Facts About Tobacco



Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., killing more than 400,000 people annually—in Arkansas 4,900 smoker die each year. Second-hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., killing more than 50,000 non-smokers each year—490 nonsmokers in Arkansas die each year of illnesses attributable to tobacco.
 

  1. A California Environmental Protection Agency’s in 1997 reports the chemicals found in secondhand smoke exposure is causally linked to lung and nasal sinus cancer, heart disease and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS.) Serious impacts on children include asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, middle ear infections, meningitis, chronic respiratory symptoms, and low birth weight. (Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Final Report, Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, September 1997)
  2. The chemicals found in secondhand smoke include irritants and systemic toxicants, mutagens and carcinogens, and reproductive and developmental toxicants. To date, over 50 compounds in tobacco smoke have been identified as cancer causing agents. (Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Final Report, Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, September 1997)
  3. Workers exposed to secondhand smoke on the job are 34% more likely to get lung cancer. (Fontham, et al. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 1991; 135:35-43)
  4. The scientific evidence regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke did not begin with the release of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report in 1992. As early as 1975, there was evidence in the scientific literature that secondhand smoke was a cause of cardiac and respiratory disease.
  5. The health risks associated with smoking for both men and women are well known, and include a two-fold increase in risks of heart disease and of cancers of the bladder, stomach and pancreas and a ten-fold increase in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Smoking also significantly increases risks of stroke and pneumonia. (InteliHealth, www.intelihealth.com, May 1, 2001)
  6. Most health risks associated with smoking are reduced or eventually eliminated when smoking abstinence is maintained.
  7. Every time a smoker lights up around a nonsmoker, the smoker negatively impacts the health of those who chose not to smoke.
  8. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and heart disease in lifetime nonsmokers.
  9. Research indicates: (CNS Drugs, May 2001)
    • Nicotine replacement therapy may not be as effective for women.
    • Women smokers are more fearful than men of gaining a lot of weight if they quit.
    • Medications to aid smoking cessation are not currently recommended for pregnant women.
    • A woman’s menstrual cycle affects tobacco withdrawal symptoms and responses to anti-smoking drugs may vary by cycle phase.
    • Husbands may provide less effective support to women who are trying to quit smoking than wives give to husbands.
    • Women may be more susceptible than men to environmental cues to smoking, such as smoking with specific friends or smoking associated with specific moods.
    • Many women may enjoy the feeling of control associated with smoking a cigarette.
  10. Women account for 39% of all smoking-related deaths each year in the United States. The report concludes that the increased likelihood of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and reproductive health problems among female smokers makes tobacco use a serious women’s health issue. (Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General.” CDC Office of Smoking and Health, March 27, 2001)
  11. Tobacco use is responsible for more deaths than alcohol, auto accidents, AIDS, suicides, murders, and illegal drugs combined.
  12. On average, adult men and women smokers lose 13.2 and 14.5 years of life, respectively, because they smoke [they lose approximately 14 years of life, not to mention years of pain before death.] (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention,  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, “Annual Smoking Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost and Economic Costs-United States 1995-1999” April 12, 2002 51:14)
  13. Every time a smoker lights up around a nonsmoker, they negatively affect the health of those who chose not to smoke.
  14. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and heart disease in lifetime nonsmokers.

 

Secondhand Smoke 

  1. Warning: When you smoke, your family smokes.
  2. Smokers aren’t the only one’s who smoke.
  3. Give us a little breathing room, if you smoke take it outside.
  4. Living with a smoker is like inhaling 50 packs of cigarettes a year.
  5. Secondhand smoke is a 1st rate killer.
  6. Where should the tobacco industry put the label for people who breathe?
  7. What the smoker does to himself may be his business, but what the smoker does to the nonsmoker is quite a different matter.
  8. We are not telling people they can’t smoke, we’re asking them not to smoke in a way that harms others.
  9. Tobacco use affects everyone. Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death. Every time someone lights a cigarette near you they are potentially harming your health. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, other cancer, heart disease and both major and minor illnesses in children.
  10. Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country killing, 53,000 nonsmokers in the U.S. each year. For every eight smokers the tobacco industry kills, it takes one nonsmoker with them. (Glantz, S.A. &Parmley, W., “Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Epidemiology, Physiology and Biochemistry,” Circulation, 1991; 83(1):1-12; and Taylor, A. Johnson, D. & Kazemi, H., “Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Cardiovascular Disease,” Circulation, 1992; (86): 699-702.)
  11. Following the basic laws of physics, secondhand smoke rapidly diffuses throughout a room. It takes more than three hours for 95% of the smoke in a room to dissipate once smoking has ended. (Repace, J. “Risk Management and Passive Smoking at Work and at Home,” St. Louis University Public Law Review, 12(2): 763-785, 1994)
  12. Many people have higher levels of exposure to secondhand smoke than they believe, much of it stemming from the workplace. 88% of nonsmokers have significant levels of nicotine residue in their blood. (Pirkle, et al., “Exposure of the US Population to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Third National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1991,” JAMA 275:1233-1240, 1996)
  13.  Given that tobacco use is the largest preventable cause of premature death in the U.S., reducing tobacco use and ETS exposure should be important goals in all Arkansas communities.
  14. Many employers and employees understand the health hazards of secondhand smoke and support clean indoor air policies. All workers in Arkansas communities deserve the right to breathe clean indoor air and should not have to be exposed to health risks from tobacco smoke in the workplace. (Shopland, Gerlach, Burns et. al,; “State Specific Trends in Smoke-Free Workplace Policy Coverage: The Current Population Survey Tobacco Use Supplement,” Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 1993-1999)

 

Thirdhand Smoke: Growing Awareness of Health Hazard

We know that smoking and secondhand smoke exposure are harmful, but what about “thirdhand smoke”? This is a relatively new term used to describe the residual contamination from tobacco smoke that lingers in rooms long after smoking stops and remains on our clothes after we leave a smoky place. It may seem merely like an offensive smell, but it is also indicative of the presence of tobacco toxins.

Thirdhand smoke consists of the tobacco residue from cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco products that is left behind after smoking and builds up on surfaces and furnishings. Tobacco smoke is composed of numerous types of gasses and particulate matter, including carcinogens and heavy metals, like arsenic, lead, and cyanide. Sticky, highly toxic particulates, like nicotine, can cling to walls and ceilings. Gases can be absorbed into carpets, draperies, and other upholsteries. A 2002 study found that these toxic brews can then reemit back into the air and recombine to form harmful compounds that remain at high levels long after smoking has stopped occurring.

There is a growing body of evidence that this lingering tobacco residue has significant health risks. People, especially children and hospitality industry workers, can have considerable exposure to it. As confirmed by the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report, there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. And tobacco smoke toxins remain harmful even when breathed or ingested after the active smoking ends.

A study published in February 2010 found that thirdhand smoke causes the formation of carcinogens. The nicotine in tobacco smoke reacts with nitrous acid – a common component of indoor air – to form the hazardous carcinogens. Nicotine remains on surfaces for days and weeks, so the carcinogens continue to be created over time, which are then inhaled, absorbed or ingested.

Children of smokers are especially at risk of thirdhand smoke exposure and contamination because tobacco residue is noticeably present in dust throughout places where smoking has occurred. The homes, hair, clothes, and cars of smokers can have significant levels of thirdhand smoke contamination. Young children are particularly vulnerable, because they can ingest tobacco residue by putting their hands in their mouths after touching contaminated surfaces.

Awareness about thirdhand smoke is increasing, and it gained a great deal of attention in January 2009 when the journal Pediatrics published a study assessing people’s beliefs about the health effects of thirdhand smoke and children’s level of exposure to it. However, the report found there is much less awareness about thirdhand smoke exposure and its harm to children than there is awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

The growing understanding of thirdhand smoke contamination reaffirms the need for more smokefree places and for avoiding exemptions in smokefree laws that permit smoking at private events in public places or in businesses during late evening hours; these kinds of provisions do not protect people’s health.

Parents, landlords, business owners and others need to be aware of the health risks of exposure to thirdhand smoke and recognize that eliminating smoking is the only way to protect against tobacco’s smoke contamination.

 

Spit Tobacco 

  1. The exposure to nicotine from smokeless tobacco is similar in magnitude to nicotine exposure from cigarette smoking.
  2. The risk of mouth cancer is four times greater for a spit tobacco user. The chances of developing cancer are particularly high in areas of the mouth, where the tobacco is placed and held by the user. Cancer of the mouth can affect the lip, tongue, gums and cheek. (American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., December, 199.)
  3. The risk of developing oral cancer for spit tobacco users ranges from 2-11 times that of nonusers. Only half of all oral cancer patients are alive five years after diagnosis. (Dental Oncology Education Program, Spit Tobacco Prevention Network Web Site Fact Page, 1999)
  4. Smokeless tobacco caused increased heart rate due to nicotine in the blood stream releasing hormones, such as adrenaline.(American Academy of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., December 1991)

Legal Issues

  1. Workplace smoking increases an employer’s potential legal liability. Nonsmoking employees have received settlements in cases based on their exposure to secondhand smoke. For example, a waiter in Sausalito received an $85,000 settlement in a workers’ compensation case. Other nonsmokers have won unemployment compensation and disability benefits. (Sweda, E.L. Summary of Legal Cases Regarding Smoking in the Workplace and Other Places. Boston: Tobacco Control Resource Center, December 1997)
  2. Workers’ compensation laws varysomewhat from state to state. However, it is well established in most states that workers may receive benefits from injuries caused by workplace smoking exposure. (Schober v. Mountain Bell, 1980; Thorensen v. US Air, 1989; Kufahl v. Wisconsin Bell, 1990)
  3. An example of a worker’s compensation award is the case of Avatar Uhbi. Uhbi, an otherwise healthy, vegetarian nonsmoker, suffered a heart attack. It was determined his heart attack was caused by passive smoking exposure while working as a waiter in a restaurant that permitted smoking. Uhbi was awarded $85,ooo in medical expenses associated with his secondhand smoke induced illness (Uhbi v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 1990)
  4. To sensitive nonsmokers, a cloud of smoke may pose as great a barrier to use of a facility as a physical barrier.
  5. As the issue of health protection has risen, the claims of “smoker’s rights” have been challenged. It has been determined in US courts that the right to smoke does not fall under any constitutionally protected activities. Indeed, the use of a substance that produces a health hazard is not a rights issue; it is a health issue. As of yet, no court actions have supported “smoker’s rights;” however, many suits filed by nonsmokers have been successful, while other suits are currently making their way through the legal system.

 

Economic Costs

  1. There is a shared economic impact of secondhand smoke. We all get to help pay the cost of tobacco use.
  2. Smoking causes a great deal of discomfort in the workplace. Of nonsmoking employees, 59.2% report suffering discomfort and even 15% of smoking employees report some degree of discomfort from secondhand smoke. (CDC, Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, May 22, 1992)
  3. Secondhand smoke harms the health and reduces the productivity of nonsmokers, costing employers money. Estimated costs associated with secondhand smoke’s effects on nonsmokers range from $56 to $490 per smoker per year. (Kristein, “How Much Can Business Expect to Profit From Smoking Cessation?” Preventive Medicine, 1983; 12:358-381; Jackson & Holle, “Smoking: Perspectives 1985” Primary Care, 1985; 12:197-216)
  4. Smoking in the workplace damages property and increases cleaning costs. A survey of 2,000 smoke-free workplaces found that 60% reported a reduction in maintenance and cleaning costs. (Swart, “An Overlooked Cost of Employee Smoking” Personnel, August 1990)
  5. “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.” (Quoted in: “A Smokers’Alliance: draft,” Philip Morris internal document. Bates Nos. 2025771934-2025771937.)
  6. “Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11-15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average. Only 6.4-10.3% of smokers face total workplace prohibition, but these restrictions are rapidly becoming more common.” (Quoted in Heironimus, J., “Impact of workplace restrictions on consumption and incidence,” Philip Morris internal memo. Bates No. 2045447770-2045447806, January 21. 1992)
  7. A smoking employee costs the employer at least $1,000 per year in total excess direct and indirect health care costs, compared with a similar nonsmoking employee. (American Lung Association, Smoking Policies in the Workplace, September 1998)
  8. For each of the 22 billion packs of cigarettes sold in the United States in 1999, $3.45 was spent on medical care related to smoking. Another $3.73 per pack was spent on productivity losses from smoking. [Smoking cost society $7.18 per pack in health care and lost productivity. The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in 1999 was $2.92.] (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, “Annual Smoking Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost and Economic Costs-United States 1995-1999” April 12, 2002 51:14)
  9. There is a big difference in the cost to society and what society is getting back in tax. Society is bearing a burden for the individual behavioral choices of the smokers.
  10. The economic cost of smoking equals about $3,391 a year for every smoker [or $157.7 billion total.] (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, “Annual Smoking Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost and Economic Costs-United States 1995-1999” April 12, 2002 51:14)
  11. On average, smokers are absent from work 50 percent more often than nonsmokers. As long ago as 1974, Dow Chemical Company found that cigarette smoking employees were absent from work five and half (5.5) more days per year than their nonsmoking peers. Costs for these absences include temporary replacements and lowered productivity and morale among employees who were on the job and had to cope with the absences. (ASH, Smoking in the Workplace Costs Employers Money, 1997)
  12. Each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs the nation an estimated $7.18 in medical care costs and lost productivity. (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, “Annual Smoking Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost and Economic Costs-United States 1995-1999” April 12, 2002 51:14)

 

Tobacco Tax

  1. The fact that smoking rates are highest among lower-income groups means that lower-income families and communities currently suffer the most from smoking and will benefit disproportionately from any effective new measures to reduce smoking, including increased state cigarette tax rates. While tobacco tax increases that raise cigarette prices prevent and reduce smoking among all income groups, they work most powerfully to prompt lower-income smokers to quit or cutback and to stop lower-income kids from ever starting. As a result, low-income families and communities will not be the victims of any cigarette tax increase but its biggest beneficiaries. (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), “Responses to Cigarette Prices By Race/Ethnicity, Income and Age Groups—United States 1976-1993, “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 47(29):605-609 (July 31, 1998); Chaloupka, F.J. & R. Pacula, An Examination of Gender and Race Differences in Youth Smoking Responsiveness to Price and Tobacco Control Policies, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 6541 (April 1998).
  2. Increases to state tobacco tax rates will not place any new financial burdens of any kind on the more than 75 percent of Arkansas adults who neither smoke cigarettes or buy them.
  3. Any significant state tobacco tax increase would bring in millions of dollars per year in new government revenues, thereby reducing pressures for other, broader-based tax increases or even make broad bases tax cuts more likely.
  4. The smoking declines caused by tobacco tax increases saves lives, reduces human suffering, promotes the public health and prevents more kids from becoming addicted to smoking or ultimately dying from it.
  5. In poll after poll, Americans strongly support higher cigarette taxes in order to prevent and reduce youth smoking. (Market Strategies poll of registered voters (February 24-March 5, 1998) & Market Facts poll of the general public (September 19, 1997) both commissioned by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids)
  6. With an excise cigarette tax rate of 59 cents per pack, Arkansas ranks 32nd (1=highest).
  7. During 2004, Arkansas sold 219.6 261.6 million cigarette packs [down from 262 million in 2000] for a tax revenue of $126.3 million. (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, “State Cigarette Tax Rates: Date of Last Increase and Related Data” www.tobaccofreekids.org, December 21, 2001). This is less than 1/2 of the state’s annual cost for tobacco related Medicaid expenses alone.
  8. Arkansas ranks 43rd (1=highest) in pregnant smoking rank with a rate of 18.7%. This is the equivalent of 6,860 smoking-affected births each year. Smoking-affected pregnancy births cost Arkansas $7.8 million each year. (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, “Pregnancy Related Benefits and Cost Savings From Raising Cigarette Taxes”  www.tobaccofreekids.org, December 21, 2001)
  9. The tobacco companies oppose tobacco tax increases by arguing that raising cigarette prices would not reduce adult or youth smoking. But the companies’ internal documents, disclosed in the tobacco lawsuits, show that they know very well that raising tobacco prices is one of the most effective ways to prevent and reduce smoking, especially among kids.
    • Philip Morris: “A high cigarette price, more than any other cigarette attribute, has the most dramatic impact on the share of the quitting population…price, not tar level, is the main driving force for quitting. (Philip Morris Executive Claude Schwab, “Cigarette Attributes and Quitting,” PM Document No. 2045447810, March 4, 1993,www.pmdocs.com)
    • Loews/Lorillard Tobacco:  Significant increases in federal and state excise taxes on cigarettes…have, and are likely to continue to have, an adverse effect on cigarette sales.(Loews-parent corporation of the Lorillard cigarette company-10-K Report, March 31, 1999.)

Policy

  1. Without a smoke-free restaurant, waitresses, waiters, cooks and busboys inhale a deadly amount of secondhand tobacco smoke. Every worker deserves the right to a safe and healthy environment in which to work.
  2. According to an Arkansas Opinion Poll conducted in 2001, 77% of Arkansans (including many smokers) prefer smoke-free restaurants.
  3. Our primary goal is to change the culture, making smoking socially unacceptable. Regulation is only a tool. Our goal is not to necessarily pass a law but to change attitudes, behaviors and beliefs. The law isn’t the most important part, it’s the icing on the cake. Our goal is to influence health.

 

Quit Smoking

  1. Pregnant? That’s two good reasons to quit smoking.
  2. Nicotine is as tough to quit as heroine.
  3. Women may suffer greater relative risks of smoking-related diseases than men, but tend to have less success than men in quitting.(CNS Drugs, May 2001)

Cessation Facts for Arkansas-Sept. 2010

Cessation Study Conducted By ALA-released 2010 (1)

 

Youth

  1. Adults don’t make the decision to start smoking. Children do. The younger a person starts to smoke, the more highly addicted that individual will become, the longer the person will smoke and the more likely it is that the person will die of a tobacco related disease.
  2. Despite recent declines, young people in the United States are still using tobacco at a high rate: 34.5 percent of high school students and 15.1 percent of middle school students currently use some form of tobacco (cigarettes, smokeless, cigars, pipes, bidis, or kreteks). Every day, more than 2,200 young people under the age of 18 become daily smokers. (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention,  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, “Annual Smoking Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost and Economic Costs-United States 1995-1999” April 12, 2002 51:14)

 

Ventilation

  1. A 1986 report by the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that “the simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same airspace may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to ETS.” (U.S. Surgeon General. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1986)
  2. The tobacco industry continues to promote ventilation standards developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) as an adequate method for controlling exposure to secondhand smoke. However, ASHRAE acknowledges that “with respect to tobacco smoke and other contaminants, this standard does not, and cannot, ensure the avoidance of all possible adverse health effects.” Furthermore, workers (including waiters and waitresses) should not be required to enter the separately ventilated smoking area to perform work duties. (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE Standard 62-1989:Ventilation of Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, revised. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE 1990)
  3. Don’t be fooled by phrases like “reduces irritants” or “receives high ratings of personnel satisfaction.” Ventilation systems can remove the odor and smell of tobacco smoke and yet not adequately eliminate the actual toxins contained in tobacco smoke.
  4. Although minimum standards have been set for ventilation systems, this standard is based on tobacco smoke odor and not health standard limitations. Basically, a ventilation system can reduce, but not eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. Businesses will still face liability and health issues under such a policy option.

Spotlighting the Tobacco Industry

  1. Warning: Cigarette companies aren’t in business for your health.
  2. Warning: The tobacco industry isn’t your friend.
  3. Warning: When used as directed, cigarettes kill.
  4. The tobacco industry needs 3,000 new smokers every day to replace the 2000 who quit and the 1100 who die. The tobacco industry isn’t in business for your health, don’t be a recruit.
  5. The tobacco industry wants to maintain social acceptability of smoking so they can maintain profit.
  6. How can the tobacco industry market “cool” if people have to stand outside by the dumpsters to smoke. The industry wants smoking to be seen as socially acceptable.
  7. Like a criminal on the run, the tobacco industry is resorting to ever more desperate measures to stop local communities from passing smokefree ordinances.

 

Responses to Tobacco Industry Arguments

  1. Argument: Secondhand smoke is not a serious health hazard—there is still scientific controversy over the health effects of secondhand smoke.
    Response: There is no longer any genuine scientific debate about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. Only the tobacco industry, which still hasn’t admitted that smoking causes cancer in smokers, disputes the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Surgeon General of the United States, the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, and every leading health organization that secondhand smoke caused disease in healthy nonsmokers.  Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical, at least 50 of which are known carcinogens. Only the tobacco industry would argue that being exposed to substances such as arsenic, carbon monoxide, cyanide, formaldehyde and tar (all contained in secondhand smoke) isn’t harmful. In almost every single case, scientists who have challenged the finding that secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard have turned out to be allied with the tobacco industry and most receive direct funding from the industry. This is really about “corrupt science” by persons who have been paid to write articles attacking the EPA by an industry trying desperately to protect its deadly profits.
  2. Argument: We don’t need government interference—accommodation and simple common courtesy will solve the problem.Response: Is it government interference when the health department requires restaurant employees to wash their hands and wear hair nets before preparing food? Small businesses are regulated by many other types of local laws that protect the health and safety of the public. Clean indoor air ordinances are public health ordinances, and local governments not only have the right, they have the responsibility to pass them. Common courtesy and accommodation are fine notions, but we need laws in addition to that. We can all try to drive as courteously as possible, but we’d still have many more accidents if we didn’t have traffic laws.
  3. Argument: Ordinances discriminate against smokers and violate civil rights.
    Response: Clean indoor air ordinances don’t regulate people, they regulate behavior, therefore are not discriminatory. Smokers can eat in smoke-free restaurants, they just can’t light up. We are not telling people they can’t smoke, we’re asking them not to smoke in a way that harms others.  Our democratic society has always condoned the creation of laws to prohibit or restrict public acts that are injurious to others.
  4. Argument: Clean indoor air ordinances are expensive and difficult to enforce.
    Response: Studies have found high levels of compliance with local clean indoor air ordinances. Most ordinances are enforced on a complaint only basis, and citations rarely need to be issued. Most businesses and smokers are law-abiding and will follow the ordinance’s requirements as long as they are aware of them. Communities that have passed clean indoor air ordinances have found that posting “no-smoking” signs and removing ashtrays is the majority of their enforcement activities.
  5. Argument: Businesses will suffer economically if required to go smoke-free.
    Response: The only unbiased, accurate means to measure economic impact is to compare sales tax receipts, provided by a state board of equalization, for several years before an ordinance as well as all quarters after an ordinance is enacted.  Study after study conducted in this fashion finds that smoke-free ordinances have no negative impact on local businesses. The tobacco industry funds and promotes flawed studies that are based upon anecdotal information and perceptions, and ask leading questions.