Post by geriatrix on Feb 25, 2016 22:18:35 GMT
Pro:
There are many reasons why smoking bans originated, but most of these have medical origins. Research has shown that secondhand smoke is almost as harmful as smoking in and of itself. The effects of secondhand smoke are relatively the same as smoking. Lung disease, heart disease, bronchitis and asthma are common. Those that live in homes with smokers have a 20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than those that do not live with a smoker. Many see it as unfair that others have to suffer the effects of secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the decision for exposure to it. Non-smokers that worked with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no choice but to face exposure to the smoke. Smoking bans remove these risks for many people.
Con:
Despite the positive effects on health and air quality, many people are still opposed to smoking bans. Usually, people oppose smoking bans because they see these laws as an example of the government interfering in people's lives. They look at the effects on smokers, not those on non-smokers being subjected to second-hand smoke. Other critics emphasize the rights of the property owner and draw distinctions between public places - such as government buildings - and privately owned businesses - such as stores and restaurants. Some critics of smoking bans believe that outlawing smoking in the workplace may cause smokers to simply move their smoking elsewhere. Instead of smoking indoors, workers may begin smoking in public parks and exposing a new set of people to their secondhand smoke.
There are many reasons why smoking bans originated, but most of these have medical origins. Research has shown that secondhand smoke is almost as harmful as smoking in and of itself. The effects of secondhand smoke are relatively the same as smoking. Lung disease, heart disease, bronchitis and asthma are common. Those that live in homes with smokers have a 20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than those that do not live with a smoker. Many see it as unfair that others have to suffer the effects of secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the decision for exposure to it. Non-smokers that worked with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no choice but to face exposure to the smoke. Smoking bans remove these risks for many people.
Con:
Despite the positive effects on health and air quality, many people are still opposed to smoking bans. Usually, people oppose smoking bans because they see these laws as an example of the government interfering in people's lives. They look at the effects on smokers, not those on non-smokers being subjected to second-hand smoke. Other critics emphasize the rights of the property owner and draw distinctions between public places - such as government buildings - and privately owned businesses - such as stores and restaurants. Some critics of smoking bans believe that outlawing smoking in the workplace may cause smokers to simply move their smoking elsewhere. Instead of smoking indoors, workers may begin smoking in public parks and exposing a new set of people to their secondhand smoke.
