Friday, 11 March 2011 16:56

Smoking Regulations

Rate this item
(0 votes)

In regard to taking action to reduce the use of tobacco, governments should keep in mind that while people decide on their own whether they should stop smoking, it is a government’s responsibility to take all the necessary measures to encourage them to stop. The steps taken by legislators and governments of many countries have been indecisive, because while the reduction in the use of tobacco is an undisputed improvement in public health—with attendant savings in public health expenditures—there would be a series of economic losses and dislocations in many sectors, at least of a temporary nature. The pressure that international health and environmental organizations and agencies can exert in this regard is very important, because many countries may water down measures against the use of tobacco because of economic problems—especially if tobacco is an important source of income.

This article briefly describes regulatory measures that can be adopted to reduce smoking in a country.

Warnings on Cigarette Packs

One of the first measures adopted in many countries is to require that cigarette packs prominently display the warning that smoking seriously injures the smoker’s health. This warning, whose aim is not so much to exert an immediate effect on the smoker, but rather to show that the government is concerned about the problem, is creating a psychological climate that will favour the adoption of later measures that otherwise would be considered aggressive by the smoking population.

Some experts advocate the inclusion of these warnings on cigars and pipe tobacco. But the more general opinion is that those warnings are unnecessary, because people who use that type of tobacco do not normally inhale the smoke, and extending these warnings would lead more likely to a disregard of the messages as a whole. This is why the prevalent opinion is that the warnings should be applied only to cigarette packs. A reference to second-hand smoke has not, for the moment, been considered, but it is not an option that should be discarded.

Smoking Restrictions in Public Spaces

Forbidding smoking in public spaces is one of the most effective regulatory instruments. These prohibitions can significantly reduce the number of people exposed to second-hand smoke and, in addition, can reduce smokers’ daily cigarette consumption. The common complaints by owners of public spaces, such as hotels, restaurants, recreational facilities, dance halls, theatres and so forth, are based on the argument that these measures will result in a loss of customers. However, if governments implement these measures across the board, the negative impact of a loss of clientele will occur only in the first phase, because people will eventually adapt to the new situation.

Another possibility is the design of specific spaces for smokers. The separation of smokers from non-smokers should be effective in order to obtain the desired benefits, creating barriers that prevent non-smokers from inhaling tobacco smoke. Separation must thus be physical and, if the air-conditioning system uses recycled air, the air from smoking areas should not be mixed with that from non-smoking areas. Creating spaces for smokers therefore implies construction and compartmentalization expenses, but may be a solution for those who want to serve the smoking public.

Aside from locations where smoking is obviously forbidden for security reasons because of possible explosion or fire, there should also be areas—such as health care and sports facilities, schools and day-care centres—where smoking is not permitted even though there are no safety risks of that kind.

Smoking Restrictions at Work

Smoking restrictions in the workplace may also be considered in light of the above. Governments and business owners, together with trade unions, can establish programmes to reduce the use of tobacco at work. Campaigns to curtail smoking at work are generally successful.

Whenever possible, creating non-smoking areas to establish a policy against tobacco use and to support people who defend the right not to be second-hand smokers is recommended. In case of a conflict between a smoker and a non-smoker, regulations should always allow the non-smoker to prevail, and whenever they cannot be separated, the smoker should be pressured to abstain from smoking at the workstation.

In addition to places where for health or safety reasons smoking should be forbidden, the possibility of synergism between the effects of chemical pollution in the workplace and tobacco smoke should not be ignored in other areas either. The weight of such considerations will result, without a doubt, in a broad extension of smoking restrictions, especially in industrial workplaces.

Greater Economic Pressure against Tobacco

Another regulatory tool governments rely on to curb the use of tobacco is levying higher taxes, chiefly on cigarettes. This policy is intended to lead to lower tobacco consumption, which would justify the inverse relation between the price of tobacco and its consumption and which can be measured when comparing the situation in different countries. It is considered effective where the population is forewarned of the dangers of tobacco use and advised of the need to stop consuming it. An increase in the price of tobacco can be a motivation to quit smoking. This policy, however, has many opponents, who base their criticisms on arguments briefly mentioned below.

In the first place, according to many specialists, the increase in the price of tobacco for fiscal reasons is followed by a temporary reduction in the use of tobacco, followed by a gradual return to the previous consumption levels as the smokers get used to the new price. In other words, smokers assimilate a rise in the price of tobacco much in the same way that people get used to other taxes or to the rise in the cost of living.

In the second place, a shift in the habits of smokers has also been observed. When prices go up they tend to seek out cheaper brands of lower quality that probably also pose a greater risk to their health (because they lack filters or have higher amounts of tar and nicotine). This shift may go so far as to induce smokers to adopt the practice of making home-made cigarettes, which would completely eliminate any possibility of controlling the problem.

In the third place, many experts are of the opinion that measures of this kind tend to bolster the belief that the government accepts tobacco and its consumption as yet another means to collect taxes, leading to the contradictory belief that what the government really wants is that people smoke so that it can collect more money with the special tax on tobacco.

Limiting Publicity

Another weapon used by governments to reduce tobacco consumption is to restrict or simply forbid any publicity for the product. Governments and many international organizations have a policy of forbidding publicity for tobacco in certain spheres, such as sports (at least some sports), health care, the environment, and education. This policy has unquestionable benefits, which are especially effective when it eliminates publicity in those environments that affect young people at a time when they are likely to take up the smoking habit.

Public Programmes that Encourage People to QuitSmoking

The use of anti-smoking campaigns as a normal practice, adequately funded and organized as a rule of conduct in certain spheres, such as the world of work, has been shown to be highly successful.

Campaigns to Educate Smokers

Complementing what was said above, educating smokers so that they will smoke “better” and cut down on their consumption of cigarettes is another avenue available to governments to reduce the adverse health effects of tobacco use on the population. These efforts should be directed at reducing the daily consumption of cigarettes, at inhibiting the inhalation of smoke as much as possible, at not smoking the butts of cigarettes (the toxicity of smoke increases towards the end of the cigarette), at not keeping the cigarette steadily at the lips, and at adopting preferences for brands with lower tar and nicotine.

Measures of this type evidently do not reduce the number of smokers, but they do reduce how much smokers are harmed by their habit. There are arguments against this type of remedy because it may give the impression that smoking is not intrinsically a bad habit, since smokers are told how best to smoke.

Concluding Remarks

Regulatory and legislative action by different governments is slow and not sufficiently effective, especially given what would be required due to the problems caused by tobacco use. Often this is the case because of legal hurdles against implementing such measures, arguments against unfair competition, or even the protection of the individual’s right to smoke. Progress in the use of regulations has been slow but it is nonetheless steady. On the other hand, the difference between active smokers and second-hand or passive smokers should be kept in mind. All the measures that would help someone to stop smoking, or at least to reduce daily consumption effectively, should be directed at the smoker; all the weight of regulations should be brought to bear against this habit. The passive smoker should be given every possible argument to support his or her right not to inhale tobacco smoke, and to defend the right to enjoy the use of smoke-free environments at home, at work and at play.



Read 5315 times Last modified on Thursday, 13 October 2011 21:27

" DISCLAIMER: The ILO does not take responsibility for content presented on this web portal that is presented in any language other than English, which is the language used for the initial production and peer-review of original content. Certain statistics have not been updated since the production of the 4th edition of the Encyclopaedia (1998)."


Indoor Air Quality References

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 1989. Guidelines for the Assessment of Bioaerosols in the Indoor Environment. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH.

American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM). 1989. Standard Guide for Small-Scale Environmental Determinations of Organic Emissions from Indoor Materials/Products. Atlanta: ASTM.

American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 1989. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta: ASHRAE.

Brownson, RC, MCR Alavanja, ET Hock, and TS Loy. 1992. Passive smoking and lung cancer in non-smoking women. Am J Public Health 82:1525-1530.

Brownson, RC, MCR Alavanja, and ET Hock. 1993. Reliability of passive smoke exposure histories in a case-control study of lung cancer. Int J Epidemiol 22:804-808.

Brunnemann, KD and D Hoffmann. 1974. The pH of tobacco smoke. Food Cosmet Toxicol 12:115-124.

—. 1991. Analytical studies on N-nitrosamines in tobacco and tobacco smoke. Rec Adv Tobacco Sci 17:71-112.

COST 613. 1989. Formaldehyde emissions from wood based materials: Guideline for the determination of steady state concentrations in test chambers. In Indoor Air Quality & Its Impact On Man. Luxembourg: EC.

—. 1991. Guideline for the characterization of volatile organic compounds emitted from indoor materials and products using small test chambers. In Indoor Air Quality & Its Impact On Man. Luxembourg: EC.

Eudy, LW, FW Thome, DK Heavner, CR Green, and BJ Ingebrethsen. 1986. Studies on the vapour-particulate phase distribution of environmental nicotine by selective trapping and detection methods. In Proceedings of the Seventy-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, June 20-27.

Feeley, JC. 1988. Legionellosis: Risk associated with building design. In Architectural Design and Indoor Microbial Pollution, edited by RB Kundsin. Oxford: OUP.

Flannigan, B. 1992. Indoor microbiological pollutants—sources, species, characterisation: An evaluation. In Chemical, Microbiological, Health and Comfort Aspects of Indoor Air Quality—State of the Art in SBS, edited by H Knöppel and P Wolkoff. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

—. 1993. Approaches to the assessment of microbial flora of buildings. Environments for People: IAQ ’92. Atlanta: ASHRAE.

Freixa, A. 1993. Calidad Del Aire: Gases Presentes a Bajas Concentraciones En Ambientes Cerrados. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo.

Gomel, M, B Oldenburg, JM Simpson, and N Owen. 1993. Work-site cardiovascular risk reduction: A randomized trial of health risk assessment, education, counselling and incentives. Am J Public Health 83:1231-1238.

Guerin, MR, RA Jenkins, and BA Tomkins. 1992. The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Chelsea, Mich: Lewis.

Hammond, SK, J Coghlin, PH Gann, M Paul, K Taghizadek, PL Skipper, and SR Tannenbaum. 1993. Relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and carcinogen-hemoglobin adduct levels in non-smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:474-478.

Hecht, SS, SG Carmella, SE Murphy, S Akerkar, KD Brunnemann, and D Hoffmann. 1993. A tobacco-specific lung carcinogen in men exposed to cigarette smoke. New Engl J Med 329:1543-1546.

Heller, W-D, E Sennewald, J-G Gostomzyk, G Scherer, and F Adlkofer. 1993. Validation of ETS-exposure in a representative population in Southern Germany. Indoor Air Publ Conf 3:361-366.

Hilt, B, S Langard, A Anderson, and J Rosenberg. 1985. Asbestos exposure, smoking habits and cancer incidence among production and maintenance workers in an electrical plant. Am J Ind Med 8:565-577.

Hoffmann, D and SS Hecht. 1990. Advances in tobacco carcinogenesis. In Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, edited by CS Cooper and PL Grover. New York: Springer.

Hoffmann, D and EL Wynder. 1976. Smoking and occupational cancer. Prevent Med 5:245-261.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1986. Tobacco Smoking. Vol. 38. Lyon: IARC.

—. 1987a. Bis(Chloromethyl)Ether and Chloromethyl Methyl Ether. Vol. 4 (1974), Suppl. 7 (1987). Lyon: IARC.

—. 1987b. Coke Production. Vol. 4 (1974), Suppl. 7 (1987). Lyon: IARC.

—. 1987c. Environmental Carcinogens: Methods of Analysis and Exposure. Vol. 9. Passive smoking. IARC Scientific Publications, no. 81. Lyon: IARC.

—. 1987d. Nickel and Nickel Compounds. Vol. 11 (1976), Suppl. 7 (1987). Lyon: IARC.

—. 1988. Overall Evaluation of Carcinogenicity: An Updating of IARC Monographs 1 to 42. Vol. 43. Lyon: IARC.

Johanning, E, PR Morey, and BB Jarvis. 1993. Clinical-epidemiological investigation of health effects caused by Stachybotrys atra building contamination. In Proceedings of Sixth International Conference On Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Helsinki.

Kabat, GC and EL Wynder. 1984. Lung cancer incidence in non-smokers. Cancer 53:1214-1221.

Luceri, G, G Peiraccini, G Moneti, and P Dolara. 1993. Primary aromatic amines from sidestream cigarette smoke are common contaminants of indoor air. Toxicol Ind Health 9:405-413.

Mainville, C, PL Auger, W Smorgawiewicz, D Neculcea, J Neculcea, and M Lévesque. 1988. Mycotoxines et syndrome d’extrême fatigue dans un hôpital. In Healthy Buildings, edited by B Petterson and T Lindvall. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research.

Masi, MA et al. 1988. Environmental exposure to tobacco smoke and lung function in young adults. Am Rev Respir Dis 138:296-299.

McLaughlin, JK, MS Dietz, ES Mehl, and WJ Blot. 1987. Reliability of surrogate information on cigarette smoking by type of informant. Am J Epidemiol 126:144-146.

McLaughlin, JK, JS Mandel, ES Mehl, and WJ Blot. 1990. Comparison of next of kin with self-respondents regarding question on cigarette, coffee and alcohol consumption. Epidemiology 1(5):408-412.

Medina, E, R Medina, and AM Kaempffer. 1988. Effects of domestic smoking on the frequency of infantile respiratory diseases. Rev Chilena Pediatrica 59:60-64.

Miller, JD. 1993. Fungi and the building engineer. Environments for People: IAQ ’92. Atlanta: ASHRAE.

Morey, PR. 1993a. Microbiological events after a fire in a high-rise building. In Indoor Air ’93. Helsinki: Indoor Air ‘93.

—. 1993b. Use of hazard communication standard and general duty clause during remediation of fungal contamination. In Indoor Air ‘93. Helsinki: Indoor Air ‘93.

Nathanson, T. 1993. Indoor Air Quality in Office Buildings: A Technical Guide. Ottawa: Health Canada.

New York City Department of Health. 1993. Guidelines On Assessment and Remediation of Stachybotrys Atra in Indoor Environments. New York: New York City Department of Health.

Pershagen, G, S Wall, A Taube, and I Linnman. 1981. On the interaction between occupational arsenic exposure and smoking and its relationship to lung cancer. Scand J Work Environ Health 7:302-309.

Riedel, F, C Bretthauer, and CHL Rieger. 1989. Einfluss von paasivem Rauchen auf die bronchiale Reaktivitact bei Schulkindern. Prax Pneumol 43:164-168.

Saccomanno, G, GC Huth, and O Auerbach. 1988. Relationship of radioactive radon daughters and cigarette smoking in genesis of lung cancer in uranium miners. Cancer 62:402-408.

Sorenson, WG. 1989. Health impact of mycotoxins in the home and workplace: An overview. In Biodeterioration Research 2, edited by CE O’Rear and GC Llewellyn. New York: Plenum.

Swedish Work Environment Fund. 1988. To Measure or to Take Direct Remedial Action? Investigation and Measurement Strategies in the Working Environment. Stockholm: Arbetsmiljöfonden [Swedish Work Environment Fund].

US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1992. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: US EPA.

US National Research Council. 1986. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health Effect. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

US Surgeon General. 1985. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Cancer and Chronic Lung Disease in the Workplace. Washington, DC: DHHS (PHS).

—. 1986. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking. Washington, DC: DHHS (CDC).

Wald, NJ, J Borcham, C Bailey, C Ritchie, JE Haddow, and J Knight. 1984. Urinary cotinine as marker of breathing other people’s tobacco smoke. Lancet 1:230-231.

Wanner, H-U, AP Verhoeff, A Colombi, B Flannigan, S Gravesen, A Mouilleseux, A Nevalainen, J Papadakis, and K Seidel. 1993. Biological Particles in Indoor Environments. Indoor Air Quality and Its Impact On Man. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

White, JR and HF Froeb. 1980. Small airway dysfunction in non-smokers chronically exposed to tobacco smoke. New Engl J Med 302:720-723.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1987. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. European Series, no. 23. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Publications.