COM 0942.107 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Protection from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. Policy recommendations. p SECTION I - INTRODUCTION health improvements in workers previously a exposed to SHS. Background and rationale The last several years have seen a wealth of At the same time, smoke-free environments new evidence on the health effects of expo- have been found to be very effective as a sure to second-hand tobacco smoke (SHSI, the tobacco control policy by making it easier for benefits of smoke-free environments and best smokers to cut down or quit and by reducing practice in implementing smoke-free policies. smoking initiation. Furthermore, smoke-free Compiling and disseminating this evidence is laws enjoy popular support and high levels of critical to raising awareness among decision- compliance when properly implemented; they makers and public health advocates about the forcefully deliver the message that smoking necessity for smoke-free environments to pro- is not socially acceptable. ' tect health and their broad acceptance and endorsement. It is for this reason that the Recent progress has highlighted the feasibility World Health Organization (WHO) is now pub- of achieving smoke-free environments and - lishing policy recommendations on protection heightened worldwide interest in promoting from SHS exposure. them. Developed and developing countries like Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland and Uruguay, A clear scientific consensus on SHS exposure's as well as territoriesd such as Bermuda, have dangerous health effects has developed, based built on the implementation of smoke-free laws on accumulated evidence and copious new atthe localand subnational levelthat began in data, which show that SHS causes serious and North America in the late 1970s. With almost fatal diseases in adults and children. Several universal success, they have since enacted and current reports, including the 2004 monograph implemented laws to protect workers and the from the International Agency for Research on public from SHS in almost all indoor work- Cancer (IARC), the 2005 report from the places and public places (including bars and California Environmental Protection Agency casinos), achieving strong popular support. (Cal/EPA) in the United States of America and Other countries are interested in learning from the 2006 report of the United States Surgeon their experiences. General, have synthesized this evidence and reached unambiguous and solid conclusions on Since the 1970s, tobacco companies have con- SHS exposure's adverse consequences. These sidered smoke-free laws to be the "most dan- conclusions provide a strong imperative for gerous development to the viability of the tobac- eliminating indoor SHS exposure. co industry that has yet occurred."' The tobacco industry - usuallyworking through front groups In light of the accumulated evidence, local, operating with its support- vigorously opposes subnationala and national governments world- the passage and implementation of smoke-free wide are increasingly imptementing smoke- laws, whether at local, subnational or national free policies in workplaces and public places level. Tobacco companies continue to misrep- to protect people from the dangers of SHS. resent the evidence on the health effects of Jurisdictions that have implemented smoke- SHS exposure and even claim that WHO has free workplaces and public places have concluded that SHS is not dangerous. In fact, observed an immediate drop in levels of SHS, WHO has consistently concluded the opposite: a decline in levels of SHS components in the SHS kills. population aswell as significant and immediate a Subnational Level refers to all jurisdictions other than the Local, municipal Loveland the national or federal level of a country. It may include states, provinces, cantons, departments or similar jurisdictions.