Statement of Basis and Purpose Introduction Smoking is a leading cause of preventable premature death in New York City, increasing the risks of lung cancer, heart disease, and many other health hazards. The amendments restricted tobacco smoking in various indoor and outdoor public places. Regardless of whether the shisha contains tobacco, hookah smoking poses significant health risks to smokers and nonsmokers, including employees, at establishments that serve hookah. Hookah smoking produces emissions from burning both charcoal and shisha.
Prior to this date, few comprehensive smoke-free policies were in place, anywhere in the world. This progress towards eliminating smoking inside public places represents a tremendous public health accomplishment, and has lead to reductions in heart disease and lung cancer rates.
The results of these studies, often used by tobacco control advocates, have played a critical role in addressing other arguments raised by opponents during policy debates and will certainly shape the implementation of tobacco free policies in the future.
To help set the framework for discussing smoke-free policies, there are two general types of policies: In addition, smoke-free policies can be categorised as those that impact public areas and those that impact private areas.
Prior to many legislated smoke-free workplace policies, it is typical that a large fraction of workplaces have already adopted some type of voluntary norm limiting where smoking is allowed on site.
The legislated policy serves to streamline the rules for consistency, fairness and maximum protection closing gaps in SHS protection that result from voluntary norm adoption. Policies that impact private areas, such as homes and automobiles, have almost universally been voluntarily adopted to date.
The policy arguments are somewhat different depending on which type of policy is being considered. In this paper we aim to briefly summarise sentinel events that are part of the evolution of smoke-free policies, current efforts, and key areas of research and challenges that we foresee may greet us in the future.
Our account of the history of smoke-free policies is selective, and concentrates specifically on events in the USA. Although backlash against SHS in public places also began during this period, smoking bans were rare.
However, beginning in the s, scientific research was pointing to real dangers as the direct results of SHS exposure. The primary argument for smoke-free legislation has been that workers should not be required to inhale a toxic substance as a condition of employment.
Without the scientific evidence, the rate of smoke-free policy adoption would surely have been slower. Smoke-free aeroplanes also became a topic of considerable debate.
Although many players were involved, including the US NAS, Group Against Smoking and Pollution and the Association for Non-Smokers Rights, 14 from a workplace perspective, flight attendants were instrumental in spearheading the push for smoke-free policies.
A report by the NAS pointed out that flight attendants were the group most significantly affected by smoke on aeroplanes, with their annual exposures estimated to be equivalent to that of living with a pack-a-day smoker.
This is now the largest foundation that supports research on the detection, treatment and prevention of the diseases caused by SHS, and the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute has played a critical role in establishing the science base for smoke-free policies.
Since Februarywhen the Treaty entered into force, another 24 countries and all Canadian provinces have implemented comprehensive bans table 2.
The growing body of evidence on the benefits of smoke-free environments mainly comes from developed countries, but the smoke-free movement has spread further afield.
For example, Uruguay became the first Latin American country to pass a nationwide smoke-free policy inwhich is in part attributable to the evidence from evaluations of smoke-free laws elsewhere and a strong political backing by the President of the Republic. Byseven countries in Latin America had adopted nationwide comprehensive smoke-free policies the most recent, Argentina, occurring in June, Uruguay and Guatemala, for example, used airborne nicotine levels to show policymakers the levels of exposure that can occur when smoking is allowed and the reasons why smoke-free policies should be as comprehensive as possible.
China carries a heavy burden of tobacco-related diseases and also has political constraints due to government ownership of tobacco companies. Issues raised in smoke-free policy debates Typically the arguments against implementing smoke-free policies have followed a familiar pattern.
Epidemiologists, economists and researchers in other fields have carried out studies that demonstrate each of these claims were falsely made.
An argument proposed to allow smoking areas under ongoing smoke-free policy debates, is that smoking employers could take care of these areas without further compromising their health eg, waiters who smoke could clean up the smoking section in a restaurant.
Two studies showed that secondhand smoke increases the risk of respiratory symptoms in adolescent and adult smokers. In response, they employed a variety of techniques to weaken and delay smoke-free policy implementation.
Using false claims of an economic downturn following smoking ban implementation, they also organised the hospitality sector.
These strategies, implemented at different levels worldwide, were somewhat effective in delaying or obstructing the implementation of smoke-free policies. From a research perspective, the industry has hired scientists to conduct research that would yield data to contest the evidence of the harmful effects of SHS.
This research was often overseen by tobacco industry lawyers. This programme was organised in by Philip Morris and included consultants from Asia, Europe and the Americas. The present There has been a normative shift with regard to smoking in public places in the span of the first two decades of this journal.
Just 20 years ago, very few comprehensive smoke-free policies existed. However, today, it is rare to experience active smoking in public, indoor spaces in dozens of countries around the globe table 1.rotecting nonsmokers from the effects of secondhand smoke (SHS) is a central goal of state and national tobacco control York Youth Tobacco Surveys (YTS), CIAA and New York City’s Smoke Free Air Act (NYC SFAA) compliance and waiver data collected by the The Health and Economic Impact of New York's Clean Indoor Air Act.
The New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, a k a CLASH, filed papers Tuesday in Manhattan Supreme Court challenging the expansion of the city’s Smoke-Free Air Act (SFAA) in. Smoking and Tobacco Control Laws. Recent Laws Residential Building Policy Disclosure The Health Department supports laws that protect the health of residents from the harmful effects of smoking and secondhand smoke.
Our goals are to: The Smoke Free Air Act states the requirements of the sign. “No Smoking, Electronic Cigarette . New Jersey Smokefree Air Act (NJ SFAA) The NJ SFAA prohibits smoking in essentially all workplaces and places open to the public, effective April 15, In , the NJ Department of Health and Senior Services (NJ DHSS) promulgated regulations to help implement the NJ SFAA.
The New Jersey Department of Health’s Smoke-Free Air Act. To counter this threat, in the City enacted the Smoke-Free Air Act (SFAA), which was amended in to restrict tobacco smoking in various indoor and outdoor public places. Despite the substantial progress in reducing both environmental smoke exposure and smoking, hookah smoking has been increasing, especially among the City’s youth.
Smoke or Not to Smoke The Smoke Free Air Act (SFAA) was passed in Iowa recently and people have been scuffling back and forth about the law since the day it was passed. Some believe the law is good that it is smoke free in restaurants because the law insures the health of the employees and.