![[ASH Logo]](/images/ash3.gif) |
ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH (ASH)
A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization 2013 H Street, NW / Washington, DC 20006 / (202) 659-4310 |
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has filed a legal comment with the Department of Transportation [DOT] asking it to issue a uniform national rule banning or severely restricting smoking in all major airports.
With its legal comment ASH also filed over 1600 individual comments from individuals who were sensitive to tobacco smoke. In these comments they cited the many health problems they had suffered as a result of exposure to tobacco smoke in many major airports.
The following is a press release issues by ASH about the filing.
You can help, especially if you or a member of your family are sensitive to tobacco smoke. If you are, you should take two steps.
The first step would be to file your own comments with DOT. Although the comment period has officially closed, the agency is likely to accept even late-filed comments if they are received during the next few weeks.
Comments should be sent to:
Docket Clerk
Docket No. OST-96-1880
Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, S.W.
Room PL-401
Washington, D.C., 20590.
Those submitting comments should try to address the following questions, and then add your full name and address.
1. DOT has suggested that guaranteeing passengers sensitive to tobacco smoke "a path of access from the terminal entrance to the aircraft free from exposure to tobacco smoke," perhaps by using "an enclosed cart that took the passenger through the airport without exposure to smoke," would provide sufficient protection. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
2. Are there other areas of the airport terminal that passengers þ including those sensitive to tobacco smoke þ frequently must use while traveling, and where they therefore need protection from exposure to tobacco smoke (e.g., restrooms, telephones, eating areas, baggage claim, news stands and other stores, ticket counters, etc.)? If yes, explain why these areas are important to travelers, and what smoking restrictions (if any) should be adopted.
3. DOT has proposed these rules especially to protect passengers who are sensitive to tobacco smoke. Are you or a member of your family particularly sensitive to tobacco smoke? If yes, please describe how or why (naming any applicable medical conditions such as asthma, allergies, hay fever, eye problems, sinusitis, cystic fibrosis, lupus, emphysema, other respiratory problems, heart conditions), and what problems (if any) exposure to tobacco smoke causes you or the family member.
4. Use any remaining space to describe any specific problems you or a family member may have encountered with tobacco smoke in airports, and for any other general comments or proposals you have with regard to tobacco smoke in airports.
ASH's press release follows:
SENSITIVE NONSMOKERS SEEK AIRPORT SMOKING BAN
Asthmatics and Others Cite Lung Infections, Vomiting, and Even Blindness From Exposure to Smoke, and Ask Transportation Dept. for Protection As "Handicapped"
More than 1600 airline passengers with asthma, sinusitis, rhinitis, bronchitis, and many other conditions which make them especially sensitive to tobacco smoke have asked the Department of Transportation [DOT] to drastically limit smoking in our nation's airports to protect their health.
Citing example after example where smoking in airports has ruined trips and entire vacations, and caused them to faint, vomit, and in one case even to go blind in one eye, they urge DOT to adopt rules similar to those already in place in many airports which prohibit smoking in all public places. Many of the complaints cite actual situations at named airports:
NORFOLK, VA: "Waiting at the gate the air was full of tobacco smoke and my operated [on] eye was irritated. By the time I arrived at my home in Virginia Beach I felt sick and had excruciating pain in my eye. I gradually lost sight in the eye until it became completely blind. The diagnosis was optic neuritis. I believe this condition was caused by the tobacco smoke eliminating oxygen preventing blood flow to the nerve and killing it."
WYOMING: "I started vomiting as soon as it took off and vomited all the way to [destination]. I was sick the whole time we were there, and that spoiled my husband's job interview."
DETROIT, MI: "The smoke completely stopped my air sacs."
CINCINNATI, OH: "my allergy and asthma symptoms were so severe that the airline finally decided to allow me to preboard while the aircraft was being serviced."
PHILADELPHIA, PA: "had an asthma attack."
Other complaints, such as the following, are just as serious, but did not name a specific airport: angina resulting in a temporary inability to walk, talk, or carry luggage, inability to breathe normally for about 3 days after exposure, throat constrictions to the point of being unable to speak, eye irritation severe enough to cause near blindness, severe pain after deviated septum surgery, coughing up black or gray matter, illness that required 2-3 days for recovery, collapsed on the floor, burning of sinuses, weeks of suffering from upper respiratory problems and sinus, coughing spells lasting many hours, heart pain which can result in heart damage, caused me to throw up several times, prostration virtually to the point of unconsciousness, bleeding from ears, nose, or throat, eyelids swollen shut.
Following a long line of court and agency decisions, DOT has tentatively agreed that persons who are very sensitive to tobacco smoke may be classified as "handicapped" or "disabled" þ a legal conclusion which then obligates airports and all airport facilities to make a "reasonable accommodation" to their condition.
In a legal filing accompanying the individual complaints, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), a national legal action antismoking organization, has argued that a smoking ban is "reasonable" in view of the many airports which have already adopted it, and the impracticality of other possible approaches.
For example, DOT had wondered if requiring that airports provide enclosed cars for smoke-sensitive passengers would be effective. But ASH pointed out that almost 100 million people have conditions which make them sensitive to tobacco smoke.
Moreover, even passengers who are not normally very sensitive may become much more so as a result of prolonged breathing of low-humidity cabin air, fatigue or fear from flying (especially with turbulence), hunger, or simply breathing hard from running to catch a plane.
"A remedy such as carts, which may work for the relatively small percentage of passengers who use wheel chairs, would clearly be inadequate for the tens of millions with respiratory and other conditions," argues ASH.
DOT also asked for comments on a proposal to simply require a "smoke-free path from the gate to the tarmac." But, as ASH pointed out, passengers must also be able to visit other airline facilities such as ticket counters, baggage claim areas, garages and parking areas, lost baggage offices, special rebooking desks, etc.
Given the realities of travel today, passengers also must be able to utilize airport-based services such as restrooms, public telephones and fax machines, fast food restaurants, car rental counters, banks and money change concessions, and shops. Moreover, as ASH pointed out, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that all persons be provided with equal access to these facilities.
"Ironically, passengers are protected from tobacco smoke while they are on the airplane, but not while waiting to disembark, or after landing and going to pick up luggage or catch a meal before the next flight. Some of the airports seem not to have noticed that smoking is increasingly banned in office buildings, in shopping malls, and in individual shops and restaurants," says ASH.
But many airports have, either on their own or as required by state or local law, either banned smoking entirely or restricted it to a very small number of areas. According to ASH, the following airports are reportedly smoke-free, except that those marked [FE] permit smoking in fully-enclosed smoking sections, and in those marked [B/R] smoking is permitted in special smoking sections of some bars and/or restaurants.
Albuquerque, NM [B/R] Allentown/Bethlehem, PA Austin, TX, R. Mueller Mun. Baltimore International, MD Boston Logan, MA Bradley International Capitol AP, Springfield, IL Colorado Springs, CO Dallas/Fort-Worth, TX Daytona Beach, FL Denver Intl, CO, [FE] Dulles International, DC, [FE] Flagstaff, AZ Fort Smith, AR Hartford, CT, [FE] Hartsfield, Atlanta, GA [B/R] Houston, TX, [FE] John F Kennedy, NY [B/R] John Wayne, Annaheim, CA Kansas City Intl, MO La Guardia Intl., NY [B/R] Long Beach, CA [B/R] Los Angeles, CA [B/R] McGhee Tyson, Knoxville, TN Memphis International, TN Miami Intl, FL [B/R] Minnesota/ St. Paul, MN Newark, NJ [B/R] O'Hare, Chicago, IL Oakland, CA Ontario, CA [B/R] Palm Beach, Fl Philadelphia, PA [B/R] Phoenix, AZ [B/R] Pittsburgh, PA [B/R] Redding, CA Sacramento, CA Saint Petersbrg-Clearwtr, FL Salt Lake City, UT [B/R] San Francisco, CA, [FE] San Jose, CA Santa Barbara, CA Van Nuys, CA [B/R] Washington National, DC
ASH stresses that sensitive nonsmokers have occasionally reported problems with smoking even in airports where it is supposedly prohibited.
However ASH believes that a uniform rule promulgated by DOT would go a long way towards ending those violations which often occur when smokers arriving in a strange airport are not aware of local smoking rules.
"The existing patchwork-quilt of different rules" encourages confusion and resulting violations, says ASH, noting that similar problems occurred on domestic flights until all smoking was finally prohibited.
ASH's legal actions led to the current smoking bans on domestic flights, and restrictions on smoking aboard international flights.
|
ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH (ASH)
A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization 2013 H Street, NW / Washington, DC 20006 / (202) 659-4310 |