"I have learned that there is a price to be paid for doing the right thing.
To fight for the interest of ordinary people, a leader must always
work harder, think faster, and be more determined..."

The Register-Guard - July 14, 2000

Smoking risks prove need for ban
By Pete Sorenson

I commend the Eugene City Council for taking the first step toward curtailing the devastating impact of tobacco on the health of our community.

On July 19th the City Council will hold a work session to discuss a proposed ordinance that would reduce the availability of tobacco products to minors and protect the health of workers by placing a ban on smoking in all enclosed work environments within the city. I see this proposal as a vital step toward protecting public health.

The risks of smoking are deadly serious. I came to this conclusion when my uncle developed lung cancer directly attributed to cigarette smoking, and when he died an agonizing death from this disease.

Some may buy into the notion that regulating tobacco obstructs personal freedom -- that we don't need more government intrusion. The argument for freedom is misused as a pre-text to sell more cigarettes.

The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners took a positive step last December, passing an ordinance that was just implemented on July 1. The board voted for a county-wide ban on smoking in work places, including restaurants. Unfortunately, there are exemptions, such as bars, truck stops and bingo parlors. I'm advocating for the "gold standard" ordinance that is now in effect in Corvallis. This covers all workplaces, no exemptions.

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke or ETS, contains over 4,000 chemicals including lead, arsenic, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide. Exposure to ETS has been a recognized health hazard for over 20 years. In fact, the entire 1986 Surgeon General's report was devoted to the harmful health effects of ETS. This report was the first major analysis of studies documenting a link between secondhand smoke exposure and health hazards.

In1997 the California Environmental Protection Agency reviewed studies conducted since 1991and confirmed earlier ETS findings. The Cal EPA report concluded that ETS can cause lung cancer in adults (approximately 3,000 cases annually nationwide);; respiratory problems in children; low birth weight babies born to exposed pregnant women; sudden infant death syndrome; middle ear infections and nasal sinus cancer. Significantly, long term exposure to ETS was estimated to account for 62,000 heart disease deaths annually -- twenty times the number of lung cancer deaths attributed to ETS. Secondhand smoke harms the health and reduces the productivity of nonsmokers, costing employers a large amount of money. Smoking in the workplace damages property and increases cleaning costs. Thirty percent of building fires and 97.4% of fatalities in structural fires have been attributed to careless smoking.

Since these risks became known, many employers have voluntarily banned smoking indoors. Still, too many have not. From a legal perspective, businesses have a lot to lose. A growing body of law indicates that employers may be liable under state and federal discrimination laws for permitting smoking in the workplace. Most states prohibit discrimination on the basis of disabilities. In many states, nonsmokers sensitive to tobacco smoke are considered "handicapped" and entitled to reasonable accommodation. For nonsmokers who don't have a heightened sensitivity to tobacco smoke, established common law requires employers to provide a safe and healthy workplace.

The lawsuit of 1997 by airline flight attendants against the airline industry set a precedent. Sixty thousand flight attendants won a historic settlement against 5 major tobacco companies.

In the settlement, the tobacco industry agreed to establish a $300 million research institute for study, prevention and treatment of tobacco related illness. While the industry made no admission of guilt, attendants are now free to seek individual damages, and terms of the settlement may help them to win.

The burden of proof has shifted. Now, it's up to tobacco companies to disprove that an illness was caused by passive smoking rather than the plaintiff having to prove that it was.

So why are we slow to ban indoor smoking? Our delay reflects the power of Big Tobacco. Large companies selling tobacco have a simple motive -- their bottom line. Philip Morris' internal documents highlight the industry's alarm. "A Smoker's Alliance, draft", comments: "Financial impact of smoking bans will be tremendous - three to five fewer cigarettes per day per smoker will reduce annual manufacturer profits a billion dollars plus per year."

Here is another bottom line. The Surgeon General tells us that every eight smokers killed by tobacco take one non-smoker with them.

Please join me in supporting our local policy makers as they courageously put the health of workers and our community ahead of the health of tobacco industry profits.

Peter Sorenson represents the South Eugene district on the Lane County Board of Commissioners

Paid for and authorized by Pete Sorenson Committee / PO Box 10836 / Eugene OR 97440 /Denise Lewman, Treasurer
Web site errors & corrections?: web@petesorenson.com Contribution-related questions: donate@petesorenson.com
To sign up for e-mail updates and all other matters, please contact: info@petesorenson.com
© 2005-2007  Pete Sorenson Committee