The American Cancer Society along with a coalition of public health groups released today a new poll showing 77 percent of Kansas voters support the state’s recently passed smokefree law. Support for the Kansas Indoor Clean Air Act, which went into effect on July 1, 2010, flows across all political parties, including large majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independent voters across Kansas. In addition, the poll shows support for the smokefree law has increased since it went into effect. “This poll confirms that Kansans appreciate their freedom from harmful exposure to secondhand smoke in public places,” said Chris Masoner, government relations director for the American Cancer Society. “Passage of the Indoor Clean Air Act was a major victory in the fight against cancer in our state, and nobody wants to take a step backward now that the law is in effect.”
The survey also found among Kansas voters: • 59 percent are less likely to vote for candidates who want to repeal the law • 84 percent view exposure to secondhand smoke as a health hazard • 54 percent of people who smoke like the state’s smokefree law The survey of 500 likely Kansas voters was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies on January 11-12, 2011. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.38 percentage points.
“These results show what we have always known - Kansans understand secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, and they don’t want their right to breathe clean air taken away,” said James Gardner, M.D., Chair of the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition. “Although certain special interests may not like the smokefree law, it is clear the people of Kansas overwhelmingly support being free from toxic effects of secondhand smoke.”
In February 2010, Kansas became the 28th state to pass a smokefree law that protects workers and the public from the serious health hazards of secondhand smoke in public places and hospitality venues. “Because of this law, Kansas will see decreases in deaths from heart and lung diseases and cancer, as well as fewer youth starting to smoke,” Masoner said.
The need for protection from secondhand smoke in all workplaces and public places has never been clearer. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, including at least 69 carcinogens. The evidence is also clear that smokefree laws protect health without harming business. A 2011 report recently released by Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition on The Economic Impact of the 2008 Kansas City Missouri Smokefree Ordinance concludes the smokefree ordinance there had no overall impact on bar and restaurant sales tax revenue, but did provide health benefits for customers and employees.
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States and in Kansas, burdening society with the suffering and health care costs related to cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illness. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment estimates 380 Kansans die each year from the effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Eighty-two percent of Kansans do not smoke.
The coalition of public health groups releasing and funding the poll includes the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Sunflower Foundation, Oral Health Kansas, Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition, Clean Air Kansas and Wichita Medical Research Education Foundation.
For cancer information anytime day or night, call 800.ACS.2345 or visit cancer.org.
Comments
Lateralis (anonymous) says…
"In February 2010, Kansas became the 28th state to pass a smoke free law that protects workers and the public from the serious health hazards of secondhand smoke in public places and hospitality venues."
Unless you are the state and running a casino. Gambling, alcohol, and the lottery are dependent on addiction. They are major health risks and contradict the state's genuine "concern" for the health and welfare of it's residence. There needs to be serious consideration to a few more bans in the public health interest if the state is truly a concerned party.
Alcohol and tobacco are proven gateway drugs.
Ban sale and consumption of alcohol - Alcohol is responsible for over 100,000 deaths a year. (NIDA Report)
Ban sale and consumption of tobacco - Tobacco is responsible for approx. 443,000 deaths a year (CDC)
Ban high fat and cholesterol foods - Heart disease is the # 1 killer in the United States. Heart disease kills approx. 616,000 people each and every year. (CDC)
For me, it comes down to a double standard when governmental parties are acting in the public health interest. You can't argue with deaths caused by poor health choices and if the government wants to help eliminate our biggest killers then it needs to get in gear. Acting in the public health's interest is a slippery slope.It needs to be applied uniformly across the board. When not applied in such a manner the government loses all credibility especially when it allows exceptions for state run facilities.
The state of Kansas needs to lead by example with no exception.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Not really; most of those (others) you propose banning do not have an immediate and direct effect on the non-participating bystanders. All are things that can be considered hazardous to your health; but usually, not immediately so.
Lateralis (anonymous) replies…
One could argue that first hand and second hand smoke have not so immediate effects. Either way, drugs are bad .........mmmm-K.
Part of my focus was intended to address the states pretend concern for health all the while allowing the deadliest substances to be sold and consumed. You can't champion the cause of health as the authority then turn around and allow exceptions. Immediate, direct, and indirect.....all of it drives up health care costs. It's a major problem.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Agree!
smartin1955 (anonymous) says…
I think people are very interested in the funding of pro ban. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for instance. Their last grant to the Cancer Society, and Heart and Lung Assciations, was $99,000,000.00. Now why, you might ask, would the "philanthropic arm" of Johnson and Johnson, want to donate that kind of money to these "charities"?
Especially when the Cancer Society is sitting on a $1.6 billion interest earniong savings account. RWJF cannot legally lobby for smoking bans, so they pay these charities, now lobby groups, to do it for them. If you funnel money through enough non profits it takes the taint of pharma nicotine replacement selling out of the light. And MY, how MANY lobbying non profit (profitable) foundations we have in Kansas now! If these paid their fair share of taxes, Kansas would not be in debt! Big money in lobbying these days!
The most deadly substance in Kansas is lack of truth.
smartin1955 (anonymous) says…
And as soon as the Cancer, Heart and Lung people start using their money for charity instead of for lobbying, I will donate to them again and not before. As of now they are simply pushing nicotine replacement for Johnson and Johnson.
drewnon (anonymous) says…
My friend actually emailed the group that did this study today. His issue was their poor polling standards, which I don't feel like writing about right now. They acknowledged this fact to say the least, and seemed very apologetic to him. Just throwing this fact out there, as I thought the numbers were slightly high sounding too.
snowbird (anonymous) says…
A truer poll just came out, that was taken by the owners, workers and customers
and 98% were against smoking bans