Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
7.0 PRSR 01-13-2010
Item: 7 fiver MEMORANDUM TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Bill Maertz, Parks and Recreation Commission DATE: January 13, 2010 SUBJECT: Directors Report • Outdoor Skating Rinks -Parks maintenance staff are currently maintaining ice rinks at nine locations. Handke Stadium and Lions Park have warming houses and hockey rinks and lights. Country Crossings, I{liever Lake Fields, Mississippi Oaks, Riverplace Park, Trott Brook Park, Highland West Park and Fresno Park have unlighted general skating rinks. • Special Events -Reductions in the programming budget will result in the downscaling or elimination of some community events. Staff is currently reviewing events and working to develop a special events schedule that provides the highest level of service possible that fits within the budget. • Holiday snow event -The heavy snows over the Christmas holiday resulted maintenance staff working during their holiday. Staff went above and beyond to insure that sidewalks, trails and rinks were cleared of snow and available for use the weekend after the holiday. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the maintenance crew for their commitment and hard work, and for sacrificing their time off with family in order to provide service to the community. • Solar Energy Legacy Grants- Staff is preparing applications for the Solar Energy Legacy Grants. One project is for solar powered lights for the Great Northern Trail tunnel that goes under CR33. The other project is for solar powered crosswalk lights for the Great Northern Trail crossing at 221 S`. These lights are motion activated and can alert both cars and pedestrians of potential crossing conflicts. (see attached) C ~J S Cross Alert Systems sp ecializes in technological safety solutions. Our patent pending, motion activated early warning system for ~I ~ ~ recreational path/public road intersections provides an active warning to vehicles that a path user is at or near an intersection. This system provides enhanced visibility at mid-block intersections t y where the line of sight i s ems s poor for vehicles to see oncoming path users. ` Sign is solar p' , Once activated, lights with battery ba can run for a conHgtired duration of time ~ BENEFITS -" ~ ~" 3':`, 4 -"- ~'-; ,~ ~ ! »1- ~ t ~ VEHICLES ARE FOREWARNED THAT PATH USERS ARE AT OR NEAR THE )~~~, ~,~ , ~,,, ~ ~;~~ ~..__ - ~ INTERSECTION ,.i ~ ~ ~ _ r ~ ,y. ~ ~`~ " ~ Motion detector 3p SIGN ONLY FLASHES WHEN PATH USERS APPROACH THE INTER- ~~ f ~~y ~ ~;~ maximum detection ' SECTION (ACTIVE WARNING) ~., ~k,', . ~ ~ ~?*'~~ - range Of 100 feet ~'y~' - REINFORCES EXISTING RIGWT OF WAY RULES ~~~ ~'~ '~~~ '' ~ ~ SYSTEM DOES NOT NEED TO BE 71 < ~ , ED , ` Yellow caution si ~" ~' Lights are triggered INTO THE ELECTRIC GRID ~ : « and amber flashing by path activity via PATH USERS DO NOT HAVE TO LEAVE 'light activated for a motion sensor DETEC o0) RIGGER SYSTEM lrasslvE ^~ vehicles ~'° , SYSTEM EMPHASIZES NEED FOR l PATH USER TO STOP ~~~~ ~ _ INTEGRATED TRAIL COUNTER ,~ " F . ~ ~ ~~tl~H ~ Stop sign and red ~.= flashing light activated System on the opposite side of ` ~ for path users the road activated by radio v ~,~ ' ~~ ; r = "" signal when motion is detected ~'` A ~~'~- System Specifications Installation notes 10 foot tapered aluminum sign pole 18 inch stop sign 30 inch informational sign Red and yellow 8" or 12" sealed LED lights Follow State DOT guidelines for installation requirements Radio frequency of 900 Mhz, FCC approved spread spectrum Cross Alert offers an optional maintenance 500' Radio transmission distance program 30 watt solar panel 12 Vdc battery backup CPOSS Alert SyStemS InC. Integrated trail counter ~ 397 POSt IZOdCI $eC01'1CI FI001' Trail counts are downloadable via RF to a PC W11'WICIC RI 2886 Continuous lights blinking, battery only = 32 hours , Infrared narrow or wide beam weather-proof detector ~ 1.866.CROSSALERT smart timer shuts system down at night (1.866.276-7725) ^ Ad;ustable Hashing rgnt timer infoC~crossalert com ^ System meets or exceeds all state and federal DOT st~n~2Ms{ ,.: . . ^ One year full warranty on workmanship and com~an~nn~ ~ y ~ ~ ~.t- N/~/w Ct"OSS 1) E' 1 `.CO m `Cross Alert S~+s*erns usES !SO 9001:2000 and ISO 4002 csrtttie~ m°r".nacltrrail~, ~ ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Bill Maertz., Parks and Recreation Commission DATE: January 13, 2010 SUBJECT: Tobacco Free Parks and Recreation The current tobacco use policy for Elk River Parks and Recreation Facilities prohibits tobacco use within 50 feet of youth activities. Since that policy was adopted, recent research has shown that second hand smoke levels in outdoor public places can reach levels as high as those previously found in indoor facilities. Staff would like feedback from the Commission as to whether the tobacco use policy should be reviewed and potentially changed to create a tobacco free parks and recreation system. If there is interest, staff will research and prepare some sample policies for the commission to review. Attachments: Map Showing Metro Communities with Tobacco Free Park Policies Tobacco Free Parks and Recreation Fact Sheet Metro ~Corr~munilies witi~ Tob~a~cco-Prise Parirs Policies KA Forest Lake I ~~ oa« ~~ wow ~rcetdiei Coreonn J Park HEN P1N depends t Medina lufnn.r.tala Drano 7La _ St. I Lino Stains Hugo ~ wASH~N~ T N Grant _ lake t3bno Arlon krver ~., ) Grove ~ T Cottage ,~....._ (3rrove N d C Shakopw umsvii Yours rice Apple ~ Prior Valley Lake Tobacco-Free ~ Lskevilie Park Communities S C T T F rmi Q County-owned parks City-owned parks New Mark Three Rivers Park Ne a ~O District parka DAKQT~ on e Apri12009 March 2009 City-owned parks with atobacco- free policy X104 policies} County-owned parks with a tobacco-free policy ~~ policies) =All city-awned and county-owned parks have a tobacco-free policy ~1 policy] = Native American Reservations ~1 policy} = See metro Map far ~poiicies in Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties X37 policies} Minnesota Communities with Tobacco-Free i:'arks, sorted alphabetically ~. 73 Adrian Nobles 2121106 25 Aitkin Aitkin 612103 90 Albert. Lea Freeborn 11113106 64 Alexandria Douglas 5123105 57 Andover Anoka 9121104 53 Anoka Anoka 716104' 70 Arden Hills Ramsey 9112105 85 Ashby Grant 115106 19 Aurora St. Louis 411!03 31 Austin Mower 712103 66 Battle Lake Cater Tail 5114105 80 Baudette Lake of the Woods 518105 8 Baxter Crow Wing 311102 22 Biwabik St. Louis 5112103 3 Bloomington Hennepin 6118101 11 Brainerd ~ Crow Wing 616102 28 Breckenridge Wilkin 6116103 95 Buffalo Wright 4116107 2fi Buhl St. Louis 613103 63 Callaway Becker 5110105 89 Canby Yellow I~'ledicine 1118105 46 Champlin Hennepin 5110104 54 Cloquet Carlton 7120104 l Cohasset Itasca 1122102 40 Caon Rapids Anoka 2117104 48 Crookston Polk 5125104 ' 87 Crystal Hennepin 9119106 76 Dassel Meeker 413106' 67 Dayton Hennepin 6114105 77 Donnelly Stevens 413106 14 Duluth St. Louis 2112103 17 Eagan Dakota 3125103 43 Eagle Lake Blue Earth 415104 12 Eden Prairie Hennepin 9117102 56 Edina Hennepin 8117104 78 Elbow Lake Grant _ 413106 59 Elk River Sherburne 1 QI18104 l5 Ellsworth Nobles 3113106 2l Eveleth 5t. Louis 613103 41 Faribault Rice 2125104 23 Fayal Township St. Louis 5120103 55 Fergus Falls Utter Tail 819104 102 Gaylord Sibley 5129108 15 Golden Valley Hennepin 314103 32 Grand' Rapids Itasca 7114103 93 Ham Lake Anoka 112107 83 Hancock Stevens 6112106 94 Hardwick Rack 2113107 96 Hastings Dakota 517107 62 Henning litter Tail 513105 88 Herman Grant 10116106 72 Hermantown St. Louis 2110106 18 Hibbing St. Louis 3131103 82 Hoffman Grant 615106 21 Hoyt Lakes St, Louis 418103 50 International Falls Koachiching 5128104 39 Kent Wilkin 111104 . ,. r. 55 La Prairie Itasca 615P0~ 44 Laverne Rock 4113104 38 Mahtomedi Washington 1213103 1~ Maple Grove Hennepin 111193 61 Maplewood Ramsey 1124105 47 Marshall Lyon 5117104 74 Mendota Hei hts Dakota 316106 51 Monticello Wright 6114104 42 Morris Stevens 319104 84 Mounds View Ramsey 5127106 34 Mountain Iran St, Louis 8118103 24 New Brighton Ramsey 5127103 69 New York Mills ©tter Tail 818105 81 North St. Paul Ramsey 5115106 35 Nwd Young America .Carver 9122103 5 Uwatonna Steele 12111101 fib Porkers Prairie Utter Tail 7118105 52 Pelican Rapids Utter Tail 5129104. 37 Plymouth Hennepin 10128103 35'Prir~sburg Kandiyohi 919103 49 Ramsey Anoka 5125104 4 Richfield Hennepin 911101 50 Robbinsdale Hennepin 1217104 2 Rochester Ulmsted 1111100 111 Rosemount Dakota 121161x8 5 Roseville Ramsey 1211101 97 Round Lake Nobles 518101 13 Bartell Stearns 10128102 33 Savage Scott 7115103 45 Shoreview Ramsey 513104 98 Silver Bay Lake 519107 20 .Spicer Kandiyohi 412103 85 Spring Lake Park Anoka 1111106 9 St. Cloud Stearns 5113102 92 St. Francis Anoka 112101 30 St. Paul Ramsey 711103 10 Virginia St. Louis 5131102 91 Wendell Grant 1214106 101 West St. Paul Dakota 4114108, 71 Wheaton Traverse 1126106 100 White Earth Becker 8116107 70 Williams Lake of the Woods 4110106 29 Willmar Kandiyohi 6116103 99 Windom .Cottonwood 7117107 58 Wolverton Wilkin 10112104 112 Woodbury Washington 3125109 1 fi Zimmerman Sherburne 3111103 ~~~. ~ ~ A Rock County Rock 5118104 B Three Rivers Park Dist. Hennepin 116105 C Anoka County Anoka 7112105 D washingson County Washington 5123105 E Ulmsted County Ulmsted 1123101 F Dakota County Dakota 5122107 G Lower Sioux Redwood H Ramsey County Ramsey 05113108 k~r <~ .~ ~, y 7'r fit, !~ ~' ~~~ ~ ~ ''* .t. a ~'~. t t ~~~.. , ~ : ~~ti, ~ t ~''~'r~ ~ ~ x ,, , ~ s ~ f4 r ~t ~~ ?: { +~. .~"~ ~ ~~;-. ~ _ 4; ~~ _ t# . ~ T ,~" y ~. 1 ~} 1 .. $ ~~ y K~` l i^' , . ~'~; ~ , s' x ~ *~ ~ y _ ~~ 9J + t ~ ~ . . ~k„' q ~ y~ ,~ li . tY'- - ~ - .,.Y ~ 3 o.~t- 1 ,~{~ ~yl y ¢N ` yy--~ f~ ' :. My Experience with Tobacco in Parks; Please illustrate or describe nny thing you have seen or experienced with tobacco in parks, playgrounds, beaches or other outdoor settings •... 1""" ~! . ~.. O i Q ,~`~ F=-' if v Y O v z ca rn c L U co c~ N 03 U 0 ~3 m v .~ r U 0 U Q r O~ 3 L U C 7 C N t c~ ~U N N Y O LL a~ U N L U .~ U 'a c~ a cv C O C .~ c~ rn c 'v c c~ L (V r U cC N m C O 'O C N N L c (0 .V N C 4= N L N .0 C ca L W .y d 3 v c co N m L -v Q ca >, a a M >, cv c 0 .Z a~ a O C .~ a~ ~.+ N t C 0 .~ m c 0 O N ..• O7 U .n 0 O C .~ N 0 a c rn .~ N a~ N L a v co ~° Y a N f~ .U C f~ N '~ N 3 O N c .a C N ~«_ .~ L N T* v c O N L o~ U 0 V 0 v- v c O N ~+ a~ 0 c a CO N N .U f0 Q 7 N c 0 N '~ C (C co v c 0 N L .~ '~ C 0 a `~ cv N d~ C O A O N C d a 0 a a~ N N N N '~ C f~ c0 ~Qp ~O C O 0 r >°, c 0 c .~ N U L U a~i m .~ } .0 C O N a 0 c~ n. N .~ C U f~0 3 t C O c `0a C 0 c n 0 a 0 a a~ m N .~ c~ _-+ cv 0 C C 7 U N yL..r N (0 .~ '~ :c m t N L C V c 0 L 0 r N m a~ c~ a~ c C .~ m v 0 N N .~ f~ '~ c -~ c ca 0 O O 7 N .~ C Y O N N 0 v a~i t cv a 7 O N t C 0 rn rn c .~ a N 0 r r Y O N C N L C N N 0 7 O V C rn a~ L 0 O Y 3 7 O, Y 3 c~ a N r '~ .~ a~ C O 7 3 C O N .~ O N m d N N t O O v c c~ ca .~ °, N }° M r .~ t~ C .; N L C f~ Y v c c`Q .~ cC C O O t rn c 3 .~ c Q r L .~ .~ C Y 0 v c m v O N ~U 0 C N d N C cv U C L_ C .; L c~ 3 c~ a r Tobacco-Free Policies r=`~~~~~~°'~~~ ~~ For Outc}oor Recreational Facilities Make Sense. Here's Why: Secondhand SmoKe is Harmful: • It harms everyone. Exposure to secondhand smoke is a leading cause of preventable death in the United States, killing 49,000 nonsmokers in 2004. • It can be harmful in outdoor settings. According to a leading secondhand smoke expert, secondhand smoke levels in outdoor public places can reach levels as high as those found in indoor facilities where smoking is permitted.2 The 2006 Surgeon General's report concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.3 Cigarette Litter Causes 'Problems: • Policies reduce litter. Cigarette butts are the most common littered in the world. In addition to being a nuisance, they can also affect surrounding wildlife. Cigarette butts are not fully biodegradable and can be eaten by animals who think they are food 4 Tobacco-free policies reduce litter because smoking isn't taking place anymore. Tobacco }tree policies'Promote Healthy Communities: • Communities everywhere are adopting policies. Communities throughout the United States are creating tobacco-free outdoor recreational facilities out of concern for the health of their citizens. In addition to cities in Minnesota, cities in Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, Florida, and California have adopted tobacco-free policies for their outdoor recreational facilities. California also has enacted a state law that prohibits tobacco use at playgrounds, tot lot sandbox areas and beaches. • Policies create a consistent message for all outdoor recreational facilities in the community. Since many school districts prohibit tobacco use at their outdoor facilities, atobacco-free policy for city-owned outdoor recreational facilities creates continuity and eliminates confusion about which facilities are tobacco free. A tobacco-free policy also provides support to recreational organizations that already have an existing policy and use the city's facilities. • Help change community norms. Tobacco-free policies establish the community norm that tobacco use is not an acceptable behavior for young people or adults.s •Allow leaders to model healthy lifestyle choices. In atobacco-free environment, coaches and recreational leaders become tobacco-free role models, which sends a powerful message to youth that tobacco use is not part of a healthy lifestyle. • Break the connection between tobacco and sports. For years the tobacco industry has sponsored and advertised at sporting events, misguiding young people's perception of tobacco use. Research indicates that sporting events expose youth to extensive tobacco use by people they view as positive role models.6 ~ California Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. = CARB. (2003). "Technical Support Document for the Proposed Identification of Envirormtental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part A," Technical Report. California Envronmental Protection Agency, California Atr Resources Board, OtTice of Environmental Hulth Hazard Assessment, Chapter 5, pp. V6-V l9. ' U.S. Dept. of Health and Humeri Services. (2006). The Heolth Consequences of/nvoluntary Exposwre to Secondhand Smoke: A Repoli ojthe Surgeon General-Executive Summary. U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Office on Stroking and Health, p.9. ~ Register, IC "Underwater Naturalist" Bulletin of the American Littoral Society, Volume 25, Number 2, August 2000. 5 Forster, J. (2(100). "Policy Approaches to Reducing Adolescent Tobacco Use." Healthy Generations 1(1 ). University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, Maternal & Child Health, p. 10. s Madden, P. & Grebe,(. (1994). '"I'he Frequency and Nature of Alcohol and Tobacco Advertising in Televised Sports, 1990 through 1992." American Journal ojPublic Health 84, pp. 279-299. T°@AC{°'fAfE Yo°itt REY.EE3ttUn The Truths About Tobacco Litter • The biggest litter problem. Cigarettes are the most littered item in the United States and the world.° • Several trillion cigarette butts/filters are littered worldwide every year. That's billions of cigarettes flicked, one at a time, on our sidewalks, beaches, nature trails, gardens, and other public places every single day.4 • Slow decomposition. A single cigarette filter can take 5-10 years to decompose.2 After a cigarette filter has finally decomposed, it remains chemically present in the environment. Chemicals such as hydrogen, cyanide, and arsenic leach into nearby waterways and environments s • The white fibers you see in a cigarette filter are NOT cotton. About 96% of cigarette filters are composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that can persist in the environment as long as other forms of plastic.2 • Cleaning up the shorelines. The International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) is an annual worldwide effort to clean up litter on beaches, lakes, and streams. They have found millions of cigarette filters in recent years: ~ In the 2005 ICC, cigarette filters, cigar tips, and tobacco packaging accounted for 62% of debris found in Minnesota, 35% of U.S. debris, and 30% of global debris.3 ~ Enough cigarette filters were picked up in the 2005 ICC that, if stacked end-to-end, they would go to the moon and back...twice!3 ~ During the 2005 ICC, Minnesota volunteers collected almost 650 smoking-related items (wrappers, lighters, and cigar tips) and over 10,000 cigarette filters a • Littered cigarette filters can start fires. These fires can cause massive amounts of damage and cost billions of dollars to the public. Nationally, annual human and property costs of fires caused by careless smoking total about $6 billion.2 • Children and wildlife can mistake cigarette filters for food. When ingested, the toxins in the cigarettes can cause nausea, vomiting, and other symptoms in children. Filter ingestion has also been known to cause death in many animals.2In 2003, The United Nations International Maritime Organization reported that cigarette litter adversely affected 177 species of marine animals and 111 species of seabirds through ingestions • Litter isn't cheap. The state of Minnesota spends more than $2 million a year picking up litter (and that doesn't count what cities and counties spend).1 Think of how much money we'd save if the most littered item- tobacco material-was reduced. ' Minnesota Adopt-a-Highway Facts ~ Ocean Conservancy - International Coastal Cleanup ' "Protecting Nonsmokers but Taking a Toll on the 2 Clean Virginia Waterways Project ~ CigaretteLitter.org Environment?" article from The Environmental Magazine Tobacco in Minnesota Toll of Tobacco in MN tvationwiae, youtn smoking nas declined dramatically since the mid- 1990s, but that decline appears to have slowed considerably or even stopped in recent years. The 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that the percentage of high school students reporting that they have smoked cigarettes in the past month increased to 23 percent in 2005 from 21.9 percent in 2003. This increase follows a 40 percent decline between 1997, when rates peaked at 36.4 t d 2003 Th also High school students who smoke 22.4% (67,200) Youth (under 18) who become new daily smokers each year 7,500 Youth exposed to secondhand smoke at home 282,000 Packs of cigarettes bought or smoked by youth each year 13.7 million Adults in Minnesota who smoke 20.0% (780,600) percen , an a survey found that 13.6 percent of high school males use spit tobacco. U.S. adult smoking has decreased gradually in the last several decades, and 20.9 percent of U.S. adults (about 45 million) currently smoke. Deaths in Minnesota from Smoking Adults who die each year from their own smoking 5,500 Kids now under 18 and alive 118,000 in Minnesota who will ultimately die prematurely from smoking Adults, children, 8~ babies 620 to who die each year from 1,110 others' smoking (secondhand smoke ~ pregnancy smoking) _ ,;; , Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined and thousands more die from other tobacco-related causes -- such as fires caused by smoking (more than 1,000 deaths a year nationwide) and smokeless tobacco use. No good estimates are currently available, however, for the number of Minnesota citizens who die from these other tobacco- related causes, or for the much larger numbers who suffer from tobacco-related health problems each year without actually dying. MonetdryCostsof5moking in Minnesota Amounts do not include health costs caused by exposure to secondhand smoke, smoking-caused fires, spit tobacco use, or cigar and pipe smoking. Other non-health costs from tobacco use include residential and commercial property losses from smoking-caused fires (more than $500 million per year nationwide); extra cleaning and maintenance costs made necessary by tobacco smoke and litter (about $4 billion nationwide for commercial establishments alone); and additional productivity losses from smoking- caused work absences, smoking breaks, and on-the job performance declines and early termination of employment caused by smoking-caused Annual health care costs in $2.06 billion Minnesota directly caused by smoking Portion covered by the state $465 million Medicaid program Residents' state & federal tax $631 per burden from smoking-caused household government expenditures Smoking-caused productivity losses $1.20 billion in Minnesota Annual Secondhand smoke related $215.7 million medical costs, disability or illness (dollar amount listed above is just from productive work lives shortened by smoking-caused death). Tobdcco Industry Influences in Minnesota Annual tobacco industry $15.4 marketing expenditures billion nationwide Estimated portion spent for $274.3 Minnesota marketing each million year Published research studies have found that kids are twice as sensitive to tobacco advertising than adults and are more likely to be influenced to smoke by cigarette marketing than by peer pressure, and that one-third of underage experimentation with smoking is attributable to tobacco company advertising. Fact sheet adapted from: "Toll of Tobacco in Minnesota.° Campaign for Tobacco-Free Klds. http:lltobacxofreekids.org/reports/settlements/toll.php?StateID=MN. 2005. 1. Walters, Hugh R.; Foldes, Steven S.; Alescl, Nlna l.; Samet, Jon. The Economic Impact of Secondhand Smoke !n Minnesota. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health In collaboration with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, 2007. _- ~ `, ~ ,'j~ ~~ r~,~~ I ^ ~ © ~~ ,, ~' Y `~ 'j j O V V O Q N }"' V 0 O i -4 V O t,~ O ^O v / v ~ N ~ } a ~ ~ d ~ ~ t o +- ~ ~ ~ L ~ a- O N U ~ ~ } ~ ~ S } o U O ~ p ~ ~ Q ~ 't3 ~ } ~ u ~ a ~ •~ v c I- 'n Z N O ~ ~yy } ~ } N 0 ~:~o~ } a Q u ~ ~ ° Y Y a cn ~ a ~' ~ L OJ Q f.L. ~ ~ O U a O ~ v >, ~ s O V ~ p L s °> Y ~ N ~- ~ } `" O V ~ ~.° '~ s- a L ~ a ,~ +~ s ~~ O •~ ~ 3 vN O vi ~ ~ o ~ ~ •~ ~ L _ 4- Y ~ 'r2 N ~~ } a O O V N +~ N ~ o N ~ -o •~ .a Q FJ~ p N ~ ~ °v ~ -o U a ~ V Q N L } -~ s° ~' ~ n.. } In ~ V - O A ~ vi ~ ~ g o ~ ~ L ~ N ~ ~ i_ ~ '~ O ~ o~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ±- U ~ ~ ~ +- ~ -~ o } O p U T3 S S .~ ~- ° ~ o O V A +- O N V~ ~ V `~' N ~/'~h S +- O N S +- .~ Ql N o~ L ~ t~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ° ~ a ~ .... +- o ~ ~ ~ V N ~ ~ ~ O ~ . ~ v Z + - ~ ~ -a Y o~ Q ~ O n. L > 3 ~ L d p O +- ~ ;~ a ~ a ~ -v J ~ } .~ ~ X ~ YS q. ~ ~ . o a Z ~ ~ ~ ~ O v ~ v, a -a v~ ~~ or a u ~ t o ~ ° 0 3 •° s U o ~ ~ s ~ a ° } ~ N 0 N N o V N ~ U o L - 'C7 +- 'p = ~ U ~ s .~ v1 Q ~ ~ N N °~ Q - + a i_- ~ Q ~ ~ g1 ~ O - >. a U ~ ~ a ~E-• ~ S Q ~ v , L v t U ~ "O ~ ~ a 3 ~ U ~ ~ -C7 ~ a v ~ ~ ~ s N M O '~ 0 v' ~ t 0 0 •+- ~ ~ i.- 4- 0 L~~,~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 0 O +- a a +- ~ a U Z7 ~ C U a U 3 ~ ~ °~ o > } ~ N O :}- +' ~ ~ ~ L ~} ~ } L ~N a a Y `'~'- L ~ o a rn ~ L to ~ V f-- c ® Z V a 0 L o~ E (M,) O SMOKING AND KIDS • Each day, about 4,000 kids in the United States try their first cigarette; and each day another 1,000 other kids under 18 years of age become new regular, daily smokers. That's 464,000 new underage daily smokers in this country each year. • The addiction rate for smoking is higher than the addiction rates for marijuana, alcohol, or cocaine; and symptoms of serious nicotine addiction often occur only weeks or even just days after youth "experimentation" w~h smoking first begins.2 • 90 percent of all adult smokers begin while in their teens, or earlier, and nearly two-thirds become regular, daily smokers before they reach the age of 19.3 • 21.6 percent of high school students are current smokers by the time they leave high school.° • 23.0 percent of all high school students (9-12 grades) are current smokers, including 23.0% of females and 22.9% of males. White high school students have the highest smoking rate (25.9 %) compared to Hispanics (22.0°k), and African-Americans (12.9%).5 • Roughly one-thins of all youth smokers will eventually die prematurely from smoking-caused diseases • Smoking can also seriously harm kids while they are still young. Besides the immediate bad breath, irritated eyes and throat, and increased heartbeat and blood pressure, near-term harms from youth smoking include respiratory problems, reduced immune function, increased illness, tooth decay, gum disease, and pre-cancerous gene mutations.' • Smoking during youth is also associated with an increased likelihood of using illegal drugs.s • The cigarette companies spend more than $13.3 billion each year to promote their deadly products - that's more than $36.6 million spent every day to market cigarettes, and much of that marketing directly reaches and influences kids.9 • Kids are more susceptible to cigarette advertising and marketing than adults.10 81.3 percent of youth smokers (12-17) prefer Marlboro, Camel, and Newport, three heavily advertised brands, while only 54.1 percent of smokers over age 26 prefer these brands." For example, between 1989 and 1993, spending on the Joe Camel ad campaign jumped from $27 million to $43 million, which prompted a 50 percent increase in Camel's share of the youth market but had no impact at all on its adult market share.'Z Additionally, a survey released In March 2006 showed that kids were almost twice as likely as adults to recall tobacco advertising.13 • A Joumal of the National Cancer Institute study found that teens were more likely to be influenced to smoke by cigarette marketing than by peer pressure.14 Similarly, a Joumal of the American Medical Association study found that as much as a third of underage experimentation with smoking was attributable to tobacco company marketing efforts.~s Campaign for Tobacco-Free Klds, September 20, 2007 / Meg Gallog/y Related Camcals~n Factsheets: Tobacco Use and Kids, htto://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/index.pha?CategorvlD=3 Tobacco Industry Marketing to Kids, htto://www. tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/i ndex. oho?Categorvl D=23 Tobacco Use Harm, htto://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/index.php?CategorvlD=13 • Hams to Kids from Secondhand Smoke, http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/adf/0104.odf 1400 I Street NW -Suite 1200 -Washington, DC 20005 Phone (202) 296-5469 • Fax (202) 296-5427 • www.tobaccofreekids.ore Smoking and Kids / 2 'Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, (SAMHSA), HHS, Results from the 2006 National Survey on Dnig Use and Health, NSDUH: Detailed Tables, http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k6nsduh/tabs/Sect4peTabs 10to 11. pdf U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Symptoms of Substance Dependence Associated with Use of Cigarettes, Alcohol, and Illicit Drugs-United States 1991-1992," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 44(44):830-831,837-839, November 10, 1995, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039501.htm. DiFranza, JR, et al., "Initial Symptoms of Nicotine Dependence in Adolescents," Tobacco Control 9:313-19, September 2000. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TFK) factsheet, The Path to Smoking Addiction Starts at Very Young Ages, http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0127.pdf. s SAMHSA, HHS, Calculated based on data in 2005 National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh.htm. See also, HHS, Youth and Tobacco: Preventing Tobacco Use among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General, 1995, http://sgreports.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/L/Q/ /nnbclg.pdf (page 49). ° Johnston, LD, et al., Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2006. Volume l: Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 07-6205), Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2007, http://monitoringthefuture.orglpubs/monographs/volt 2006.pdf. s CDC, "Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, United States, 2005," MMWR 55(SS-5), June 9, 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5505.pdf. Using a different survey methodology, the 2004 Youth Tobacco Survey (YRBS) found a 21.7% high school smoking rate (21.8% for girls, 21.6% for boys); but the results from the YRBS and YTS cannot be compared because they use different methodologies. Current smoker defined as having smoked in the past month. YRBS is done in odd-numbered years, YTS in even. s CDC, "Projected Smoking-Related Deaths Among Youth-United States," MMWR 45(44):971-974, November 8, 1996, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wklmm4544.pdf ~ See TFK factsheet, Smoking's Immediate Effects on the Body, http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/index. php?Categorvl D=13. See TFK factsheet Smoking and Other Drug Use, http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/index.php?Categorvl D=3. U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Cigarette Report for 2004 and 2005, 2007, http://www.ftc.gov/reports!tobacco/2007ciparette2004-2005.pdf. See also, FTC, Smokeless Tobacco Report for the Years 2002 and 2005, 2007, http:/lwww.ftc.gov/reports/tobacco/02-05smokeless0623105.pdf [data for top 5 manufacturers only]. 10 Pollay, R, et al., "The Last Straw? Cigarette Advertising and Realized Market Shares Among Youths and Adults," Journal of Marketing 60(2):1-16, April 1996. " Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, (SAMHSA), HHS, Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, NSDUH: Detailed Tables, http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k5nsduh/tabs/Sect7peTabs58to67.pdt CDC, "Changes in the Cigarette Brand Preference of Adolescent Smokers, U.S. 1989-1993," MMWR 43(32):577- 581,August, 1994, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032326.htm. 13 National telephone survey of 509 teens aged 12 to 17 and 1,011 adults conducted by International Communications Research (ICR), March 8-13, 2006. 74 Evans, N, et al., "Influence of Tobacco Marketing and Exposure to Smokers on Adolescent Susceptibility to Smoking," Joumal of the National Cancer Institute, October 1995. 15 Pierce JP, et al., "Tobacco Industry Promotion of Cigarettes and Adolescent Smoking," Journal of the American Medical Association 279(7):511-505, February 1998 [with erratum in JAMA 280(5):422, August 1998]. THE AAIATOMY OG A CIGARETTE Here are j ust a flew chem ica Is i n cigarettes: Tf~ere are more tf~an 4,000 substances found in. eigareites. II CHEMICALS ADDED ~ FREQUENTLY FQUND IN Carbon Monoxide, a poisonous gas Car exhausts Nicotine Pesticide Ammonia Floor cleaner Arsenic White ant poison Butane Lighter fuel Hydrogen Cyanide Poison used in gas chambers Tduene Industrial solvent DDT Insecticide Acetone Paint Stripper Cadmium Car batteries Methanol Rocket fuel Formaldehyde Preservative for dead bodies Hydrazine Rocket fuel & jet engines Ynyl Chloride PVC pipes Nitric Acid : ~ Fertilizers, explosives, 8~ dyes Naphthalene Moth balls The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of /nvo/untary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon Genera/, the Surgeon General has concluded that: t. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control. Supporting Evidence • Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine. • Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years-or almost 22 million children-are exposed to secondhand smoke. • Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies. 2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Supporting Evidence • Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. • Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the EPA, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen. 3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children. Supporting Evidence • Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke. • Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke. • Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems • Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections. • Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks. 4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Supporting Evidence • Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers. • Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack. • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent. • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent. s. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no rislt-free level of exposure to secondhand smolre. Supporting Evidence • Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack. • Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma. 6. Eliminating smolting in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke. Supporting Evidence • Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke. • Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building. • The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure. The Hea/th Consequences of /nvo/untary Exposure to Tobacco Smokre: A Report of the Surgeon Genera/was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers' comments. To view the full report, visit: www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ r~d«.-~•~~ Is Secondhand Smoke Safe to Breathe Outdoors? I'J ilrx I[~~CIAl10M Introduction Knowledge about the dangerous chemicals contained in secondhand smoke, along with their deadly consequences for smokers, has been well established for decades. We also know that the secondhand smoke breathed in by non-smokers from the burning end of a lit tobacco product or exhaled from a smoker's lungs contains essentially the same dangerous chemicals and is therefore also very unhealthy to breathe. The volume of scientific evidence showing that secondhand smoke causes serious illness and death in adults and children has grown to a level where in 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General called it massive, rnnc/usive and indisputab/e. As a result, more and more people in the United States (and throughout the world) are taking action to eliminate people's exposure to secondhand smoke, in order to protect everyone's health. Most of these actions have been through the elimination of in smoking in homes, cars, worksites and other public places. To a lesser degree, smoking restrictions are being adopted for outdoor settings. Background What does the scientific evidence say about breathing secondhand smoke outdoors? While the amount of research conducted on secondhand smoke in outdoor settings is not as vast as that completed in indoor environments, the research findings are showing similarities. The California Air Resources Board~i~ measured secondhand smoke concentrations in a variety of outdoor locations at airports, rn//eges, government centers, office comp/exec and amusement parks They found that when smoking occurs in these settings, people could be exposed to levels of secondhand smoke that is comparable to indoor concentrations where smoking is permitted. In another study~z~, where measurements were conducted when active smoking was taking place at outdoor patios, sidewa/ks and parks, similar results were observed. One of the researchers stated that this type of outdoor tobacco exposure should not be dismissed as trivial. Measuring Secondhand Smoke A common measure of air quality in detecting secondhand smoke pollution is particu/ate matter (PM). PM 2.5 is air particles that have a diameter of smaller than 2.5 microns. Particulates of this size are easily inhaled deep into the lungs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set air quality index levels and corresponding health advisory descriptors, based upon PM 2.5 measurements. PM 2.5 AQI Break Points microns cubic meter Air Quality Index Health Advisory A I Descri for 0.0 - 15.4 0-50 15.5 - 40.4 51-100 Moderate 40.5 - 65.4 101-150 65.5 - 150.4 151-200 150.5 - 2504 201-300 250.5 - 350.4 301-400 350.5 - 500.4 401-500 A Canadian study~3~ measured secondhand smoke levels on outdoor hospita/ity patios (restaurants/bars). Measurements were taken at three different locations, with some variation in dimensions and structure. The most significant difference was the number of smoking customers. The location with the greatest number of smokers resulted in average PM 2.5 levels of 102 (unhealthy for sensitive groups) and peak levels of 660 (very hazardous+). A study conducted at one of the University of Maryland campuses(4~ measured the distance from the source of secondhand smoke in which PM 2.5 can be detected. Previous studies found that odor detection can occur at 1 micron/cubic meter and irritation begins at 4 microns/cubic meter. In this study, odor was detectable at 7 meters (23 feet) from the source and irritation levels began at 4 meters (13 feet). The study also found that anyone positioned downwind from an outdoor source of secondhand smoke is going to be exposed to secondhand smoke, even at significant distances from the source. People who are positioned upwind should be at least 25 feet from any outdoor source, in order to minimize the risk of breathing the unhealthy chemicals found in secondhand smoke. Conclusions These studies should begin to dispel the common misperception that outdoor secondhand smoke immediately dissipates into the air and, therefore does not pose a health risk. The dangerous composition of chemicals in smoke is essentially the same -indoors or outdoors. If a person smells secondhand smoke in any setting, they are breathing it into their lungs. The risk of secondhand smoke exposure outdoors appears to be related to both dosage and proximity to the source: a person in close proximity to the source of the secondhand smoke or a person in an area with a high concentration of secondhand smoke would be most likely to be at risk in outdoor settings. Action Steps We are beginning to see more policies established to protect people from secondhand smoke exposure in outdoor settings as has occurred previously at indoor settings. Restrictions are beginning to be placed on smoking in such places as: ^ Parks ^ Trails ^ Playgrounds ^ Beaches ^ Zoos ^ Patios ^ Building Entrances ^ Ball Fields ^ Skate Parks ^ Bus Stops ^ Street Dances ^ Festivals ^ Amusement Parks ^ Fair Grounds ^ Water Parks ^ Stadiums ^ Rodeo Arenas ^ Picnic Shelters By eliminating smoking at these types of outdoor settings, people are receiving protection from the health consequences of secondhand smoke exposure, just as they have come to expect to receive this type of protection indoors. References (1) CARB. (2003). "Technical Support Document for the Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Alr Contaminant: Part A," Technical Report. California Environmental Protectlon Agency, Califomta Air Resources Board, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Chapter 5, pp. V6-V19. (2) Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Switzer P. (May 2007). "Real-Time Measurements of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Particles." Journal of Air & Waste Management Assodatlon. Vol. 57. (3) Kennedy RD, Sendzlk T., Elton-Marshall T., Hammond D., Fong G. (2006). "Tobacco Smoke Pollution In Outdoor Hospitality Settings." University of Waterloo, Canada. Presented at the 13"' World Conference on Tobago OR Health 2006. (4) Repace, J. (2005). "Measurements of Outdoor Air Pollution from Secondhand Smoke on the UMBC Campus." www.repace.com Sept. 1007 Tobacco-Free OutdoorAreas: A Growing Trend Tobacco-free outdoor recreation areas are a growing trend nationally and globally. Over 100 communities in Minnesota have tobacco-free park and recreation areas, and states and countries from all over the world have enacted policies to promote healthy outdoor recreation settings. Examples of venues that have tobacco-free policies: Major League Baseball Stadiums Over 30 stadiums have policies regarding tobacco use, including the following locations: • Metrodome, home of the Minnesota Twins • New Minnesota Twins open air ballpark opening in 2010 • Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox • U.S. Cellular Field, home of the Chicago White Sox • Comerica Park, home of the Detroit Tigers • Safeco Field, home of the Seattle Mariners National Football League and Collegiate Football Stadiums Over 31 stadiums have policies regarding tobacco use, including the following locations: • Metrodome, home of the Minnesota Vikings and University of Minnesota Gophers • Texas Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys • RCA Dome, home of the Indianapolis Colts • Monster Park, home of the San Francisco 49ers • Edward Jones Dome, home of the St. Louis Rams • Paul Brown Stadium, home of the Cincinnati Bengals • Notre Dame Stadium, home of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish college football team Beaches Golf Courses • City-owned golf courses in Edina, Golden Valley, and Bloomington, MN • Oak Knoll Public Golf Course, Ashland, OR • San Francisco's public golf courses • Royal Liverpool golf course during Open Championships of 2006 International • Olympic Games venues (since 1988) • 2002 FIFA World Cup soccer games • Playgrounds in Canberra, Australia • Playgrounds in Thimphu, Bhutan • Beaches in Queensland, Australia • Parks in New Delhi • City parks in Bangkok, Thailand • Royal Brisbane, Queensland's largest hospital grounds • Streets in select wards of Tokyo, Japan • Bus shelters in Ireland Other places of interest • The entire city of Belmont, CA is smoke-free except for single family detached residences • Black Mountain Ski Resort in Maine is entirely tobacco free • Rodeos in Oregon, California, and South Dakota ban tobacco sponsorship • Nearly 30 communities in Minnesota have tobacco-free beaches • All public beaches in Santa Monica, Los Angeles, and Malibu, CA • Chicago's beaches • Beaches in Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Jersey Last updated October 2007 World-renowned health organizations have concluded that secondhand smoke is a significant health danger: American Medical Association U.S. Surgeon General Mayo Clinic Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the most noteworthy include: National Cancer Institute American Lung Association World Health Organization U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Over the past 20 years, hundreds of scientific studies have shown the dangers associated with secondhand smoke. A few 1986: The U.S. Surgeon General released one of the first studies on the dangers of secondhand smoke. It reported that involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy non- smokers.' 1992: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that widespread exposure to secondhand smoke is a serious and substantial public health danger. Specifically, it reported that secondhand smoke is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year in U.S. non-smokers.Z 1997: A National Cancer Institute monograph linked significant health effects, including coronary heart disease, nasal sinus cancer and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome with exposure to secondhand smoke.3 2006: The U.S. Surgeon General released the most comprehensive scientific report ever produced on the health harms of secondhand smoke. The report states that "massive and conclusive scientific evidence documents adverse effects of involuntary smoking on children and adults, including cancer and cardiovascular diseases in adults, and adverse respiratory effects in both children and adults." The report further concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke." New research shows secondhand smoke is even more dangerous than previously believed. 2004: A Helena, Montana, study made a connection between secondhand smoke and heart disease. The study observed that hospital admissions for heart attacks declined by approximately 40 percent during asix-month period during which a comprehensive smoke-free air law was in effect, and rebounded after the ordinance was suspended.5 In 2005, a similar study conducted in Pueblo, Colo., confirmed the findings from Helena.` As a result of the Helena study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning, saying that people at risk of heart disease should avoid exposure to secondhand smoke.' i ~. ~ wR-. i,rr,r„~ii_n ; ci Ind a ~t.~rq'sr ~~u?~. ~ Rep ~rt ~_ Vt 3urgr„~n ~. r-§,ial. U. S. Dn;U,~rtmq. t , F .,~Ith an,f ri ui ti.;erd ,.,., L~F6 '{',, irJt~ry~iB,itY FH,e~,ol a,_i r;S~ndkng UoyCori~,c~an0'ithei Cu ,aid:. r, iJS Fn,i~n~rrl~;nt3lFl~t.:alnq; ~e, y vSi2 F, i~~t~'S F LhEtteCt ;fErpr,:;JIFfl b~',iufunenlll i~,~LC~i'!iu~~, ~l~tion~i(.aii s 'rSCIfUIF t3g9 ~ TI ~i~ , i;c: ~,, uE n;~>: c ina ni -tar; F+~,,, urn r:~ 1(,bnr , ,rnr, .u , f ,r,r~ of the ,urgr.a~~ G: nt is .i .; DeG.n~n~, t o1 H;;-rtlr~ and Narn;u ~rn~ ` ~~6 ~~F.f ~'E4~. i0-fA. (i3 ~. hr9dULF,CI Ifi.,I~1F,l C.9~t ~Li~;~iaitf 6, tf,~„dfJi:,il inf~l.; i011?;', ~n2tEd NItYiGItJ. „~f :,k ri~tjf~. f,;10~'i "arid tsi ~. hiirE!-~~; .t~8~r.,_.ct - . ii 0,.~~rPll~ar~, ~G7h r,,.G~M4gtai,i,t'?oi!c'.,~iHYrnlzr~ e~4r;~i0~nihFlr_J:.ni,,l~r,~t~h1y 1i n3llnfe rl t -~~~y nr.~ rua~. ~10F, kTFF,~g1;,S a r ,illEirFtt,c,uda~,,Wdni,F ~f;u,.,nahaial,r„ke"k~?~ru°')a For more than two decades, the nation's most respected health organizations have come to the same conclusions about secondhand smoke: it's dangerous and deadly. Each year, the body of evidence continues to grow. Last year, 49,000 nonsmokers died from secondhand smoke: • Exposure to secondhand smoke causes the deaths of an estimated 3,000 nonsmokers in the United States from lung cancer each year.5 • Secondhand smoke contributes to the deaths of 46,000 nonsmokers in the United States from heart disease each year.5 Secondhand smoke contains 11 known cancer-causing poisons and 250 known toxins, including:3~' Arsenic (used in pesticides) Cadmium (used in making batteries) Formaldehyde (used to embalm dead bodies) Lead (once used in paint) Benzene (found in gasoline) Secondhand smoke affects children: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Childhood middle ear infections Low birth weights Asthma • Secondhand smoke can trigger asthma attacks in children. Asthmatic children who are exposed to secondhand smoke have worse and more frequent attacks than those who are not. Severe asthma attacks can be life-threatening to children, and more than 40 percent of children who go to the emergency room for asthma live with smokers.2 • On average, 430 infants die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome each year as a result of their exposure to secondhand smoke.5 Even limited exposure to secondhand smoke has negative health consequences. • According to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. • After just four hours in a casino where smoking is permitted, Minnesota nonsmokers showed 112 percent more lung-cancer-causing chemicals in their bodies than normal, and 456 percent more nicotine.6 ~ f~1pf10Gfat7Y1 10'. H i~fh Eff9GIi Uf F F~1JUl%~P (U FOJI(GfifTlfil'iL3 [rt~8 fJ :!I7(ikb. f~7llpfi8 ~ ifl :9f IggGllll~ ~d~y ThE Hf;a~lh ~~Cn,ie(j UB~~~F,„~ I)f ~fiVJ~Un[9f ~~ Ex~io~,we ~.1 ~GJ~1CC~'JR1~iHE. ri Ht ()~)rj of thG ]IJ((~l~Qn ~EflNl ~~ J ~_ Oep~ftr!lEnj f)~' ~~f•,8~1~1 and f'~IJf~lall' f fJl~'~ 2JO~, ' hlofou ~ (, nicer lu ntut PI;k; P r ~ia(~d pith rnr Ping Cidamite; w~Ifh Low kA,,rtnn9-M~~surr;d'lields of Tai and P~iroti~i9 2601. ~ Paatiu 31 T)al~,.gltig; f rr carom ;1th f~~pOrt on (7rrin>r~En> 2~~~i5. ~' Calitornl& Environrn.rtal Frniecllon ~:.Genry. p~pprgurJ IdBntifir,3prn of Envi« mmenta17ob i~ ~! imr,Ye a a To~ir, p,J ~-Omar iir:ant. 2005, ~' gndr,r;un Y.,E, klo l~ J- ~durGhy L of al P4eYflbollte~ of a iobgCG ,-specilir lurq r;9a;In0yen ~n npr~artik,ing ca irc gorr,n> G3nCBr Epiderninl Broniark:a ~IB'V 200:;. When a smokerlights a cigarette, more than 4,000 chemicals are released into the air.' Studies have shown that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke puts nonsmokers' health at risk.2 Comprehensive smoke-free policies are good for health and good for business. They clear the air ofcancer-causing chemicals and encourage people who smoke to quit, improving health and decreasing health care costs. In addition, there is a growing body of economic research that reaches the same conclusion: smoke-free policies do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry.' Smake-free policies decrease health care costs and increase worker productivity by helping people quit smoking or smoke less, and by reducing people's exposure to secondhand smoke. DECREASED EMPLOYEE CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION • Smoke-free workplaces reduce total cigarette consumption per employee by 29 percent.' DECREASED HEALTH CARE COSTS • Secondhand smoke costs more than $9.5 billion each year in the United States in direct and indirect medical costs.' INCREASED WORKER PRODUCTIVITY • Cigarette smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke cost $92 billion a year in productivity losses.° Employees who smoke have twice the lost production time per week for personal health reasons than workers who never smoked-at a cost of $27 billion to U.S. employers.b INCREASED PROFITS In 2006, the United States Surgeon General reported that smoke- free policies and regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry. Based on the evidence from peer-reviewed studies, the finding was part of the most comprehensive scientific report ever produced on the health harms of secondhand smoke-the first Surgeon General's report on secondhand smoke since 1986.1 • Business tax receipts for New York City restaurants and bars increased 8.7 percent from April 1, 2003, to January 31, 2004 (after implementation of a smoke-free law), compared to the same period in 2002-2003.6 • A study of U.S. restaurant sales showed a median increase of 16 percent in the sale price of a restaurant covered by a smoke-free law compared to a similar restaurant in a community without such a law.' INCREASED OVERALL EMPLOYMENT • Despite New York City's smoke-free law going into effect on March 30, 2003, 164,000 people on average worked in city bars and restaurants during the year-the highest number recorded in at least a decade. In fact, in the nine months following the law's enactment, bars and restaurants gained 10,600 jobs.b • Bars and restaurants in California had 218,300 more jobs in 2005 than in 1995, before a statewide smoke-free policy was implemented.e II I in~~`, ~u , :.,h hr_~. ~ :I~ JL,, i.~ r. ..i= ~ I Iltu'; it I. ~ _ -i~'I~!i ~ , ;,~. li'i„iiI~IN II+:~~!l ryur '~-i ~(~ ~ f t L ;~.b1 'J Htc~ r ~., .r~., ;rioV, I n, . =a-ai .i ~.dbd 9)fi7. ~u~r,.n t.b` .~ ~ ~ ~. ~ i.. i .._.,. ti a .v~,idP ~ .1n~~1~ u ~ ir~b .~ . ,~,n_ i i ~Lf iir. i Jn~~.u~~ i~l. .Ina; I r.. '~ Lt ~. [90:.. ii ,I.I ira ~ - it i ii. n;. ui~ ii,ui:.,i ~,. ,.G,.,~dii,:n '~:~n ~, ~ I .. n,i i~l t. =li.;i .: ~__... ~' ,Ii.t ,i ;id f~.. ~ .~.. 'tsil 1 I.`-Hi',fli E9n'I,r ~~.0'I F'i,.. - Irl I _.i;:l ~. ii!A i; t t1l I. E: ire. i ~ ! I'l~~ i, i:il ,i ... ~ ~ I ~ -. ~ .. Fv1.P M,~.I ! X~II I ~. Z!1!~~, Smoke-free policies significantly improve public health. /SMOKE-FREE POLICIES =CLEANER AIR • Hennepin County's comprehensive smoke-free ordinance helped reduce harmful air pollution in bars and restaurants by 99 percent.' • One month after New York's comprehensive smoke-free law went into effect, harmful indoor air pollution decreased by an average of 84 percent.1 Smoke-free policies reduce health care costs. Exposure to secondhand smoke costs Americans more than $9.5 billion a year because of excess medical care, death and disease.' CLEANER AIR =BETTER HEALTH • A year after the implementation of a smoke-free law in New York, the number of hospitality workers who experienced eye, nose and throat irritation decreased by 57 percent.3 • Between 1988 and 1997, when California implemented smoke-free policies, lung cancer rates dropped significantly more than in other areas of the country. The decline among California men was 1.5 times greater than in other areas. Among California women, lung cancer declined 4.8 percent, while rates increased 13.2 percent elsewhere.° Smoke-free policies help people quit tobacco use. • Many studies have shown that smokers whose workplaces are smoke-free are more likely to quit smoking at an increased rate than smokers whose workplaces have weak smoke-free policies or no such policies at all.s • Minnesota's stop-smoking service, QUITPLAN" at Work, experienced three times more inquiries from February to May 2005, during which several Twin Cities smoke-free ordinances were implemented.6 Smoke- Smoke-free policies are overwhelmingly free policies supported in Minnesota communities that are popular have gone smoke-free.89 with voters. /IN COMMUNITIES THAT WENT SMOKE-FREE IN 2005 AND 2006: In November 2006, an • Support for smoke-free ordinances now exceeds 70 percent. overwhelming maJority of Mankato voters (69 percent) • More than eight in ten residents consider secondhand smoke voted to keep Mankato's a health hazard. comprehensive smoke-free • More than 70 percent of residents strongly agree that ordinance in place. restaurants and bars are healthier. ~~aillin T. L'ul it:lr ,U YI~I'.r l,~pni; ~luil lY Iti~ Uf ~~:c,i ,il,-l~I,~.i.,r~;l hti0ii Illc~~.,nl ~Ino,~l~mt~. Fi ,(iJ~~n n.. ii N:, i.;pi!i.uitl li,i .'~unl ~:. .I3J,ly hll ie::i ~n ~Tieiao:, M1dl 'u i'nig; kM, IhI~'J f. u!;tl. hiU .'u ~du;911V iP~,..itlAt, ruuuva L..nni iU aR ill ~, ,.i Vi6on If I:ai ;~~)nrd ii l~, u!-si ~m tl~,iik. Llpi3 rtL+Vr'~Unv i f.n i!:II~kA1 Il ~i 4ti JR1, ,7 ~: I.H~~nidf I {. ;,~~Kk. I;,i lE =1~; up.~ ;I 1:11IV :~.ii Fi t'. ~7'ul ; i~~, ~ Ji ti U.n 1~4, toll,. ,) q;l~~t il. I'ni 01 FIPu~tr~lY .rt.V.c l't 1. .~ ..... ~J~:i. 1 -.. ib`~:-1i~i l) n. v~~il:u tll ~t uriii. l'~o~ Ian f~ . ~_.nuit ~ -~~lit~ni'-. 112. 1~~~7 h1rIM+~.'G~~. 13-$,i,;r,iill!HVUki,l'~I';N,i41',I!hll Eliusl'.I; okng osy triton l~l~n~lou F~li.~~~,~~,.i f~Nf.,'ll~~ii(i[. (:Ii:nf9J2q h1innevrl;i. I :I ~:ol)F.6 .,i MI'. Li:'[. Li ~icHfc~'I::~f El'lni i'l;I~lulill.;diu~~.:`~'.~~~.I ln.fu;ui, ':{~; -.-'/~`:ii Ln.'.+.~l I~~ ail Lk.f v+li tlil loot.(, i~J" _.IiU 1,~ II '~J:~f{~`~i 1 ~ t: SLI ~4J~r,Mliin~,_dn 2~)l11;. I~II.,iq'~~~~:nil ~J,v~,;~. I',uA iiY fi l;i~Ni Ii ~i ri ~. pinril i.r 'I~;m'fJa/alt ,: nrn. 7~{i i(. Scientific research and experience have shown us what works to reduce the dangers of secondhand smoke. Comprehensive smoke-free policies clear the air ofcancer-causing chemicals, help people quit tobacco use and reduce health care costs. Because of this, such policies are overwhelmingly supported in Minnesota communities that have gone smoke-free. Tobacco Advocacy Web Sites Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights www.no-smoke.org Dedicated to taking on the tobacco industry at all levels of government, protecting nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke, and preventing tobacco addiction among youth Are You Ok With That? www.areyouokwiththat.com Clearway Minnesota highlights the impact secondhand smoke has on real people and their families BADvertising Institute www.badvertising.org Discourages youth tobacco use through counter-advertising Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids www.tobaccofreekids.org Goals are to protect children from tobacco addiction and exposure to secondhand smoke. CTFK has a lot of great resources on tobacco harms and advocacy Foundation for a Smoke-Free America www.tobaccofree.com Education programs and smoking prevention activities for youth; founded by Patrick Reynolds Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition www.smokefreecoalition.org News, studies, and other resources to support efforts across Minnesota to reduce tobacco's harms The Truth www.thetruth.com Opinions by teens about whether ads influence them to smoke Tobacco-Free Youth Recreation www.tobaccofreeparks.org Assists cities, counties, and recreational organizations in their efforts to create tobacco-free environments where they can promote and model tobacco-free lifestyles Cataylst www. bethecata lyst. org Catalyst is a statewide network for youth advocates across Minnesota, to fight back against Big Tobacco through creative youth activism Children Opposed to Smoking Tobacco www.costkids.org Advocacy information for kids and their parents; tips on how to write to legislators What Are You Smoking? www.whatareyousmoking.org Educates on the ingredients that go into a cigarette (and into your body if you smoke). Play the Haz-Match to find out how much you know about the toxic chemicals that are in tobacco ~~~~ i