousands of people as well as significantly reducing the burden on our health care system.

This topic has been given considerable attention in both our state and local news recently.  Our state, last year had an opportunity to change the face of our health care system with House Bill 2422.  House Bill 2422 would have banned smoking in all Virginia's restaurants.  We had a chance to make a difference, to take the high road and do what's best for the people, but instead our legislators took the easy way out and voted against the proposal by a margin of 40 votes for and 59 against.  They found all sorts of excuses for voting no on this historic legislation, but the bottom line is that they let all Virginians down.  They were afraid of what could happen to local businesses if people couldn't light up, they were afraid of the public outcry from all of those who absolutely have to have a cigarette in order to complete a meal.  What they neglected, however, was to look at other states and cities who have taken a proactive approach in enacting similar bans and have experienced tremendously positive results from doing so.  Just look at New York State, they implemented a smoking ban in 1999 and numerous studies have been done with the most recent completed in 2005 by RTI International.  The results of the study confirm that there is "no statistically significant relationship between sales and the comprehensive indoor clean air laws" (Farrelly et al. 4-43).  There is proof out there that there is nothing to fear by banning smoking in our restaurants.  My take is what the legislators are afraid of is losing the donations from "Big Tobacco" that they rely on every year to line their campaign coffers.  The chefs in the kitchen are mandated to wear gloves and hair nets while preparing my food and I can't walk into McDonalds without shoes, but it's perfectly fine for the person seated next to me to exhale carcinogens all over my meal, the logic here escapes me.

Those on the other side will tell you that it's a personal choice, you have the ability to choose where to eat and that there are non-smoking restaurants out there.  You have every right to sit in the non-smoking section and they even go as far to say to the people who work there, and are exposed to these hazards on a daily basis, are free to quit and get a different job!  Can you imagine in this day and age, having to quit my job because of preventable hazards in the work place?  Didn't we go through this type of thing years ago in the meat packing industry, the coal mines, auto manufacturing and chemical plants?  Imagine coming into work on a Monday morning and you notice an overpowering odor that is beginning to make you feel sick to your stomach, when asked, your boss merely tells you to not worry about it but if it really bothers you then go and get another job.  Imagine sitting in your English Composition class and your classmate lights up right there during the lecture.  When you complain, you are told you that you have every right to transfer to Old Dominion if it bothers you that much.  We would have every lawyer in the country at the front door waiting for a piece of that lawsuit, but yet we allow the same exact behavior every day in just about every state in this country.  I guess we feel as though it's "just the service" industry and these people are only there to wait on us; therefore, they must somehow be second class citizens and not protected under the same work place rules and regulations that the rest of us with "better" jobs are.  I have anti-lock brakes and more air bags than you can imagine in the vehicle I send my daughter to school in every day, but when it comes to her enjoying a meal, or heaven forbid, needing a part time job, we think it's normal and acceptable in exposing her to carcinogens.  Once again, I'm not sure that I'm living on the same planet that allows this type of behavior to flourish.

Another often stated fallacy is that secondhand smoke can be controlled in these establishments by the heating and cooling system (HVAC).  It's simply not true; according to the Surgeon General of the United States, there are no currently in use systems that can protect us from the dangers of secondhand smoke, "current HVAC systems cannot fully control exposures to secondhand smoke unless a complete smoking ban is enforced" (92).  Even if the establishment completely seals off the area with a dedicated HVAC system, someone has to wait on the customers and they will most assuredly be exposed to the dangers of secondhand smoke.  The Surgeon General report goes on to say, "a complete ban on indoor smoking is the most efficient and effective approach to control exposure to second hand smoke" (92).  What additional information do our legislators need?

This sometimes can be a difficult subject for me to rationalize; I'm very much for personal responsibility and do not need the government to protect me from myself.  If I get a cup of coffee from the drive through and spill it in my lap I feel there is only one person to blame and that blame would be squarely on my shoulders.  When I light up a cigarette, that's my choice, if I get emphysema or am pronounced terminally ill from lung cancer I have only one person to blame, and that person is me.  This however, goes much deeper than that, it's not a matter of personal responsibility or the government stepping in where it has no business stepping in.  It's about protecting people from something that we have determined is extremely hazardous to our health years ago.  I can remember as a young boy reading the warning label on my mother's cigarettes and wondering what the heck she was doing smoking these things.  We have known for many years that secondhand smoke is a killer, yet we choose as a Nation as well as individual states to do almost nothing about it in some of the most frequented family establishments out there, restaurants.  We have banned smoking in most indoor places such as grocery stores, movie theaters and most, if not all, our workplaces (I haven't seen someone light up in my workplace since 1988).  However, for some reason we look the other way when it's a local Applebee's.  I assume that most of us would immediately call 911 after seeing a car pass by on the freeway with a baby in her mother's lap, but yet we could care less when that same child is sitting in a booster seat at the table next to us while that same mother is puffing away on a cigarette.  How can this be happening?

This type of law is more about leadership and courage than anything else.  Currently, restaurants are afraid to ban smoking on there own in fear of other cities not doing so and the subsequent loss of customers to those other cities.  Pizza Hut and Kentucky Fried Chicken however, weren't afraid to do the right thing when it comes to smoking.  They have showed tremendous leadership in this area and have banned smoking in all of their restaurants across the United States.  They were praised by the Surgeon General for their efforts that "will protect the health of non-smoking customers and employees, and will make a meaningful contribution in the battle to keep our young people from starting to smoke" (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services web site).  This is a time when our legislators need to step up and show the same leadership as Pizza Hut executives did to get this process going.  I say pass the ban but allow it to expire in one year.  After one year, let the people decide with their feet and more importantly their wallets if they support restaurants to allow smoking.  Based on the facts from other states and cities across the Nation I feel the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

The topic recently resurfaced in Virginia but it's now a regional matter.  Norfolk most recently proposed (and passed) a smoking ban in all restaurants but are afraid to go it alone.  Although Norfolk passed the measure they are patiently waiting for Virginia Beach to take it up this spring before actually putting it into effect.  If Virginia Beach agrees to ban smoking then the Norfolk ban will also got into effect.  It's almost like the Cold War; everybody is sitting on the sidelines and is afraid to make the first move in fear of inciting World War III.  Let the other states and cites be the model, it didn't happen there, and it won't happen here.  Life will go on just as it always has except that our cities can take confidence in the fact that they did the right thing for the people who live in them.  They can also take great pride in doing what the folks in Richmond didn't have the guts for.  If Norfolk and Virginia Beach can get together and pass this ban it will send a tremendous message to Richmond, and the message would be loud and clear, we in Tidewater are doing what's right and listening to our constituents; maybe you in Richmond should do the same.

            I think it's ironic that a headline in the December 16, 2006 edition of the Virginian Pilot read, "Smoking ban likely to hit Norfolk in early '07" (Minium).  Norfolk was so confident that the ban would pass as well as taking great pride in being the first locality to do so.  Now ten months later they are waiting for a sister city to take the lead on the matter.  I guess Norfolk is tough on secondhand smoke, as long they get a dancing partner.  If you ask me customers will be lined up at the city line to spend money there if they would only have the courage to implement the change.

It is also interesting to note, with the attention that smoking bans have generated it seems as though Phillip Morris is taking notice of its declining sales.  They are concerned over the publicity and have even built a new research and development center in Richmond, to develop, of all things, "safer cigarettes".  From the October 30, 2007 edition of the Virginian Pilot, Phillip Morris spokesman David Sylvia is quoted, saying, "The company's growth will be driven by development of new products and work that we are doing to reduce the harm related to all of our tobacco products" (qtd. in Felberbaum).  "Reduce" the harm.  The manufacturer is coming right out and declaring that they are developing products to reduce harm, not eliminate.  We all know the harm that is done, but yet we still allow thousands of people to be exposed to this every hour of every day across this great state.  Maybe if we keep hearing idiotic statements like this we will eventually wake up and realize what we are allowing and decide to do something about it.

The evidence is compiled, the experts have spoken, and while these cities sit back and talk about getting tough on protecting the health of their citizens thousands of people are lighting up right now and blowing smoke all across town.  I challenge the lawmakers of this state to stop blowing smoke and pass a law that shows they care about us and our future health.  It is time to ban smoking in all restaurants in Virginia! 

Works Cited

Farrelly, Matthew C., Davis, Kevin C., Nonnemaker, James M., Girlando, Maria, Crankshaw, Eric, Pais, Joanne, Markatos, Betty, Federman, Belle. Second Annual Independent Evaluation of New York's Tobacco Control Program. Final report. North Carolina: Research Triangle International, 2005.

Felberbaum, Michael. "If This Were "Reduced Risk", Would You Smoke It?" Virginian Pilot 30 Oct. 2007, business: 5.

Minium, Harry. "Smoking ban likely to hit Norfolk in early '07." Pilot Online 13 Dec. 2006. 31 Oct. 2007 <http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=115948&ran=172972>.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.

United States Department of Health and Human Services Web Site. 31 Oct. 2007.

            < http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/pressreleases/sg08122005.html>.