A public smoking ban is...
fair to non-smokers.
Side Score: 30
|
 |
unfair to smokers.
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
I do not smoke and I plan not to smoke. I actually heard someone go up to a complete stranger and say "Oh, you smoke? Why don't i just get a gun so i can kill you faster?" But that's not my point. My point is that those that choose not to put toxins in their bodies should be shown the courtesy of the smokers to not put it in them by means of second hand smoke. And guys, just a tip for you: smoking is NOT a turn-on. Side: fair to non-smokers.
1
point
4
points
In 2001 the WHO and American Cancer Society (ACS) stated that there should be a world-wide public smoking ban!!! Here it is, 2008, and we still have not taken the advice of these experts in public health! Here is why these agencies suggest that there should be a public smoking ban: - tobacco will cause 8.4 million deaths worldwide in 2020 and 10 million annual deaths in 2030. If the estimates are correct, the United Nations agency warns, tobacco will become the world’s largest single health problem. -Your children are twice as likely to smoke if you do. Half of all premature deaths among life-long smokers result from tobacco use. - in many countries, tobacco companies are aggressively targeting women in their advertising campaigns, sponsoring beauty pageants, sports and arts events, and even women’s organizations to influence young women to use tobacco. - Tobacco control is a well-established concept in the developed world, but much of the developing world is either unaware of the dangers of tobacco or unable to fight the economic and political clout of international tobacco companies. - In China, where two-thirds of adult males smoke, WHO estimates that 100 million of the 300 million men who are now younger than 29 will be killed by tobacco. Most will die in middle age, depriving China of valuable human resources. Side: fair to non-smokers.
2
points
In Rome, after a public smoking ban was enacted there was a 11.2% reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years and a 7.9% reduction in those ages 65 to 74. So smoking bans do not only help lung cancer risks but also heart health!
Supporting Evidence:
Heart Attacks Decreased After Public Smoking Ban In Italy
(www.sciencedaily.com)
Side: fair to non-smokers.
That's what they call JUNK SCIENCE: Just look at the source of your info and what the source has to gain by the information they publish. ------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/ “No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.” “Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. ------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen William Osteen (US District Judge) ruling against the EPA *The ruling shows by scientific definition that ETS is not a Class A carcinogen http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/ “There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72) -------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/ “OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.” CDC Study shows cigarette smoke is 25,000 times safer than OSHA air regulations http://cleanairquality.blogspot. --------------------------------------- US Senate discusses health official’s inability to represent any REAL science http://www.youtube.com/
Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790 “Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.” http://www.cigarmony.com/downloads/ “Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS(environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk.” Side: unfair to smokers.
1
point
a ban on smoking in public would be a really good idea, expecially for those who already have health problems. my mother has asthma and anytime she walks by someone smoking, where someone had been smoking, or someone who smells like cigarrete smoke it chokes her and she's has a asthma attack. it's been so bad that she's had to go to the ER. why should people like her have to suffer because of someone else who wants to kill themselves faster? Side: fair to non-smokers.
|
First, the science about second hand smoke being a substantial hazard to anyone besides the smoker is a complete media propaganda stunt and common sense will tell any of us this fact. Not to say there is absolutely no risk at all, but there's NOT enough risk to even be considered into the equation. We all know this!! Stop arguing health effects because we all know deep inside it's just a scape goat to run off the people that smell a little different than us. That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that passing laws that restrict a business owner from doing as he wishes with himself within his own business is utterly TOO much nosy government. Non-smokers have the right to not allow smokers in their house, in there place of business, or in any enclosed area they OWN. If they choose to tread into a smoking bar, that is their CHOICE! It just wouldn't be fair to stomp into your non-smoking house, light up a cigarette, and claim the law tell you that you HAVE to put up with it in your own house!!! That is exactly what this law is telling the smokers who own their own business! Side: unfair to smokers.
So your staff should be forced to breath in smoke? Or are you saying it's okay to discriminate between smokers and non-smokers when hiring? What about the civil liberties of those who have to breath in the smoke and suffer the (known and proved) effects of secondhand smoking? Side: fair to non-smokers.
This whole, "Oh my gosh I have to breath in something I didn't want too" argument is a sad sign of desperateness. Your argument holds no water unless you can explain to everyone why you breath in car fumes, road tar, dust, paint fumes, or even the 80% nitrogen in the air without your explicit permission. Heaven forbid a car should drive by and blow it's 2" diameter pipe of toxins in "YOUR" air. Side: unfair to smokers.
|
