In the debate over smoking in public, many arguments have been trotted out. But for sheer simplicity, it's hard to beat good old cause-and-effect.
Research published in the latest issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology has drawn one of the most direct correlations yet between smoking bans and better health. Scientists examined data from more than dozen places in the United States, Canada and Europe where smoking bans had been enacted. The findings: Where smoking bans were in effect, the percentage of heart attacks dropped significantly.
It's the latest research in a string of studies that have concluded the same thing. "One startling study in Helena, Mont.," the Kansas City Star reported, "found that the annual heart attack rate dropped 40 percent after the city banned public smoking. After a court suspended the ban, the rate shot up again."
It couldn't be clearer. Not smoking in public makes a healthier environment for everybody. Who could possibly oppose that? To be against that, by extension, would put you on the side of dirtier air and a sicker population.
Smoke-free laws are fairly clear. Tobacco users still can fill their wheezing, tar-clogged lungs with as much smoke as they can handle. They just aren't allowed to fill other people's lungs with smoke.
Some people have tried to couch the public-smoking debate as a private-property issue. Since bars and restaurants are privately owned property, the owners should be able to allow whatever activities they want on their property, right?
But there's a big problem with that. These people so enamored with the concept of private property are overlooking the ultimate in private property -- our own bodies.
And in the same way that we wouldn't tolerate total strangers dousing our front lawns with gasoline, we shouldn't tolerate tobacco users who nonchalantly fill our noses, throats and lungs with secondhand smoke that the Environmental Protection Agency rightly identifies as a Class A carcinogen.
Some might read this and infer that we're not on the side of smokers. But in the big scheme of things, we are on their side. We want them to live longer and to be healthier.
The thing is, we want that for nonsmokers too.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010 Morris Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
if you don't want to go to a bar/restaurant/pool hall that allows smoking then just *don't*. God knows there are plenty of alternatives (I suggest Chuck E. Cheese.) LAYOFF AC! It's bad enough I can't smoke while eatin' the usual at Waffle House at 3:40 in the morning nursing a massive pre-hangover... Ah, memories.
You want offensive? They need to do studies to see how bad all those perfumes are for the human body. Good God, if anything needs to be banned its perfume! They destrooooooooy my sinuses! Get the ball rollin' on that, eh AC?
Wow, I had to walk out to my porch and enjoy a smoke after reading this.
omnomnom - I have to agree with you about perfumes, colognes, etc. I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke so I stay away from smoking areas. That isn't so easy to do with perfumes, colognes, after shave, air fresheners, etc. I have had to be treated for allergic reactions to perfumes numerous times and wound up in the hospital on one occasion.
I agree with the ban, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here for the heck of it and point out your editorial examples are probably not true. The Helena study is highly suspect. Tobacco doesn't work that fast to cause heart attacks. It is a slow build-up over the years of plaque in the arteries which can be inititated by tobacco....even smokeless tobacco. The study about areas that have bans having fewer heart attacks is probably true, but it is more than likely the result of healthier lifestyles in general by those in areas who enact such bans. In other words, they are more health conscious to begin with. Compare our counties. Smoking Richmond Cty v. smokelss Columbia Cty. Who would you say has more heart attacks? Studies have to be analyzed from ALL sides.
As a non smoker now for 18 years, I am very aware of smokers. But IMO they should be allowed to smoke. If you don't want to be around smokers then stay home. They have rights too. As long as they are not blowing it in your face, you should be able to put up with the smell. I've seen people complain about smokers then spend hours standing around a camp fire breathing in the fumes.
Ashtray - The reverse could be said. If smokers wish to smoke, stay home. That way they won't be polluting the air of others who do not wish to smell the stench of tobacco smoke. Nonsmokers have the right not to smell tobacco burning. There is a difference between tobacco smell and the smell of wood burning.
Is there a move on to change the current smoking laws? Didn't anyone work at the chronicle over the weekend so you had to reach back into the old file drawer for a lead editorial? Is the fact that the Dem controlled senate is in the process of using smoke and mirrors to hide the new bills forcing through the government option....even though 77% of the public object? Why is this, and many other pressing subjects, being ignored so you can print a "asked and answered" subject with current controlling laws?
Way to stay on topic there WP. As to the rest of it, the smell of perfumes always gets me more than the smell of someone smoking. I think pipe tobacco actually smells good. There are some cigars that smell like someone lit a toilet on fire, but those are far and between. The smell of International Paper bothers me more than all of them. If someone's smoking, I can get away from them. When the air reeks for miles, you're scr*wed.
Other than a few people who are allergic to certain perfume, I cannot recall any deaths attributed to second hand perfume.
While California, the epitome of American liberalism and left wing government, wallows in a storm of debt, teachers and other government employees are being paid in IOUs and layoffs have driven the unemployment over 12% , all we can find for the editorial page is "smoking is icky"? Who's driving this boat?
So you like the outcome of the data about Canada's no smoking,but you don;t like the outcome of Canada's healthcare programs!!Picky, Picky!!!
Let's ban binge eating and fat people in public
Good editorial.
as long as they are so worried about smokers' health, well, when are they going to be concerned about other things that are detrimental to our health? how about those fast food joints? don't they contribute to the fatty deposits on arteries, fatty deposits around the waist and hips and butt? doesn't extra weight affect our health by raising blood pressure, increasing the risk of diabetes, strokes, etc? and what about the highly processed food we buy in the supermarkets each and every week that also contribute to major health problems? what about the toxins that women put on their faces and hair every day? makeup and hair sprays and all that other crap have tons of toxins and 'not-so-pretty' things in them. even deoderant has junk in it you shouldn't be applying directly to your bod. what about getting on the case of people who drive around using their cell phones and texting while in motion? these people are jeopardizing everyone else on the road with their foolishness, even cause accidents and death to innocent bystanders, if we're going to pick on smokers as being 'unhealthy', we need to include quite a few other undesirable habits and choices in this country.
Nothing smells better than a beautiful woman wearing expensive perfume unless it's a beautiful woman wearing expensive perfume AND smoking the same brand of cigarettes I smoked before I quit four years ago. Anybody who tells you they don't miss smoking is lying. Also, I miss those great cigarette commercials and themes on TV, now replaced by endless talky pharmaceutical commercials. We have finally come full circle with a new quit-smoking prescription product that features a miserable-looking woman nattering on about how the prodct allowed her to smoke another week before it apparently kicked in. At the end of this yawnfest, as the disclaimers roll, they warn you that this stop-smoking "medication" could KILL you! If this doesn't make you want to start smoking again, then you probably think flax seeds are a tasty snack.
Most disgusting site- Please make a trip to the Golden Corral and observe. Now, that should be banned. Children should not be allowed in those joints. I'd rather take my kids to a smoky pool room.
shivas: yes, when i want to cheer myself up, i go there and watch the herd moo around the food carousels. i leave feeling like an absolute twig and loving myself again.
If you don't like all-you-can-eat-buffets', then don't go. Obviously you are one of the herd to know soooo much about it. Golden Corral, more bang for the buck!
Just be sure you don't fall asleep with an apple in your mouth.
Did you ever watch a woman put hair spray on her hair? First gthey try to block over spray with one hand and then spray a halo all over the head. Now I don't know about the exact formula for hair spray is, but I would bet it is a Lacquer base or a type of glue. Now the question is, what is best for your lungs, breathing lacquer or smoke? And if a woman uses both for 30 40 years, which would be blamed for her death if she had cancer? I studied the Helena study and it dosen't surprise that the AC would use a non-scientific study to prove their point. I mean they "report" on the downtown all the time and see nothing wrong.
Let the smokers die in peace please. I quit, but you still have damaged your lungs.
I've lived in some cold climates where smokers stand outside of bars in -10 degrees to get their nicotine. Stepping outside in Augusta where the winter hardly exists should not be too much hassle. The walk from the bar to the doorway may do you some good!
It's all in what your particular noxious activities are. Mine is smoking. The people that scream and holler don't care that they are killing me driving their polluting automobiles, wearing their witches brew perfumes and hair sprays, talking on their cell phones while driving. Hey, you've already persecuted the smokers with bans and taxes. Just remember, the liberals will be coming after your "noxious" next so STFU and get your wallets out. As for me, there is nothing worse than getting on a elevator with a woman that smells to high heaven of whatever fragrance that is that smells like potpourri. I'll take the aroma of a big fat stogie over a potpourri smelling woman anytime.
Really, I don't care about smoker's health except for the fact that all the extra hospitalizations/illnesses are driving up healthcare costs, but that is another story and why we should tax the daylights out of cigs. My issue is that your noxious activity infringes on my space and enjoyment. It is analogous to me bringing a boombox blasting death-metal to a bar where you are trying to enjoy a scotch. The only difference is which one of the five senses you are annoying.
"ah, enjoying a scotch". What time is it?
Yeah Yeah Yeah, the American Medical Association says all kinds of things are bad for you, then says they are good for you then says it doesn't matter which are all supported by studies. They don't know. Did they factor in other data such as average diet? Average weight? Air Quality other than smoking? Until they work every variable they don't know squat. I'm a non-smoker so I prefer no smoking but don't make up crap just to get something passed.
They did a study that said alcohol cost society 8 dollars for every dollar of tax collected. Do they have a study on smoking to show that relationship? Surely one has been done.
overburdened, this is not an issue I am passionate about or really even care about... but are you in any way implying that smoking might NOT be bad for you and be directly responsible for lung cancer, emphysema, etc.? If so, I'm not sure what to say. That is some major distrust of science!
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor..................thats right water..........you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made......thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006........after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons.......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ........they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs