Smoking ban ignites arguments

You could smoke them or hate them - love them or blame - but regardless of your position, the government decided to ban smoking in bars and more restaurants and cafes in the United States. The smoking ban seems to have a nerve in every strike. The news was met with irritation or extreme joy or extreme - all depending on whether you smoke, do not smoke, bar, I feel the ban violates your rights or want the government has implemented the years of prohibition.

Not a fewControversy on the smoking ban and smoking in general - and everyone seems to have his vision on the question whether the move to the smoking ban was right or wrong to have:

For non-smoking rooms: Non Smoking Almost everyone is happy about the ban and encourage the government to spend more places, including cars and homes - so that children of smokers should not be in a smoky environment.


Smoking: The majority of smokers considered that the public is vulnerable tothem. There are also some who argue that the negative effects of smoking has been shown by science. There are fewer people to support this position as more and more information will be published on the risks of smoking.


Entrepreneurs: entrepreneurs, the auction had to enforce the ban suddenly in their shops, restaurants, clubs and have mixed feelings about the new laws. Some argue that there was no change in the number of customers - while others weredevastated.


Politically Minded: a surprisingly high number of smokers and nonsmokers who opposed the ban because they see it as a violation of their rights. They argue that once the door open for government to regulate the conduct of the public, what other rights are taken away.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

In my opinion, raise points of all sides of the smoking ban legitimate argument. No doubt there are benefits to smokingProhibition - the most obvious is to improve public health. Across the board, there are some negative points have escaped negative as the number of entrepreneurs who pay the bills you can not because their customers are among the few clubs to smoke-friendly.

When I researched this article, I also have some completely unexpected, the boundary line found weird side effects of the ban. For example, the statistics brought the ban was struck dead drunk at the wheel, a generation of"Healthy" cigarettes and barbecues are some of the chemicals in the smoke.

This article provides a breakdown of my companies, including smoking bans, "the Good, the Bad and the Ugly."

The Good

Here are some good things that have been produced from the prohibitions:

Drop in Heart Attack presence. This is an absolutely incredible! Heart attacks have long been linked to cigarette smoking is, as the chemicals in the smoke of a narrowing of the veins and arteriesburdening the body, the heart. Coagulation is also a cause of stroke, which is often directly linked to smoking.

established a research conducted at the University of California, that after only one year with the smoking ban in force, the rates of heart attack by 17% lower than usual! Some of the city from the University of California, had studied dramatic results - Helena, Montana, his heart attack had cut rates by half after 6 months of the smoking ban!

Work more healthyPlace. Some argued that working in a smoky environment for a long period of time, your life expectancy reduced by 10 years! This is because the same risks that come with smoking also applies to second-hand smoke.

The work of an 8-hour shift in a smoking environment is similar to chain smoke for all those hours - a workplace smoking can be a source of passive smoking non-stop. So now your favorite bartender waiter expects a long life to live with a reduced risk forDevelopment of cancer, COPD, stroke or heart attack.
(But then, when in a smoky environment, primarily the work is not allowed to smoke then avoid high on their list would be made in agreement that no one working there, select -. There are many other smoke-free trades and careers out there!)

healthy restaurants and bars. No more on the way home from a night of dress, smells of smoke! Now your favorite restaurants and nightclubs is a healthy place to spend a fewHours. Many companies claim that their number of customers increased since the smoking ban - indicates that all non-smokers who now have to stay home to get a good reason to live it up and use.

Smoke-free restaurants are much better for their youngest guests - because children have an increased risk for cigarette smoking because of their small lung development.

VFW and Elks Club members to push. The few private clubs that are doing now smoking in high demand. SomeOrganizations like VFW posts and Elk Club, the few figures available for use is booming, with new members (provided that they are exempted from the ban. For many of the clubs that have banned smoking, so that a monetary tightening were constrained to give their donations or in full, because it is closed).

More "lazy". In some places, the ban renewed efforts to stop smoking completely with the trigger. New York reported that adult smokers from 19% - which translatesare 240,000 fewer smokers in the population of New York. (Unfortunately, the flip side of this statistic, which in other sectors have actually noticed an increase in smoking among men of the working class since the ban.)

The elimination of smoking from public places technically should contribute to the fight to the end. This is partly because of the way that nicotine re-wire your brain. The more nicotine that enters the body to develop, the more nicotine receptors in the brain to absorb the chemicals. A smoker would be brainare billions more of the receptors as non-smokers. In a place where you can smell smoke or see smoke in someone else enough to turn on receptors that lead to nicotine addiction. The smoking ban reduces the number of times a "slacker" of smoking is remembered by the desire to nicotine receptors in the night, making it easier to quit smoking.

The Bad

Here are some of the negative effects of the smoking ban:


Bars and restaurants out of business. It seems thatThere are many areas of the country where the smoking ban has called for those in their businesses, the owners are closing their doors forever. Some states such as Delaware have entered (40% fall in profits), a significant loss of income since the smoking ban in force. Combined with the economic downturn of recent months, the results are disastrous.

For entrepreneurs, closing a business down is a nightmare scenario - and for workers means that their work in the balance. ClubVFW Post and clubs like the moose, which in the category "good" above, with the same ease in category "Bad" all depending on whether smoking bans fall applied. These organizations were once the community for their donations known - but now you make money events, like bingo is no longer draw a crowd. Now they fight to open their doors.


Loss of employment. It 'obvious that companies are seriously affected by the smoking ban will be the sourcethe loss of jobs. These small bars and nightclubs could be flourishing, until they learned that smoking is off-limits to their patrons. For many owners, their business was their life - and lose their business spells financial disaster for them.

Employees also have reason to worry. In general, bartenders, waiters and waitresses make money for very little now because the majority of their income comes from tips. The loss of smoking customers means they get lessTips and consequently are more difficult to pay bills every month.

Erosion of personal or property rights. Many people (smokers and non smokers) to the government imposed smoking bans in public places as a dangerous attitude. It was right that the government ban the use of a legal product on private property? (Ie any property that belongs to a private person. Individuals are people who do not hold public office ..., this means that most of us).

Seethis as a violation of the rights of the public - and that the future will bring more of these mandates fees for personal business or public. What's next? To drop a ban on fat fast food meal or a national ice cream? Obesity is the fastest growing cause of preventable death and disease in the United States, this would be the next logical step towards better public health.

How would you feel if the government began to regulate the food a restaurant can serve you should - or what foodsThey were allowed to eat at home?

"The Quitters". I just called the "lazy" as a result "good" of the smoking ban, but it can also be classified as "poor" - Yes, I know. For the average smoker burns up to 200 calories per day because of their habit. Moreover, since nicotine is an appetite suppressant in general are less hungry during the day.

When someone stops smoking, eating is the most common way of managing withdrawal. To tasteSprout back their ability to quit smoking taste, the taste of food better and even more irresistible. The average 10-20 pounds Quitter win anywhere - but about 10% of quitters will be 30 pounds or more to do in weight gain. This means that these 240,000 people who rely on smoking in New York because of the ban, 24,000 of them are rows of people who are at risk of obesity to join. Here's the ironic part: many of the same diseases related to smoking-related postsObesity (heart attack, stroke, hypertension, cancer, asthma, depression, etc.).

The Ugly

Here are some very strange facts on smoking ban:


More Drunk Driving deaths. Nobody wants to die in a hospital bed as a result of inhaling second-hand smoke. How about running down the street by a drunk smoker?

Oddly, the smoking ban actually increases the odds of dying in a car accident. A study conducted at the University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee compared the number of drunk driving fatalities in areas where smoking was prohibited, as compared to areas where smoking was allowed. The results were surprising and show that smokers are willing to continue and proceed only in a bar where you turn on and enjoy a few drinks can be found.

Before the ban took effect, was a smoker, go to the tavern. Now he has the street and go to a neighboring county or state, led him to permit smoking in public.The reasons for the additional risk is twofold: always at the wheel and then the extra travel time. This means that there are more drunk drivers on the road to dodge the smoking ban in the area as smoke-friendly areas. Appears only if the smoke does not kill you in one way, is about to kill another way.


cigarette companies are developing "healthy" cigarettes. Eh? cigarettes healthy?

The cigarette manufacturer British American Tobacco is at work in developingnew, less toxic cigarettes. Sounds crazy, but the truth is that they are able to remove the toxins in cigarettes again up to 90% compared to traditional cigarettes. To test their product, took a room full of smokers to puff on cigarettes again. Then they tested the subjects biomarkers in saliva and urine, and these values compared to normal smoking and non smoking.

Thus, the cigarette with a healthy, new, change the image in the future? BritishAmerican Tobacco would like to think so.


Every day the same sources of toxins. If you miss the cigarette smoke, which is then included with other sources of these pollutants in cigarette smoke. It might be more exposed to these chemicals than you think! The pan full of bacon or grilled prawns or gas station - these are few sources of pollutants, the same as those contained in cigarettes.

Cook bacon filled the house of volatile nitrosamines, which are thesuch as those contained in cigarette smoke. Eat grilled sit down polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which is also contained in the smoke. Standing at the petrol station to fill - or sending a petrol lawn mower - can easily fill the lungs with a high dose of benzene, in both gasoline fumes and cigarette smoke. These are just some examples of other toxic situations that occur every day. Has the smoking ban really make life more secure? I think so - untilDo not drive or other gas-powered vehicles, your favorite bacon and grill nightclub-free.

It was the placement of a government ban the only option?

Whether you are a smoker or not, it seems certain that there are other options, as well ban everything.

If the government wants a nation of non-smoking, cigarettes are taxed, the solution would be stronger - or makes it very illegal. No - could not, because Big Tobacco giant poursThe amounts of political contributions and a very powerful lobby. In addition, if the cigarettes were made illegal, would be the loss of tax revenue for the government to be disconcerting.
Perhaps the solution is the separation of smokers and non-smokers through the creation of pro-smoking and anti-smoking bars? It seems extreme, but it would certainly give customers more options to employees. We do not need laws for this option - only progressive thought a bar owner.
Another plausible solution would be to have smokeHours after the dinner rush - when most people at the bar for a drink and a smoke to stop. Pros: prevent children from the worst levels of smoke. Cons: Unless the company is doing something in the air between the hours of the night, and smoke during the day, clean mad, it could be argued that much of the smoke in the air.
To improve the air in bars? This seems the simplest solution. The challenge is that technology were more important in controlling the smoking industryElectrostatic smoke eaters. Would see companies that have not played these machines on the counter and entrepreneurs to spend money on filters. So they created smoke eater and therefore do not need filters. But the problem is really solved? Hardly ... Electronic Smoke Eaters cleaning time-consuming and messy. If the smoke-eaters have not been properly maintained, reduces the effectiveness is greatly diminished. This essentially means that work to stop.Thanks to the performance of low maintenance and even the poorest - the bar and restaurant had the wrong impression that smoke eaters do not. As a result, trying to solve the problem at all. If more companies to filter based Smoke Eaters had sought, would have a workable solution. Perhaps if this were the case, would bar owners to solve their problems and the government would have stayed out of it. Of course, no smoke extraction system is perfect, but aHEPA filter is based smoke eaters, which includes a carbon filter for gases, fumes and odors and a prefilter for heavy particles can have a really good job. The key is using enough power to filter the air - it takes an entire room in order to filter smoke eater 10-12 times an hour and then you can really make a difference in air quality.
So what do you think of the smoking ban?

Do you smoke?
A non-smoker?
An entrepreneur?

lyricsscartissue