You may have read a previous blog post here on sharenotes.com that I posted about a proposed smoking ban in the military. I was slightly torn on the subject simply because I feel the military’s stress levels are super high right now. I am very anti-smoking but maybe a vice, even a terrible one like smoking, was keeping them going. However what I am not conflicted about is a ban on smoking in public places. I am of the personal feeling that if a person wants to smoke that is their prerogative, however I should not be forced to be exposed to it.
According to a recent study the ban on smoking that has occurred over three years may have had a dramatic effect on our health. According to the study, the smoke free environment has led to a 1/3 less heart attacks since the ban in parts of the US, Europe and Canada was first put into place. This strongly supports the stance that 2nd hand smoke can be harmful to those of us who do not smoke. It also strongly supports an expansion of the ban to places that are still havens for smokers.
According to the CDC an estimated 46,000 people die each year from 2nd hand smoke related heart disease. 46,000…that’s over 13 times the deaths from 9/11, every year, and just as needless. While we can’t make up for the senselessness of 9/11, we can do something about the future needless deaths related to smoking. With a world wide ban of smoking could all but erase a great deal of those deaths.
If it sounds like I am on a soapbox today, I’ll admit, I am. But I’m not completely heartless, I do feel for smokers. I know it’s horribly addictive, I’ve seen it first hand, and know how difficult it is to cut the habit. I had to watch my father go through it and it wasn’t until he was threatened with lung cancer before he was able to walk away. Most college kids smoke at some point or another recreationally, house parties, finals etc… But for many of us, that occasional indulgence turns into a habit.
My only advice for my fellow students is walk away sooner than later because it only gets harder. As I said at the beginning of the blog post if someone wants to smoke, they can, but just hopefully not around me. I fully support a public ban on smoking everywhere… even Vegas! Gasp! Time for sharenotes.comto weigh in, this topic always gets you talking. Support a ban? Wanna smoke anywhere, anytime? Here’s your chance to voice your opinion. Leave you comments below.
holy freaks 1/3 less heart attack because of a ban on smoking? From that alone i support the ban but from history, banning a product or making it illegal to have has hardly worked. EG ban on alcohol, ban on piracy. A ban may even make things worse, but you never know what will happen. The fact is that smoking can kill you quickly and from this blog, even if you just breathe traces of it. So I, of course, support a ban on smoking to the end.
Thanks for the comments Andrew. I agree with you on completely banning a product like the prohibition movement in the early 20th century. I think this is somewhat different in the sense that if people want to smoke, far be it from me to stop them. Lord knows I don’t like it but you wanna do it. Go for it I suppose. My thing is I don’t want you to be able to do it anywhere near me. Now that might severely limit where people can do it, but hey keep it in the privacy of your own home, then do what you like. Unfortunately there really is not good “smoking section” in public, because smoke travels and will effect non smokers in the immediate area.
Although a smoking ban may reduce the occurrence of heart attacks and strokes, nobody likes to lose the right to do something. It’s not the governments job to restrict people on the basis of their own personal health. It should be each persons responsibility to take care of their own healthy (or unhealthy) habits. Given that such a large reduction in vascular problems would lessen the load on our hospital systems, a smoking ban infringes upon our personal rights.
It seems that there is a general consensus on banning public smoking, but the measures that societies are willing take to support that ban vary. American society is willing to advocate smoking bans in support of public health concerns, but they are not willing to support national bans set by the government. These are percieved as a violation of rights. Buisnesses are able to set limits but once a government imposes limits on a buisness it is seen as overstepping its bounds. I know that some societies, such as France, Greece, and Italy, hold onto smoking as a part of their culture. Those citizens openly ignore limits on smoking. I think the true contraversy is over what people/societies are willing to sacrifice for their wellbeing and the wellbeing of others.
Mary thank you for your input, it was insightful. It seems as though people at large get scared anytime government tries to directly regulate anything. I can say this about smoking, it is a unique vice in the sense that by it’s very nature, smoke is not containable by the person consuming it. And in that sense it becomes the public’s issue. Smoking travels and effects those people around them. For instance, what if a study showed that if you stood near an individual who was drinking alcohol, there was a residual detrimental effect to your liver as well even though you had never consumed any alcohol? Would you think twice before entering a bar?
Conversely if smoking were a liquid that you consumed like alcohol, would we be having this discussion? Unfortunately smokers effect people around them and therefore I think it’s necessary for regulation to be brought into play, to what extent is open for discussion.