On February 10, 2009, the HB 1703 Indoor Clean Air Act was passed in the state of Virginia. The original intent of this bill was to ban smoking in all restaurants. However, when the bill went through legislation it was amended with several exceptions. The watered-down version passed, states that "smoking is permitted in restaurants with ventilation systems to reduce the smoke and also in restaurants that have a partition seperating smoking and nonsmoking areas." One of the intentions of the bill was to protect minors from smoking or being exposed to tobbaco smoke.
Tim Kaine and the democratic party were the sponsors of the total smoking ban bill. However, the republican party and tobacco lobbyists wouldn't except the total ban and watered down the original intent of the ban making it a partial smoking ban.
The partial ban is not going to have the overall effects that the total ban will have. The potential problems result in people still being exposed to second hand and third hand smoking (residual on clothing). For example, if a family goes to a restaurant and the parents chose to sit in the smoking section, the minors are still exposed to the smoke. With people still being exposed, the cost of healthcare will not decrease and cancer and lung disease could potentially remain the same or not make a dramatic difference as a total ban would.
In conclusion, the actual problem to this bill is that the partial ban will not have a dramatic effect as the preventative effects of the total bill. In addition, the circulation systems are expensive and have shown to not make a difference. The only way to not be exposed is to not be in the smoke environment all together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the health benefits due to a total ban on smoking are logical, there are a few things you should consider. In a later post you cited the main complaint of the tobacco company to be the "loss of jobs" that a smoking ban would create. On a non-healthcare argument I would say that a smoking ban would also curb the patronage of restaurants and bars, though to say if this would outweigh a possible influx of non-smoking customers is debatable.
ReplyDeleteI believe the real point of the original text of the bill was certainly for the health of the patrons, but especially for the health of the workers. Just as you have the right to be unexposed to smoke in an office or hospital, for example, a worker in a restaurant or bar should have those same rights (if they choose to work smoke-free, of course).
Don't you think that this partial ban on smoking could have some health benefits? While I agree that it is not better than a total ban in terms of circulating smoke, it is a step up from doing nothing about it. The less smoke people inhale, the less carcinogens they are exposed to, and a lower risk for lung disease. I see this more as a compromise than simply some evil republicans and tobacco companies out to get us. Legislators need to consider all the many sides of the issue, and a big side of this issue is the economic impact. It isn't a one-sided healthcare argument.
While I'm talking about healthcare, how do you think this would affect us nurses? Do you think there would be an appreciable difference now with a partial ban? I can probably assume by the tone of your post that you don't think there will be enough of a difference. But who says circulation systems don't make a difference? Without the same air being recirculated back onto people I would think they are at least somewhat effective. Where did you get this information from?
Chandler- In response to the last part of your post: There would not be an immediate impact on nursing. The process of secondhand smoke creating health issues does take a number of years. Therefore there may be a downturn in the coming years of people with lung cancer and other smoke related lung diseases. We are hoping to see the trend with a partial ban, but is less probable than with a complete ban. As healthcare professionals we advocate for the best possible outcome. Meaning we would like for the rules to be safe rather than sorry. Separate circulation systems would still leave a margin for error.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a partial smoking ban in public places would not have much more of an effect on the overall expendatures of the public overall, as evidenced by there not being a significant decrease in the amount of smoke exposed second-hand to the public, thus essentially the same amount of health care costs are being subjected to the public. While it may save the tobacco industry some money, it is still subjecting the public to second-hand (or even third as you stated) smoke. Everyone who has been around smoke for even a minute can feel, smell, and even taste (if in a restaurant) the smoke, no matter how "filtered" the area is. Even passing by, or while sitting outside where open air filters the smoke, it is highly noticeable and lingers around, affecting everyone around the area. If sitting outside cannot fully protect a person from being subjected to smoke, how would a partially more ventilated area decrease the effects of second hand smoke on those in the restaurant or area that want to avoid the smoke? Unless there is no smoking allowed in these public areas, those who choose the non-smoking areas are still subjected to it and there might as well not even be a section entitled "non-smoking".
ReplyDeleteKalena- I agree, this partial ban really does not protect people inside of the restaurant even with a separate ventillatory system. We believe that the only way to full protect people in restaurants from second hand exposure from tabacco smoke is to not allow it at all and thus no need for a non-smoking or smoking section at all.
ReplyDelete