|
New York College Students Respond to the
Proposed
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
New York College Students Respond to the
Proposed Join the Ban Wagon |
|
Tara Kiernan Thesis: Smoking should be banned in all public establishments including bars.
|
|
Tara Kiernan September 16, 2002 Join
the Ban Wagon Smoking should be banned in all public establishments including bars. California has done it, Massachusetts has followed, and now the new mayor of the Capital of the World has shown support for a plan to do the same (http://ash.org). Anti-smokers could make a huge gain if New York City was to follow the lead of California and Massachusetts. We already live in a world armed with knowledge of how harmful smoking can be, not only to the smokers themselves, but to the non-smokers as well. Many choose, however, to ignore the facts and warnings. A law such as this may seem a bit harsh, but think of all that it can accomplish. We need to stop smoking where it starts and end smoking where it has already begun. The hottest topic that surfaces during a smoking debate is always the effects of smoking on a person’s health. We’ve all seen the television adds pleading with us not to smoke, the most vapid ones sponsored by the tobacco companies themselves. “You’re buying something that says it will kill you right on the box,” says the young boy as he rushes out to play. They describe how the harmful additives in cigarette smoke cause the fingers and nails to transform in color from a healthy pink to a yellow-brown. The carcinogens cause the teeth to turn a similar color and cause wrinkles to appear above the upper lip. Smokers tend to be sick more often than non-smokers, they develop asthma and other bronchial ailments, and they are just about guaranteed to become inflicted with some form of cancer, whether it be throat, mouth, lung, etc., and emphysema. But hey, oxygen tanks come in all sorts of colors these days. |
|
The biggest argument voiced by the pro-smoking party usually goes as follows: “I can do what I want with my own body,” or something to that effect. The intellects that utter these words are not exactly correct. While we may live in a free and democratic society, we cannot live entirely freely. There are limitations to every right that we have been granted in the Constitution. For instance, we all know that we have freedom of speech. However, if your words cause someone to be physically harmed, you are going outside the boundaries of your individual rights, such as the infamous Supreme Court case of the 19th century in which a man yelled “fire” in a crowded theater causing panic and chaos. When your behavior negatively affects another, your rights may be limited. Does smoking not fall into this category? Every time a cigarette is lit it has an affect on someone. Even a person smoking a cigarette in a confined room can potentially harm another. According to Jon Howard, MD., chief of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL OSHA), tobacco smoke travels from its point of generation in a building to all other areas of the building. It has been shown to move through light fixtures, ceiling crawl spaces, and into and out of doorways. Once exposed, building occupants are at risk for the irritant, allergic, acute and chronic cardiopulmonary and carcinogenic health effects which are known to be associated with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure. (www.pacificnet.net) In fact, California legislators felt that these risks were so serious that they made it legal for apartment management to designate any apartment, or the entirety of a building, as smoke-free. (www.pacificnet.net) Co-op boards in New York City have also caused a stir, refusing to allow smoking in apartments due to complaints of non-smoking tenants. |
|
So we know all of this already. It still hasn’t stopped people from smoking. And we saw how well Prohibition worked. Nothing will change with these restrictions, right? Wrong. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that smoking bans and restrictions are the most effective measures to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke, followed by “price increases and mass-media campaigns,” which are also “effective in stopping the initiation by young people.” (www.ede.gov) Such a ban will help the “social-smokers” as well. Those are the people that say they are not, technically, smokers because they only smoke when they drink, but usually get addicted within three to six months of their first cigarette (http://health.rutgers.edu). Ingenious they are. Many concerns about these bans and restrictions don’t even come from smokers. They come from business people such as the bar and restaurant owners and tobacco companies. “The country will obviously go into economic ruin without the support of ‘Big Tobacco’ and bars can’t function without cigarettes,” they say (Buckley, 1). Very well put dramatically, but the statement is quite a fallacy. The New York Times reported on a study conducted by the Substance Abuse Research Program that found that the ban on smoking in NYC restaurants did not hurt business. In fact, restaurant industry jobs rose 18 percent from 1993 to 1997 (Martin). The group also reported that, “after controlling for seasonal trends, population and disposable income, our models failed to find a statistically significant effect of local smoke-free policies on business” (Ponkshe and Wilson). Going along with this economic theme, think of the litigation that will be stunted due to the thousands of suits against tobacco companies pending at this very moment. Think how many tax dollars could be put to other uses with the absence of these lawsuits. Insurance companies |
|
would be affected as well. Smokers cost insurance companies far more than the non-smoking population, but the burden is put on us all.
The economic arguments could possibly have a stronger foundation than the ethical ones, but the ethical reasons are far more important. The main priority of the regulations should not solely concern the economical aspects. Don’t we want people to live longer and healthier? Do we want to see another bar-tender die from lung cancer due to second-hand smoke, leaving three growing children and a loving wife behind? Do we want to see another young, healthy woman get addicted to nicotine before she even turns 20? We are already going to get skin cancer from the radiation coming from the sun, brain tumors from our cell phones, nervous damage from killer mosquitoes, asthma from the car fumes of the city, and a heart attack from our frequent visits to McDonald’s. Why should we have to hide from cigarette smoke too?
|
|
Works Cited A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventative Services. 10 Nov. 2000. 15 Sept 2002. <www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/ environmental/MMWR_rr4912_press.htm Buckley, William, F., Jr. “The Beleaguered Smoker.” National Review Online 2 Sept. 2002.<http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/buckley/buckley083002.asp> Martin, Douglas. “Smoking Has Not Hurt Restaurants, Analysts Say.” New York Times. Online: 12 Jan. 1999. 15 Sept. 2002. <http://www.gasp.org/nyrest.html> Ponshe, Prabhu and Ellen Wilson. “The Economic Effect of Smoke-Free Restaurant Policies on Restaurant Business in Massachusetts.” U.S. Newswire. 11 Jan 1999. 15 Sept 2002. <http://www.gasp.org/nyrest.html>
Second-Hand Smoke in Apartments and Co-ops. 2 Nov. 2001. 15 Sept. 2002. <www.pacificnet.net/^safe/apt1.htm#anchor98592> “Social Smoking.” 25 Aug. 2002. 15 Sept. 2002. <http://health.rutgers.edu/discussions/nicotine/ques07.htm> Why You Should Help Ban Smoking in New York City. 9 July 2002. 15 Sept. 2002. <http://ash .org/NYCCouncil.html>
|
