It's time for ban on Indoor Smoking

A cloud of smoke hung over the nurses' lounge. It was shift change, and nearly all the nurses had a lit cigarette between their fingers or on an ashtray.

In the lounge across the hall, patients with IV poles leashed to their arms puffed on their cigarettes.

That's how it was two decades ago at Boston City Hospital, where I was a medical student.
Today, much has changed. Nearly all hospital buildings are smoke-free, only 16 percent of the nation's nurses smoke and more than a dozen states have banned all indoor smoking.

I have often wondered what effect a ban on indoor smoking has on smokers, nonsmokers and local businesses.

Does a ban on smoking really reduce the number of smokers?

Without doubt. A 1960 Phillip Morris document tells us that restricting smoking in workplaces led to 11 to 15 percent less consumption and smokers quitting at a rate 84 percent higher than average.

Are the harmful effects of secondhand smoking (smoke passively inhaled by non-smokers after it is exhaled by smokers) just a myth?

Absolutely not. A report released by the U.S. Surgeon General two months ago revealed that annually secondhand smoking accounted for 3,000 deaths due to lung cancer, 46,000 deaths due to coronary artery disease and 430 newborn deaths due to sudden infant death syndrome.

Would a ban on smoking at all bars and restaurants in Tennessee hurt local business?

Unlikely. In Ireland, all the bars and pubs have been smoke-free -- with no harm reported to business -- in fact business has gone up.

Close to home, as of April with the Clean Indoor Air Act, Arkansas banned on smoking in indoor facilities, including most restaurants.

A friend had a segment of her lung removed because of lung cancer. She had never smoked -- but, like me and half of all Americans, she certainly had been in the vicinity of many co-workers and friends who smoked.

Interestingly, in 1590 Pope Urban VII banned smoking and tobacco use in the church and out in the porchways.

Back to Index