Smoke free Owensboro

Submitted by Don Crask (see contact information below)

When considering public health issues, I try to be able to put the issue in terms of risk and risk management.

I wish to list those questions and my assessment of the Smoke-free issue. (SHS=Secondhand Smoke)

Question 1: Is it a hazard? Reliable reviewed scientific findings by the CDC, EPA, and the AMA indicates that SHS is a major health hazard.

Question 2: How large a hazard is it? The CDC indicates that SHS exposure is the third leading cause of preventable death.

Question 3: What can be done about the hazard? An environmental strategy that involves large populations and promotes removing SHS from the air is the recommended methodology. Continuing education about the dangers of SHS should accompany the separation of smoke from large populations. Smoke-Free ordinances that protect all individual in public places and workplaces provide the needed level of protection.

Question 4: What are going to be the societal effects? Questions of personal and business rights will be pitted against the interest of public health causing much public discussion and uncertainty about the change. Comments concerning change that involves traditions will attempt to move the discussion away from the undisputable health facts and remedy appropriateness.

All in all, the precedents invoking the inherent legal rights of the public and defined public health role in these matters overwhelm any perceived infringement of personal and business rights. With the passage of time and the acceptance of public authority in this area, the health of the community will be advanced. This will be seen as a watershed event in the history of Daviess County.


Don Crask
Tobacco Control Coordinator
Green River District Health Dept.
1501 Breckenridge Street
Owensboro, Ky. 42303
270-686-7747, extension 5617

Smoke Free Owensboro

Thanks to those that sent their comments along regarding Smoke Free Owensboro week at the Owensboro Blog.

Here are some links to letters to the local paper that may prompt more thought on this manner. Be forewarned, I can not be held accountable to much of the fiction contained in these letters!!!

One last point! It's interesting how emotion and addiction can take the place of rational thought, isn't it!?

Reader's Write Letter

Reader's Write Letter

Reader's Write Letter

Reader's Write Letter

Reader's Write Letter

Reader's Write Letter

Newspaper Editorial

Smoke free Owensboro

A guest post...

I am excited about the possiblility of Owensboro becoming Smoke-Free!

Before I had children, I tolerated smoking in public places like restaurants. Now that I am responsible for two young human beings, my children, I do my best to avoid places with cigarette smoke. I am responsible for protecting their health from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. I support a smoke-free Owensboro.

Yolanda Gonzales

Smoke free Owensboro

A guest post....

Jeff, Addison and I support a smoke free Owensboro. Everytime we walk into a restaurant that is smoking I cringe at what we are inhaling and it just isn't fair. What I find ironic is when you want to be seated in a non-smoking section many times you must walk through the smoking section to get there. Makes no sense to me!

Lois Hausner

ANNOUNCING!!!!!! Blogging Smoke free Owensboro at the Owensboro Blog this WEEK!!!

Ok, enough is enough...enough laziness and enough apathy!!!

To kick of Blogging Smoke Free Owensboro week here at the Owensboro Blog, I will refer our readers to the research I was cited as citing (read that again if you need to, it really did make sense) in the Messenger Inquirer here.

Oh, here is the research.

Phones worse than smoke

This is a little something that appeared in the local newspaper, the Messenger-Inquirer on September 19th.

It is not only amazing, but comical the lengths that people will go to when their addiction is threatened.

Click here for the reader's write article.

*Jan. 2006 update: This link is no longer available because the Messenger requires payment for its online version.

The Tracker: September 2005

This edition's Tracker can be found by clicking here.

This edition of The Tracker will provide comparative data related to Global Economic Development. As Owensboro-Daviess County continues to weigh economic development approaches and strategies, data indicators are presented to give local citizens insight into the challenges of our world.

* In 2002-2003, the under five mortality rate for the United States was 8 per 1,000. The same rate in Israel was 6, and in the West Bank-Gaza the rate was 24.

* Using the nutritional status of children under five years of age in the United States as the baseline in 2002-2003, 47% of children in Ethiopia were considered malnourished, 35% in Pakistan, 34% in Vietnam, 10% in Nicaragua, 0% in Germany, and 0% in France.

* The incidence of tuberculosis per 100,000 in 2003 in the United States was 5. In Spain the rate was 27, in Somalia 411, in Sweden 4, in Iraq 157, in Costa Rica 15, and 102 in China.

* Life expectancy at birth in 2003 for the United States was 77 years of age. In the United Kingdom, the expectancy was 77, in Singapore 78, in Rwanda 39, in Peru 70, 77 in Cuba, 42 in Burundi, and 69 in Brazil.

* In 2002-2003, the ratio of female to male enrollments in primary and secondary school in the United States was 100:100. In Venezuela the ratio was 104:100, in India 80:100, in Niger 69:100, and in the United Kingdom 116:100.

* The percent of total seats in national parliaments filled by females in 2004 was 14% in the United States, 25% in Uganda, 45% in Sweden, 7% in Nigeria, 23% in Mexico, 7% in Kenya, and 12% in Italy.

* The unemployment rate for ages 15-24 in 2002 in the United States was 12%. In Argentina the rate was 32%, 36% in Colombia, 5% Austria, 26% in Greece, 29% in Panama, and 44% in South Africa.

* In 2003, the net percent of gross national income attributed to assistance in the developing world by the United States was .1%. The percent of giving by Denmark was .8%. Canada, Japan, Portugal, and New Zealand, portioned .2% of their gross national income to the developing world.