Vivian Davis Figures has been a wonderful advocate for a statewide smoke-free policy. She has sponsored bills in more than a dozen sessions of the Legislature to ban smoking in most public places.
Each year, her bill fails. Figures has tried several strategies to get a smoke-free bill passed. One year, the bill would have banned smoking in restaurants, but not bars. She has introduced the bill early in the session and late. Now, Figures said she’ll push a really tough smoke-free law — but she’ll do it as a constitutional amendment.

Right idea, but wrong strategy.
We admire Figures’ persistence. But aside from the fact that we don’t need one more amendment to our already bloated, archaic state constitution, this isn’t an issue voters should decide.
The point of a smoke-free law isn’t to prohibit people from smoking; that’s a legal, if deadly, habit.
The point is to prevent people who aren’t smokers from having to be exposed to somebody else’s poisonous exhales.
Many workers have no choice but to endure in a smoky atmosphere. Maybe they work in a restaurant or a bar that allows smoking. Or the company they work for doesn’t prohibit smoking. Or the smoking areas are in a place, even outside, where nonsmokers must cross.
Secondhand smoke has long been identified as a killer of nonsmokers. There are about 7,400 smoking-attributed deaths in Alabama each year, with more than 800 of them from diseases caused by secondhand smoke. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a report published last year said exposure to secondhand smoke “causes lung cancer and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in nonsmoking adults and children, resulting in an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths and 3,400 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmoking adults each year.”
The 2006 surgeon general’s report on smoking noted that “secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults.”
That 2006 report pointed out that secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, including at least 69 cancer-causing ones.
Regulating a danger such as that caused by secondhand smoke isn’t something you put up to a public vote. Alabama people might very well support a constitutional amendment; barely more than 22 percent of Alabama adults smoke.
Still, any campaign can become emotional. A smoke-free law should be approved by the Legislature — it is supposed to represent the people, after all — through an unemotional process that considers science, medicine and facts.
If people voted against smoking restrictions, that wouldn’t make them right. They aren’t. Smoking kills, and so does secondhand smoke. If somebody wants to harm his own health by smoking, that’s his decision. He doesn’t have the right to harm somebody else’s health, though.

The Greenbelt secondhand smoke trial came to a quick conclusion today after a lengthy trial. Judge Albert Northrop ruled David Schuman deserved no compensation for his claim that his neighbor’s secondhand smoke created a nuisance that Greenbelt Homes Inc. (GHI) failed to solve. Northrop noted if he had ruled in favor of Schuman the case would set the precedent for action on secondhand smoke claims not just for condominiums and townhomes, but also single-family homes.

Instead, Northrop said that the level of secondhand smoke entering David Schuman’s townhouse was not an actionable nuisance. Nor did he see bad faith in GHI’s handling of Schuman’s complaints.

After the decision was read, David Schuman and his attorney, J. P. Szymkowicz walked out of the courtroom and retreated to a conference room.

“We’re very pleased with the outcome,” said Gretchen Overdurff, GHI general manager, after the decision was read, “It was appropriate and our counsel did a good job.”

Defense Argues on Behalf of GHI

GHI lawyer Jason Fisher broke down the facts during his closing arguments.

He said the plaintiff had not proven any monetary damages as a result of the secondhand smoke.

“Where’s the basis to award one cent?” he asked, and turned to the plaintiff, “You have no evidence submitted whatsoever to give a dollar figure.”

Fisher pointed out that members living in GHI—an historic community of about 1,600 closely situated townhouses—have to deal with small inconveniences on a daily basis.

He also noted that the GHI members that testified said they had smelled, heard or experienced something in GHI that they may not have liked, but tolerated.

Arguing that GHI acted amicably in the complaints, Fisher referenced the hearing GHI gave Schuman and talked about how GHI offered to reseal his unit a second time.

He then said there was a significant possibility that Schuman’s own renovations in late 2008 caused the smoke problem to come back.

In court, Fisher displayed a giant poster board before the courtroom containing a diagram of Schuman’s townhouse. He had highlighted the regions where Schuman’s renovations were done and then laid red circles over areas where Schuman had claimed that he smelled smoke. The red and yellow overlapped.

During the preliminary injunction hearings, Judge Northrop had said it was not appropriate to consider the renovations as the cause of the smoke.

During his ruling, he said, “he didn’t have all the details” previously, after hearing closing arguments, however, he said he couldn’t rule out the renovations as a cause.

Fisher said the “smoking gun” in the case was when James Repace, the biophysicist hired by the plaintiff found the same level of cancer-causing particles with his monitor in the smoke-free courtroom as he had in Schuman’s living room while Darko Popovic was smoking outside.

“Shouldn’t that create a cause of action for everybody in here?” he asked.

Repace said after the trial that Fisher’s argument was bogus and showed a lack of understanding.

The Plaintiff’s Side Rests its Case

The lawyers for the plaintiff rested their case on the arguments presented in a 156-page brief filed with the court about a week before closing arguments.

During his closing argument, Schuman’s attorney J.P. Szymkowicz recalled the testimony of the defense’s expert witness Dr. Ronald Gots. He said Gots said the levels of secondhand smoke suffered by Schuman might cause a medical problem in 2 out of 10,000 people.

“What would it be like to be one of those two people?” asked Szymkowicz.

Judge Northrop Explains His Ruling

After closing arguments, Judge Northrop told his own story. He said he grew up in a home where his dad had smoked regularly. He added that he was asthmatic as a child growing up and that his sister died in 2001 of lung cancer, caused by smoking.

Northrop said in Maryland smoking has already been banned in restaurants and courthouses. Legislatures have looked at it and chosen not to ban it generally. It’s a decision that’s going to have to be made by the legislature, he said.

“There needs to be actionable harm,” said Northrop, “I can’t find there’s an actionable nuisance in this case.”

Northrop found in favor of the defendant on eight of the nine counts, but he granted a permanent injunction against inside smoking by Mr. and Mrs. Popovic.

The Popovics are still able to smoke outside. Darko noted to the court that his wife has already quit smoking due to a brain tumor, unrelated to her smoking, and that he currently only smokes outside.

Schuman Says He Has to Move

After about 15 minutes huddled inside a conference room after Northrop’s decision, David Schuman emerged and said he was very disappointed in the outcome of the case.

“I’m going to have to move,” Schuman said, “If I can sell the house.”

He said the likelihood of others bringing another case like this one to court will be very difficult if not impossible. For his part, he said he would have to evaluate whether to appeal.

More Cases to Come

Gathered in the courtroom on Thursday were at least two other people that had similar cases to Schuman’s.

One said that she too suffered from secondhand smoke problems in her home. She said J.P. Szymkowicz was her attorney. Another complained in the hallway to Szymkowicz’ mother about her problems with secondhand smoke.

James Repace said he had signed up two new clients to test for secondhand smoke in their home since the trial began.

Before leaving the courthouse, Jason Fisher, attorney for GHI, discussed secondhand smoke cases and declared, “I think you’ll see more cases like this, and they’re going to get better at it each time.”

Smoke-free air policies have been protecting employees and the public in Delaware County for many years, both privately and through countywide clean indoor air ordinances. These policies have been advocated for and supported by individuals in the community looking to protect the overall health and wellness of employees by protecting them from secondhand smoke.

In 2006, many workplaces and public places were protected from the dangers of secondhand smoke. The newest clean indoor air ordinance, which took effect Aug. 11, replaced the previous ordinance and extended that same protection to all workplaces in Delaware County. This is not a ban on smoking. This is protection for all those working, living, and visiting Delaware County from a substance with more than 5,000 chemicals and nearly 70 known carcinogens.

Advocating for the protection of employees comes down to their overall health. Physically, secondhand smoke has been known to cause an increased risk of both heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers. It has also been linked to other serious health problems, including being identified as a known trigger for asthma attacks and linked with an increase in respiratory illness and infections.

Without adequate protection from secondhand smoke, employee physical health declines and their absenteeism increases. For those who are not afforded sick days, they work while ill, reducing their productivity, or take time off, reducing their income.

If they do not have health insurance, and if this is compounded by a lack of paid sick leave, employees can pay thousands of dollars in health care expenses and lose thousands in income.

If employees can no longer afford their health care, those costs become the burden of the business treating them or the general public.

Enacting smoke-free air policies protects the overall health of employees, including both physical and financial. Employees should not have to choose between their health and a paycheck, and in many instances, the choices are not mutually exclusive. Those who choose a paycheck over their health may end up spending a greater portion of their paychecks to stay healthy.

The current clean indoor air ordinance protects all workplaces and public places. Without this ordinance, employees in all sectors would lose their protection from secondhand smoke. This should not be the future for Delaware County employees. Their future should protect their health.

I agree with Mr Muhammad Haziq Jani, in his letter “No-smoking path is Utopian” (Oct 18). To have a complete ban is to deprive people of their freedom. However, many smokers like myself would like to play a part in reducing smoke pollution. We understand the harm that comes with this guilty pleasure, but there is no need to ostracise us. I am sure most of us are open to alternatives and I humbly suggest legalising electronic cigarettes.

These e-cigarettes simulate the act of smoking minus the smoke, smell and ash. The smoker gets his nicotine fix and no one comes in contact with second-hand smoke.

It may also change the way we function today. I have heard complaints about productivity loss from smoke breaks. With e-cigarettes, that could be a problem of the past.

And think about the trees we would be saving. Instead of using paper, e-cigarettes come with replaceable cartridges. I am not promoting e-cigarettes, and I hope to provide an alternative to a problem.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 46 million people smoke cigarettes every day, and it kills more than 5 million people a year. The number of smokers is clearly shown at Orange Coast College where it seems I see almost everyone holding a cigarette literally everywhere they go. I have never been a smoker nor have I ever wanted to be, yet I am still a victim of second-hand smoke every day — especially when I am at OCC surrounded by plenty of smokers.

Even non-smokers, including me, who don’t actively participate in smoking, are at risk of contracting pneumonia, bronchitis or heart disease that could one day kill us.
While I may not be extremely bothered by the smell of it or the fact that every time I am walking behind someone, the wind blows the smoke into my face, I am still concerned about the effects of second-hand smoke.
I do not condone cigarette smoking in any way. However, if people want the sweet smell of cigarette smoke in their hair and on their clothes, or the refreshing burn that they may feel as the smoke goes right into their eyes, mouth and nose, making its way down all the way into their lungs, then I suppose they should go for it.
At OCC, it sure seems like people enjoy tasty cigarettes for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I start my day off at school every morning walking past people sitting around, waiting for classes to begin, not with a warm breakfast in their hands, but a cigarette instead.
Why one would want to start a morning off with yellow teeth and cigarette breath beats me. It seems that smoking cigarettes has grown to be very common, not only due to the addictive nicotine, but also because of the social acceptance it has acquired among this generation.
Growing up around my dad and my brother, who are avid cigarette smokers, I’ve become accustomed to the cigarette smoke, cigarette breath and just about everything that has to do with smoking cigarettes. Now, being at OCC just adds a little more second-hand smoking experience to my plate.

Hearing loss has been linked to second hand smoke and alcoholic beverages, but this doesn’t stop young adults and even teengers from breathing secondary smoke. And for older students, alcoholic beverage use may damage hearing. On top of that add loud music and earphones that play for hours. It adds up to significant hearing loss, even deafness later in life. Since both alcoholic consumption and second hand smoke may damage hearing, you can only imagine what the ears have to endure while listening for hours to music played loud with earphones.

Does tobacco use as a teenager lead to deafness later in life? Teenagers who start using tobacco early in life may soon loose their hearing ability. Some may go deaf. And any other people breathing secondary smoke from those smoking teenagers can also develop significant hearing loss.
Tobacco companies in California should warn young people that smoking may not only lead to lung cancer but also to deafness. Smoking may also go along with loud music. Combined with secondary smoke, teenagers often lose their hearing early in life. And adults or teenagers who also drink beer and breathe second hand smoke from a closed environment like a night club or just breathe smoke from older relatives in their parent’s home also may lose their hearing. In fact, adults or people of any age can damage their hearing just from sipping beer. See, Alcohol Consumption Can Damage Hearing.
See the article in Hearing Health Magazine. Sipping alcohol damages the brain stem which in turn helps to cause the hearing loss. On top of that, breathing tobacco smoke or even second hand smoke from others, damages hearing even more. And still more damage to the hearing is done by wearing ear phones for hours or listening to loud music.

“Smoke exposure causes significant damage and lasting consequences in newborns,” Pinkerton said in the UC Davis news article. “This research has a message for every parent: Do not smoke or breathe secondhand smoke while you are pregnant. Do not let your children breathe secondhand smoke after they are born.”
Pinkerton added that the results from this study are further proof that secondhand smoke’s effects on children are not minor, temporary or reversible. “This is the missed message about secondhand smoke and children,” he said. “Parents need to understand that these effects will not go away. If children do not grow healthy lungs when they are supposed to, they will likely never recover. The process is not forgiving and the children are not going to be able to make up this loss later in life.”
The UC Davis research is reported in the Aug. 15, 2006 issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. That study was done with rhesus macaque monkeys, in order to obtain the best possible understanding of what happens in people. Pregnant macaques were exposed to smoke levels equal to those that a pregnant woman would breathe if someone in her home or workplace smoked. Newborn macaques were exposed to secondhand smoke levels similar to those a human baby would breathe if it was cared for by a moderate-to-heavy smoker.
What the researchers found is that environmental tobacco smoke wreaks havoc in babies at a critical time in the development of lungs — when millions of tiny cells called alveoli (pronounced al-VEE-o-lye) are being formed. Alveoli are the place where oxygen passes from the lungs into the bloodstream. Human infants are born with only about one-fifth of the 300 million alveoli they will need as adults. They construct almost all those 300 million alveoli between birth and age 8.
In the 2006 study, the researchers analyzed step-by-step how the alveolar cells’ inner workings reacted to cigarette smoke. They found the normal orderly process of cell housecleaning had gone haywire. In healthy people, cells live and die on a schedule. Programmed cell death, called apoptosis (a-pop-TOE-sis), is regulated by genes that increase or decrease various chemical reactions in the cell, the UC Davis article reported.
Funding for the study, “Environmental Tobacco Smoke Suppresses Nuclear Factor Kappa B Signaling to Increase Apoptosis in Infant Monkey Lungs,” was included in a five-year, $1.5 million research grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and $450,000 from taxes on sales of tobacco products in California.

Air cleaners significantly reduce particulate matter (PM) levels but are not enough to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke in inner-city children with asthma residing with a smoker, a new study has found. Arlene M. Butz, ScD, MSN, CPNP, with the Division of General Pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues reported the findings in the August issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

“Despite parental awareness that second-hand smoke exacerbates asthma, 40% to 67% of inner-city children with asthma reside in a household with at least 1 smoker,” the study authors note. According to the researchers, PM concentrations of secondhand smoke exposures have previously been found to be reduced with the use of air cleaners.

The current study sought to test the ability of an air cleaner only (n = 41), an air cleaner plus a health coach (n = 41), or delayed air cleaners (control; n = 44) in reducing PM, air nicotine, and urine cotinine concentrations. The number of symptom-free days was also evaluated.

Eligible children were aged 6 to 12 years, with clinician-diagnosed asthma, symptom frequency, and/or controller medication use signifying persistent asthma. A smoker, who smoked more than 5 cigarettes per day and resided in the home at least 4 days per week, was also present.

Reductions in mean fine and coarse PM (PM2.5 and PM2.5-10) concentrations from baseline to 6 months were significantly higher in both air cleaner groups vs the control group (PM2.5 concentrations, P = .003; and PM2.5-10 concentrations, P = .02 for differences between both air cleaner groups and control).

However, the presence of secondhand smoke, as measured by air nicotine and urine cotinine concentrations, was comparable among the groups. Use of a health coach did not further reduce PM concentrations.

Air cleaner groups, when combined, had a significant increase in symptom-free days during the past 2 weeks (1.36 vs 0.24 symptom-free days for control group children from baseline to follow-up), representing an increase of 14% to 18% symptom-free days, and yielding an additional 33 symptom-free days per year.

“Use of air cleaners in homes of children with asthma was associated with a significant reduction in indoor PM concentrations and increase in symptom-free days,” the study authors note. “However, the reduced indoor PM levels were not sufficiently decreased to meet EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] standards for outdoor air quality,” they add.

Despite years of graphic anti-smoking campaigns and public smoking bans, people continue to light up — especially at home, where more than half of American children and teenagers are exposed to secondhand smoke. Scientists believe that passive smoke either causes or exacerbates lung cancer, asthma, learning disabilities, heart disease and other conditions and now a new study now finds that teenagers exposed to tobacco smoke may also have significant hearing loss — and not even know it. Here, a brief guide:

How was this study conducted?
Researchers from the New York University School of Medicine tested over 1,500 adolescents aged 12 to 19 for blood levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine that forms when people are exposed to tobacco smoke. They also tested the teens’ ability to hear high-, medium- and low-frequency sounds.

What did the researchers find?
Teenagers who’ve been exposed to secondhand smoke have roughly double the risk of hearing loss compared to those with little or no exposure. And the more these teens have been exposed to tobacco smoke, as measured by their blood levels of cotinine, the greater their risk of significant hearing loss. Teenagers with the highest levels of exposure had nearly triple the risk of hearing loss.

How bad is their hearing?
They weren’t deaf, but their hearing was measurably impaired. And a startling number of these teens — over 80 percent — had no idea that they had significant hearing loss. “It’s kind of surprising,” says Dr. Joseph DiFranza, as quoted by Reuters Health. “We already knew that passive smoking is bad for children,” but “this just piles on another reason” to keep tobacco smoke away from kids.

How does hearing loss affect teens?
Hearing impairment was especially noticeable in the mid- to high-frequency range, which means the adolescents might have difficulty understanding human speech. That could result in problems at school, where they may be singled out as troublemakers, fail at social interactions, or be misdiagnosed with ADHD or other behavioral problems.

What can parents and teachers do?
The obvious first step is to minimize children’s and teen’s exposure to tobacco smoke. Testing is another important step: Infants are regularly screened for hearing loss, but there are no guidelines for hearing tests past the early school years. One researcher noted that all children and teenagers exposed to secondhand smoke should be regularly screened for hearing loss, in case hearing aids are warranted.

A teenager on a Port St. Lucie community baseball team says second-hand smoke was striking out with his teammates, so he took his complaint all the way to the City Council. Marcus Rigg is a recent graduate from Treasure Coast High School. The 17-year-old said he and his teammates were distracted by smoke coming from the bleachers while playing baseball for the Whispering Pines Park youth league.

Rigg took a swing and headed to the City Council determined to make a change.
“So we got a petition together, got about 300 signatures, and took it to City Council,” Rigg said. “I actually presented my petition in front of City Council, which was unexpected.”
The City Council voted Monday in favor of a policy that regulates where smoking is allowed at city parks.
I think it’s great,” Madeline Medina said. “My son is catcher, and I can’t deal with the people smoking in back of the dugout and everything.”
Rigg said he was told that he wouldn’t be able to make a difference because he’s just a kid.
Port St. Lucie’s communications director said the parks department is implementing designated smoking areas and will soon post signs at all city parks.