HOME New Additions NEWS ITEMS ARTICLES Letters from the Papers and DoH, MP & Press Emails ODDS & SODS LINKS CONTACT

 

EXTRACT from http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/SHSexposureinthehomebriefing2.doc

 We all THINK we KNOW that ETS Levels in the home will reduce if we have a total workplace smoking ban.

This extract from an ASH briefing document does not prove Legislation will lower ETS exposure in the home – but encourages us to think that it will ---- but they are wrong.
WITH A BAN THE LEVEL OF ETS IN THE HOME WILL RISE see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/smokingban.
I tried to follow all the references and found ASH cherry-pick what they want and make inferences to support their anti-smoking aims.

5. Smoke-free Legislation and Smoking in the Home

Opponents of smoke-free legislation often argue that an immediate consequence of introducing smoke-free public places is increased smoking in the home. This argument is used to attempt to justify a voluntary approach to reducing exposure to second-hand smoke 36 37 38 39

 36 Beers, R. One way to increase smoking in the home. [letter] Herald, 25 Jan, 2005.
An opinion
37ASH Scotland. The unwelcome guest: how Scotland invited the tobacco industry to smoke outside. Edinburgh: ASH Scotland, 2005.
An ASH PRODUCTION
38 The Scottish Licensed Trade Association Submission of written evidence to the Scottish Parliament Health Committee [online] 2005 Available from: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/health/inquiries/shsc/Part1/35%20SUBMISSION%20BY%20SLTA.pdf [Accessed 23/12/05]
An Opinion
39 Reid, J. Testimony. The Government’s public health white paper (Cm6374). Hearing Before the House of Commons Health Committee. UK, Feb 23, 2005.
Opinion
No evidence but comment against the next to the last paragraph suggests that exposure will fall in line with countries without bans (Ireland Vs UK = same drop!!)

Evidence from Ireland already shows that smoking in the home and car has reduced less than in england over a sin=milar period
An unpublished research paper has recently been quoted as appearing to show that smoke-free legislation in the US led to increased exposure for children from SHS in the home.40 Unlike other published work in this area, this research has not been peer reviewed. The effect it claims to show of increased exposure in the home to children aged 8 and under does not reach the level of statistical significance (p<0.05) generally adhered to by social scientists and researchers. This indicates that the suggested increase in home exposure identified is extremely small, and not significant in research terms. 40Adda, J. and Cornaglia, F. The effect of taxes and bans on passive smoking [Unpublished research paper]  University College London and Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2005.
BUT
NOTHING TO SHOW THAT IT Does/Doesn’t
There is no published, peer-reviewed evidence to demonstrate that smoke-free workplaces and enclosed public places increase the exposure of children to SHS at home.41 41 Royal College of Physicians. Going smoke-free. The medical case for clean air in the home, at work and in public places. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2005.
An opinion- have found none to confirm (or otherwise) - and wasn't it the RCP who founded ASH in 1971? !!
Smoke-free legislation is associated with fewer adults remaining smokers and lower levels of smoking more generally.42 43 A systematic review of studies on the effects of smoke-free workplaces found that totally smoke-free workplaces are associated with around a 4% reduction in smoking prevalence.44 This in turn means fewer parents exposing children to SHS in the home. Research also demonstrates that where smoke-free workplaces and enclosed public places are the norm, parents are more likely to try and prevent smoking in the home45 46 Maybe so BUT view Smoking Prevalence in Ireland since the ban – It’s gone up
42Farrelly, M. Evans, W.N. and Stefakas, A.E. The impact of workplace smoking bans: results from a national survey. Tobacco Control 8(3): pp.272-277, 1999.
NOT FOUND
43 Hovell, M. et al. Reducing children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: the empirical evidence and directions for future research. Tobacco Control  9(Sup2): II40-47, 2000.
INTERESTING - “However, the potential for change rests not only on attitudes, but on realities of housing, income, and child care.”
44 Fichtenberg C. and Glantz, S. Effects of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. British Medical Journal  325(7357): pp.188-91, 2002.
No Real evidence found since the report was about many levels of ban – Interestingly “Another limitation of the literature is that studies with null findings may not be published (‘the file drawer problem’).” --- Something many people believe, however “Thus, this decrease implies that the current US prevalence estimate of 22.8% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2002) would drop to 20.5% once the laws had been in place for several years.” and  ” Knowledge of the effects of clean air laws, alone and in combination with other tobacco control policies, and how they affect different sociodemographic groups, will be important in developing comprehensive strategies to reduce smoking rates.” 
Doesn’t seem to match but thinks we should consider how they affect different groups also mention of comprehensive.
A figure of around 4% is mentioned - Ireland, 2 years after the ban was enacted showed a 1/5% drop which is at the most a 2% drop!!!!! - The insistance on a total ban appears to be counter-productive.
45 Borland, R. et al. Trends in environmental tobacco smoke restrictions in the home in Victoria, Australia. Tobacco Control 8(3): 266-271, 1999.

Very interesting the link was only plausible but above that they wrote “…………. that more progress is likely to be made without the need for intensive interventions. The move to smoke-free homes can be thought of as part of a movement that is promoting this social innovation through the community.”
46 Soliman, S. et al. Decrease in prevalence on environmental tobacco smoke exposure in the home during the 1990s in families with children. American Journal of Public Health 94(2): pp.314-20, 2004.

From what I can see from reports about this it suggests that increased awareness has made the difference.
There is a growing body of international evidence to demonstrate that comprehensive smoke-free legislation contributes to reduced smoking in the home. 41 47 41 Royal College of Physicians. Going smoke-free. The medical case for clean air in the home, at work and in public places. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2005.
No It Does Not -An OPINION- have found none to confirm (or otherwise)
47World Health Organisation. International Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health, 11-14 January 1999, World Health Organisation, Tobacco Free Initiative Consultation Report, Geneva, Switzerland. [online] 1999, Available from: http://www.paho.org/English/AD/SDE/RA/ets_and_children_report.pdf [accessed 17 February 2006]

THIS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE STATEMENT “Legislation is of limited value in reducing exposure in private homes. Educational strategies, including education about the risks to children from ETS exposure and steps to eliminate exposure, are likely to be more effective in these settings.” “Young children’s greatest exposure to tobacco smoke occurs at home. Increasing the percentage of tobacco-free homes is generally not amenable to legislation but can be achieved by a combination of mass media campaigns and smoking restrictions in public places and the workplace.”
In Australia, researchers have been monitoring indicators of SHS policies in home since 1989. The proportion of family homes with smoking restrictions more than doubled (25% - 59%) after smoke-free workplaces were introduced.  In households where one adult smoked, the proportion with smoking restrictions rose from 17 per cent to 53 per cent; among those where both adults smoked, it increased from 2% to 32%. This research also indicated that individuals who work in smoke-free environments are more likely to discourage visitors from smoking in their homes, than respondents whose workplaces had partial or no smoking restrictions.45 45 Borland, R. et al. Trends in environmental tobacco smoke restrictions in the home in Victoria, Australia. Tobacco Control 8(3): 266-271, 1999.
It also indicates many other things as previously quoted – “The results indicate a clear and continuing trend towards reduction of ETS exposure around the home on all three indices reported here. This is extremely reassuring and suggests that more progress is likely to be made without the need for intensive interventions. The move to smoke-free homes can be thought of as part of a movement that is promoting this social innovation through the community.”
Research from the U.S. shows considerable levels of SHS control activities in homes where legislation has been implemented, but with fewer smokers taking action. In a survey of adolescents living in Massachusetts 48, 53% of those living with smokers reported no restrictions on smoking for family members, with 25% reporting smoking bans, and 23% reporting that visitors are not allowed to smoke. Overall, the introduction of smoke-free legislation was associated with marked reduction in reported SHS exposure, but the extent of the reduction appears to largely depend on adult’s smoking status. 48 Biener, L. et al. Household smoking restrictions and adolescents’ exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Preventive Medicine 26(3): pp.358-363, 1997

Article not found
In California, the proportion of children and adolescents living in smoke free homes increased from 38% in 1992, to 82.2% in 1999, one year after all enclosed public places and workplaces became smoke-free state-wide.49 49 Gilpin, E.A. et al. Clean indoor air: advances in California, 1990-1999. American Journal of Public Health 92(5): pp.785-91, 2002.

Found http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_3_1x_In_With_the_Good_Air_Out_With_the_Bad.asp American Cancer Society Article about the report “Heightened public awareness may be the reason more Californians have smoke-free homes, said the authors. They credited the California Tobacco Control Program's mass media campaign for that, as it seemed to reach many people regardless of their level of education.” Also “The program began in 1988, funded by the $0.25 per pack excise tax”
After two years of smoke-free public places in New York City, exposure to second-hand smoke in the home had decreased by 35%.50 50 The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Press Release: nearly 200,000 fewer smokers in New York City since 2002; at least 60,000 early deaths prevented. [online] 9 Jun, 2005. Available from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr/pr062-05.shtml [Accessed 22/12/05]
Maybe only nit-picking but is that true?? “More New Yorkers are avoiding second-hand smoke, with 124,000 fewer non-smokers (a 34.5% decline) reporting exposure to second-hand smoke in their homes compared with 2002.” It was only the non-smokers reporting this!!
A study of a national representative sample of smokers in Ireland found that there was a significant increase in the percentage of smokers who banned smoking in their homes after the law was implemented (from 80% to 85%).51 51 Fong, G.T. et al. Initial evaluation of the comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: findings from the ITC-Ireland/UK Survey. Tobacco Control [online preprint] 2005. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/preprint/tc13649.pdf [Accessed 23/12/05].
Was this simply a back-slapping report but this is an interesting quote “Inconsistent with the speculation that reductions of smoking in public venues might lead to greater levels of smoking in private venues, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of Irish homes where smoking was allowed (from 85% to 80%, p = 0.002), similar to the decrease in the UK (from 82% to 76%, p = 0.003). There was no significant change in reported smoking in cars in Ireland (42% to 45%, p = 0.33), whereas there was a decrease in the UK (from 38% to 30%, p = 0.005).”
Comparison to the UK suggests it might have nothing to do with a ban!!!
Initial data confirms that in New Zealand, the percentage of people reporting SHS exposure in their home has reduced since smoke-free legislation came into effect (December 2004) by over 5% (from 20% to 14.7%).52 Other factors may have contributed to this result, in particular the Smoke-free homes media campaign that ran in 2005 (see page 5 for further details). The New Zealand data also demonstrated that individuals who work in a smoke-free environment are more likely to discourage visitors from smoking in their home, compared to respondents whose workplaces have partial or no smoking restrictions. 53 52Ministry of Health, New Zealand. The smoke is clearing: anniversary report 2005. [online] Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2005. Available from: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/SmokeClear.pdf[Accessed 23/12/05]

“• In New Zealand, the percentage of people reporting second-hand smoke exposure in their home has reduced since the Amendment came into effect by over 5 percent (from 20 percent to 14.7 percent) (Waa and Gillespie 2005). • Other factors may have influenced this result – in particular, the Health Sponsorship Council and Quit Group’s Smoke-free Homes: Take the Smoke Outside media campaign that ran during 2005.”
Doesn’t say that the ban caused it all –It may have been better without the ban (see above for Ireland)

53Gillespie, J. Waa, A. and Afzal, R. Second-hand smoke exposure in homes and cars: Attitudes and behaviours in New Zealand, 2003. Wellington: Health Sponsorship Council and Quit Group, 2004.

Pretty obvious – Also considered much more – “ethnicity, income, socio-economic status, and location” –among others
What an eye opener
If we had many hundreds of thousands of pounds and full-time employees we could look in depth at all their documents, references and claims.