No Smoking Zones:

Questioning the “Reasonable Distance”

10 Feet Law

By Jacqueline Racer

Abstract

Second-hand smoke has been an ever-growing concern among non-smokers, as well

as smokers’ that are concerned with the fact that they may be harming those near their

smoke. Some cities have complete smoking bans, while others, like Huntington, West

Virginia, merely have a “reasonable distance” law that prohibits citizens from smoking

within a certain distance of public places. Currently Huntington has a distance of ten feet as

defined by the Clean Air Act of Cabell Country, West Virginia (2001). This leaves a large area

of sidewalk available for smoking. A larger no-smoking zone would even further protect

citizens and cover a much larger area of sidewalk.

The 10 feet law is part of the Clean Air Act of Cabell County, West Virginia. The

scholarly literature was searched for information on the harmful effects of second-hand

smoke and on the growing popularity of smoking bans in large cities. Findings indicated that

research was necessary to find out if Huntington, West Virginia’s 10 feet law is enough to

protect the public from second-hand smoke. Public places were mapped (Geographic

Information Systems software) and the 10 foot zones simulated. Results indicated many

gaps that smokers could congregate in. If the law were to be extended to 50 feet, citizens

could walk the sidewalks of downtown Huntington with a much greater area of smoke-free

air.

There is very much information available stating how dangerous second-hand smoke

is. It is very important for smaller cities, like Huntington, WV, to follow the example of larger

cities and have an extended 50 feet no-smoking zone. The ten feet law is neither enough for

citizens to walk the sidewalks downtown while breathing clean air, nor is it a large enough

no-smoking zone for police officers to enforce. Even Huntington’s Courthouse, located in

downtown Huntington, has a 50 foot no-smoking zone – there was a separate ruling for the

Courthouse’s non-smoking zones.

Statement of Objectives

The goal of this study is to determine the area of sidewalks in Downtown Huntington that

are available and not available for the 10 foot law, as well as what these areas would be in

comparison to a hypothetical 50 foot law. Discover if a 10 foot zone is effective enough to

protect citizens from second-hand smoke and the resulting harm. There are many questions

to answer, these are: What are the benefits of smoking bans and laws? Is there a spatial

pattern in the smoking ban/law movement? Why is the current 10 feet law not enforced?

How much more area would a 50 foot zone cover? Why chose a 50 foot zone over a

complete smoking ban?

Literature Review

Concerns about second-hand smoke have been growing steadily. Even brief exposure

to second-hand smoke is dangerous (Bhavsar 2007). Brief exposure is especially dangerous

to those with existing lung disorders and asthma. It is important to create and enforce

smoking laws and bans in order to protect the population from these risks. Some would

argue that smoking zones is primarily an obnoxious issue, yet for citizens with severe

asthma or other breathing disorder, this could be considered noxious because the smoke

could set off a reaction. Improved laws will leave the air cleaner from the pollution created

by cigarettes whether it is the waste on the ground or the smoke in the air.

Smoking bans in and around public places have been instituted in many regions

(Novak 2007). Hospital admission rates for second-hand smoke related coronary disease

decreased along with these bans. The nation’s budget and the economy are the two largest

debates in our government, lowering smoking possibilities will help the government save

money by not having to cover the medical costs that are plaguing the government right

now. This is evidence supporting the need for improved smoking laws and bans. Smoking

laws and bans will not only leave the air cleaner but could possibly reduce the amount of

hospital usage for related diseases. This could result in a smaller need for hospitalization

and the resulting healthcare costs that plague government spending.

Spatial patterns have been created by these laws, and they are developing rapidly

(Nykiforuk et al. 2007, Schmidt 2007). With the knowledge of the negative impacts of

second-hand smoke grows the number of places with strong laws and/or smoking bans.

Some of the original smoking bans originated in cities within the United States, now there

are entire countries that enforce smoking bans over their entire population.

Ever-growing popularity and enforcement of bans start in large cities and ripple down

to small towns, eventually entire countries have a ban. Huntington, through many failed

attempts, has tried to pass laws calling for a smoking ban, but the bills never pass because

so many smoking-approved facilities fight it. This is why a simple larger no-smoking zone

should be enforced.

A newly created term, “Third-Hand Smoke” takes these city-wide bans and goes into

private homes. Third-hand smoke is the residual smoke that is found on the clothes and in

the hair of smokers, it is possible for this residue to last an entire day. Third-hand smoke is a

major risk factor for children, they are the most likely to come in contact of residual smoke.

(Friebely 2009). Some believe due to this risk factor, smoking should not only be banned in

public places, but also in the home. A ban of smoking in homes would prevent children from

being exposed to these toxins. While this is an extreme example, it does show the necessity

to have laws created to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Children cannot decide

for the adults in their lives about whether to smoke or not, they should be protected with the

highest of regards. Cigarette smoke has caused a tremendous increase in cases of children

with newly developed asthma.

There are 4000 toxins in cigarettes, and at least 50 of these are shown to cause

cancer. Non-smokers have a right not to be put at risk for these carcinogenic toxins. Claims

are being made that only places with a 100% smoking ban will be safe from tobacco-related

illnesses and deaths (Indian Journal 2007), not only to protect passerby non-smokers, but

also to protect employees of businesses where smoking is permitted. This claim is important

to this study because it is one of many research articles that enforce the belief that

smoking, when even only partially permitted, will cause damage to non-smokers, and this

factor will help spread the smoking ban trend which may come to Huntington in the future.

For now, this study will only show the hypothetical effects of a fifty feet ban in

Huntington, not an entire city-wide ban. A fifty feet ban would be easier for police officers to

enforce, would provide a larger range of clean air for non-smokers to breathe, and would not

be fought as hard by bar owners, like a complete city-wide ban would be. Basically,

considering the number of bars, where smoking is allowed, a fifty feet ban would be much

more likely to be put in place than a complete smoking ban. Third-hand smoke, although

ground-breaking and interesting cannot be addressed in this study due to lack of funding

and research.

The concept of smoke dispersion also was not addressed in this study due to lack of

equipment and know how. Smoke begins to disperse as soon as it is exhaled, but this rate

depends on many factors. Some of these factors include wind speed, humidity, pressure,

and precipitation. So many factors, money, time, and know-how are the reasons why these

valid points against this study are not being addressed.

Much research has been done and there have been no other studies done that have

conducted a study like this. This may be the only study that has investigated the total area

of sidewalks exposed to smoking in regards to no-smoking zone laws. More studies should

be conducted of the larger cities that have yet to enforce a complete smoking ban in order

to discover how much citizens are put in harm’s way every day.

Materials and Methods

A public facility can be anything of general use by the public, like an entrance to a

business or a bus stop. A buffer, also called a non-smoking zone in this study, is a defined

radial distance of a circle around a GPS point. Public facilities and buffers are used to

conduct this study. Global Positioning System (GPS) points were taken of every public facility

in Downtown Huntington as defined by the Clean Air Act of Cabell County (2001), this

includes restaurant and business entrances, bus stops, and any other common-use place.

The focus area extends from 8th Street to 16th Street along 3rd and 4th Avenues. These

points were taken using a Garmin GPS device. The points were downloaded and added to a

satellite image of Downtown Huntington, provided by the Geography Department of Marshall

University, using ArcGIS. Each point was then given a buffer. A buffer was set for 10 feet

zones (Figure 1) and another buffer was set for the 50 feet zones (Figure 2). The buffers and

sidewalks overlapped in many areas. The areas of sidewalks covered by the buffers are the

non-smoking areas, and vice versa.

All sidewalks were measured, resulting in an average width of 13 feet and average

length of 490 feet. These measurements were used in digitizing the sidewalks on the

satellite image. The buffer zones were set to overlap the sidewalks; this resulted in the

ability to observe visually the areas that are smoking, as well as non-smoking. The area was

found for total smoking and non-smoking zones on the sidewalks of Downtown Huntington.

The areas for each were compiled in to a table for easy interpretation (Figure 5).

Figure 1. The red polygons represent the sidewalks and the green circles represent the 10

feet no-smoking zones.

Figure 2. The red polygons represent the sidewalks and the green circles represent the

hypothetical 50 feet no-smoking zones.

This map (Figure 3) is a portion of

the 10 foot no-smoking zone map. The

bright red polygons are the sidewalks, and

the green circles are the non-smoking

zones. Notice the large amount of exposed

sidewalks available for smoking.

Figure 4 is a section of the large 50

foot no-smoking zone map, zoomed in to

see more details. Again, the red polygons

are the sidewalks, and the green circles represent the no-smoking zones. The zones cover a

much larger area of the sidewalks.

Conclusions

87% of sidewalks are currently available

for smoking. This number would be reduced to

a mere 40% if a 50 foot law were to be

enacted. The 10 foot “reasonable distance” is

not effective enough to protect citizens from

second-hand smoke. However, the 50 foot

zone would make the majority of sidewalks

smoke-free so that citizens may walk

downtown without breathing second-hand

smoke. The 50 foot law would pass much easier than a full smoking ban because bars and

other approved smoking facilities would still have their rights. Yet, citizens that want to

avoid second-hand smoke could do so.

Discussion

Smoking has become a large debate, where smoking is allowed, how harmful

smoking is, and many more questions are being addressed. Large cities lead the way with

breakthrough information and trends for things like health. Smaller citied follow quickly

behind, yet Huntington is far behind on this topic. There are now entire nations that have

complete smoking bans. Huntington has the smallest smoking ban, besides a fully allowable

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

smoking region. Citizens need to question politicians in the Courthouse, why are they more

protected from cigarette smoke than the citizens of Huntington.

Figure 5. The table shows the statistics for smoking and no-smoking zones’ area and the

corresponding percentages.

References

Bhavsar, Tapan M., Joseph M. Cerreta, and Jerome O. Cantor. "Short-Term Cigarette

Smoke Exposure Predisposes the Lung to Secondary Injury." (2007) Lung: Springer Science

and Business Media 185: 227-33.

Lewis, Paul C. "Tobacco: What Is It and Why Do People Continue to Use It?" (2008)

MEDSURG Nursing 17: 193-201.

Novak, Kris. "Out from the Haze." (2007) Nature 447: 1049-51.

Nykiforuk, Candice, and Et al. "Smoke-free spaces over time: a policy diffusion study

of bylaw development in Alberta and Ontario, Canada." (2008) Health and Social Care in the

Community 16: 64-74.

"Only 100% Smoke-Free Environments Adequately Protect from Dangers of Second-

Hand Smoke." (2007) Indian Journal of Medical Sciences 61: 372-73.

Schmidt, Charles W. "A Change in the Air: Smoking Bans Gain Momentum

Worldwide." (2007) Environmental Health Perspectives 115: 413-15.

Friebely, Joan, Melbourne Hovell, Susanne Tanski Georg Matt, Robert McMillen, and

Cheryl Sherrod, Jonathan Winickoff. "Beliefs about the Health Effects of ‘Third-Hand Smoke’

and Home Smoking Bans." (2009) Pediatrics 123: 74-79.

  Smoke-free Area (ft) Smoking Area (ft)% Smoke-

Free % Smoking

10 Feet 11,980.05 81,165.26 13% 87%50

Feet 55,672.01 37,473.29 60% 40%