Letter: Smoke-free is the way for La. to go

It is my belief that all Louisianans deserve the right to be protected from secondhand smoke exposure. Sadly, service industry employees and entertainers who work in bars breathe more secondhand smoke than any other type of employee, and have many of the same illnesses as smokers.

The city of Alexandria recently celebrated the one-year anniversary of its smoke-free ordinance. Elected officials and community leaders from around the state, as well as area musicians, came to share in the luncheon celebration and make a show of support for this smoke-free ordinance. The ordinance requires all enclosed places of employment to be smoke-free by removing the exemption in state law for stand-alone bars, gaming facilities, tobacco shops and certain rooms in nursing homes. It also requires smokers to be 25 feet from the entrance to any building when smoking.

With the help of the Louisiana State Health Science Department, the air quality in Baton Rouge bars and casino were tested and measured two years ago. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, approximately 87 percent were considered “unhealthy” and 41 percent of the bars had air quality considered “hazardous.”

There should be laws and/or policies in place that would protect all workers from secondhand smoke exposure. Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 69 that cause cancer, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Surgeon General’s 2010 report titled “How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease.” Additionally, studies have shown that going smoke-free has no negative impact on the bottom-line dollar for bar owners.

The overall goal of any lawmaker or local politician should be healthier air for all! It’s time to move forward in making Baton Rouge, the next greatest city in America, and take a step toward being smoke-free.

Quanda Charles, capitol area manager

The Louisiana Campaign for Tobacco-Free Living

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 04/03/2013

@Bouncer: "Nothing good comes from smoking. Nothing. It's difficult to understand why people can't see that." -[**]- Actually it is easy to understand. It is simple human nature. While I gave it up after the first puff. I was once a near neighbor to doctor who was married to a nurse. Both smoked. Smoking was related to what led to both their deaths. It also lead to the early death of one of my parents. There is no known way to remove illogical actions from human behavior. -[**]- I don't have a problem with the idea that long term exposure to the clouded atmosphere in smoke filled rooms can cause health problems. After the ban on smoking inside state office buildings went into effect, the number of times I came down with a sore throat after having to sit for a day or two in a closed meeting room to discuss some matter of policy and procedure was reduced to nearly zero. I do have a problem though with the idea that walking past people smoking outside now and then as you leave a building can be demonstrated to cause cancer(If you can't hold your breath long enough to get past the immediate vicinity of the outside smokers, you have other health issues. Then there have been the reports I have read where someone complained about the smell in their own home caused by the smoking of the neighbors who smoked in their home 100 feet away. The exact definition of a reasonable goal post has a tendency to move over time. . . incrementalism.). How is it possible to separate second hand smoke caused cancer from those cancers caused by radon gas in your home and other buildings, breathing gasoline fumes while you fill up your vehicles, and numerous other occasional known and unknown sources of exposure to cancer causing agents to which we are daily exposed? It isn't possible! These numbers are ginned up based on assumptions which cannot be empirically demonstrated to a reliable sigma level and run through some statistical process to make them appear conclusive and scientific. -[**]- It is clear that a total ban on smoking is the eventual goal of LCFTFL as evidenced by the first sentence in Mr/Ms Charles' letter. It is in every ad put out by the organization. We saw how well Prohibition worked. But as the saying goes, "the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history". A total ban on smoking is a bad idea, will not work, and will cause other problems just as serious. It would provide lucrative employment opportunities of the non-legal kind though.

2) Comment by palefire - 03/03/2013

That study, from what I could find, only looks at four types of cancer. Two, being breast and prostate cancer. Just saying. Also, I didn't say anything about shutting down the plants. But I'd rather have clean drinking water (which they are destroying) and clean air then a good economy any day. There is no reason why we can't have both.

3) Comment by Aloysius - 03/03/2013

The Tumor Registry run by Tulane University and Mary Byrd Perkins Cancer Center reported the incidents of cancer in "cancer alley" to be marginally BELOW the national rate, but not enough to be statistically significant. Deaths from cancer were marginally higher, but that was attributed to the poverty level in which poor people did not go to doctors until the cancers were advanced and thus more deadly (early detection is still the best defense against cancer). Also, the rate of cigarette smoking was considerably higher in that area than the rest of the nation, and the consumption of alcohol, red meat and smoked meats was higher than the national average, all known carcinogenic substances. I'm not saying air pollution isn't bad, because it is. But to besmirch Louisiana with a pejorative label that is not accurate does a disservice to our state, our people, and the those who seek to find the true cause of cancer. And if cancer was occurring at an increased rate, wouldn't it be a shame to shut down the plants, destroy the economy, and then find it was caused by another source?

4) Comment by palefire - 03/03/2013

Aloysius, tell that to three boys in Gonzales that had rhabdomyosarcoma a rare cancer that effects 1 in every 250,000 children. Or the similar clusters of rare cancers throughout Cancer Alley. Plus, the only study I know of that backs your claims was the one paid for by Shell. However, the data from numerous other studies show results contrary to the Shell study. Such as, Uneasy Alchemy by Allen, or Cancer Alley, Louisiana : a 100-mile stretch is home to numerous industrial sites-and many sick people, by Barbara Koeppel, or perhaps the study done by Brown University.

5) Comment by Whatnow - 03/03/2013

Aloysius, I don't know who the media talked to, but they just chose to ignore those facts to get their jobs back. That union guy wasn't speaking for all of us. I was involved in that lockout and saw the data that knocked my socks off. Chemical workers sold their health to have good jobs and feed their families. Ask the people of Geismar about that "myth". And it wasn't a strike. The union was put out of the plant before the contract was up and it took five years to realize that their propaganda and actions were only hurting their image. It wasn't a lie. The carcinogens floating around those plants would have made you choke. It was all about busting the union. I had friends commit suicide and die of cancer with no insurance during that lockout, I saw people lose their families, homes and everything they had because they were too old for being hired elsewhere and they were blackballed. They had no choice but to wait it out. They didn't have a choice. How many people risk their lives for their jobs and families? I could write a novel about that "lockout."

6) Comment by Whatnow - 03/03/2013

Says you, Quanda Charles. Trying to tell people what to do in a free society will only cause defiance and people will find a way to smoke unless they really want to quit. You non-smokers have choices...use them.

7) Comment by Whatnow - 03/03/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

8) Comment by Aloysius - 03/03/2013

PALEFIRE, the "cancer alley" thing was a myth, a PR attack the unions made while on strike against BASF Wyandotte. After the strike ended, the media asked the union employees why they would go back to work in such a toxic, dangerous, lethal environment at BASF. The union guy laughed on camera, saying, "Oh, that was just strike talk." Scientific investigations have showed that the incidence of cancer in "cancer alley" is right at the national average. Still, the lie was big and bold enough and received enough publicity nationwide that the "cancer alley" myth lives on. And you, right here, have helped to perpetuate it.

9) Comment by swinham - 03/03/2013

Excellent letter. On a semi-humorous note: Governor Jindal is not likely to get behind this because if he actually has a tax reform plan, and if it includes an increase in tobacco taxes, and if a universal ban on smoking in the workplace passed, people might smoke less so revenue from the tax increase would not meet expectations, not to mention the fact many bar and casino owners contend banning smoking would hurt their business despite studies to the contrary, but since when did we let facts get in the way of anything?

10) Comment by Bouncer - 03/03/2013

Nothing good comes from smoking. Nothing. It's difficult to understand why people can't see that.

11) Comment by CAJUNSC - 02/03/2013

If they ban smoking in bars, then a lot of them will close. If you don't like a smoking bar or casino, then don't go there. There are plenty of smoke free lounges in Baton Rouge.

12) Comment by palefire - 02/03/2013

I always love when somebody in Louisiana wants to ban smoking. Some good it will do you when you live in cancer Alley!

13) Comment by prbeav - 02/03/2013

I agree: this is a good letter. It is alarming to exit an elevator that is remote from a building enough that employees gather there to smoke, exposing customers to the second hand poisons. What amazes me is that the smokers care more about "my designated smoking area," than their appreciation for the public. It's as though they make the statement: "I am risking your health, but I have the legal right to smoke here.">>>>I quit smoking about 150 times and then thought: I must quit quitting, or else I am going to die from smoking. I discussed the notion with a non-smoking friend who responded, "It's an odd experience. I would not even consider smoking, because I read about the health consequences. I then added, "Today, I am a non-smoker, and non-smokers don't even consider smoking." I think those two concepts were helpful to me forty-one years ago and counting.

14) Comment by [e-mail] - 02/03/2013

It is a good letter; I like to go to casinos occasionally to eat/dine, and it's irksome to come out with hair, skin, and clothing smelling of smoke. I know that people like to smoke while they drink and gamble, but people who don't smoke also like to drink and gamble. There are "smoke-free" designated areas for gambling and dining, but the smoke is so pervasive that one can't escape it. Running the gauntlet of smoke to enter buildings is also tiresome, and it's not only employees, it's smokers getting that last drag or coming out for a pick-me-up.

15) Comment by On_The_Fence - 02/03/2013

The place to find smokers smoking are the employees who work at smoke-free facilties. If you can get past the employees, you can get inside the building.

16) Comment by Chucky - 02/03/2013

What about marijuana smoke in public places ? yet car smoke is much worse i think, what i am asking is it just tobacco smoke or all smoke ?

17) Comment by Bighug - 02/03/2013

Good letter. Allowing smokers to contaminate the air where people must work is just as bad, or worse, than allowing an industry to do it using smokestacks.