SMOKING : SLOWLY TAKING YOUR BREATH AWAY
( continued from page 7 ) whose parents smoke have an increased frequency of respiratory symptoms and infections .
- Simple separation of smoker and non-smokers within the same airspace may reduce , but does not eliminate , environmental tobacco smoke and its risks .
The Surgeon General in his preface to the report stated , “ Cigarette smoking is an addictive behavior , and the individual smoker must decide whether or not to continue in that behavior ; however , it is evident from the data presented in this volume that the choice to smoke cannot interfere with the non-smokers ’ right to breathe air free of tobacco smoke .”
There you have it . The battle lines were drawn between the tobacco industry and all of its money and jobs , its principal product labeled addictive , and those who work to promote health , who want the public they protect to go out in the community safely , without having to breathe tobacco smoke .
We have met the tobacco companies with their jobs , money and cultural pervasiveness . They were joined by those who didn ’ t believe that environmental tobacco smoke caused disease , those who touted “ individual freedom ,” those who didn ’ t want to change their own personal habits and especially those who thought that businesses should be able to do as they pleased in the businesses they owned and operated . I think of this very large and powerful group as “ Goliath .”
Then in 2003 , a group led by the local chapters of the American Lung Association , the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society and bolstered by a $ 300,000 grant by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation established the Smoke Free Coalition . They were joined by our medical society , the Louisville Health Department , the Campaign for Smoke Free Schools and interested individuals . This group I call “ David .”
What did they do ? They established the Smoke Free Louisville campaign and set about educating the public about the dangers of environmental or “ secondhand ” tobacco smoke and the need to avoid it and remove it from public places .
I should point out that the Air Pollution Control District was not involved in this effort because they could not be . The district is charged with reducing air pollution in the outdoor air but has no authority over indoor air .
How did this campaign take form and proceed ? There were meetings ( innumerable meetings ), there were articles written , posters printed and buttons made . Effort was made to get restaurants to voluntarily become non-smoking and lists were published in support of those restaurants . Little progress was made and it became clear that the only effective way to remove secondhand smoke from public places was to have an ordinance passed by the Metro Council . Measures that were voluntary and ineffective were met with little opposition , but the idea of a ban on smoking in public places including restaurants and bars brought out the opposition .
There were only two council members who initially supported the ban . Many were neutral and some were steadfastly opposed .
Very important public support for the ban came from the editorial board and reporters from the Courier Journal , the GLI and from celebrities who made their position be known . There were forums and debates , public meetings , press conferences and public hearings . But probably most importantly , there were private meetings and personal persuasion and polls that showed that the public supported such a ban . The ultimate goal was to change opinion and garner support , and in this regard , due to persistence and much effort , it was achieved .
We must keep in mind that this campaign began 17 years after the second surgeon general ’ s report on the ill effects of secondhand smoke . Many cities and towns , large and small , had already passed smoking bans in public places including restaurants and bars . But this is Kentucky , and without the efforts of the Coalition and Smoke Free Louisville , we likely would never have had such a ban . There are still places out in the state that allow indoor smoking .
Finally in 2005 , an ordinance was introduced and passed that was called a ban , but it was so full of loopholes that it effectively banned nothing and protected nobody . It was so discriminatory that when challenged , the courts struck it down . Another ordinance was passed that included all restaurants and bars but made an exception for Churchill Downs . This was challenged as discriminatory and struck down . The final version of the ordinance was passed that created a comprehensive ban on smoking in all public places including restaurants and bars : it was a good ordinance that protects all who want to be in public places in Louisville .
As in other places , business did not suffer and no individual ’ s freedom to choose to smoke was breached . Hopefully by shifting “ normal ” for smoking to “ abnormal ” helped some choose to stop smoking and prevented some from starting to smoke . It was a difficult struggle but , in my mind , the tribe of David won .
We must be ever vigilant and aware that new things and proposals will come along that can erode the progress that has been made . Vaping and hookah smoking of tobacco products have been added by ordinance to the things not allowed in public places and an attempt to allow the establishment of cigar bars was defeated .
How did this ban happen ? This is the moral of the story . When determined , like-minded people grasp a common cause that they believe to be just , they can , by persistently educating and persuading the public and the politicians , effect meaningful change . We have all benefitted from a ban on smoking in public places in Louisville . Thank you to all who had a part . Dr . Powell is a retired pulmonologist .
8 LOUISVILLE MEDICINE