|
|
|
Clean
Indoor
Air
Regulations
Fact
Sheet
MINIMAL
CLINICAL
INTERVENTIONS
- As
reported
in
1992
by
the
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA),
exposure
to
tobacco
smoke
in
the
environment
can
cause
lung
cancer
in
adult
nonsmokers.
Environmental
tobacco
smoke
(ETS)
also
has
been
linked
to
an
increased
risk
of
heart
disease
among
nonsmokers.
- ETS
causes
about
3,000
lung
cancer
deaths
annually
among
adult
nonsmokers.
- In
1997,
the
California
EPA
concluded
that
ETS
causes
coronary
heart
disease
and
death
in
nonsmokers.
Scientific
studies
have
estimated
that
ETS
accounts
for
as
many
as
62,000
deaths
from
coronary
heart
disease
annually
in
the
United
States.
- The
1992
EPA
report
also
concluded
that
ETS
causes
serious
respiratory
problems
in
children,
such
as
greater
number
and
severity
of
asthma
attacks
and
lower
respiratory
tract
infections.
ETS
exposure
increases
children’s
risk
for
sudden
infant
death
syndrome
(SIDS)
and
middle
ear
infections
as
well.
- Each
year
ETS
causes
150,000-300,000
lower
respiratory
tract
infections,
such
as
pneumonia
and
bronchitis,
in
children.
- In
a
large
U.S.
study,
maternal
exposure
during
pregnancy
and
postnatal
exposure
of
the
newborn
to
ETS
increased
the
risk
for
SIDS.
- Comparative
risk
studies
performed
by
the
EPA
have
consistently
found
ETS
to
be
a
risk
to
public
health.
ETS
is
classified
as
a
group
A
carcinogen
(known
to
cause
cancer
in
humans)
under
the
EPA’s
carcinogen
assessment
guidelines.
- Several
studies
have
documented
the
widespread
exposure
of
ETS
among
nonsmoking
adults
and
children
in
the
United
States.
Testing
nonsmokers’
blood
for
the
presence
of
cotinine,
a
chemical
produced
when
the
body
metabolizes
nicotine,
shows
that
nearly
9
out
of
10
nonsmoking
Americans
(88%)
are
exposed
to
ETS.
- A
1988
National
Health
Interview
Survey
reported
that
an
estimated
37%
of
the
79.2
million
nonsmoking
U.S.
workers
were
employed
in
places
that
permitted
smoking
in
designated
areas,
and
that
59%
of
these
workers
experienced
moderate
or
great
discomfort
from
ETS
exposure
in
the
workplace.
- Under
common
law
(laws
based
on
court
decisions
rather
than
government
laws
and
regulations),
employers
must
provide
a
work
environment
that
is
reasonably
free
of
recognized
hazards.
Courts
have
ruled
that
common-law
duty
requires
employers
to
provide
nonsmoking
employees
protection
from
the
proven
health
hazards
of
ETS
exposure.
- The
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
is
considering
regulations
that
would
either
prohibit
smoking
in
all
workplaces
or
limit
it
to
separately
ventilated
areas.
- The
federal
government
has
instituted
increasingly
stringent
regulations
on
smoking
in
its
own
facilities.
On
August
9,
1997,
President
Clinton
signed
an
Executive
Order
declaring
that
Executive
Branch
federal
worksites
be
smoke-free,
thereby
protecting
nonsmoking
federal
employees
and
thousands
of
citizens
who
visit
federal
facilities
from
the
dangers
of
ETS.
- The
Pro-Children’s
Act
of
1994
(Public
Law
103-227,
secs.
1041-1044)
prohibits
smoking
in
facilities
where
federally
funded
children’s
services
are
provided
on
a
regular
or
routine
basis.
- As
of
December
31,
1999,
at
least
some
degree
of
smoke-free
indoor
air
laws
were
present
in
45
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia.
These
laws
vary
widely,
from
limited
smoking
restrictions
on
public
transportation
to
comprehensive
restrictions
in
worksites
and
public
places.
- Twenty
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia
limit
smoking
in
private
worksites.
Of
these
states,
only
one
(California)
meets
the
nation’s
Healthy
People
2010
objective
to
eliminate
exposure
to
ETS
by
either
banning
indoor
smoking
or
limiting
it
to
separately
ventilated
areas.
- Forty-one
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia
have
laws
restricting
smoking
in
state
government
worksites,
but
only
13
of
these
states
meet
the
nation’s
Healthy
People
2010
objective.
- Thirty-one
states
have
laws
that
regulate
smoking
in
restaurants;
of
these,
only
Utah
and
Vermont
completely
prohibit
smoking
in
restaurants.
California
requires
either
a
no
smoking
area
or
separate
ventilation
for
smoking
areas.
ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS
- An
additional
benefit
of
clean
indoor
air
regulations
may
contribute
to
a
reduction
in
smoking
prevalence
among
workers
and
the
general
public.
Studies
have
found
that
moderate
or
extensive
laws
for
clean
indoor
air
are
associated
with
a
lower
smoking
prevalence
and
higher
quit
rates.
- The
majority
of
smokers
support
smoke-free
hospitals.
Smokers
and
nonsmokers
were
in
favor
of
smoke-free
workplace
six
months
after
a
smoke-free
policy
was
implemented.
- Employers
are
likely
to
save
money
by
implementing
policies
for
smoke-free
workplaces.
Savings
include
costs
associated
with
such
things
as
fire
risk,
damage
to
property
and
furnishings,
cleaning,
workers’
compensation,
disability,
retirement,
injuries,
and
life
insurance.
Cost
savings
were
estimated
at
$1,000
per
smoking
employee
based
on
1988
dollars.
- The
EPA
estimates
a
nationwide,
comprehensive
policy
on
clean
indoor
air
would
save
$4
billion
to
$8
billion
per
year
in
building
operations
and
maintenance
costs.
ESTABLISHING
PUBLIC
POLICY
- Involuntary
exposure
to
ETS
remains
a
common
public
health
hazard
that
is
entirely
preventable
by
adopting
appropriate
regulatory
policies.
- To
fight
the
establishment
of
such
policies,
the
tobacco
industry
tries
to
shift
the
focus
from
the
science-based
evidence
on
the
health
hazards
of
ETS
to
the
controversial
social
issue
of
personal
freedom.
The
industry
has
lobbied
extensively
against
legislation
to
restrict
smoking,
and
has
supported
the
passage
of
state
laws
that
preempt
stronger
local
ordinances.
(Preemptive
legislation
is
defined
as
legislation
that
prevents
a
local
jurisdiction
from
enacting
laws
more
stringent
than,
or
at
a
variance
with,
the
state
law.)
- A
case
study
conducted
in
six
states
found
that
the
existence
of
an
organized
smoking
prevention
coalition
among
local
citizens
was
a
key
determinant
in
successfully
enacting
clean
indoor
air
legislation.
- Smokefree
environments
are
the
most
effective
method
for
reducing
ETS
exposure.
Healthy
People
2010
objectives
address
this
issue
and
seek
optimal
protection
of
nonsmokers
through
policies,
regulations,
and
laws
requiring
smoke-free
environments
in
all
schools,
work
sites,
and
public
places.
|
|
