Resource Center

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Dakota County Smoke-Free Communities Partnership

* The background information for this document comes from 3 sources: U.S. Surgeon General's Report, 2006; Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, Tobacco Industry Sound-bites; and Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN, Physician Advocacy Network: Tools for Eliminating Secondhand Smoke in Your Community.

Question: Isn't smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke a civil rights and personal liberty issue?

Answer: Secondhand smoke is a public health issue.

•  The recently released U.S. Surgeon General's report states there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke;

•  Exposure to secondhand smoke is a leading preventable cause of cancer and heart disease in the U.S.;

•  People have the right to smoke, but not in ways that harm other people;

•  When people smoke in public places they affect the health of everyone around them;

•  Personal liberty has never been understood to allow one person's behavior to damage or risk damage to another person;

•  It is the duty of local governments to protect the health of their community.

Question: Shouldn't businesses have the right to choose whether or not smoking is allowed?

Answer: Protecting the health and safety of the community is one of the main purposes of government, not businesses.

•  Businesses have the right to operate as they want as long as they are not endangering their employees or the public;

•  Businesses are used to a variety of local health and safety regulations such as sanitation, food handling and storage, etc.;

•  Business owners understand the responsibility of local governments to enact laws to protect public health and safety and few argue with current local health and safety regulations;

•  Public health policy should be determined by policymakers, not by businesses.

Question: Are non-smoking sections in restaurants enough to protect non-smokers?

Answer: No. Secondhand smoke doesn't stay in the smoking section of the restaurant. It drifts into the non-smoking sections.

•  Sitting in the non-smoking section of a restaurant for just over an hour is equivalent to smoking one and a half cigarettes;

•  The recently released U.S. Surgeon General's Report states that the only way to fully protect non-smokers is to eliminate smoking indoors;

•  The Surgeon General's report also states that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

Question: Can't both smokers and non-smokers be accommodated in workplaces and public places through the use of state-of-the-art ventilation systems?

Answer: Ventilation can only reduce the odor and visible secondhand smoke; even the best ventilation system still leaves employees and patrons exposed to the many carcinogens in secondhand smoke.

•  Secondhand smoke has a non-linear dose response, meaning a reduction in smoke does not equal a reduction in risk;

•  Ventilation systems cannot completely eliminate the harmful gases and particulates in secondhand smoke;

•  The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers confirmed in 2000 that even the most modern ventilation systems can't remove the dangers of secondhand smoke;

•  As mentioned before, the U.S. Surgeon General's Report states that the only way to fully protect nonsmokers is to eliminate smoking indoors.

Question: Is it true that the scientific methodology behind secondhand smoke reports is flawed, so flawed that the conclusions simply cannot be supported?

Answer: This is a key argument supported by the tobacco industry, not by leading public health authorities.

•  There is no debate with legitimate scientists and reputable health agencies such as the CDC, the EPA, the Office of the Surgeon General, and the World Health Organization that secondhand smoke kills;

•  Internal tobacco industry documents acknowledge that secondhand smoke is dangerous;

•  Secondhand smoke has been found by more than 100 major peer-reviewed studies to be a health hazard, causing heart disease, lung cancer, heart attacks and respiratory illnesses, asthma, and recently breast cancer. These studies include:

•  Surgeon General's Report, 1986
•  National Research Council review, 1986
•  Environmental Protection Agency report 1992
•  California Environmental Protection Agency review, 1997
•  National Cancer Institute, Monograph #10, 1999
•  Surgeon General's Report, 2004
•  California Environmental Protection Agency: “Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant”, June 2005
•  Surgeon General's Report, 2006