October 6, 2003

Dear Editor,

I am responding to Mr. Straus’s letter to the editor of September 24.  Although his arguments are well stated, I believe Mr. Strauss has missed the main point, which is that there are serious health implications for others exposed to second-hand smoke.  If the dangers to smoking only impacted the smokers themselves then there would not be as much public support to ban smoking in public places.  However, the fact is, the dangers of smoking also impact others around the smoker through second-hand smoke—and therein lies the reason for bylaws that limit the public’s exposure to second-hand smoke.  After spending only 2 hours in a smoky bar, a person is exposed to the same amount of second-hand smoke as if they themselves had smoked 4 cigarettes.  The bylaws are meant to protect the health of the OTHER patrons, who choose not to smoke, and especially the health of the employees who work in those establishments.  In short, it’s a very unhealthy environment, the vast majority of the public is aware of this, and that is why they (including a good number of smokers themselves) are in favour of 100% Smoke-Free public places. 

A dramatic demonstration of the accumulative damage this second-hand exposure to smoke can do to a person was demonstrated by the Heather Crowe case.  Earlier in the year, Heather Crowe was in the news because she won a claim under the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1977, alleging that her terminal lung cancer was an occupational disease, linked to long-term exposure to second-hand smoke.  Ms. Crowe had been a waitress for forty years, and while not a smoker herself, she had been consistently exposed to smoke in the places where she worked.  As the Heather Crowe case clearly points out, the link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer has been well established, as has the link between second-hand and a whole host of other illnesses and symptoms.

I’d also like to just respond to Mr. Straus’s statement “No matter what the government says, I’m pretty sure they enjoy getting the tax dollars from cigarettes.”  In fact, the tax revenue from cigarettes doesn’t come close to covering the health care costs associated with the illnesses caused by smoking, not to mention the overall cost to the economy of lost work time due to these illnesses. 

We have heard from various business owners who attest to the fact that business has not suffered due to the smoke-free bylaw.  In fact, one restaurant/bar owner stated he figures he has saved money because he no longer has to pay for regular cleaning of the walls and ceilings in his bar, to clean off the tar and other chemical residue from the smoke.  In a recent telephone survey, done by the Institute for Social Research at York University, Grey Bruce residents were asked about their habits following the smoke-free bylaw implementation.  Over 85% said the bylaw changes had made no difference in their frequenting places such as restaurants, pubs/taverns, bingo parlours, and bowling alleys and 5-10% of those surveyed stated that they frequented them MORE regularly since the bylaw was enacted.  These statistics do not bear out Mr. Straus’s prediction that he would lose business if he went smoke-free.

As Mr. Strauss states, “It is still legal to smoke in Canada.”  The bylaw does not require people to give up smoking (although that would be nice); it is simply requiring them to smoke outside where their smoke doesn’t impact the health of others.

Sincerely,

Dr. Hazel Lynn, MD, CCFP, MHSc.,

Medical Officer of Health