20 - Morth Shere News — Wednesday, March 22, 2000 The facts on second-hand smoki Or. Perry Kendail Contributing Columnist THE Workers’ Compensation Board’s (WCB) second-hand smoke regulation has produced a broad spec- trum of opinions and positions since its Jan.1 implementation. Opponents of the regula- tion, represented primarily by some hospitality industry employers, would have us believe thar any social or health “benefits” associated with the regulation are out- weizhed by the “costs.” The assortment of costs that the hospitality industry has cited includes declining revenues, anticipated job loss- es, and unjustifiable state intrusion on individual rights and freedoms. Against these claims is the evidence of the benefits of introducing these clean air regulations. Opinion polls consistently show that a vast majority of British Columbians support the right of workers to pro- tection from exposure to sec- ond-hand smoke, and mea- sures to control that expo- sure. Second-hand smoke is a recognized health hazard, containing over 4,000 chemi- cals of which at least nine are sweet, small Florida GRAPEFRUIT “Cou, expires March 26/2000. Valicf ot Park Royal store only ee ee weed known or suspected to cause cancer in humans. Other chemicals found in second-hand ssioke are known or suspected muta- gens, capable of changing Uhe genetic structure of cells. Hospitality industry work- ers, who have been shown to have higher exposure to sec- ond-hand smoke than other workers, are no Jonger exposed to a recognized health hazard that can cause cancer, heart disease, stroke, asthmatic attacks and other related diseases as of Jan. 1, 2006. Now all workers in British Columbia benefit from a regulation thax will protect their health. One piece of misinforma- tion consistently put forth by opponents to the regulation concerns the supposed scien- tific controversy regarding the effects of second-hand smoke. There is an abundance of legitimate, replicable, scientif- Fein ~ ic evidence to refute this mis: information. We estimate that 50 non-smokers die each year from hing cancer caused by second-hand smoke in B.C. Second-hand smoke also increases the risk of heart dis case, including heart attacks. We estimate 500 non-smok- ers in British Columbia dic each vear from heart disease caused by second-hand smoke. Nationwide, Health Canada estimates second- hand smoke kills more that 4,000 Canadians cach year. Opponents of the regula- tion focus on the 1998 ULS. court case in which they state the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings linking second-hand smoke to cancer were dis- proved. In this case, which is under appeal by the EPA, North Carolina Judge Wiliam Osteen accepted tobacco industry contentions fresh CAULIFLOWER that the EPA was biased in its 1992 selection of studies on which ir based its findings. His evling on cancer cau sation, with which virtually no independent scientific body agrees. did not dispute the EPA findings on other lung disease or heart disease, nor did his review consider scientific evidence published post 1992, In November 1999, the ULS. National Cancer Institute published the most comprehensive report ever compiled on second: hand smoke. The report contirms the link to dung cancer, heart dis- ease, nasal sinus cancer, and a range of other diseases. Another argument put forward by anti-regulation proponents is that the gov- ernment is behaving hypo- critically by profiting from tobacco tax revenues while simultaneously passing judy- ment on the health effects of tobacco use. The most conservative estimate of the annual cost of smoking to the British Columbian economy is $1.2 billion. This includes estimat- ed direct costs of $297 mil- lion for treating tobacco related disease in British Columbia, and indirect costs (i.e. workplace absenteeism, fire damage, and lost produc- tivity) totalling over $800 million. Compare these figures to the approximately $491 mil- lion received in revenues from the sale of tobacco; and it is easy to see the real cosis of tobacco use for B.C. tax payers. The British Columbia figures are supported by three separate national stud- jes that have examined costs versus revenues in the tobac- co debate. Ina similar vein we must question the argument that che business sector’s “bottom line” will be adversely affect- ed by the WCB regulation. Numerous North American studies show that ig dangers btsiness is not hurt and often improves over a business cvele when restaurants and bars go smoke-free. A recent example, pub- lished in the May 26, 1999, issue of the Jasrual of the American Medical Asvoctation, concludes that “smoke-free regulations gen- erally do not adversely attect businesses and can, in fact, increase business revenues and tourism.” The study which com- pared hotel revenues before and after smoke: tree regula- tions were pur in place was conducted in three states, (California, Utah and Vermont) and six cities (Boulder, Colorado; Flaystatl, Arizona; Los Angeles, California; Mesa, Arizona; New York, New York; and San Francisco, California) where non-smok- ing standards have been in place for over four years. The study alsn examined the impact of smoke-free reg- ulations on tourism in California, Urah and New fork City. The study's results showed that the number of tourists from Japan to California actually increased, and a similar increase occurred in the number of tourists from Germany to New York City. No signifi- cant change occurred to tourism in Utah. Over the past year, California saw 3 6% growth in restaurant and bar revenue, resulting in an additional $370 million to the state's economy. Similarly, tourism revenues have grown from $53.8 billion in 1995 to $61.2 billion in 1997. In 8.C., studies have tracked the impact of munici- pal smoking control bylaws. A 1999 study compared payrolls in food conces- sions/restaurants and in pubs/bars in Victoria and nearby communities without See Over following page We always said everyone should own a Mercedes. Now we're doing something aboui it. > C-Class. We think every- one deserves to drive a car with the safety of a Mercedes-Benz. And the performance. And the longevity. Which is why we built the C-Class, Starting at $38,450, eee” its the most accessible Mercedes-Benz ever. With ali the qualities that make a Mercedes a Mercedes. We'd like to invite everyone to come in for a test deive. (A) Mercedes-Benz 1375 Marine Drive N. Vancouver * 984-9351 $399 per monin based on a 2000 C230 Classic, 6.1% iease rate, 33 month walkaway leace with $5,500 down o¢ equivalent trade. Optional buyback $25,495.25. 18,000kmvVyear allowance (20¢ /km over). Taxes, license, freight and PO! extra. 0.A.C.