Ban Public Smoking

Ban Public Smoking

Ban Public Smoking

Steven Johnson

University of Phoenix

Ban Public Smoking

Daily non-smokers are subjected to the hazards of secondhand smoke. Whose rights are actually being infringed upon when smoking is allowed in public areas? We currently have many laws on the books which are intended to protect our citizens, why is it then we are still waiting for a commonsense law about the air we breathe. Drinking alcohol is not illegal, until someone takes actions which would endanger someone else. So why are we not seeing the same attitude towards something which causes just as many if not more deaths in a years time. Certainly as Americans we should be able to conduct our daily activities without the fear of exposure to toxins which are proven to cause cancers and promote heart disease.

Whether individuals work in, or patronize an establishment which allows smoking they take health risks each and every time. People who are employed by an establishment where smoking is allowed Dr. J. Gary Sack (2004) suggests that they have a "50 percent increase in lung cancer and a 30 percent increase in cardiovascular disease over those in a similar non smoking environment." This does not just apply to employees; it also applies to communities as a whole.

On June 5, 2002 a smoke-free ordinance went into effect for Helena, Montana. Unfortunately after a legal challenge it was suspended after six months. During those six months Dr. Richard P. Sargent and Dr. Robert M. Shepard did a study on the number of heart attack victims in the area. This is the first time that there is empirical evidence, that bans on smoking shield people from the hazards of secondhand smoke. The doctors presented their findings at the American College of Cardiology meeting in Chicago. During the first six months that the ban was in place, there was a 60 percent drop in heart attack sufferers admitted into the hospital. (Ravven 2003) While during the same time period there were no significant drops in heart attack sufferers in the sounding communities. Again we see the effects of limiting smoking in public areas are beneficial to the community as a whole. Why are the non-smokers among us not demanding more laws that would benefit our physical health? With the drop in hospital visits in this community it also proves that this is not only healthy; it is also fiscally sound.

Mr. Moore is the president and chief executive officer of Wausau Benefits a local insurance company. Mr. Moore said that "Wausau Benefits spends more than 10 million dollars a year on smoking-related employee benefits on behalf of its clients. We pay the bills for thousands of people who are dealing with the medical consequences of direct and indirect smoke." (Scott 2004) We know that smoking is an unhealthy habit, but are we realizing how much it takes away from our families finances due to increased insurance cost. The numbers offered to us by Mr. Moore should be an eye opener for those that are undecided on whether to support laws on banning smoking or not. There are a number of countries around the world which currently have laws which ban smoking in public. Why is the United States behind