In a news feature article in the latest issue (June 28, 2007) of Nature, Kris Novak writes how effective the ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces has been worldwide. It seems that people smoke less in states and countries where smoking has been banned. In California, 23% of the citizens were smokers in 1988 and in 2006 the number dropped to 13%. That should be good news to the health care system due to smokings incredible cost to human health.

The other issue has to do with second-hand smoke and has a difference been seen here. The big reason indoor smoking was banned was the hubabaloo over the effect of second-hand smoke on health. From all the media hype you would think that it’s a slam dunk. Second-hand smoke kills, right?  Well the answer is yes and no.

When it comes to reducing lung cancer, the answer is a resounding yes. Since smokers have a 25 times greater risk of developing lung cancer and non-smokers who are around smokers inhale 1% of the amount of smoke you would expect a decrease in the incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers to be about 24% lower and that fits. As for cardiovascular disease drops, the data is not all that convincing. We really don’t have the kind of evidence that we do with lung cancer.

Still, banning indoor smoking is a good thing in my estimation. Here in Nevada, we have put a small venue ban on smoking in bars which has created an economic hit on them which according to the article is a short-term problem. But should we go further and ban outdoor smoking?  If you try to use the argument that this will protect non-smokers then you are barking up the wrong tree because that just doesn’t make sense. The amount of exposure you would get from outdoor smokers is extremely minimal. But if you do it with the thought that more people would quit smoking because it would be so difficult to find a place to smoke, then yes, you have a backer here.

Smoking kills, tobacco companies are purveyors of death and I would be much happier if there was no more smoking by anyone.