Smokers Breath "harmful to children"?

Hello Everyone -

Just a quick update.

1) There are 2 articles below that just take the cake! This John Banzhaf (ASH) is a real nut. In the first article he notes that smoker's breath puts the public at risk and in the 2nd article he supports banning smoking in homes with or without children. We need to stop this madness....it has gotten completely out of control.
2) Sue Jeffers radio show today was on the smoking ban. In case you missed it, I will be posting the podcast tomorrow and you can listen to it on the computer. Sue did a great job to help me through my jitters on her show.
3) I have made contact with another group that is pursuing the smoking ban on a federal level. I will keep you posted on the status.
4) I have also made contact with a theater major and am pursing a "new" play. I will let you know when it is ready.
5) A big THANKS to Mark Benjamin for filing the appeal on behalf of Tanks Bar!
6) Keep the e-mails going to your legislators...they need to keep hearing from us! It only takes a minute to send one...it's the least we can all do until election time.





http://www.pr-inside.com/smoker-s-breath-creates-indoor-air-r657051.htm
Air Pollution, Smoking, Smokers' Breath, Legal Problems, Child Custody, Tobacco Residue, Americans With Disabilities, ADA
Smoker's Breath Creates Indoor Air Pollution "Harmful" to Children and Perhaps Adults // Study's Findings Create New Legal Problems in Child Custody Cases and Workplaces
"SMOKER'S BREATH IS HARMFUL TO HEALTH" // Smoker's Breath Creates Indoor Air Pollution "Harmful" to Children and Perhaps Adults // Study's Findings Create New Legal Problems in Child Custody Cases and Workplaces
2008-06-22 09:03:41 - "SMOKER'S BREATH IS HARMFUL TO HEALTH." That's the message from a new Australian study which showed that smokers who smoked only outdoors nevertheless emitted enough respirable suspended particles in their breath when they returned indoors to create air pollution which is "harmful" to children.
The study found that the chemicals in the smoker's breath were sufficient to cause or aggravate respiratory illnesses including asthma, coughs, and colds among children in such homes as compared with kids in homes where the air was not contaminated by the breath of a smoker. Respiratory illnesses were found to be much more prevalent in homes with smokers. Children exposed to higher air nicotine levels were three times more likely to have asthma or wheeze than those not exposed."This study suggests that society must go beyond merely protecting children from being in the presence of parents and others who smoke in their homes, and think about more effective measures to protect children from parents who smoke anywhere. t also provides a strong scientific basis for agencies which already refuse to permit smokers to adopt children, even if the potential adoptees claim that they only smoke outdoors, and never in the presence of the child," says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whose organization, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), is leading the legal battle to protect children from tobacco smoke.Judges in almost three-fourths of the states have issued orders prohibiting smoking in homes to protect children involved in custody disputes. But this study would permit the parent who obtained the order to go back and strengthen it, perhaps requiring the smoking parent to change clothing and use a mouthwash before the child visits, predicts attorney Banzhaf, who has helped nonsmokers obtain some of these court orders. The same thing could happen in the dozen states which already prohibit parents from smoking in homes where foster children reside.Although the study only validated the harm to children, it did show that "harmful" levels of several known toxic chemicals are present in the air of homes where a smoker lives but smokes only outdoors. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that smoker's-breath air pollution inside homes or workplaces could also be harmful to workers with allergies and/or other special sensitivities, putting them at risk of asthmatic attacks which could even trigger a cardiac event.Banzhaf notes that two legal actions attacking tobacco residues have already been successful. In the first it was held that the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] applied, and that the employer therefore had to make a reasonable accommodation to protect the nonsmoking employee from tobacco residues.A second proceeding involved a woman who worked for a university which banned smoking in its offices, but did permit workers to go outside for a smoke. Two doctors determined that the smoker's breath, and other tobacco residue from his clothing once he returned to the office, endangered the health of the woman as well as that of her unborn child. A formal complaint filed by Banzhaf resulted in immediate action to protect the woman."We've always known that a smoker's breath stinks. Now we know that it also creates indoor air pollution which can harm children and perhaps some adults."PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF IIIExecutive Director and Chief CounselAction on Smoking and Health (ASH)2013 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20006, USA(202) 659-4310 // ash.org


http://www.pr-inside.com/majority-want-smoking-banned-in-all-r665258.htm
Majority Want Smoking Banned in All Homes [06/26/08] Latest Front in the War to Protect Nonsmokers
2008-06-25 21:36:33 - A clear majority wants smoking banned in all homes, even if children are not present, and even if the smoke is not drifting into an adjoining dwelling. This could expand the latest front in the war to protect nonsmokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers' movement by getting smoking first restricted and then banned on airplanes and then in workplaces and public places, and who is racking up victories in the battle to ban smoking in private dwellings and cars.

According to a new survey, 57% of the people in Ireland support a ban on smoking in all homes and cars. This could indicate growing support for smoking bans both here and abroad, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) -- America's first antismoking organization, and the group behind restrictions on smoking in homes in almost three fourths of the states -- because the percentage of smokers in Ireland is substantially higher than in the US. However, ' Ireland led the way by being the first country to introduce the smoking ban in the workplace in 2004," notes ASH Ireland."As politicians in many states continue to debate whether to ban smoking in restaurants, bars, casinos, and other public places, it looks like legislators are once again far behind the growing public sentiment for smoking bans, and also far behind how far judges and regulatory agencies are willing to go," says Banzhaf.Banzhaf -- who have been called "The Man Behind the Ban on Cigarette Commercials," "The Ralph Nader of Tobacco," and "Mr. Antismoking" -- notes that:* judges in almost three fourth of all states have not hesitated to ban smoking in homes to protect children in their jurisdiction involved in custody disputes; *judges in many states have sided with nonsmokers complaining about smoke drifting or re-circulating into their apartment or condo; * both regulators and legislators have now banning all smoking in private homes and cars when foster children are present; and that a flurry of new laws are banning smoking in cars to protect children."Court after court and judge after judge has ruled that there is no right to smoke, so that courts, regulators, and legislatures are free to ban it in homes and in cars. Indeed, several courts have gone even further, holding that both private companies and governmental bodies can fire persons who smoke off the job, even if they do it in the privacy of their own homes or in other places where it is perfectly legal," says Banzhaf.Indeed, as more and more companies face the specter of bankruptcy or an inability to compete because of ever escalating health insurance costs, and are finding that providing smoking cessation assistance and/or financial incentives for employees to quit smoking are ineffective, more are insisting upon having a smoke free workforce, just as they may insist on a drug free workforce, notes Banzhaf.Smoking imposes a huge financial burden on society of over $140 billion each year, most of which is paid by nonsmokers in the form of higher taxes and bloated bills for health insurance. Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to help smokers quit, it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf.PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF IIIExecutive Director and Chief CounselAction on Smoking and Health (ASH)2013 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20006, USA(202) 659-4310 // ash.org