Action on Smoking and Health
A National Charitable Antismoking &
Nonsmokers' Rights Organization
 Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions

  Home Page  |  Subscribe | About ASH

Deutsch | Español | Français | Italiano

How the Treaty Would Help

Where the Treaty Stands Now

Current Proposed Text of Treaty

Upcoming Events

FCA Ratification Workshops

US Position

ASH's Position

How You Can Help

Important Documents

Sites With Important Information

News

Contact ASH

Join ASH

WHY PROTECTION OF NONSMOKER'S RIGHTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE FCTC

Why including nonsmokers' rights as a major factor in this unique world-wide treaty is so important to its overall success:

1. PUBLIC SUPPORT: Because it is based upon the individual self interest of the majority of citizens who are nonsmokers, rather than upon their abstract altruistic motives to help others, concern over ETS has been the backbone of public, political, and financial support for the antismoking movement. Prior to the emergence of the nonsmokers' rights movement in the 1970s, there was little support in the U.S. for conventional antismoking activities. Smokers obviously didn't support them, and nonsmokers — not seeing why smoking affected them — weren't very interested in "saving smokers from themselves." But with over 96 million Americans with chronic health conditions which make them especially susceptible to tobacco smoke, and growing concern about the deadly dangers of inhaling ETS, nonsmokers formed hundreds of organizations which todaygenerate most of the public pressure, and supply the troops, in the war on smoking.

2. DETER SMOKING: Many studies as well as massive anecdotal evidence suggest that the growing nonsmokers' rights movement is the most important single factor in persuading smokers to quit. Smoking bans on long-distance airline flights, in shopping malls and other public places, etc. make it more difficult to remain a smoker.
Prohibiting smoking in workplaces not only increases that difficulty; it also insulates smokers from many of the stressful workplace cues which often trigger the urge to light up, and from the temptation posed by being surrounded by people smoking and blowing smoke into the air.
But perhaps most importantly, the many "no smoking" signs serve as a constant reminder that smoking doesn't make you sexy and sophisticated; instead, it makes you stinky and smelly and someone most people don't want to associate with. Smokers constantly report that these social pressures make them feel like "public pariahs," and thus provide them with the major incentive
to quit — poetic justice since so many people were driven to start smoking because of public pressure. In short, restricting smoking, and posting numerous "no smoking" signs, is one of the most effective — and least expensive — ways to discourage smoking, help persuade smokers to quit, and assist them in remaining nonsmokers.

3. LOW COST, BIG SAVINGS: Conventional antismoking campaigns can be terribly expensive, particularly for emerging countries, and thus encounter strong political opposition. But public smoking can be restricted at virtually no cost, thereby sending a very important inexpensive educational message. Moreover, business owners will experience immediate savings in terms of cleanup and maintenance costs, reduction in burn damages, heating and cooling expense, as well as lower health and disability claims.

4. BENEFITS THE MAJORITY: It's obviously easier to justify, and obtain public and political support for, efforts which benefit the majority than those which help only a minority. While antismoking education and withdrawal programs are seen as benefiting only the minority who smoke or are likely to take up smoking, restrictions on smoking benefit the great majority by
protecting them from the third leading cause of death; a major cause of physical irritation; and a significant annoyance in all public places.

5. NO BIG GOVERNMENT: The nonsmokers' rights movement avoids a major argument made in opposition to most antismoking programs: i.e., that the government is acting like a "national nanny" and forcing people to improve their own health.
Many people already resent being required to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets, being denied access to certain drugs, and being preached to by their government.
The nonsmokers' rights movement avoids this because it is based upon a basic governmental function: protecting people from harm by others, from toxic chemicals, air pollution, etc. Since ETS has now been found to be a known human carcinogen by several different countries, there can be no reasonable argument that people have a "right" to smoke in public places and subject
nonsmokers to lung cancer.

6. BUILDS UPON MOMENTUM: While there is often very little public demand for actions to deter smoking, there is growing public pressure to protect nonsmokers from tobacco smoke. This is evident from the large number of airlines which have prohibited smoking because of passenger complaints; the growing number of restaurants which have banned smoking or at
least provided no-smoking sections; etc. It is always easier to take advantage of and to channel existing public support for a movement than to be forced to generate that support from scratch. In short, there is already far more public support for restricting smoking than for educating smokers, banning ads, etc.

7. SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS: Restrictions on smoking in public places have proven not only to be one of the most effective ways to discourage smoking, but to also work synergistically with other methodologies. Company after company has complained that simply providing antismoking educational materials to employees, providing smoking withdrawal clinics, and
even financial incentives does little to reduce smoking. But a ban on workplace smoking, coupled with these measures, slashes smoking rates by providing a major additional incentive to quit, as well as providing a supportive atmosphere for former smokers.