The many attractions of the traditional pub are certainly not tied to an uncomfortable and dangerous smoky environment, writes Glen A. Lillington
Formal studies on the health hazards of smoking cigarettes began 50 years ago. After extensive research, medical experts now widely acknowledge that this addictive habit is a major cause of lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease, resulting in 400,000 to 500,000 deaths per annum in the United States alone, at an annual healthcare cost of $160 billion.
A recent study shows that American male smokers lose 13 years of life to the habit and women, 14.5 years. Smoking is also the number one killer of Irish people every year: 15 to 20 people die every day in the Republic due solely to the ravages of smoking. Some 2,000 annually succumb to lung cancer alone, accounting for almost a third of all Irish cancer deaths.
More than 3,000 people in Europe die daily from smoking, while in China, the government fears cigarettes will kill a third of its young men.
Until recently, tobacco companies have vigorously and unanimously denied this association. Now it turns out that it's not just smokers themselves who suffer the ill-consequences of this habit, but anyone who is in the vicinity of the smoker, especially children.
The possible health hazards to non-smokers of second-hand smoke inhalation have been carefully investigated in the past two decades. A complete review of the evidence by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the National Cancer Institute in 1997 confirmed that the danger is real.
Although the amount of second-hand smoke inhaled by non-smokers is much less than the amounts of mainstream smoke by smokers, second-hand smoke contains higher concentrations of toxins and carcinogens, many of which are not even present in mainstream smoke - which itself contains about 4,000 chemicals! Studies estimate that the second-hand smoke inhaled by bar and restaurant workers in an eight-hour shift is the equivalent of smoking half a pack of cigarettes.
Dr Stanton Glanz of the University of California at San Francisco, a veteran of the tobacco political wars, considers that second-hand smoke exposure causes 30,000 to 50,000 premature deaths in the US each year.
Recent studies have also drawn connections between sudden infant death syndrome (cot death) and the exposure of babies to passive smoke. The tobacco industry maintains that second-hand smoke has little if any adverse effects upon health, but you may recall that it said this about mainstream smoke for about 45 years.
Therefore, it is obvious that reducing or abolishing second-hand smoke exposure should have a high public health priority. However, this has not been an easy task. The main reason is the obfuscation and arguments of the tobacco company lobby groups.
Dr Glanz states: "A major reason for Big Tobacco's fight against any ordinance restricting smoking is the fact that such ordinances result in a significant reduction in tobacco sales to smokers. Apparently, many of the smokers who'd like to quit smoking are persuaded by such restrictions that the time to quit has finally arrived."
STRATEGIES to reduce environmental contamination by cigarette smoke have included the abolition of smoking on airlines, trains and buses, in hospitals and in public buildings. Much of the impetus for these changes came from employees themselves who were unwillingly exposed to environmental smoke in the course of their duties.
Many people have gradually accepted that smoking should be banned in enclosed public areas or on forms of transport, but attempts to abolish smoking in restaurants and establishments purveying alcoholic beverages have met intense resistance. In the case of the smoker, this is probably because the urge to smoke is both an addiction and a psychological habit, one often linked closely to either having a meal or a drink.
Tobacco companies realise this and play on the fears of the hospitality industries that they will suffer severe financial consequences if smoking in restaurants, bars and pubs is prohibited. It is certainly understandable that the hospitality industry would be alarmed, fearing that they may lose customers if smoking is curtailed.
This perspective was expressed vigorously in the past year by Mr Joe Browne, the president of the Vintners Federation of Ireland, at its annual meeting in Limerick. He prophesied that such bans would lead "to a loss of . . . the Irish pub". He added that Irish pubs portrayed in books, films and ads are "busy, friendly, full of ambiance and atmosphere".
I concur with all is, particularly the atmosphere, which is reminiscent of the comparison by King James I of England of tobacco smoke with a "black, stinking fume . . . nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless".
Why do vintners not realise that the many attractions of the traditional pub are certainly not tied to an uncomfortable and dangerous smoky environment?
But not to worry. Be of good cheer, good host, the news is good. California has banned smoking in or near restaurants, saloons and pubs for some time and business is as good or better than ever. Despite the eagerness of Irish smoking supporters to claim otherwise, all industry statistics show absolutely no fall off in the numbers patronising California establishments.
On the contrary, it appears that there is a large body of non-smokers who have begun to patronise restaurants, pubs and bars since the smoking ban was adopted. Dr Glanz says he has never seen an example of the dire prophecies coming true.
With reference to American tourists, most are now ardent non-smokers, with Californians being non- smokers by a margin of 5-to-1. As visitors, they will undoubtedly flock into smoke-free Irish pubs as they do now into Irish-style pubs in California.
Therefore, the announcement by the Health Minister, Micheál Martin, that he will introduce a ban on smoking in Irish pubs when food is being served is a wise decision and is to be welcomed - hopefully leading to a complete ban in short order.
Dr Glen Lillington is emeritus professor of medicine at the University of California, Davis, clinical professor of medicine at Stanford University and an internationally acknowledged authority on respiratory diseases.