Making the Case for Non-Smokers

The comments in Beatrice Rosahn’s letter, “The Furor Over Smoking Regulations” (July 28), reflect a dismal lack of concern for non-smokers’ rights. I would like to make several important points:

- It’s a known fact in California, for example, that three-fourths of the population are non-smokers.

- When a non-smoker leaves a smoke-filled environment, it takes hours for carbon monoxide to leave the bloodstream.

- A study of non-smokers exposed to tobacco smoke at work for many years showed a dysfunction of the small airways in the lungs.

- A pregnant woman who smokes reduces the amount of food and oxygen reaching her baby due to the tightening of her blood vessels from nicotine.

- Babies and young children of smokers may have twice as many colds and respiratory problems as children of non-smokers.

- Exposure to tobacco smoke may be similar to exposure to radiation--there are no safe levels.

If the preceding information is not persuasive enough, then the following is undeniably important from a public health and financial point of view:

- Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (COLD) is the fifth leading cause of death in California. Smoking is a major risk factor for COLD.

- As of 1984, lung cancer became the leading cancer killer for women in California.

- The effects of smoking cost our society more than $38 billion every year, much of which the taxpayer and those who have health insurance must assume.

Individuals who smoke may think it is a personal decision that only affects their health and their pocketbook, but it is unfortunate that each one of us must pay for the increased health-care costs.

So yes, Ms. Rosahn, this subject does affect me emotionally and financially, but let’s not call this concern ignorance or panic.

The American Lung Assn., in conjunction with the Surgeon General, supports the concept of a smoke-free society by the year 2000. We care about every breath you take.

PEARL JEMISON-SMITH, R.N.

President,

American Lung Assn. of California