| |
WHY SHOULD TOBACCO SMOKE BE MOVED 20
FEET FROM DOORWAYS OR ENTRYWAYS?
As businesses and communities around California develop restrictions
on exposure to outdoor Second Hand Smoke (SHS), it is important
to know there is scientific justification for policies banning smoking
in outdoor areas. James Repace, wellknown researcher and scientific
consultant on all types of environmental tobacco smoke, asserts,
“Not doing so may expose non-smokers to levels of environmental
tobacco smoke as high or higher than received in indoor spaces where
smoking is unrestricted." ("Banning Outdoor Smoking
is Scientifically Justifiable." Tobacco Control Digest,
March 2000).
To answer the question of "how many feet should smoking be
moved from a doorway", Mr. Repace and other environmental tobacco
smoke experts at the University of California at Berkeley and the
University of California at San Francisco came to a consensus that
20 feet from a doorway would be adequate to provide protection from
the carcinogenic particulate in second hand smoke. Several cities
and counties in California have established entryway restrictions
ranging from 20 to 50 feet.
SECOND HAND SMOKE: A PROVEN KILLER
- The Environmental Protection Agency categorizes SHS as a known
human carcinogen, placing it in the most dangerous category, reserved
for substances including radon, benzene, and asbestos.
- Secondhand Smoke (SHS) causes as many as 53,000 deaths each
year in the United States,1
approximately 4,700 of which occur in California.2
- The cost to California taxpayers from illnesses caused by tobacco
use is $6,000,000,000.00 (6 billion) annually.
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS AN OUTDOOR HAZARD
- Many nonsmokers exposed to outdoor tobacco smoke suffer immediate
symptoms including breathing difficulties, eye irritation, headache,
nausea, and asthma attacks.
- Individual cigarettes are sources of air pollution. Smoking
in groups tends to saturate a local area with tobacco smoke and
exposes those who come into contact with it with high levels of
airborne carcinogens.3
- Failure to ban smoking in outdoor venues may expose nonsmokers
to levels of secondhand smoke as high or higher than received
in indoor spaces where smoking is unrestricted.4
SMOKE-FREE POLICIES REDUCE SMOKING
In addition to protecting public health, other positive results
of smoke-free policies include encouraging smokers to become nonsmokers;
reducing the number of cigarettes smoked by employees who continue
to smoke; and helping former smokers remain smoke-free.5
RIGHTS AND CHOICES
- U.S. and California Courts have repeatedly declared that there
is no legal "right to smoke" -- smoking is
not a protected activity under the U.S. Constitution.
- Business owners and landlords in private industry,
as well as governmental agencies, have a legal right to establish
reasonable safety policies for their property, including no-smoking
policies. To abide by such a policy, a person who is
smoking may refrain from smoking, step to an unpopulated area
to smoke or choose to become a nonsmoker. On the other hand, a
nonsmoker, a smoker who is trying to quit smoking, or parents
with children cannot avoid smoke-filled air at entrances of public
and private buildings where they do business.
A SELECTION OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES
WITH SUCCESSFUL SMOKE-FREE ENTRYWAY POLICIES
- San Mateo County
- Kaiser Permanente Medical Centers
- Marin County
- University of CA, Davis, Medical Center
- Madera County
- City of Davis
- All California public school district officesand school campuses
are tobacco-free
MODEL ENTRYWAY POLICY
"Smoking shall be prohibited within twenty (20) feet of all
entrance(s), exit(s), open windows, ventilation intake systems and
covered entryways of any building owned or leased by [City, County,
Name]. All [City, County, Name] buildings will post "No Smoking
Within 20 Feet" signs outside of all entrance(s), exit(s),
and ventilation intake systems.”
MODEL ENFORCEMENT
The experiences of communities, businesses and agencies throughout
California who have enacted outdoor smoking restrictions have shown
that compliance is gained from the presence of clear signage. In
other words, these policies are, by and large, selfenforcing where
clear signage is visible.
1 Glantz,
Stanton A. and William Pamley. U.C. San Francisco (1991).
2 California Environmental Protection Agency. Health
Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Washington
(1997).
3 Repace, James. "Banning Outdoor Smoking is
Scientifically Justifiable." Tobacco Control (March 2000).
4 Repace, James. "Banning Outdoor Smoking is
Scientifically Justifiable." Tobacco Control (March 2000).
5 Moskowitz, Joel M.; Zihua Lin and Ester S. Hudes. "The
Impact of Workplace Smoking Ordinances in California on Smoking
Cessation." American Journal of Public Health 90 (2000):
757-761.
For More Information Contact RESPECT (1-800-622-2829)
E-Mail: respect@jps.net
This material was made possible by funds received
from the Tobacco Tax Health Protection Act of 1988 -- Proposition
99, under Grant Number 04-35307 with the California Department
of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section. rev. 04/02
|
