Over the last decade, a number of Canadian municipalities have passed bylaws prohibiting the smoking of tobacco products in enclosed, public spaces, particularly restaurants and bars. These laws have created a great deal of controversy, but by protecting the public against second-hand smoke (the smoke from the tip of a cigar or cigarette, plus that exhaled by the smoker), they represent an important step forward in public health—and they need to be taken further. Canada should bring the fight against second-hand smoke to a national level.

The dangers of second-hand smoke are well established. According to the Canadian Lung Association, cigarette smoke is just as dangerous to bystanders as it is to the smoker. In fact, second-hand smoke contains even higher levels of known cancer-causing substances than directly-inhaled smoke, plus twice the amount of tar and nicotine. Second-hand smoke is so dangerous it's believed to be responsible for as many as 300 lung cancer deaths in Canada every year [“Second-hand smoke”].

People who work in bars, restaurants and hotels and the worst affected, as they have no escape from customers who choose to smoke. It's believed that in a single work day, these employees can breathe in a quantity of smoke equivalent to that from two packages of cigarettes [“The Facts”, 2002]. As a result, food service workers in this country are, as a group, fifty percent more likely than the general population to develop lung cancer. For waitresses, the difference is a shocking four hundred percent [“Smoking bans”, 1999].

Faced with this evidence, it's vital that the federal government recognize second-hand smoke as a serious public health issue and pass legislation to protect its citizens, especially those who work in the hospitality industry. Canada's municipal anti-smoking bylaws should be expanded to a nation-wide ban on smoking in public spaces.

There's already reason to believe such a ban will be effective. Only a year after similar anti-smoking legislation passed in the state of California, a study into bartenders' health found that sixty percent of those previously suffering from lung ailments no longer reported any symptoms. In addition, the lung capacity of bartenders had increased by an average of four percent [Parang, 2002].

Still, some argue that a total ban on smoking is too aggressive. The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA) continues to promote improved ventilation systems as an equally viable way to address the health issue [“Restaurants caught”]. It bases this opinion on a 2001 study conducted by the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association (ORHMA), which showed the level of tobacco smoke in the air over the non-smoking section of a Toronto bar was “not statistically different” from that of a completely non-smoking establishment [“Smoking regulations”, 2001].

The legitimacy of this study is brought into question, however, by documents linking it to money received from Canadian tobacco companies [Perley, 2002].

Other research disagrees with the study's conclusions. An independent study into the efficacy of ventilators concluded that any system capable of safely reducing the concentration of tobacco smoke would necessarily produce “tornado-like levels of air flow” indoors [Repace, 1999]. A consultant hired to advise British Columbia's Capitol Region District also hypothesized that an effective system, if built, would cost $450 000 per year in energy alone [“Smoking bans”]. Increased ventilation is not a practical solution.

Some bar and restaurant owners have protested that banning tobacco smoke will hurt their business by discouraging customers from eating out [Monteiro, 2000]. This doesn't seem to match what the customers are thinking, however: according to one poll, 95 percent of Canadians recognize second-hand smoke as a health hazard, with 88 percent feeling that employers should provide a smoke-free environment for their workers [“The Facts”, 2002]. Given these statistics, it seems more reasonable to expect the elimination of second-hand smoke to improve business.

In fact, that's exactly what happened in California following the introduction of its ban in 1998. Taxable sales in restaurants serving beer and wine grew that year by 6.1 percent. Sales in establishments serving a wider variety of liquor were up also, by 5.1 percent [California State Board of Equalization]. Similarly, the 1995 introduction of smoking restrictions in New York City led to a 2.1 percent increase in sales for eating and drinking establishments, and a remarkable 37 percent increase for hotels [Repace, 1999]. Consumers enjoy smoke-free environments, and are willing to pay for them.

Smoking bans are safe for the economy, more practical than technological solutions, and, most importantly, effective in protecting the public's health. The federal government should move quickly to introduce a nation-wide ban on public smoking for the wellbeing of all Canadians.