Smoking Should Be Banned3.859
It has been common
knowledge for years that tobacco is harmful and dangerous to the human body.
Nevertheless, this unhealthy pastime is still practiced by Americans
everywhere. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention… reported that 43.4
million US adults were current smokers… — about 1 out of 5 people.” Although it
will probably never be completely outlawed, smoking should be banned in all
public places.
Self-destructive
behaviors such as excessive drinking and chewing tobacco are immoral and sinful,
but unfortunately under America’s constitution they cannot be outlawed. When
these behaviors become harmful to others, however, laws can and must be imposed
to put a stop to them. Becoming intoxicated with alcohol is perfectly legal as
long as the inebriated person’s actions harm only him or her self. When an
drunk person gets behind the wheel of a car, however, he is putting not only
himself but also others at risk. It is therefore illegal for him to drive. The
drunken man has a right to harm himself, but not others. This should also be
the case with smoking.
Smoking, unlike other
forms of ingesting tobacco, releases the toxins from the tobacco into the air.
Other people who are near a smoker have no choice but to inhale this toxic and
foul-smelling smoke. Why doesn’t this fall under the same category as drunken
driving? Second-hand smoking does not carry an immediate risk like driving on
the same road as a drunk, but it carries an increased risk of health problems,
which develop over time. For those with asthma and other throat and lung
diseases, second-hand smoke can trigger an immediate and sometimes fatal
attack. Smoking should therefore be banned from all public property.
When a person enters
private property, whether a home, business, or otherwise, where smoking is
allowed, he makes a conscious decision to take the risk of inhaling second-hand
smoke. Public property is another matter. We are protected by law from drunk
drivers on public roads. We should be protected from the danger of second-hand
smoke as well. We have a right to use sidewalks and enjoy public parks without
being forced to inhale unpleasant and unhealthy smoke.
In conclusion, a
national law must be imposed to ban smoking on all public property. This law
may be a long way in coming, but eventually our lawmakers will see the sense in
these arguments.
—Kevin Jones
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: 3.8/5 (9 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
May 4th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Well Kevin, your information is quite flawed. The CDC has come forward to say "There can be no direct correlation between smoking and cancer, so smoke 'em if you got 'em!" As you can see, they are quite adament about this information. Thanks for the effort though, Kevin!
May 4th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Kevin
If smoking is banned because it presents a public nuisance why not ban people from speaking above a certain noise level? or ban someone from driving a certain color car that happens to bother people?
Additionally, evidence indicating secondhand smoking poses a health risk is far from conclusive.
Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda, and a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention stated:
"The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and astoundingly, some show a reduction of risk."
The following washington post article found that nearly all studies operate on questionable grounds of accuracy and are offten subject to tampering and falsified evidence in an attempt to demonize the tobacco industry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
Faced with a lack of clarity on consensus on the issue it would be irresponsible for the government, or any body of authority to rush into actions that may be needless and ultimately detrimental. To do so would set a standard demanding that we act when ever faced with a potential threat. Banning smoking in public places would lay the groundwork for a banning of fatty foods as fat people put a strain on the overall health care system and even pave the way for an invasion of other nations on the grounds that they might potentially pose a threat to us.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Who is to say that an asthmatic who would be killed were they to come into contact with second hand smoke should be protected? Why must the strong take it upon themselves to protect the weak and affirm the mentality of the slave?
For too long the slave morality has ruled and dominated culture. It is time for the strong to arise and the precursors to the Übermensch to embrace their will to power and to break free from the bonds of universal servitude. The notion that the weak should be cared for and protected at the expense of the strong is an one of the Apollonian slave which as corrupted the very basis of humanity.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
C’mon dude! smoking = sinful/immoral! thats a bit strong, lets keep it real!
smoking is a personal decision and not sin as long it doesn’t effect others, but otherwise awesome article!
May 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Nate, smoking is indeed sinful. We are called to respect all of God’s creation, and that includes our own bodies. We have done nothing to deserve the awesome gift of being created as strong, intelligent beings. To take this undeserved gift and disrespect it by knowingly harming ourselves is immoral and sinful.
May 10th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
So just because a religion states that “God” will smite us for disrespecting our bodies makes it true? Kevin you shouldn’t base your arguments on the perception that “God” won’t like it. Also, does anyone know how long it takes for second-hand smoke to have effects on your body?
May 11th, 2009 at 7:51 am
@libby, secondhand smoke is like a time bomb ticking…ticking…ticking. the more you take in, the more it hurts you. i took this from http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS.
Secondhand smoke causes disease and premature death in nonsmoking adults and children (4). Exposure to secondhand smoke irritates the airways and has immediate harmful effects on a person’s heart and blood vessels. It may increase the risk of heart disease by an estimated 25 to 30 percent (4). In the United States, secondhand smoke is thought to cause about 46,000 heart disease deaths each year (6). There may also be a link between exposure to secondhand smoke and the risk of stroke and hardening of the arteries; however, additional research is needed to confirm this link.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless (4).
May 16th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Going on personal experience, my aunt used to smoke, and whenever I went to visit her, I would get nauceous if she smoked while I was in the house. In fact, I think this was one of the reasons why she kicked the habit. Also, maybe I did get a little too far into the religeous side of this, but when you think about it, any debate concerning issues of morality will inevitably lead into the subject of theology. After all, if there is no God and no life after this one, then we have no need for morality.
May 17th, 2009 at 12:14 am
I would agree with most of the stuff alphabravo said about secondhand smoke but I’d like to add a bit more. I asked my dad who is a pulmonologist and asthma specialist and he said that these situations mentioned above would happen with regular exposure to smoke besides wheezing. Wheezing can happen even with very scarce exposure and the person’s risks double when the children are allergic to tobacco smoke.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
this is a completely ridiculous argument…i second McJeezus in saying that we shouldn't ban smoking merely because it causes long term health issues or is a nuisance…loud noises our shouting are annoying and damage people's hearing over time: yet to ban those would be deemed ridiculous, since a brief exposure causes negligible damage. It is the same way with second hand smoke: yes, it can be harmful and unpleasant, but inhaling for a few seconds isn't going to cause any harm. Or, you can do what i do and hold your breath: it isn't rocket science. It isn't like the air is filled with the embers of burning tobacco, choking our precious lungs and impinging upon our airways: not all that many people smoke on the street, and furthermore I have found that even if i do find a lot of smokers on the street, they are often rather courteous and will not try to MURDER YOU WITH THEIR CANCEROUS BREATH. Finally, on a cautionary note, your attempt to make this a moral issue is a very slippery slope that shouldn't be pursued.
Cheers
May 19th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I would have to say that it is an affront on both business and the 1/5 of adults who are smokers to ban smoking. Smoking, contrary to what some believe, makes for a nostalgic atmosphere, and helps people to relax. Also, it is one of the larger industries in America. To cause yet another major industry to leave America would greatly hurt the economy. What we should be doing is encouraging smoking in other countries. That way we can begin to even out our trade deficit.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
While many of you have stated that Kevin’s argument that it is immoral to smoke is ridiculous, I think he’s right. There are 53,000 deaths from second hand smoke annually,and the majority of these people have never smoked in there life, yet there lives are cut short by smokers. Without laws protecting non- smokers, they are completely at the mercy of the smokers and have no control over their circumstances. They are essentially being murdered.
Kevin’s point wasn’t that smoking should be banned, but that smoking in public places should be banned. If someone wants to smoke in his own home and he is willing to pay the reprecussions that is fine, but forcing the consequences of his actions on complete strangers is ,in fact, IMMORAL. So I wouldn’t say that argument is “a bit strong”, I’d say its completely justified.
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I’m with Nate… smoking can’t be listed with moral values.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Smoking, which used to be an American standard among people, has now come to be associated especially with lung cancer and death. However, one could argue that the presence of nicotine in people's everyday lives could have had a positive effect on their health that could have exceeded the negative effect. In actuality, obesity is growing to be a leading cause of death in the United States, and the problems associated with it often kill a person way before smoking would.
People, when they quit smoking, often gain a lot of weight. People attribute it to the withdrawal, but the withdrawal has nothing to do with this weight. In reality, smoking is an appetite suppressant. This means that people have to eat less while smoking to feel full than while not smoking. This is why smokers are often skinnier than non-smokers, regardless of how much they exercise.
Often, people who are obese die of heart attacks and similar problems in their fifties, sixties, and seventies, while lung cancer usually strikes in your seventies and eighties. Also, diabetes can take 10 years off of your life, while smoking only strikes some.
There is also reason to believe that smokers are less likely to die in car accidents: nicotene has a calming effect even on those who have never smoked more than one cigarette. This calming effect causes people to drive without panicking and to act without worrying as much.
There are many things that people don't consider, and it should be a goal to fully educate people, rather than leaving them in the dark about the benefits of something.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Smoking is really bad for your health! So I think people need to stop.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:27 am
[polldaddy 1998662 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1998662/ polldaddy]
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Hey, Just saw this in the Wall Street Journal, wanted to throw it out there,
”
The Case for Bans on Smoking
Curtailing Second-Hand Smoke Cuts Heart-Attack Rates, Studies Show
By RON WINSLOW
The growing numbers of bans on smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces, intended to protect nonsmokers against second-hand-tobacco smoke, are turning into potent weapons in the battle to prevent heart attacks.
In one of the largest analyses to date of the dangers of passive smoking, researchers found that smoke-free laws reduced the rate of heart attacks by an average of 17% after one year in communities where the bans had been adopted. The benefit increased with time: After three years, the rate had dropped about 26%. The biggest declines in heart attacks were seen among non-smokers and people between the ages of 40 and 60 years.
A 17% to 26% reduction of risk “is a big deal,” says Steven Schroeder, a physician at University of California, San Francisco, and a proponent of smoking bans who wasn’t involved in the studies. “We can make immediate public-health progress if we cut exposure to second-hand smoke,” he says.
The findings were detailed in two reports, both of which were based on pooled analyses of separate studies from the U.S., Canada and Europe. The studies, conducted since 2004, involved a combined total of roughly 24 million people. David Meyers, a preventive cardiologist at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, and lead author of one of the reports, said that on a national basis, a 17% decline would amount to avoiding more than 150,000 heart attacks annually. Estimates published by University of San Francisco researchers in January put the annual cost of treating illnesses related to second-hand smoke in the U.S. at as much as $6 billion. Dr. Meyers’s report is scheduled to be published Sept. 29 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology,
Researchers involved in the reports cautioned that pooled analyses have statistical flaws of their own that result in part from combining data from studies with different designs and goals. In general, researchers advise caution in using pooled analyses for hard conclusions.
There aren’t any initiatives in Washington aimed at adopting a national smoke-free law. But efforts continue in local communities to implement or broaden smoking bans. Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson recently vowed to fight for an effective public-smoking ban next year after legislators had failed to approve such a law. Other areas that already have bans on smoking in enclosed public places are trying to expand these. New York City, which prohibits smokers from lighting up in offices, restaurants and bars, announced this month that it hopes also to stop smoking in municipal parks. And Richmond, Calif., which in May banned smoking in parks and at public events, more recently expanded the prohibition to include apartment buildings and condominiums to prevent second-hand smoke from drifting into units of non-smokers.
Laws against smoking in public places remain controversial. Restaurant, bar and casino owners worry that such bans could put them out of business by driving customers to nearby cities or states that lack such policies. The tobacco industry, which for years had disparaged as “junk science” evidence that second-hand smoke was harmful, is now taking a different approach.
“Our current position is to let the market take care of the issue,” says John Singleton, a spokesman for Reynolds American, the parent of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. In venues such as bars, taverns and casinos that serve only adult customers, he says, “it should be up to the owners and operators to determine whether they should be able to accommodate smokers without the government coming in and imposing a one-size-fits-all kind of law.” And patrons of such establishments should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to risk exposure to second-hand smoke, he adds.
Currently, 17 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and more than 350 cities and towns in the U.S. have regulations banning smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants, according to advocacy group Americans for Non-smokers Rights. The bans cover about 40% of the U.S. population, says Cynthia Hallett, the group’s executive director. An additional 14 states prohibit smoking in one or two of those public locations. And 19 states—mostly in the South and the Midwest—don’t completely outlaw smoking in any public area, the group says.
The new scientific reports analyze studies from nearly a dozen locales—ranging from Helena, Mont., and New York State to Scotland, which banned smoking in all public places in 2006. Results from different locations varied: In Rome, for instance, there was essentially no impact on heart-attack rates one year after a ban took effect. Researchers suggested this might be due to the short time frame of the study.
By comparison, Pueblo, Colo., had a net 36% reduction in heart attacks three years after smoking was prohibited in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and other establishments.
Generally, the studies compared the rates of hospital admissions for heart attack or unstable chest pain before and after a ban was implemented, and compared these against such rates in nearby communities where such a law wasn’t in place. In some cases, patients were asked whether they smoked or not, and non-smokers’ exposure to second-hand smoke was confirmed with blood tests.
James Lightwood and Stanton Glantz, tobacco researchers at University of California, San Francisco, conducted a separate analysis using most of the same pooled data, but with some differences in methodology. These researchers found the same 17% average reduction in the rate of heart attacks one year after smoking bans went into effect. But after three years, this analysis found an average reduction of 36%. The team’s findings are published in the Oct. 6 issue of Circulation, a journal of the American Heart Association.
While smoking tobacco is known to heighten risk of heart attacks over a lifetime, there is some evidence that even short exposure to second-hand smoke can raise the risk of heart attacks. It can increase blood pressure, cause blood platelets to become sticky and injure cells that line the interior walls of blood vessels—all factors that can promote heart attacks.
One physician who has seen first-hand the effects of second-hand smoke on heart attack rates is Richard P. Sargent, a family doctor in Helena. He and some colleagues noticed a sharp drop in heart-attack admissions at the city’s main hospital about three months after a ban against smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos went into effect in June 2002. Then in December of that year, opponents succeeded in getting the ban revoked.
“We performed an ideal experiment,” Dr. Sargent recalls. “We turned [the ban] on, and we watched the heart-attack rate go down. We turned it off and watched it go back up.” The reduction was 40% in absolute terms—102 heart attacks per 100,000 person years after the ban, compared to 170 before the ban. Heart-attack rates rose sharply again after the ban was revoked, he says.
Dr. Sargent published the results in 2004, and this helped convince other communities to impose smoking bans and inspired further research into their effects in the U.S. and Europe. But opposition delayed a reinstatement of the ban in Helena. In 2005, a state law went into effect leading to prohibition of smoking in restaurants. And next month smoking will once again be forbidden in Helena’s bars under a Montana law that will affect such establishments across the state.
”
–Thanks, peace
October 19th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Optimus Prime- lay off. There is no need to get personal with the insults. I think that Kevin chose to take a position that is extremely difficult to defend, and that he did an admirable job with it. Although most people (including you) disagree with what he is saying, you can’t directly attack him for his arguments. Personally, I wouldn’t even attack his arguments because I respect and admire his defense of a minority position.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I agree with george. Anyway, thats an ad hominum fallacy. You don’t make any valid argument so even if what you believe is right we gotta default to Kevin’s position because he’s the only one offering legit ideas.