|
Position Statement from The Health Foundation
The Health Foundation Supports Statewide Ban on Smoking in the Workplace April 24, 2003-- From the desk of: Janice B. Yost, Ed.D., President & CEO The Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts (THFCM) is a philanthropy whose mission is to use our resources to improve the health of those who live or work in the Central Massachusetts region, with particular emphasis on vulnerable populations and unmet needs. Thus, THFCM is concerned about the effects of secondhand smoke in the workplace. We are joining with some 30 other organizations who comprise the Massachusetts Coalition for a Healthy Future in supporting legislation under consideration by the Massachusetts Legislature to ban smoking in the workplace throughout our state (Senate Bill 521 and House Bill 2599).
Secondhand smoke has been classified as a Class-A carcinogen – just like asbestos. This means there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke contains over 50 compounds that are known to cause cancer. It is estimated that 53,000 nonsmokers die each year in this country from exposure to secondhand smoke, more than die in automobile accidents.1 More than 1,000 deaths in Massachusetts are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure each year.
Exposure to secondhand smoke causes many of the same serious illnesses as active smoking does, those being: cancer, emphysema, heart attack and stroke. Waitressing is the most hazardous occupation for women. Compared to other female workers, waitresses are almost four times as likely to die from lung cancer and two-and-a-half times as likely to die from heart disease. 2
In addition, recent research indicates that children who were exposed to large amounts of secondhand smoke were more than twice as likely to show signs of tooth decay than were children with little exposure to secondhand smoke. Exposure to secondhand smoke also increases the risk of gum disease in adults. 3
Smoke-free workplaces protect workers’ health, and provide businesses with cost advantages, resulting from: lower maintenance expenses (from cleaning carpets and drapes, re-painting); lower insurance premiums (fire, medical, workers comp, liability); lower labor costs (reduced absenteeism and increased productivity). 4 Moreover, a review of well-designed studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Only studies funded by the tobacco industry concluded a negative economic impact on bar and restaurant sales. 5
Currently, more than 70 cities or towns in the Commonwealth have adopted smoke-free workplace ordinances. In other words, about one third of the people in this state currently live in a city or town that prohibits smoking in the workplace. The fear that bars & restaurants would loose business from smoking customers if they went smoke-free has not been the case. Importantly, the Massachusetts Restaurant Association no longer opposes a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
Smoke-free working environments provide smoking employees with an added incentive to smoke less or to quit smoking. It is estimated that 3 out of 4 smokers want to quit. Smokers employed in locations with smoke-free ordinances are 38% more likely to quit over a 6-month period than those working in businesses without a smoking ban. 6 Studies have also found that clean indoor air regulations have their strongest impact on teenagers’ smoking behaviors. 7
It is for all these reasons that we strongly encourage Massachusetts to follow the lead of California, Delaware and New York by implementing smoke-free worksites statewide.
Sources 1. Journal of the American Medical Association, January, 1998. |
