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

 

Will Smoking increase in the Home? Or Do ASH give misleading information?

We are assured by health experts that the workplace-smoking ban will not lead to increased smoking in the home.

Smoking rates and smoking in the home is decreasing each year and any increase or slowing down of this would seriously damage this progress. 

As a result of our imminent legislation drinking in licensed premises could become less attractive to many smokers :-
  Many Public house and restaurant groups are preparing to invest heavily in outdoor areas in an effort to retain their smoking customers. Will these costs be passed on to the customer to make pubs even more expensive?
Will smokers sit outside in all weathers?
If a smoker cannot relax with friends, a drink and cigarette in the comfort of their local will they choose to relax elsewhere? 
If there is no recreational ‘public’ place will they relax with their friends at home?
There is already evidence of pub, club and bingo hall closures.
Drink prices in supermarkets are well below those in licensed premises.
There evidence of an increase in supermarket sales of alcohol.

From the above commonsense and logic suggests that there will be a move away from traditional ‘smoking’ venues and the home is the most obvious venue.
ASH suggests that the ban will not increase smoking in the home and have published their ‘proof’. Typical of this is the item printed below from http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/SHSexposureinthehomebriefing2.doc . I have looked at these assurances, attempted to follow their references and tried to find their supporting proof.

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. This is simply an opinion with no proof.
37ASH Scotland. The unwelcome guest: how Scotland invited the tobacco industry to smoke outside. Edinburgh: ASH Scotland, 2005. One of ASH’s own productions.
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 but based on evidence that smoking rates do not reduce yet smokers have been replaced by non-smokers and asks where they have gone. They suggest it is into the home.
39 Reid, J. Testimony. The Government’s public health white paper (Cm6374). Hearing Before the House of Commons Health Committee. UK, Feb 23, 2005. Again simply an 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 similar 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.
  40 Adda, 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. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/smokingban  – Now published at http://cemmap.ifs.org.uk/wps/cwp2005.pdf . There is nothing to suggest that smoking at home decreases and it is not unusual for a study not coming from ‘health’ groups to be damned by them with a claim that it has not been peer reviewed . A paper by the authors with the same name was Discussion Paper No. 2191 at The Institute  for the Study of Labor in Germany in July 2006
“While bans in public transportation, shopping malls, and schools lead to the desired decrease in exposure of non smokers, we find that bans in recreational public places can perversely increase tobacco exposure of non smokers by displacing smokers to private places where they contaminate non smokers. Children seem to be particularly affected by this displacement. The level of cotinine in children considerably increases as a result of bans in recreational public places, while decreases if tighter bans are put in place in public transport or shopping malls.”
Also
“These results suggest that smoking regulations have a distributional effect, increasing the exposure and putting at risk the health of poorer section of the population while it benefits individuals in higher socio-economic position. The consequence of strengthening smoking regulations would be a widening in health disparities across socio-economic groups.” Not relevant but another claim is that ban will benefit those of a lower socio-economic areas!
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. Their assurance fails to prove the point they are making. - and might this simply be a form of biased ‘parental’ support since it was 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
  42 Farrelly, 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. –  http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/3/272 “Having a 100% smoke-free workplace reduced smoking prevalence by 6 percentage points and average daily consumption among smokers by 14% relative to workers subject to minimal or no restrictions” This appears to be based on areas where “47% worked in 100% smoke-free environments”
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. - “However, the potential for change rests not only on attitudes, but on realities of housing, income, and child care.” This suggests that social change and education not legislation are the route to lower smoking rates.
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 we should consider how they affect different groups also mention of comprehensive strategies.
A figure of around 4% is mentioned - Ireland, 2 years after the ban was enacted showed a 0.5% drop which is at the most a 2% drop!!!!! http://www.otc.ie/research_reports.asp  - The insistence on a total ban could be a step-too-far and 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. This is extremely interesting as they describe the link as 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. – as above –It is an opinion by a closely linked organisation and does not 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.  Not found but -  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!! There are no figures for smokers and their families experiencing SHS at home.
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]. Not found Dec 2006 but alternative Powerpoint presentation found at http://roswelltturc.org/presentations/Fong-SRNT2005-Ireland-Final.ppt
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). The change is slightly less than that in Britain where there was no ban. 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 that the Ireland ban has NOT led to less smoking in the home but might have caused more smoking in cars with non-smoking passengers. 
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 the reduction –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. This association is pretty obvious but a lot more is considered - “ethnicity, income, socio-economic status, and location” –among others. 

Conclusion
Smoking rates and smoking in the home is reducing but there is no proof in this ASH document that tells us a total ban will lead to an decrease or an increase of smoking in the home?
The references look impressive yet what they do provide is evidence that education and bans in non-recreational venues have had most effect.
The ban in this country provides no year round recreational space for smokers so it is obvious that they will go somewhere else. I believe it will be the home.