Banning smoking without banning tobacco has been the smoking nazis' plan along.
Posted on 03/26/2002 4:51:48 PM PST by Max McGarrity
EVEN with the laws currently in place, all too often I find myself unable to avoid cigarette smoke. These situations anger me. Not only is the smell of cigarettes atrocious to nonsmokers, causing red eyes and sore throats, but also second-hand smoke has been established as a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
It is time to take the next step in protecting Americans' rights to live healthy lives. In every public area, including all outdoor space, smoking must be prohibited, except in designated, properly located smoking areas.
New laws restricting smoking areas will save thousands of lives. Second-hand smoke kills 53,000 nonsmokers in the United States each year, making it the third-leading cause of preventable death in this country. The effects of second-hand smoke include lung and nasal sinus cancer and heart disease.
Death is not the only harmful effect of cigarette smoke. Children in particular are susceptible to asthma induction and exacerbation, bronchitis and pneumonia, middle-ear infection and chronic respiratory symptoms that all result from exposure to second-hand smoke, according to published studies. All these illnesses bring high medical costs, too. Every illness caused by cigarette smoke is preventable.
Smokers contend they have a right to smoke. That is fine. They have a right to smoke, and nonsmokers have a right to prevent their own death or illness caused by breathing air polluted with cigarette smoke. As an analogy, we all have the right to own a gun; however it is illegal to harm or kill others in using the gun. Shooting a gun at someone has the same effect as smoking! Smokers are killing people every time they smoke in the presence of others.
Another, much less harmful, but still frustrating and inconvenient, effect of cigarette smoke is the inescapable stench it leaves behind. The second-hand smoke is absorbed into clothing fibers and hair so that anyone who has been in the vicinity of cigarette smoke reeks of it for the duration of the day. This causes public embarrassment in addition to being a nuisance. Individuals should have the right to go about their daily lives without having to smell like someone else's cigarettes. Even with the laws that currently exist, nonsmokers are not adequately protected from second-hand smoke. Many situations exist in which avoiding cigarette smoke is impossible. Entrances to buildings are among the worst of these situations.
Other examples include outdoor sporting events (especially children's activities, such as little league or soccer), bars and clubs (with few exceptions), certain restaurants in which one must walk through a smoking section to get to a nonsmoking area, and sidewalks in urban areas. This last situation needs special attention. In urban areas throughout the country, there exists a great deal of pedestrian traffic confined to narrow sidewalks. These crowded sidewalks are confined environments surrounded by tall buildings that are no different from the insides of office buildings and airplanes. The cigarette smoke has no place to escape. People have no other option -- they must routinely use these sidewalks to arrive at their destinations. These constricted sidewalks are pathways of dense and unrelenting cigarette smoke left by one smoker after another traveling along these routes. Outdoor smoking in urban areas must be restricted to specific, out-of-the-way locations.
The advantage of these proposed changes is that there are no obstacles to overcome. Tobacco companies should not be bothered because these changes will not hurt their sales in any way. Changing areas in which people are allowed to smoke does not reduce the amount of cigarettes they put away. Also, changing smoking laws eliminates health hazards to nonsmoking Americans without changing anyone's way of life. I would like to emphasize that no one must sacrifice anything. Smokers must simply smoke in specific locations. Additionally, citations given out to enforce new laws would bring added revenue to the local government, and medical costs throughout the country would reduce significantly. There is no reason any nonsmoker should be forced to breathe second-hand smoke while going about his or her daily routine. Every death and each disease caused by cigarette smoke are preventable. It is time we take action to prevent them.
Leonetti is a Rice University graduate who will begin a Ph.D. program in mathematics at Vanderbilt University in the fall. Readers may write Leonetti at caseyleonetti@yahoo.com.
NEW OUTLOOK ADDRESS: Readers interested in expressing their opinions and views in Outlook may now send essays to our new e-mail address outlook@chron.com. Op-ed pieces can still be submitted by fax at 713-220-3575 or by regular mail to the Houston Chronicle, P.O. Box 4260, 77210, attention Outlook Editor.
Yuck Fou.
This guy is an pure jackass.
I should point out that I DO NOT smoke. I chew Copenhagen on occasion... wonder what his response to a face full of dark brown spit would be... 8^)
This guys breath is atrocious to me. I have red eyes and a sore throat and I am certain that his breath is the reason. I can smell it from here.
I believe we need to enact legislation restricting his right to breath.
His breath truely is offensive, and I sincerely belive we could all live happier, more productive lives if he were restricted to certain specially designated breathing rooms which were sealed from the public.
Banning smoking without banning tobacco has been the smoking nazis' plan along.
Some of the most untruthful BS I have ever seen.
1) I am a non-smoker and do not find the smell of cigarettes atrocious.
2) Second hand smoke in small amounts does NOT cause red eyes and sore throats (to me).
3) I have yet to see any documented scientific data to show smoke has been established as a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
This line of pure lie BS establishes that the credibility of the entire post to be fantasy!
Sheesh. Melodramatic paternalist.
Except one is outside and one is inside.
Ex-smoker here that can't stand the smell of smoke, but I recognize that you have a right to smoke'em if you want. All I ask is that you be polite about sharing your filty disgusting habit.
This guy is a nutcase.
And I suppose your specific location would be Antartica?
I am offended and suffer life-threatening health issues because of the fumes from your Metro Geo, your airconditioner, your furnace and the environmentally offensive miasma created by your fondue pot. Bite me. fsf (And I don't smoke.)
I had to stop right here. Apparently he thinks he speaks for all nonsmokers, everywhere.
I don't smoke, but I happen to kinda like the smell of cigarette smoke, if diffuse. Of course if I go to a casino or a rock concert or other place with lots of smoke then I get adverse effects.... but I know that going in. If I can't take it then I won't go.
This guy seems to be a big whiner.
...ARE YOU AFFECTED BY THIS CASE?The following are members of the plaintiff Class:
All people who at the time they were residents of California, smoked in California one or more cigarettes between June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activites in Californa...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.