Editor,
According to an Albuquerque Journal poll published Tuesday, Oct. 15, 62 percent of Bernalillo County residents say they would support a law that would completely prohibit smoking inside public places. When asked about bans in more specific locations, 61 percent support such an ordinance in restaurants and eateries while only 30 percent say they would support a complete ban on smoking in bars or taverns.
What? How can this be? Two-thirds of respondents support an ordinance that "would completely prohibit smoking inside public places." Were respondents unclear about the question when pollsters asked them about "inside public places?" How can two-thirds of area residents support smoking bans inside all public places, yet restructure their opinion when asked about a bar or tavern?
I called Matt Hughes, Research & Polling, Inc., the company that conducted the study for the Journal. When I asked him what was going on, he answered, "We can't get inside the heads of respondents." While a polling company may not be concerned about this apparent inconsistency, we must ask our leaders to look closely at the discrepancy in response.
Why do two-thirds of respondents support prohibitions on indoor smoking? In the work I do, I try to get "inside the heads" of area residents. My research shows people are aware of the dangers of secondhand smoke as well as what I term the "nuisance factor" of secondhand smoke. Outside scientific responses, people express they dislike the stench tobacco smoke leaves on their clothes or in their hair. Many tell me they get headaches, sinus irritations or infections, bronchial congestion or other respiratory irritations from secondhand smoke. Many smokers have similar complaints. They note that although they smoke, they do so when and where they choose. They do not like being imposed on to "smoke."
There is another important reason for this inconsistency in opinion. Most area residents frequent restaurants. Therefore, they are personally concerned about air quality and their health while dining. But, the percentage of individuals who attend bars or taverns drops significantly. Those who do not frequent these places are less likely to hold strong opinions on whether smoking should be prohibited. I have spoken to many non-smokers who believe smoking should be allowed in bars and taverns-as smokers need a place to smoke. As they do not go to bars, they do not consider it an inconvenience or threat to their personal safety.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The unfortunate aspect of this poll is that it reveals the general selfishness in our society. The results show we are intimately concerned about our personal safety; but are significantly less likely to defend the health and safety of others - as a society, we fail to step up to the plate for others. In the early '90s, Albuquerque leaders voted to prohibit smoking in areas they spend most of their time, i.e., government buildings and white-collar office areas. The issue before us today is whether all workers, i.e., rich or poor, college educated or not, male or female, deserve the same protections.
There is another aspect of this poll that few understand. Research & Polling, Inc. conducted this poll in their standard fashion, i.e., telephone interviews made in the evening (5-9 p.m. in general). They conducted the poll over a 3-4 day period between October 7-10. I asked Mr. Hughes for a breakout of the demographics for this study, but he denied me greater information. People who work in bars and taverns would be unlikely to be home during this time - they work in the evenings. Mr. Hughes noted that if they conducted their research in the day, they would get significant differences. Additionally, young people are not represented well in this type of research. We are all aware that bars are dominated by young people.
We ask leaders to not allow society to be selfish. This legislation protects the health of Albuquerque's work force. The business community argues profits are more important than health - tell that to America's young voters.
Scott Goold
Daily Lobo reader
