By GUEST COMMENTARY BY ROBERT BERGER
The opinion expressed by the Santa Monica Daily Press “Smokescreen is insulting” (SMDP, July 28, page 4) takes an extremely narrow view on a 5-1 decision reached by City Council last Tuesday evening on expanding the city’s current smoking ban. The council has indeed “done it again” as the SMDP asserts, but what they have done is to take a bold new step to further protect residents, workers and visitors from what we now know to be an even more alarming source of illness, death and family heartache than previously believed.
Conspicuously absent in the SMDP piece is any mention or repudiation of the landmark U.S. Surgeon General and California Air Resources Board (CARB) reports that prompted and support those actions. The June 2006 Surgeon General’s report concluded, “there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Breathing even a little secondhand smoke can be harmful to your health.” The report goes on to estimate that more than 50,000 Americans are killed each year from secondhand smoke.
The CARB was unanimous in declaring secondhand smoke a “toxic air contaminant” that is directly linked to lung disease, stroke, heart disease, sudden infant death syndrome, low infant birth weight and breast cancer among young women. The CARB monitored outdoor nicotine concentrations and found some of the results comparable to those found in smoker’s homes. A Stanford study by Dr. Neil Klepeis, who spoke at Tuesday’s meeting, concluded “short-term outdoor levels of exposure can exceed secondhand smoke levels measured inside cars and houses.”
So smokers are not only (sadly) killing themselves, their habit is potentially killing those that are subjected to their unfiltered secondhand smoke. Perhaps this is why over a dozen California cities, the states of Washington and tourist-dependant Hawaii, Sydney and Singapore have already banned smoking on dining patios and other outdoor areas. The vast majority of Californians — 86 percent — don’t smoke, and they have the right to breathe air that is free of this poison.
There is wide support for smoke-free environments and the fears of potential lost revenue among business are unfounded. A 2005 California Department of Health Services survey showed that 93 percent prefer to eat at smoke-free restaurants. A 2004 Santa Monica survey showed support for smoke-free outdoor dining to be at 85 percent. Even Zagat’s national restaurant survey reported that 89 percent of Americans thought smoking should be totally banned in restaurants. The fear that business owners may lose business due to these types of bans is unfounded based on numerous economic studies that have been conducted after other tobacco policies were implemented in the past.
Given the enormous amount of data we now have on the adverse health impacts of secondhand smoke,it’s ironic that the SMDP used the term “dead-on” in siding with Council-member O’Connor’s lone dissenting vote — she voted against smoke-free beaches and parks as well. It will take time, patience and coopera-tion to effectively communicate and implement the new measures, but at the end of the day we will have a Santa Monica that is health-ier and more prosperous than ever. (Robert Berger is president of Healthier Solutions, Inc., a Santa Monica-based advocacy group dedicated to promoting the rights of non-smokers.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 1, 2006. Read the original PDF.