Tobacco.org

• DUNHAM: Breathing Las Vegas: A smoke-sensitive tourist on a statewide smoking ban  

In the casino realm, though, gambling and smoke go together like showgirls and sequins. And while Luvisutto predicts "it's only a matter of time" before Vegas casinos adopt their own smoking ban, in the meantime they're concentrating on protecting the health of their employees — and their customers.

For example, all poker rooms in the 10 MGM-Mirage hotels — running the gambling gamut from Bellagio to Circus Circus — are nonsmoking, said Cindy Ortega, MGM-Mirage's senior vice president of energy and environmental services. "They were the first in the city, and we had assumed people were going to complain, but there were not any complaints registered at all," she said.

The company also emphasizes "pathing," so nonsmokers can go around, rather than through, casino floors, Ortega said. And at Bellagio, they're testing a system called Air Rail that creates an "air curtain" through the gaming table to shield the dealer from smoke. . . .

Sounds promising, but the proof is in the proboscis. So I inhaled some of the Strip's newer casinos (Handel specifically mentioned the Wynn Las Vegas, Bellagio, Palazzo Las Vegas, the Venetian and Mandalay Bay), along with some old standbys for comparison. . . .

here is my completely nonscientific scent-o-smoke scale, from 1 cigarette (quite tolerable) to 5 (Run away! Run away!):

(4 cigs) MGM Grand: We approached the casino from the shops — and were stopped by a sudden, unmistakable wall of smoke about 100 feet from the entrance. We turned around.

(2 cigs) Wynn Las Vegas: Not bad at all around the casino edges, though it did thicken deeper in. Blasts of fresh air from the restaurants lining the perimeter give you a little breathing room, and my mom and aunts said they felt mysterious but welcome "puffs" of refreshing air at their slot machines every now and then.

(1 cig) The Palazzo Las Vegas . . .

(5 cigs) Caesars Palace: Et tu, Vegas landmark? This was the worst casino of all, even at 11 a.m. . . .

Jump to full article »

ROBERTSON: Smoking in bars 

We had an interesting discussion this week about smoking. It is the centerpiece discussion on today's Letters page in Points. The editorial board is divided on whether the city should pass an ordinance banning all smoking in bars and other public areas.

I'm sure lots of people, mainly smokers, will insist that they have a "right" to smoke in bars . . .

But I had an interesting experience a couple of months ago. My 82-year-old mother came to town. She's asthmatic. . . .

We went in, and my mother instantly started wheezing. She could not breathe because of all the smoke.

What if a business were to post a sign saying, "We reserve the right to refuse service to asthmatics." Would that not be discriminatory? Or replace "asthmatics" with your favorite racial minority, or your favorite disability. Wouldn't it be just as discriminatory? Don't all businesses have to be wheelchair-accessible specifically because you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of physical disability?

In effect, by giving smokers the "right" to pollute the air, the bar's owner is posting a sign telling asthmatics they are not welcome. "You type a folk ain't wanted 'round here. Now get outta here and go back with yer own kind."

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Respect smokers and nonsmokers  

Since I stopping smoking, I realize that we have a complacent attitude about important issues directly affecting our health.

My addiction to smoking seemed to give me the right to ignore nonsmokers’ rights. As long as I got my craving for nicotine satisfied, that’s all that mattered.

Casinos were my sanctuary. . . .

Now I understand what the big deal is. As a nonsmoker, I’m more sensitive to smoke now.

We’ve been way too complacent about this issue.

A point in fact, though: Nonsmokers need to be more understanding. It isn’t easy to quit and most of us don’t have sufficient will to counteract our addiction. However, it’s time for all of us to speak up and come to terms with the smoking issue once and for all.

Jump to full article »

Raising Awareness about Secondhand Smoke 

The La Crosse County Health Department is using the results of a recent air quality study to highlight the dangers of second hand smoke.

During late February, health officials monitored the air quality at 19 establishments in the county that allow smoking. They took air quality measurements over 30 minutes and then compared those results to the state and federal standards used to measure air pollution outside.

Jump to full article »

• Back To Bar After The Ban 

FOR one pub landlord the smoking ban has meant he has been able to return to a career he loves.

Gary Weston, landlord of The Bell at Great Cheverell, near Devizes, took over the Grade II listed pub which was once featured on TV's Relocation Relocation, one week before the introduction of the ban.

Mr Weston was previously forced to give up being a landlord after 20 years in the trade after his doctor discovered he showed the early signs of emphysema. He was told to quit as the smoky conditions of pre-ban pubs were having a negative effect on his health. However, with the introduction of the ban, Mr Weston could return to his profession.

Jump to full article »

SATURDAY: PUB SMOKE BAN CLEARS THE AIR IN BATH  

A year on, the smoking ban has created a healthier atmosphere in Bath's pubs and clubs.

A survey carried out by Bath and North East Somerset Council shows 90 per cent of businesses questioned felt that going smoke-free had been easier than they expected.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK and coordinated by the Tobacco Control Collaboration Centre.

Jump to full article »

Monitoring of biological markers of passive smoking key to establishing level of cancer risk 

While the link between lung cancer and second-hand smoke (SHS) has been established for many years, the extent of the risk remains a subject of much debate. Screening for biological markers specific to SHS and related to lung cancer could be a more reliable approach to establishing this risk level. The issues are discussed in a Review in the July edition of The Lancet Oncology, authored by Dr Ahmad Besaratinia and Dr Gerd Pfeifer, Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA. The edition is dedicated to lung cancer and will be presented at the International Lung Cancer Conference, Liverpool, UK, from 9-12 July.

Jump to full article »

Early smoke exposure ups serious infection risk 

Children who are exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke early in life are at greater risk of being hospitalized for infections than those brought up in a smoke-free environment, researchers from Hong Kong report.

The risk of being hospitalized was greatest among babies 6 months old and younger, but the increased risk persisted up until the children were 8 years old, Dr. M. K. Kwok of the University of Hong Kong and colleagues found. Children who were premature or low birth weight were particularly vulnerable.

The findings suggest that secondhand smoke exposure may not only be harmful to children's respiratory tracts, but to their immune systems as well, Kwok and colleagues say.

Jump to full article »

• Department of Health report: Smoke-free England - one year on 

Abstract

This report from the Chief Medical Officer examines the impact of the smoke-free law, one year on since it was introduced in England on 1st July 2007. Key findings include:

• Compliance with smoke-free legislation has been consistently high - 98% of all premises and vehicles inspected between July 2007 and March 2008 were smoke-free

• The general public and businesses support smoke-free law and have quickly adapted to its requirements; 76% of people support the law in workplaces and public places and 81% of business decision makers think the law is a ‘good idea’

• Air quality in pubs has improved dramatically from ‘unhealthy’ average levels prior to 1 July 2007, to smoke-free levels that are comparable to outdoor air

• Bar workers’ exposure to second-hand smoke has been vastly reduced

• Local NHS Stop Smoking Services have experienced over 20% increased demand

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Delaney ignores facts about smoking's links to cancer 

I read the June 15 article “Ohio Senate introduces smoking ban revision” with great interest. I was especially captivated by your interview with Bill Delaney. I am a lung cancer survivor. You will receive very little feedback on your article from people like me, for most are either critically ill or dead . . .

Mr. Delaney feels that Issue 5 is a “dumb law,” but 85 percent of lung cancers are related to smoking. Mr. Delaney also states that “his employees would gladly give up this ‘right' [to breathe smoke-free air]” and that “secondhand smoke is not dangerous” (citing The Smoker's Club Inc.). Yet a recent report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, finds that even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause immediate harm. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/).

To posit that secondhand smoke is not dangerous to one's health is irresponsible, absurd and ill-informed.

Jump to full article »

Commentary: As We See It: Cough, cough; Hack, hack 

In 1492, Rodrigo de Jerez was the first victim of the anti-smoking lobby. Having returned from Cuba with Christopher Columbus, he smoked tobacco in Spain and was seen exhaling smoke from his nose. The Inquisition promptly incarcerated him for seven years. A bit harsh for a public smoking ban! By the time he was released, smoking was all the rage in Spain. . . .

aturally, removing the smoke is the simplest and most effective way of getting rid of the 'hazard' and thereby eliminating any possibility of lawsuits, unhappy customers and risking the employees' health.

Whatever your view on the subject, the ban will be a culture shock. . . .

The Cayman Labour Law requires that employers must make sure a place of work is as safe as is reasonably practical for their employees. And therein lies the crunch. Since it is now proven that even passive cigarette smoke has the potential to cause cancer, if an employer allows smoking on their premises, that means they are willingly risking the health of their staff. . . .

For those of you who don't wish to quit, I respect your decision, but hope that at some point in your life you will realise, as I did, that your long term health and your best interest will be served by going smoke free.

Good luck to all our readers.

Jump to full article »

• Caregivers often expose asthmatic kids to smoke 

Secondhand exposure to cigarette smoke is an asthma trigger in children and a new study shows that smoking by the primary caregiver and daycare provider are important sources of smoke exposure in children with asthma.

In the study, children with asthma who were exposed to secondhand smoke "had as much smoke exposure as if their mother smoked," Dr. Harold J. Farber told Reuters Health.

Children with a double hit of smoke exposure - from both their daycare provider and primary caregiver - had the highest levels of nicotine metabolites in their urine, said Farber, of Texas Children's Hospital in Houston.

Jump to full article »

• Biomarkers needed to gauge passive smoke exposure 

Biological indicators, or "biomarkers" of exposure to secondhand smoke that can be analyzed in blood, tissue or other samples, or through imaging scans are needed to examine whether exposure to secondhand smoke may cause lung cancer.

That's the conclusion of the writers of a report in a special issue of The Lancet Oncology medical journal, which is dedicated to lung cancer.

Although numerous reports have linked exposure to secondhand smoke to lung cancer, the extent of the risk remains debatable, Dr. Ahmad Besaratina and Dr. Gerd P. Pfeifer, from the City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, note in their report.

Jump to full article »

• Smoking tied to hazardous air quality in La Crosse County restaurants, bars 

A local study found air quality inside many La Crosse county eating and drinking establishments that allow smoking exceeds hazardous levels.

A La Crosse County Health Department report released Tuesday found that in 13 of the 19 establishments evaluated, air quality exceeded the hazardous limit of the Air Quality Index established by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Air quality in some of the establishments was four times higher than the hazardous level, according to the report. Children, the elderly and people with chronic diseases are advised to avoid breathing air with such a hazardous level, said Al Graewin, health education manager for the county.

Jump to full article »

Smoke-Free Policies Prove Effective  

Smoke-free policies are extremely effective at reducing smoking rates, exposure to secondhand smoke, and even smoking-related heart disease, new research shows.

The report, by an International Agency for Cancer Research working group, also found smoke-free rules don't affect business in restaurants or bars.

Jump to full article »