|
The articles i n thls issue of JPHMF�on-
<br />firm that continuinglocal activityto pass
<br />clean indoor air ordinances tdl�ored to
<br />meet IOCaI conditions Is the best Way to
<br />protect nonsmokers from secondhand
<br />tobacco smoke.ss Aware of thlS #x[,, it is
<br />particularly importantthatpublic health
<br />advocates defeat efforts by the tobacco
<br />industry to enact weak state legislation
<br />preemptingthe ability of local communi-
<br />ties to enact tobacco control Ordi- �
<br />nances.t°�6�'
<br />The real reasonthatthe tobacco indus-
<br />try opposes these ordinances Is that the
<br />creation of smoke-free restaurants repre-
<br />sent. a strong message that smoking
<br />around other people is no longersocially
<br />acceptable. Creating smoke-free work-'-
<br />places reduces cigarette consump-
<br />U�I1,�°""}' This changing social environ-
<br />ment will help people quit smoking and
<br />reduce tobacco industry sales and prof-
<br />i Lfi,'0�'S For example, Glasgow et i� � t5#1-
<br />mate that if all workplaces i n the United
<br />States were smoke-free, an additional
<br />178,000 smokers would stop smoking,
<br />and, among those who continued to
<br />smoke, they would consume 10 billion
<br />fewer cigarettes per year. There is si m ply
<br />no other tobacco control intervention
<br />that can contribute thls much to public
<br />health this quickly-for both nonsmok-
<br />ers and peoplewho would liketo quit
<br />as creating smoke-free environments.
<br />The battle over clean indoor airi n restau-
<br />rants has becomesymbolic for thewhole
<br />battle over clean indoor air.
<br />In any event, there is now evidence
<br />from so many cities of varying location,
<br />size, and demographics thatthe question
<br />of whether clean indoor air ordinances
<br />affect restaurantrevenues-adversely or
<br />otherwise-should be consideredclosed.
<br />Local officials can now go about their
<br />business of protecti ngthe publ ic from the
<br />toxins in secondhand smoke without
<br />worrying about this phony issue.
<br />REFERENCES
<br />1. U.S. Department of Health and Human
<br />Services. The Health Consequences of
<br />InvoluntarySmoldng. A Report of the
<br />Surgeon General. Washington, D.C.:
<br />Li.i.`U�� of Heaith and Human
<br />Servic�, Public iiealth Sexvioe, C�►te�
<br />for Disease Control; 1986.
<br />2 National Research Council Committee
<br />o� Passive Smoldng. Envimnmenta! To-
<br />baccoSmdce: Measuring��and
<br />Pssessing Health �, Washington,
<br />D.C: National Academy Fr�� 1986.
<br />3. US. Environmental Protection ,,gency.
<br />Respiratory Health Effects of Passive
<br />Smoldng: Lung Cancer and �� Discx-
<br />den. St Paul, MN: US. Environmental
<br />Protection P�ency; 1992. ' '
<br />4. Office of Environmental Health Hazard
<br />Pssessmerit H ealth E/fecGs ofExposure to
<br />Environmental Tobacco Smoke. 8erke-
<br />ley, CA: California EnvironmentalProtec-
<br />tion Agency (httpJ/www.calepa.cahw
<br />a�el. �r�resJ,m� 1997.
<br />5. PhilipMorrisTobacco. CaliforniaAction
<br />Plan (Philip Morris Bates numbers
<br />2044325927-36 i n the Minnesota To-
<br />bacco Document Depository).
<br />6. Samuds, Q and�lat�rB,,S. ThePoliticsof
<br />Local Tobacco Control. JAMA. 1991;
<br />266: 271 U--2117.
<br />7. Traynor,M, andGlantzS FitwT�irc�
<br />Industry Strategy To Preve�t Local To-
<br />bacco Control. /AMA.1993;270.
<br />8. Bialous, S.A, and Glantz, S Tobacco
<br />Control i n Arizona, 1973-1997. San
<br />Franasco, CA: UCSF �utlprAe i+d-Health
<br />Policy Studies (httpJ/www.library.uaf.
<br />eduRobaccdaz/); 1997.
<br />� Smith, L Big Apple Breathes Easy. 'To-
<br />bacco Control. 1995;4:15-17.
<br />10. Glar�tr, $ andSmith, L.R.A.TheEffectof
<br />Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Re�
<br />taurant$on Restaurar�t Sales. American
<br />Journal ofPublicHealth. 1494;84, no. 7:
<br />1081-1085.
<br />11. Glar�tr, $ and Smith, L Erratum for �T�e
<br />Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-
<br />Free Restaurarits on Restaurant Sales.
<br />AmericanjournalofPublic Health. 1997;
<br />(in press).
<br />12. Glar�tr, S and Smith, L The Effect of
<br />Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Res-
<br />taurar�ts and Bars on Revenues: �,Fallv�
<br />Up. American Journal af Public Health.
<br />1997r67:1 �6�•1 �93_
<br />13. Glar�tr, $ and Smith, L Enatumfor'The
<br />Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke�
<br />Free Restaurants and Bars on Re✓enues: A
<br />Follow-Up". AmericanJournalofPublic
<br />H ealth. 1998; 88:1122.
<br />14. Maroney, N. etal. Thelmpad�ofTobacco
<br />�
<br />15.
<br />16.
<br />17.
<br />18.
<br />19.
<br />20.
<br />21.
<br />�.
<br />23.
<br />24.
<br />25.
<br />26.
<br />27.
<br />Control OrdinaRCes on Re�aurant Re%
<br />enues i n California. daremor►t, U: The
<br />Claremortt Institutefor Economic Policy
<br />Stucies; TheClaremontGraduateSchool;
<br />1994.
<br />Bartosch, Vu and Pope, G. The Eco-
<br />nomic Impad of Srookline's Restaurarit
<br />SmoldngBan. Waltham,M,�:HealthEco-
<br />nomia Research, Inc; 1995.
<br />Sciacca, � and Radiff, M. Prohibiting
<br />Smoking in ttesaurants: Effects on p�_
<br />taurantSales. �Irnenku�Jou��ofHeahh
<br />Promotion. 1998;12, no. 3: 176-T84.
<br />Mrvang, P et al. Assessment of the I m-
<br />pact of a 100% Smoke-Free Ordinance
<br />on Restaurar�t Sales�IVest Lake Hill,
<br />Texas, 1992-1994. Morbidity and Mor-
<br />� Weeldy Report.15���Flt 370-372.
<br />Goldstein, A, and Sobel, R"�nvironmen-
<br />tal TobaccoSmoke Re�ulationsHave Not
<br />Hurt Restaurar�t5�:�a In North Carolina.
<br />North Carolina Medical Journal. 1998;
<br />59: 284-288.
<br />Biener, L, and Siegel, M. Behavior Inten-
<br />tions ofthe Public after Bans on Smoking
<br />in Restaurar�is and Bars. American Jour-
<br />nal of Public Health. 1997;87: 20%42-
<br />2Q44.
<br />Pierce, J.P., et al. Tobacco Use i n Califor-
<br />nia: An Evaluation of tl�e Toba�co Con-
<br />trol Program, k����, University of
<br />California, San Diego; 1994.
<br />Corsun, D., etal.ShouIdNYCsRestaura-
<br />teurs Lighten Up?ComellHorel and Rec-
<br />taurant Administration Quarterly. 1996,
<br />37: 26.
<br />Rankin, T, et al. Letter to California Leg
<br />islature. Sacramento, G4: BREATH, A
<br />Project of the American Lung Assoaa-
<br />tion; 1998.
<br />Samuds, B., et al. Philip Morris' Failed
<br />F�cperiment i n Pittsburgh. Journal of
<br />Health Politics, Policy, and LaJV. 1992;
<br />17: 329-351.
<br />Smoke-FreeEducationalServioes. Philip
<br />Morris Front Groups. New York, NY;
<br />1995.
<br />Glantr,S. BacktoBasics:GettingSmoke-
<br />Free Workplaces Back on Track (edito-
<br />rial). TobaccoCor�trol. 1997;6:164-166.
<br />Conlisk, � et al. The Status of Local
<br />Smoking Regulations i n Ixrcth Carolina
<br />Followinga State Preemption Biil. JAMA.
<br />1995;273: 805-807.
<br />Siegel, M, et al. Preemption i n Tobacco
<br />Control. Review of an Emerging Public
<br />Health Problem. /AMA. 1997;278: 858-
<br />863.
<br />
|