SUN EDITORIAL:

Reducing secondhand smoke

New regulation will make it more difficult to light up in a federal building

Monday, Jan. 12, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.

Considerable progress has been made in recent years to ban smoking indoors in many places where the public gathers. Although smokers are inconvenienced, the greater public good is served because such prohibitions rid the air of harmful secondhand smoke that can cause cancer and other health problems.

With that in mind, we appreciate the decision by the General Services Administration to promulgate a new regulation that tightens restrictions on smoking in and around federal buildings.

Current restrictions, in place since 1997, ban smoking in most areas of federal buildings, but allow it in designated rooms or outdoor areas. The Washington Post reported last week that the new rule, which is to be implemented within six months, will prohibit smoking in designated rooms and courtyards and within 25 feet of doorways and air ducts.

“We see this as a major victory,” American Lung Association spokeswoman Heather Grzelka told the Post. “This is going to go a long way to protecting workers from exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Smoking will still be allowed in prisons and in “instances where an agency head establishes limited and narrow exceptions that are necessary to accomplish agency missions.”

It is also possible smoking will continue to be permitted in some designated areas under existing collective bargaining agreements federal agencies have with certain employee unions. But it would be ideal for nonsmoking employees and for the public if designated smoking areas were eliminated in future union agreements.

Instead, smokers should be directed outside, away from the building, where they can smoke without harming others. Federal agencies also should take up a recommendation in the new regulation to establish programs designed to help employees stop smoking. The agencies will find they can reduce employee health care costs in the long run.

Discussion: 3 comments so far…

By KDR81

1/12/09 at 12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Did you know that you could live with a heavy smoker for 30 years (LIVE WITH THEM) and your chances of getting lung cancer over your lifetime are still LESS THAN 1%?
By KillerB

1/13/09 at 9:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Don't confuse the smoke nazis with facts!

What about that study proving what you said but it had to be printed in a British medical journal?
By CarolT

1/19/09 at 6:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.h...

The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.

http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.h...

And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.h...