What they said ... `[Smokers] have a right to smoke, but they haven't any right to injure anyone else's health' Dr Gerald Segal, the Victorian president of the Australian Medical Association
`While smokers are undeniably at risk, far less certain is whether passive smoking is a significant threat' Herald Sun in its editorial of February 24, 1998
On July 22, 1997, the West Australian Government announced that it would introduce the most stringent restrictions of any state on where smokers would be legally allowed to smoke.
Under the West Australian legislation, smoking would be illegal in all enclosed workplaces, with no exceptions. This legislation takes effect in August, 1998.
Immediately there were calls from the Australian Medical Association and anti-smoking lobby groups for other states, including Victoria, to introduce similar legislation.
Some sections of industry, especially the hospitality industry, expressed opposition to the West Australian legislation on economic grounds. Others protested that such legislation infringed smokers' rights.
The Victorian Government is at present not intending to introduce similar legislation.
Background
Currently, in Victoria, smoking is allowed in at least some areas in hotels, nightclubs, casinos, tabarets, most restaurants, bowling alleys, the Botanical Gardens, private houses, private vehicles, open air train platforms and city streets. Smoking is banned in most shopping complexes, most food courts, enclosed areas at the MCG, Government workplaces, hospitals, cinemas, banks, TABs, public transport, taxis, underground railway stations and lifts.
The Victorian Government has been criticised because those bans which do exist are in place either because of federal Government legislation or as a result of restrictions imposed at particular venues or workplaces. There is no general Victorian legislation to protect workers from exposure to tobacco smoke, with private sector employers being self-regulated.
Apart from the West Australian legislation, there have been a number of other developments which have added life to the passive smoking debate.
In November, 1995, a draft National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) report recommended that smoking be banned in areas such as foyers, stairwells, stadiums, confined and restricted workplaces and cars carrying children.
The Tobacco Institute of Australia, Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd and Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Ltd successfully applied to the Federal Court of Australia to have the release of the report blocked.
The Tobacco Institute argued that the NHMRC report had been produced without taking into account submissions that the Institute had provided.
The chairman of the NHMRC, Professor Richard Larkins, countered that considering all the non-peer reviewed research supplied by the Tobacco Institute would have `swamped' the Council's working party and delayed release of the report by at least 12 months.
In May 1997, the British Medical Journal carried an editorial suggesting that the Australian tobacco industry was concerned that publicity about passive smoking was causing a downturn in sales.
The NHMRC report was ultimately released in November, 1997, without its recommendations.
The report's findings suggested that living with a smoker increased a non-smoker's risk of contracting lung cancer by some 30 per cent and that person's risk of having a heart attack by some 24 per cent. It also claimed that passive smoking appears to increase the risk of developing asthma and other respiratory ailments in children.
In March 8, 1998, two British newspapers, the Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Times, carried articles claiming that a currently unpublished World Health Organisation (WHO) report on passive smoking indicated no statistically significant link between passive smoking and cancer.
Similar stories on the WHO report were carried in Australian newspapers on March 9, 10 and 11.
These supposed findings of the WHO study prompted the Australian Hotels Association to call for the shelving of West Australia's new laws banning smoking in the workplace.
Later statements from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the body which conducted the WHO study, claimed that the report had not been suppressed (as some pro-tobacco lobbies had maintained).
Instead, IARC claimed that its report was only unpublished because the British Medical Journal, to which it was submitted, had recently published the results of a larger study on the effects of passive smoking and did not consider the WHO study sufficiently noteworthy.
IARC has also claimed that its findings indicated an increased risk of developing cancer of between 16 and 17 per cent for passive smokers.
IARC's claims continue to be contested by tobacco lobbyists and others.
There are a large number of Internet sites that give information about smoking in general and passive smoking in particular
* The home page for QUIT, Victoria's official anti-smoking education and lobby group can be found at http://www.peg.apc.org/~vshp/
Its table of contents can be found at http://www.peg.apc.org/~vshp/fandi/toc.htm
Section 4, as listed in the table deals with the health effects of passive smoking. One of its subsections is a treatment of the major scientific reviews. This makes interesting reading, but at this stage does not include either the most recent NHMRC report nor the most recent WHO report which have been the subject of controversy.
Section 6 in its table of contents deals with smoking in the workplace and in public places. Its various subsections treat the issue from a legal and industrial relations viewpoint.
* The home page for ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) can be found at http://ash.org ASH is the United States' major anti-smoking education and lobby group.
Under new links on this site you will find the ASH secret document report. This is a collection of materials released through litigation by tobacco companies and organised by ASH. Chapter 6 is titled Passive smoking and can be found at http://www.ash.org.uk/papers/tobexpld6.html
In this section ASH attempts to demonstrate that tobacco companies have tried to underestimate the risks associated with passive smoking. The chapter concludes with a brief consideration of the disputed WHO report.
ASH considers the WHO report in more detail in a press release that can be read at http://ash.org/march98/03-10-98-4.html
* The Canadian pro-smoking lobby group FORCES (Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking) has a range of information claiming that passive smoking is relatively harmless.
It also has an extensive set of links to sites considering the most recent WHO report. These can be found at http://www.forces-cdn.com/pas-smok.htm
They make interesting reading but need to be handled with care as their detail may not always support their contentions. Of particular interest is a report reproduced from The Economist on the supposed bias in a number of WHO studies. This can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/news/whosmo.htm
* Also of interest is the home page of a cigarette manufacturer self-titled The Enlightened Tobacco Company.
This company markets a brand of cigarette called Death, and makes a feature of the fact that smoking can be fatal for smokers. The company stresses that the decision belongs to the individual smoker.
It has a four page section that reviews the evidence against passive smoking with a view to demonstrating that many studies were faulted and that passive smoking has not been proven harmful. This can be found at http://www.tobacco.co.uk/library/passive.html
Arguments against smoking being banned in public places
Those who argue that smoking should be allowed in public places often begin by defending the rights of the individual smoker.
According to this line of argument, for as long as smoking is a legal activity, if and where a smoker smokes should be largely a matter of personal choice.
The smoker has acted legally in purchasing his or her cigarettes. He or she, it is claimed, should therefore be able to enjoy the substance they have bought.
This position was put in the Herald Sun in an editorial published on February 24, 1998. `... despite the fact that the health risks to smokers are well documented, tobacco is a legal substance and the smoker should be free to choose.'
A similar view was expressed by Annetta O'Loghlen, a smoker, when asked her opinion on banning smoking in all enclosed public places.
Ms O'Loghlen stated, `I think it's lousy. I think it's taking away our rights. I think, fair enough if they made sections for smoking and non-smoking, but certainly not banning smoking through the whole place.'
It has also been claimed that for some smokers nicotine is powerfully addictive so that requiring them to stop smoking in public locations is discriminatory.
The position of the addicted smoker was outlined by Age writer Caroline Webb, writing about a confirmed smoker, Mr Mihkel Keays.
Ms Webb wrote, `Mihkel Keays is an outcast in his own city. Official bans and social pressures mean he can't smoke a cigarette in the office, at home, in restaurants or at university.
But Mr Keays ... is a self-confessed nicotine addict. So if he has to duck down eight floors each hour to a city pavement, rain, hail or shine, to inhale, he'll do it.'
According to this line of argument, it is unreasonable to penalise people for behaviour over which they do not have full control.
Those who support smoking being allowed in public locations, also often claim that second-hand smoke does not pose a significant health risk to non-smokers who inhale it.
This position too, was put by the Herald Sun in its editorial of February 24, 1998.
The editorial stated, `While smokers are undeniably at risk, far less certain is whether passive smoking is a significant threat.'
This position has been supported by a number of other sources. A leading Australian surgeon, Dr Julian Lee, has apparently claimed that non-smokers have a negligible risk of contracting cancer.
It has also been claimed that a study commissioned by the World Health Organisation has cast doubt on the supposed link between passive smoking and cancer.
It has been stated that a recently released summary of the report maintains there is no statistical support for the suggestion that passive smoking causes lung cancer.
It has also been reported that the summary of the study states, `There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] exposure during childhood.'
(Anti-smoking campaigners have since maintained that a misleading emphasis has been placed on this report by a major tobacco manufacturer which issued an early press release on the report..)
It has also been suggested that moves to ban smoking in all public areas are likely to be seen as excessive and so may provoke resistance to anti-smoking groups such as Quit.
The Herald Sun, in its February 24 editorial, commenting specifically on a Quit proposal that smoking be banned at the MCG on Grand Final day, stated, `Quit has an important role to play in educating smokers. It risks alienating support by trying to regulate our lives.'
It has also been claimed that laws which effectively prohibit smoking will be ignored by many smokers.
According to this line of argument prohibition has been shown in the past to be an ineffective way of controlling the use of potentially harmful substances.
This view has been put by Mr Alan Argus, who smokes a packet of cigarettes a day. Mr Argus has claimed, `To go cold turkey across the board and say it's not going to happen anywhere is just silly.'
It has further been claimed that laws which are largely disregarded only help to reduce respect for whatever community concern lies behind the law.
Instead, it has been claimed, education to persuade people to alter their behaviour is a more effective strategy.
This claim was made in The Herald Sun in an editorial published on November 27, 1997. The editorial stated, `In a democracy, education to enable people to make an informed choice is the correct approach.'
Finally, it has been argued that banning smoking in public places would have a damaging effect on many businesses.
According to this line of argument, many business, such as hotels, depend heavily for their trade on customers who are smokers. It is feared that if these customers were unable to smoke on their premises they would simply not come.
Hotel manager, Mr Graeme Jeffs, has claimed, `I don't want to see my punters buying their drinks from the bottle shop and going home because we'll have no one here.'
Arguments in favour of smoking being banned in public places
Those who oppose smoking in public places maintain they are seeking to protect the health of non-smokers forced to inhale second-hand smoke.
According to this line of argument passive smoking can lead to the development of asthma and other respiratory conditions. It has also been claimed that it increases the likelihood of the passive smoker developing heart disease and certain forms of cancer.
A number of reports have supported these claims.
A National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) report released in November, 1997, claimed that people who had never smoked but who live with a smoker were 30 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer and 24 per cent more likely to have a heart attack or die from coronary heart disease than those living with a non-smoker.
The report also claimed that passive smoking contributes to the symptoms of asthma in 46,500 Australian children each year and causes lower respiratory illness in another 16,300 youngsters each year.
The chairman of the NHMRC, Professor Richard Larkins, has claimed, `While the evidence relates to exposure in the home, there is no plausible reason for thinking that it doesn't have a similar effect in public places.'
A similar view has been put by the federal Health Minister, Dr Wooldridge. Dr Wooldridge has claimed, `... smoking in enclosed spaces harms your workmates, your children and even strangers who happen to be near you in a restaurant or a pub.'
Professor Larkins concluded, `This report should be important in altering the public climate to the extent where politicians feel comfortable to legislate.'
Those opposed to smoking in public places maintain that the rights of the smoker cannot override the rights of the non-smoker to a healthy, smoke-free environment.
This view has been summed up by Dr Gerald Segal, the Victorian president of the Australian Medical Association (AMA). When asked about smokers' rights, Dr Segal replied, `Yes, they have a right to smoke, but they haven't any right to injure anyone else's health.'
It has also been argued that banning smoking in all workplaces is an industrial relations issue as it is an important element of ensuring all workers have a safe working environment.
This point was put by The Age in its editorial of November 6, 1997. The editorial maintained, `Workers should no more be exposed to carcinogens in smoke than they should be other dangerous substances such as asbestos or arsenic.'
A spokesperson for the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, Mr Tim Ferrari, has stated, `The hospitality industry is the last bastion where workers have to suffer someone else's smoke and that culture has to change.'
In response to those who claim that a ban on smoking in public places would depress business in the hospitality industry and elsewhere, resulting in reduced profits and lost employment, those who favour bans have two responses.
Firstly they claim that as a matter of priority, the safeguarding of public health is more important than profit.
This point has been made by Western Australia's Labor Relations Minister, Mr Graham Kierath. Mr Kierath has stated, `If [an industry's] economic survival is based on killing workers, then basically I think the industry shouldn't be there.'
Mr Kierath was referring to the health risks said to be faced by waiters and bar staff in smoky environments.
The second point frequently made is that banning smoking in public venues may well not damage businesses and may even improve job prospects in some industries.
According to this line of argument, many of those who frequent restaurants and other public venues where smoking is currently permitted would actually prefer these places to be completely smoke-free, while potential customers who are at present staying away would replace those who may cease to come because they are no longer allowed to smoke.
This point has gained support from some within the hospitality and tourist industry.
The president of the Restaurant and Catering Association of Victoria, Ms Dure Dara, has indicated that she would welcome legislation prohibiting smoking in public venues as those running hospitality businesses do not like being placed in the situation where they have to choose between the rights of the smoker and those of the non-smoker.
Ms Dara has stated, `These things have been side-stepped and people like us have been made arbiters of it all.'
A survey released in May, 1997, indicated that 68 of 100 tourism chief executives in Australia supported a national ban on smoking in restaurants, hotels, pubs and clubs.
The federal president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Keith Woollard, has stated, `5The claim that smoke-free workplaces cost jobs and profits is a lie. On the contrary, research shows there is no impact or an improvement in trade.'
Further implications
At this stage it seems relatively unlikely that the Victorian Government will follow West Australia's lead and legislate to ban smoking in enclosed workplaces. The Victorian Government appears to favour what it terms a `commonsense', gradualist approach.
It seems likely, however, that an increasing number of individual employers all over Australia, may prohibit smoking in the workplace. This is in response to being sued by employees over work-related damage to health. In Victoria, this may happen less, as new WorkCover provisions remove an employee's right to sue over work-related injuries. However, a number of businesses appear to be suggesting that their clients want more smoke-free areas.
On the question of banning smoking in other enclosed public areas surveys indicate there is growing support for more smoke-free areas at the MCG.
However, more smoke-free areas are not the same as a total ban on smoking in public places.
Sources The Age
24/6/97 page 5 news item by Tania Ewing, `Banned passive smoking report may be released'
1/8/97 page 12 news item by Duncan Graham, `Smoking ban is positive, says AMA'
21/9/97 page 3 news item by Caroline Webb, `Chronicle of a bid not to run out of puff'
5/11/97 page 3 news item by Steve Dow, `AMA widens anti-smoking push'
6/11/97 page 3 news item by Steve Dow, `Noose tightens for the smoker'
6/11/97 page 3 news item by Brett Foley, `Profits up in smoke, with no ifs or butts'
6/11/97 page 14 editorial, `Stubbing out smoking'
8/11/97 page 7 analysis by Steve Dow, `Medical chief fires up over anti-smoking laws'
25/11/97 page 1 news item by Mary-Anne Toy, `Report indicts passive smoking'
27/11/97 page 20 editorial, Ban smoking in public'
5/3/98 page 3 news item by Claire Miller, `MCG squeezes smokers, with talk of a total ban'
9/3/98 page 8 news item by Victoria MacDonald, "Passive smoking safe: study"
11/3/98 page 6 news item by Mary-Ann Toy, `Blowing both ways on smoke'
2/6/98 page 3 news item by Sandra McKay, `Victoria baulks at wider smoke bans'
The Australian
24/5/97 page 3 news item by Carolyn Collins, `Tourism backs cigs ban'
23/7/97 page 5 news item by Matt Price, `Smoking ban sets benchmark for States'
6/11/97 page 3 news item by Rachel Hawes, `Myer settles passive smoking case'
10/3/98 page 5 news item by Chip Le Grand, `Anti-smokers blown away by study'
The Herald Sun
1/10/97 page 15 news item by Helen Carter, `Asthma win in smoke case'
27/11/97 page 18 editorial, `The freedom to puff away'
4/2/98 page 23 news item by Catherine Lambert and Anthony Black, `Smoke ban call grows'
8/2/98 page 22 news item by Catherine Lambert, `Move your butts, AMA tells workers'
24/2/98 page 18 editorial, `Quit ordering us around!'
5/3/98 page 9 news item by Yom Salom, `MCG doubles zones for no-smoking'
9/3/98 page 24 news item by Jane Willson, `Smoke cancer link in doubt'
Internet
There are a large number of Internet sites that give information about smoking in general and passive smoking in particular
* The home page for QUIT, Victoria's official anti-smoking education and lobby group can be found at http:www.peg.apc.org/~vshp/
Its table of contents can be found at http://www.peg.apc.org/~vshp/fandi/toc.htm Section 4, as listed in the table deals with the health effects of passive smoking. One of its subsections is a treatment of the major scientific reviews. This makes interesting reading, but at this stage does not include either the most recent NHMRC report nor the most recent WHO report which have been the subject of controversy.
Section 6 in its table of contents deals with smoking in the workplace and in public places. Its various subsections treat the issue from a legal and industrial relations viewpoint.
* The home page for ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) can be found at http://ash.org ASH is the United States' major anti-smoking education and lobby group.
Under new links on this site you will find the ASH secret document report. This is a collection of materials released through litigation by tobacco companies and organised by ASH. Chapter 6 is titled Passive smoking and can be found at http://www.ash.org.uk/papers/tobexpld6.html In this section ASH attempts to demonstrate that tobacco companies have tried to underestimate the risks associated with passive smoking. The chapter concludes with a brief consideration of the disputed WHO report.
ASH considers the WHO report in more detail in a press release that can be read at http://ash.org/march98/03-10-98-4.html
* The Canadian pro-smoking lobby group FORCES (Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking) has a range of information claiming that passive smoking is relatively harmless.
It also has an extensive set of links to sites considering the most recent WHO report. These can be found at http://www.forces-cdn.com/pas-smok.htm They make interesting reading but need to be handled with care as their detail may not always support their contentions. Of particular interest is a report reproduced from The Economist on the supposed bias in a number of WHO studies. This can be found at http://www.junkscience.com/news/whosmo.htm
* Also of interest is the home page of a cigarette manufacturer self-titled The Enlightened Tobacco Company.
This company markets a brand of cigarette called Death, and makes a feature of the fact that smoking can be fatal for smokers. The company stresses that the decision belongs to the individual smoker.
It has a four page section that reviews the evidence against passive smoking with a view to demonstrating that many studies were faulted and that passive smoking has not been proven harmful. This can be found at http://www.tobacco.co.uk/library/passive.html
Back to previous page
