“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:
- Will We Ever Have a Public Option in Health Care?
- Are You Carrying Swine Flu…Without Knowing It?
- What’s Health Care Reform Really Going to Do for You?
Category: Politics
Tags:
Comment Link
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.
Comment Link
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.
Comment Link
until that drunk driver kills you, then it affects a second hand drinker