June 20, 2000

Topic: What are the health and economic consequences of smoke-free workplaces?

This guest opinion is by Clay Parton, manager of the Health Division's Tobacco Prevention and Education Program in the Oregon Department of Human Services. If you wish an electronic version, call (503) 945-5738 or e-mail Jim Sellers.

By Clay Parton

Game-show host Regis Philbin might pose the question this way: "How many U.S. cities have ordinances requiring smoke-free workplaces?"

Is it (A) 60 or (B) 125 or (C) 290 or (D) 850?

Here's a lifeline: At least nine Oregon jurisdictions have approved or are considering them, including Multnomah County and Baker City whose ordinances become effective July 1. Best known among the Oregon ordinances is that in Corvallis.

(For the answer, please read to the end.)

People in local communities know what's best, and 73 percent of those people believe workplaces should be smoke-free, according to annual surveys. This issue is really a community decision. But ask public-health officials, and they will tell you this:

Requiring smoke-free workplaces is the single most important thing a community can do to reduce tobacco use, and thus is among the top ways to improve overall community health.

There are several reasons. Here's one: Tobacco industry trial documents reveal the industry's knowledge that workers in smoke-free workplaces quit at an 84 percent greater rate than workers in other workplaces. These are smokers who want to quit anyway.

Not only that, but teenagers working in smoke-free environments are also a third less likely to smoke.

Quitting smoking reduces the risk of dying of tobacco-related illnesses while also sparing non-smoking co-workers the dangers of involuntarily suffering the consequences of second-hand smoke. We know, for example, that waitresses have a 50 percent greater likelihood of contracting lung cancer and that exposure to second hand smoke significantly increases the risk of stroke, heart disease and asthma.

These and other hazards are well documented by the federal National Cancer Institute.

Second-hand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals. Sidestream smoke (the smoke that comes from the tip of the cigarette) contains these chemicals in up to 800 percent greater concentrations than what smokers themselves inhale.

The news gets better.

Ordinances requiring smoke-free workplaces serve up a huge health benefit with no proven economic impact. One of the arguments against these ordinances has been that sales of beer and wine will decrease. Studies by Eugene-based Oregon Research Institute and a report from California's state revenue department show otherwise, however.

Another argument against such ordinances is that ventilation systems will filter out tobacco smoke. But the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, the association whose members install such systems, now says such systems are not designed to accommodate even a moderate amount of smoking.

How about the cost of enforcement? Corvallis police report spending only three hours on enforcing that city's ordinance over a 27-month period.

Also encouraging is that 56 percent of Oregon workers already work for employers who prohibit indoor smoking.

Across Oregon, communities that enact ordinances to protect the others have support of local tobacco-free coalitions. The coalition in Multnomah County worked with commissioners there to develop information for the smoke-free workplace ordinance.

As for the answer to the question posed above, the final answer is that the number of U.S. communities with ordinances requiring smoke-free workplaces is large and growing.

At last count, it was about 850 communities.

Clay Parton is manager of the Health Division's Tobacco Prevention and Education Program in the Oregon Department of Human Services.