The July 3rd and 12th editorials criticizing Eugene’s smoking ban are misleading and fail to address the law’s real purpose. The new smoke-free workplace law was not designed to make smokers quit. Nor will it prevent people from smoking outside.
The true purpose of the smoke-free workplace law is to protect workers (and members of the general public while they are inside others’ workplaces) from the harm caused by secondhand smoke. Bar and restaurant employees in Eugene will enjoy the same protection as office personnel, retail clerks and many other workers who were already protected before July 1st by either government or individual employer policies.
When it comes to workplace hazards, there is no difference between secondhand smoke and toxins such as asbestos, except that secondhand smoke sickens and kills many more people. The Environmental Protection Agency categorizes secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen, placing it in the most dangerous category reserved for substances including radon, benzene and asbestos. The only practical way to deal with a workplace hazard like secondhand smoke is to remove it.
Tobacco continues to be the No. 1 preventable killer in Oregon and the United States. For every eight smokers who die from a smoking-related illness, one nonsmoker perishes with them. The new law will prevent some of those needless deaths.
In addition to increased protection from secondhand smoke, requiring smokers to take it outside will decrease the social acceptability of smoking. Seven out of 10 smokers say they want to quit, and some will use the change as an opportunity to cut down or quit altogether. Eugene’s smoke-free workplace law will save lives.
The Eugene City Council spent a great deal of time and energy examining the issue of secondhand smoke in the workplace. The council heard from hundreds of supporters and opponents, citizens, employers and business groups by phone, e-mail and letter and in marathon-long public hearings. After enduring this arduous process, seven out of eight city councilors voted to protect workers from the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Though the Emerald’s editor may seek out smoke-filled watering holes for himself, most prefer to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke while eating and/or drinking. According to the University Health Center’s annual survey of University students, a mere 15 percent say they are regular smokers. Anyone who frequents Eugene’s bar scene would be forgiven for thinking those numbers were much higher. Think of all the missing nonsmokers who want to breathe clean air while socializing, listening to live music and enjoying Eugene’s night life.
Contrary to the editorial opinion that prohibition politics do not work, the Californian experience shows just how effective a comprehensive prohibition on smoking in the workplace can be. After three years of smoke-free workplaces, including bars, not only are most Californian workers protected from secondhand smoke, but smoking rates and lung-cancer deaths are declining faster than anywhere else in the country, increasing numbers of Californians do not allow smoking in their homes and a majority of Californian smokers say they prefer to dine out in smoke-free restaurants.
Many businesses waited until the last minute to obtain a building permit application for a smoking area to receive a short-term reprieve from the ban. The last-minute influx caused confusion among employees and customers alike. Of those 31 businesses with the exemption, some have no place to build outdoors and others already have ample outdoor seating. Undoubtedly, a handful of obstinate business owners have exploited the temporary exemption that was intended to give small businesses the necessary time to fund and build outside seating.
Fortunately, the city of Eugene is following up to ensure businesses are constructing outdoor seating in accordance with the law, and it seems likely that many of those currently exempted will be given less than six more months to become smoke-free.
Finally, what message does the Emerald send when it aligns itself with the personal rights mantra of the tobacco industry? Smoke-free workplace laws that lead to lower consumption of cigarettes threaten big tobacco. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, the industry continues to lie about the dangers of secondhand smoke in order to protect its profits. The Emerald has a responsibility to the University community. A pro-tobacco slant only serves to line the pockets of greedy corporations and jeopardize the health of students.