“Sorry, this is a non-smoking establishment.” Even in places without statewide smoking bans in public areas, this phrase has started to grow more and more common in recent years. This tide is very quickly changing as far as smoking goes, yet it wasn’t so long ago that nearly everyone was lighting up. Smoking is bad for one’s health, it puts a gray fog in the atmosphere and it creates trash…but for many addicts, it’s still oh-so-satisfying. The laws banning smoking, however, are not so appealing to those still puffing.
Public Smoking Bans: The Pros
Smoking is bad for the health, and some studies suggest that having less smoke in the air of a city can actually improve the health of residents of that city. The Department of Public Health and the Harvard School of Public Health conducted a study that shows a noticeable decrease in heart attacks since Massachusetts implemented a public smoking ban. If a blanket ban on smoke can provide a similarly wide-spread health increase, this makes a strong case for the need to use public smoking bans.
The Cons of Public Smoking Bans
Some business owners, however, have argued that public smoking bans are detrimental to their profits. Indiana reported a nearly 30% decrease in business since the state made use of a public smoking ban. With the economy being in such a chancy condition, anything that might harm business is best avoided.
Similar Posts:
- RT Rybak Mayor of Minneapolis
- Check Out My Black Eye!
- College, the internet, and the search to be a success
- Logical Fallacies: The Argument from Authority
- Is being frugal fun? You bet it is. Sort of.
November 22nd, 2010
Pretty sure the government should not step in to any of my business, i dont see why cigarettes are legal, but cannabis isnt
November 17th, 2010
Shirley Temple is right; second hand smoke is just there, it’s not like the smoker deliberately blows right in someone’s face(unless they are a total asshole). The damage drunkenness has on a non-drinker are far more direct as it’s more a deliberate attack and in the case of drunk driving can deliver instant kill. It can not be prevented simply by keeping drinkers away from non-drinkers as once one is drunk they have no choice but to bring that with them where ever they go next; whereas a smoker can easily just put out their cigarette before leaving the area they’re in. Thus removing the ability to drink period is more of a robbery of freedom than simply re-locating smokers to designated facilities(such as their own homes or designated areas in a work place). To protect non-drinkers from drunks you would pretty much have to remove drinking from existence completely.
September 28th, 2010
DB, isn’t there a law against drunk driving though. Like Shirly said we can’t tell people not to poison their bodies with drugs or alcohol. we can, however, take steps to make sure that their reckless decisions don’t effect anyone else.
August 8th, 2010
until that drunk driver kills you, then it affects a second hand drinker
February 23rd, 2010
just to respond to your comment Elle Zorra.. public health is a concern but the government does not have the right to tell people they cant harm their own bodies with smoke/alcohol. There IS second hand smoke that harms the people around the smoker… there ISNT second hand drinking. Therefor your “banning alcohol” statement is incorrect.
July 25th, 2009
The smoking-ban legislation is nothing more than the counter-strategy/a successful checkmate of the corrupt political-powers that be against the tobacco industries (still one of our biggest exports since colonial days) in response to the industries’ powerful/ successful lobbying to prevent increases in their taxation willingly; they would not ‘cough-up’ more cash… it has nothing to do with ‘the public health’ or anything else… if public health was truely a concern, Lord knows we’d have banned sale & public-consumption of alcohol). What should be the focus and of great importance to the citizenry is the fact that our government could’ve cared less about taking away an individual’s right to continue their feeding frenzy on of almighty dollars.