Posted on 05/29/2002 7:09:39 AM PDT by SheLion
TUESDAY, May 28 (HealthScoutNews) -- Delaware waiters soon won't have to ask, "Smoking or non-smoking?"
In six months, the entire state will be non-smoking. The little state's big step will give it the nation's toughest ban on indoor smoking, one that would end smoking in all public areas -- including bars, restaurants and casinos.
The Delaware General Assembly passed the bill earlier this month, and Gov. Ruth Ann Minner is expected to sign it this week; the law will then take effect 180 days later.
Minner spokesman Gregory Patterson says the governor supported the bill as part of an overall attack on Delaware's high cancer rate, which runs about 10 percent higher than the national average.
Delaware health officials say tobacco use is a factor in more than one-third of all cancer cases in the state.
Several other states already have smoking bans, including California, Colorado, Maryland and Utah, but most still allow smoking in bars.
California's law has been toughest -- so far. It banned smoking in bars, but made an exception for casinos located on Indian reservations. The Delaware ban provides no such exception.
Delaware smokers, who make up 23 percent of the total adult population, say they won't take the ban lying down.
"If I can't enjoy a cup of coffee with a cigarette, I won't go out to eat," says Mary T. Gaworski.
Debbie Brown, director of programs and advocacy for the American Lung Association of Delaware, says her group has received a wave of phone calls from similar advocacy groups following the bill's passage.
"This is actually a major step for tobacco control throughout the country," Brown says. "Delaware is being viewed as a model for other states to now follow. This is the most protective bill in the country."
The bill passed with little to no resistance. The Delaware State Chamber of Commerce (news - web sites) took no position on it, and the Delaware Restaurant Association dropped its opposition the week before the bill passed.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, which means there's sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans, according to the American Cancer Society (news - web sites). The EPA has given the Group A designation to only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon and benzene.
Each year, secondhand smoke in the United States is responsible for an estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not smokers. It's also to blame for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults, and 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children younger than 18 months of age, the American Cancer Society says.
The 1986 Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking declared that secondhand smoke causes disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.
And when compared with the children of nonsmoking parents, children of parents who smoke have more frequent respiratory infections, more respiratory problems, and slower development of lung function as the lung matures.
The U.S. Surgeon General's report also found that separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure to nonsmokers of secondhand smoke.
Here we go with those FIGURES again!
SHOW ME THE DEATH CERTIFICATES PLEASE!
Where to begin?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen
And the federal judiciary system has already called them on this little "fact".
Each year, secondhand smoke in the United States is responsible for an estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not smokers. It's also to blame for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults, and 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children younger than 18 months of age, the American Cancer Society says.
Here we go with the figures but no supporting evidence, much less proof!
The 1986 Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking declared that secondhand smoke causes disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.
Again, where is the proof? And what about the lung cancer for people that are NOT smokers or exposed to ETS. Where does THAT come from? Enquiring minds want to know.
The U.S. Surgeon General's report also found that separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure to nonsmokers of secondhand smoke.
DUHH... Exposure does NOT mean harm.
I remember standing outside Atlanta's airport one day between flights having a smoke and sharing an ashtray with another pax - who'd tried to light up in one of the airport's many BARS. Informed that the bars were non-smoking, the guy came outside - sans drink - to light up. He said he told the barkeep,
"If I can't smoke, WHY WOULD I WANT TO DRINK??"
Michael
What she really means is:
If I can't won't enjoy a cup of coffee with a cigarette, I won't can't go out to eat,"
That's the typical way selfish, inconsiderate smokers show their strong support for unwitting property owners and their "rights".
Hypocrites.
So, the world, according to you, should be "according to Eric in the Ozarks!"
Would you accept completely seperate smoking and nonsmoking restaurants? You don't have to smoke at the time to go in the smoking allowed but you do have to NOT smoke at the time to go into the nonsmoking.
If not, we probably wouldn't mind NOT sharing a restaurant with you at all.
Right on, wattsmag2! There you go! I like the way you think!
And a federal court overturned it in 1998, because the EPA violated their own rules and regulations as well as violating the Radon ACT.
Not necessarily so. If you have something that you enjoy doing, say reading the paper, while you drink your cup of coffee. If a certain establishment says that you can't read your paper while drinking your cup of coffee because it will give everyone else the dreaded paper envy disease, would you want to spend money in that establishment?
And speaking of unwitting property owners and their "rights", are you sure that you believe that property owners HAVE any rights?
I wouldn't say "evil" but maybe inconsiderate.
If I was the tribe leader I would tell Del. to go suck it.
And one thing I do not understand, since Reservations are NOT subject to US law, why do they need permission to open casinos on their land?
And the World Health Organization, doing the largest study ever, 10 years later - says the total opposite.
People do not acknowledge the fact that these are epidemiologic studies - they show possible correlation - they do not show cause. additionally they must be statistically significant risk ratios for those correlations.
They DON'T exist.
I don't know where you are from, but in this particular case - you're wrong.
Restaurant owners were not unwitting in this situation - they just didn't think it would happen and sat around and did nothing.
And it goes beyond restaurants and bars.
I do consultant work from my home - no one ever comes here, but I do have a home business. If I renew my business license next January - I will be unable to smoke in my home.
This is definitely a private property rights issue.
A friend of mine who owns a shop downtown has seperate offices upstairs - where the public is not invited. Under the letter of this law, and according to one of the local papers, the intent of this law - he will no longer be able to smoke in his own office upstairs from his store - and he owns the building.
anyone who doesn't think this is a private property issue - has no concept of how far reaching this ban is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.