Tobacco Documents Online

RG~ERT G. TORRICELLI OCTOBER 7, 1987 STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT G. TORRICELLI BEFORE THE AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION • HEARING ON LEGZSLATION TO BAN SMOKING ON COMMERCIAL AI~INES '" The Surgeon General's pronouncement in 1964 that cigarette smoke leads to lung cancer prompted the appearance of warning labels on cigarette packages, the ban from television Of cigarette advertising, the formation of groups to help smokers kick their habit, and the marketing of low-tar cigarettes. The purpose behind each of these efforts was to protect smokers from the deadly consequences of their choice to smoke. Now, the nation is witnessing a renascent effort to ban smoking. But this time the purpose is different: to pro~ect non-smokers from the deadly carcinogens of cigarettes. Last year, the Surgeon General and the National Academy of Sciences alerted Americans to the danger of sidestream, or second hand, smoke. What was once thought to be merely annoying bec~me known to be deadly when the reports, agreed that second hand smoke can "cause lung disease in healthy non-smokers; that involuntary smoking by infants and children results in bronchitis, pneumonia and decreased lung capacity as the child matures;'and that the simple separation of smokers and non-smokers in the same airspace does not eliminate exposure to smoke. Further findings were no less discouraging. TI0045-1339

Nowhere are the hazards of second hand smoke more visible and more convincing than on airlines: passengers are forced to remain captive to the smoke they cannot escape until their plane lands. Although non- smoking and smoking passengers are separated, the boundaries are artificial; any distinction between the last rows of a smoking section and the first rows of a non-smoking section is meaningiess when cigarette smoke is incapable of observing these bounds. Even passengers in the" front of the plane are forced to breathe smoke-filled air since airplanes .re-circulate cabin air. -" -" Babies, the elderly, ~nd people.with allergies or chronic lung problems are most susceptible to second hand smoke. Each time they take a flight they must inhale the very smoke that can, over the space of even one flight, sicken them. Who would not look with horror at a toddler with a 6igarett'e in his mouth? Who would not be shocked at the sight of an asthmatic person smoking a cigarette? No one would argue that these people have the right not to have smoke blown in their face at any time. Yet, that is what hap.pens each time they board a plane -- and this is a chronic problem for them, no matter where in the plane they sit. According to recent studies, only about 20% of all airline passengers smoke, and ihe percentage of all American adults who smoke h~s dipped below 30% for the first time. If eithe~ smokers or nonsmokers are to defer to the other on airplanes, then good judgment dictates a non-smoking policy -- not simply because smokers are in the clear minority -- although that, alone, could serve as ample reason; and not simply because smoking would further endanger a plane if oxygen were released during an emergency -- although its being a fire hazard, alone, could justify a ban. Rather, cigarettes endanger the health of everyone T! 0045-1340

who comes in contact with smoke. That, alone, is sufficient to justify a no smoking policy on planes. Second hand smoke is dea~ly, and no passenger An an enclosed airplane cabin can escape second hand smoke. But despite the incontrovertability of these two. facts, smoking is still allowed on planes because an airline smoking ban is widely viewed as an attack on the rights of smokers, i would not argue that smokers should be allowed to continue their habit -- that is their right, regardless of the danger they face. But their right is not absolute; a non-smoker's right to remain free of this hazard must supercede the smoker's right to enjoy his cigarette where and when he pleases. Any view of legislation to ban smoking on airplanes as unfair, as an attack, on smokers' ~ights, obscures 6he immediate issue: cigarette smoke kills. It is with this conclusion in mind that I offer my bill to ban ~moking on inter- and intrastate commercial fligh£~, and it is this conclusion that should compel my colleagues to accept either this or a similar measure -- for the health of both smokers and non-smokers across the nation depends on it. T!0045-1341