Your turn

Science supports call to ban smoking in N.J. restaurants

Would you take your family to eat in the middle of a chemical factory? Or give your kids a plate of chicken fingers served with mustard gas? Or let them go to an asbestos plagued school? Of course not. Yet, parents unknowingly expose their children and themselves to similar deleterious carcinogens each time they set foot in a family tavern and other restaurants that permit smoking.

Second-hand smoke is classified as a Class A carcinogen, containing 4,000 chemical compounds, including 43 known carcinogens. More than just a nuisance, the documented facts and medical evidence prove it is a killer, and the root cause of other serious health conditions.

Each year, second-hand smoke is linked to 53,000 deaths in the United States. Non-smokers, including children, suffer more immediate consequences. In addition to triggering asthma attacks, increasing the chances of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in infants and causing upper respiratory infections in children, recent studies conclude that second-hand smoke poses a serious health risk to patrons and employees at restaurants.

A study published in the July 2001 issue of International Journal of Cancer proves lung cancer triples when people are routinely exposed to second-hand smoke. Another study published in the August 2001 Journal of the American Medical Association shows inhaling second-hand smoke for as little as 30 minutes can cause the same reduced blood flow experienced during a heart attack.

Simply separating the smoking and non-smoking section does little to protect patrons. Even in 1986 the Surgeon General’s Report concluded that simply separating non-smokers from smokers in the same airspace does not eliminate their exposure to second-hand smoke. That’s like saying it’s possible to chlorinate half of a swimming pool if you put up a rope separating the kiddie section from the deep end.

With each new discovery that second-hand smoke kills, public awareness and lack of tolerance for public smoking has accelerated. Despite ongoing tobacco industry attacks against the undisputed science surrounding the dangers of second-hand smoke, municipalities across the nation are passing ordinances completely prohibiting smoking in enclosed places. Except in New Jersey. [In 2000] the Princeton Health Council attempted to remove smoking in its restaurants, but their ordinance was overturned because of a state statute that restricts home rule regarding tobacco policies.

In the private sector, many workplaces have gone smoke-free on their own, as well as some fast food chains and individual restaurants. However, the vast majority of family taverns — which seems to be an oxymoron in and of itself — ignore the obvious risks, permit smoking and contribute to more exposure by recruiting younger patrons through birthday promotions and extravagant children’s menus.

Lots of people talk about rights of restaurant owners to serve the public, however, few care to discuss the reciprocal obligations that come with those rights. Once we have established that second-hand smoke is dangerous don’t proprietors, specifically those who cater to families, have an obligation to require people engaged in harmful activities to do so outside of their facility?

Going smoke-free is not unconstitutional, it does not take away the rights of restaurant owners and it doesn’t equate into lost revenue. When scientists and communities identify harmful activities that endanger others, we must be steadfast in our efforts to alleviate the problem and provide immediate solutions. Knowingly neglecting the situation only puts more people at risk and questions the motivation of individuals who claim to care about protecting people from hazardous conditions.

Dr. Fred M. Jacobs is the chairman of New Jersey Breathes, an independent, collective voice for tobacco control convened by the Medical Society of New Jersey