"Smoke-Free Illinois"

 
Smoke Free Illinois Introduction The affects of smoke have long been an object of study, debate, and policymaking in the United States and other countries. Different no-smoking laws and policies have been implemented, and countless studies have been undertaken to scientifically document the medical risks and negative environmental and pollution consequences of smoking. On particular aspect of this rather broad subject is the issue of second hand smoke, or the negative consequences smoke can have on non-smokers who nevertheless breathe in smoke through the air. Numerous states and regions have been addressing this issue and developing policies to protect non-smokers from the negative impact of smoke. This capstone seeks to define the problem of secondhand smoke in terms of health effects, mortality rate, and the ineffectiveness of various solutions; provide a focus-point analysis using Illinois and the Smoke Free Illinois Act to illustrate a possibly more effective solution to the problem and evaluate its success; and finally, present various conclusions and ramifications based on the current study about the remaining difficulties and possible future outcomes. 2. Defining the Problem Different sources provide various definitions for “secondhand smoke,” all more or less the same in essence, varying only in wording. Considering that this capstone will deal primarily with the Smoke Free Illinois Act, it will mainly used the definition offered by the Illinois Department of Public Health, which states: “Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of tobacco products and the smoke exhaled from the lungs by smokers that contains a complex mixture of chemicals, many of which are known to cause cancer” (Illinois Department of Public Health). An additional definition that gives a few more specific details pertaining to the source and chemical reality of secondhand smoke, as propagated by the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco (OCAT), states that “Second-hand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals and is a mix of mainstream smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream smoke emitted from the tips of burning cigarettes” (OCAT). Often, secondhand smoke is also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Secondhand smoke is seen as a hazard and problem requiring attention because of its negative effects on health. For decades, medical research and laws focused on the negative effects smoking has on the health and lungs of the person smoking. While this still holds true, attention in recent decades has turned to the fact that smoking has a negative health effect on everyone exposed to the toxins and chemicals emitted into the air by the smoke. This implies that even nonsmokers are harmed by the smoke, now called secondhand smoke, since it has not been smoked directly, but is received through the air. Anyone who breathes air that has secondhand smoke (carcinogens and other chemicals), is exposed to smoke and therefore at risk of the same health problems as the smokers themselves. This “involuntary smoking” involves the consumption over more than one hundred chemicals that can pose a threat to health (cf. OCAT). Reports show that while nonsmokers breathe in less smoke from secondhand smoke than smokers themselves, there is little difference in the medical outcome. Heart, lung, and other health problems are just as likely. According to OCAT, secondhand smoke causes “heart disease, lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), asthma and middle ear infections in children and various other respiratory illnesses” and is “causally associated with stroke, low birthweight, spontaneous abortion, negative effects on the development of cognition and behavior, exacerbation of cystic fibrosis and cervical cancer” (OCAT). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke have a 25-30% increased chance of heart disease and a 20-30% increased chance of lung cancer (cf. U.S Department of Health and Human Services). While the health conditions mentioned in this paragraph are not necessarily linked to secondhand smoke, and can happen for unrelated causes, the proven link between secondhand smoke and these health issues makes society responsible for protecting the public from exposure to such toxins, thereby decreasing or eliminating the presence of these health conditions resulting from smoke. Children are at even greater risks than adults when exposed to secondhand smoke. This is largely due to the high speed at which children breathe. In any given amount of time, a child will inhale more than twice and up to three times the amount of smoke as an adult and, as a result, suffer from higher levels of toxins. According to Terry Martin’s article, Secondhand Smoke and Children, in-uterus exposure to secondhand smoke can lead to underweight babies, and increases risk of learning disabilities and other disorders including cerebral palsy and SIDS mortality. Between two hundred thousand and one million children have asthma caused or worsened by exposure. Secondhand smoke also causes around 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia each year, middle ear infections, and levels of cotanine in blood (cf. Martin, Terry). The Mayo Clinic, an organization internationally known and recommended for its medical practice and research, has confirmed the health risks that secondhand smoke causes for both children and adults (cf. Mayo Clinic). The health risks posed by secondhand smoke are confirmed and proven by the number of deaths related to such exposure. The most recent data provided by the Illinois Department of Health shows that 65,000 people die each year in the United States from exposure to secondhand smoke. This statistic only deals with non-smokers who die from exposure to smoke; it does not take into account the number that die from smoking themselves. In the state of Illinois, the yearly toll of non-smokers who die from exposure to secondhand smoke is 2,900 (cf. Illinios Department of Public Health). The common phrase “secondhand smoke kills” is not just an idiom; it can and should be taken literally as well, based on the real effect exposure to smoke has on mortality