Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
THE HEALTH IS A RIGHT FOR ALL, ALSO FOR THE HOSPITALITY WORKERS
- Ivo Iavicoli (19 April 2004)
-
Going Smoke Free
- William D Jeans (22 April 2004)
-
Tobacco Free Conventions: the Economic Impact of Health Associations
- Diane Kunyk, Stanton A. Glantz, Becky Freeman (5 October 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Ivo Iavicoli, specialist in occupational medicine Institute of Occupational Medicine Catholic Univesity of Sacred Heart Lgo F. Vito 1 00168 Rome Italy
Send response to journal:
|
EDITOR – The decision of Ireland to ban smoking in enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants is great progress for health workers protection. The editorial by Howell showed correctly that this fact is the result of sustained, evidence based, policymaking in support of better health.1 In Italy, a recent decree of the President of the Council of Ministers2 will give proprietors of bars and restaurants the choice between banning smoking in their premises altogether or confining smokers to armoured rooms with powerful ventilation systems, automatic closing doors and high walls by the middle of January 2005. This choice was suggested to not promulgate a prohibitionist law and to not influence the behaviour of those who smoke. The practical result of this Italian law is that some hospitality workers will work in smoking rooms, even if armoured rooms. They will be directly exposed to carcinogenic secondhand smoke while serving tables. In addition, serious health problems could develop if they have asthma or are pregnant. The hope is that in the next future these considerations will be done to protect (as in the Irish legislation) the health of all workers, included hospitality workers. 1. Howell F. Ireland’s workplaces, going smoke free. BMJ 2004;328:847 -8. 2. Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri 23 dicembre 2003. Attuazione dell'art. 51, comma 2 della legge 16 gennaio 2003, n. 3, come modificato dall'art. 7 della legge 21 ottobre 2003, n. 306, in materia di «tutela della salute dei non fumatori» published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale n.300 released on 29th December 2003. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
William D Jeans, Retired radiologist was at Sultan Qaboos Univdristy PC 123 Oman
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, Congratulations to the Irish Government on their ban on smoking in workplaces, and also on their methods of achieving this 1 . Perhaps our own governments could consider using a similar method of education, discussion and evidence based information to educate us on some of the matters affecting us all. These range from the best methods of providing health care to the country, to the European constitution and merits of the Euro with the whole range of national and international problems in between that are currently being discussed. Generally these seem to be discussed in an old-fashioned adversarial, often puerile way, in papers, on television and in Parliament. How can anyone or any country make sensible decisions without knowing the facts available? The Irish Government has shown us the way to go. William D. Jeans FRCR Competing interests: Politicians and common sense. No personal axe to grind. 1. Howell, E. Ireland’s workplaces, going smoke free. BMJ 2004: 328: 847 (10 April) Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Diane Kunyk, Project Coordinator Capital Health 14007 - 50 Street Edmonton, Alberta Canada T5A 5E4, Stanton A. Glantz, Becky Freeman
Send response to journal:
|
Public health policies are one of the measures increasingly employed by health professionals because they have wide reaching impact with the potential to influence large numbers of people. Many healthy public policies must be debated, drafted, adopted and implemented by non-health professionals – such as politicians. An example of a very successful public health policy is smoke free bylaws or legislation whereby smoking is restricted in public places to protect citizens from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. Following a combination of an increase in taxation and adoption of smoke free policies in public places, New York City Department of Health announced on May 14, 2004, that smoking rates were down 11% from 2002 to 2003. This decline represents 100, 000 fewer smokers and marks the most significant one-year drop every recorded. It is widely accepted that secondhand smoke is harmful, therefore debate against smoke free policies often moves to an economic argument. Scollo, et al, (2003), in their review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry, concluded that there was no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales and employment. Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke and be confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact. However, debate and discourse regarding restricting exposure to secondhand smoke occurs in the public arena by elected officials, the hospitality sector, the tobacco industry, health professionals – and the media. The tobacco industry will expend whatever effort is necessary to protect itself from public health policy that would adversely affect consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, profit.2 Coalitions, supported by the tobacco industry, continue to release information to the media claiming the opposite economic effect. The voting public can be exposed to conflicting information (and misinformation), even on the same day. Elected officials have to take a side to the debate, thereby becoming vulnerable to personal attacks by those opposing their views. Coalitions funded by the tobacco industry have undertaken personal smear campaigns against those who have supported smoke free policies. These smear campaigns can damage politicians’ careers - it is possible that the decisions made regarding non-smoking bylaws could impact their chances for re-election and, thereby, their livelihood. But what if there was a way for those places with smoke-free public buildings, restaurant and bar laws to be able to demonstrate that they have gained economically from their decision? Health professional associations have a role to play in tobacco reduction. Our conferences and conventions impact positively on those municipalities where they are held. This positive economic benefit should reward municipalities that have prioritized health and become smoke free. In May 2003, the Canadian Public Health Association adopted a resolution that future conferences will be held in jurisdictions with by-laws requiring all enclosed public places to be smoke-free (Appendix 1). Furthermore, the association resolved to urge others to adopt similar resolutions and to communicate this resolution to jurisdictions that would be potential convention sites. Since that time, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Pediatric Association have passed similar resolutions. What can your professional association do to support public health policy? Competing interests: None declared |
|||