Essays on "Smoking In Public Places"
The issue of smoking in public has become of increasing concern to the non smoking citizens of our country. Living In a free country, we as citizens have individual rights. On this Issue, the nonsmoker unequivocally deserves the right to be free from the annoyance of cigarette smoke in public places. The smoker, of course, has the right to decide whether or not he or she smokes. However, this right should ‘definitely not extend to the point of causing irritation to others. When smoking in public Infringes upon a nonsmoker’s right to Inhale clean air, when it causes the nonsmoker to cough or suffer adverse physiological effects, then we have reached a point when it must be regulated by law.
Generally, when we think of the potential health hazards surrounding smoking, we think in terms of dangers for the smoker is opposed to dangers for the nonsmoking public, indeed, most of the Information we receive on the topic tends to reinforce our thinking. Recently, however, the public health authorities have directed their concern towards the detrimental effects of tobacco smoke to nonsmokers. The Canadian Medical Association announced that at least thirteen percent of our population is sensitive to cigarette smoke. Though this figure includes persons with emphysema, asthma, bronchitis, hay fever, and heart disease, the average nonsmoker is also subject to reactions from cigarette smoke. These reactions range from eye irritation, coughing, and nasal symptoms, to headaches, and even dizziness.
According to the World health Organization, side stream smoke, the smoke that is exhaled, contains twice as much nicotine as the mainstream smoke inhaled by the smoker, Conclusive evidence to date suggests that side stream smoke contains three times as much benzopyrene (a cancer-causing agent), and up to fifty times more ammonia than mainstream smoke.
The question about enacting legislation to govern nonsmokers’ rights has become a civil rights Issue. On one side of the argument we have the smokers, who champion that regulating this area of personal choice threatens the Individual freedom this country was built upon. Unsurprisingly, this side receives support from the cigarette company executives, who maintain that in opening ourselves to this type of legislation, we are in effect leaving ourselves wide open to increased government restriction In every area of our lives. The nonsmokers, diametrically opposed to this view, simply feel that when in public places they should be afforded the right to inhale clean air without the hindrance of tobacco smoke.
If this Issue could be resolved effectively through mutual respect and common courtesy, I could se no reason for government legislation. But, in concluding, I must state that an individual’s right to smoke ends when the smoke of his cigarette reaches the nose of another person in a public place, who might suffer Irritating of distressful consequences.
Generally, when we think of the potential health hazards surrounding smoking, we think in terms of dangers for the smoker is opposed to dangers for the nonsmoking public, indeed, most of the Information we receive on the topic tends to reinforce our thinking. Recently, however, the public health authorities have directed their concern towards the detrimental effects of tobacco smoke to nonsmokers. The Canadian Medical Association announced that at least thirteen percent of our population is sensitive to cigarette smoke. Though this figure includes persons with emphysema, asthma, bronchitis, hay fever, and heart disease, the average nonsmoker is also subject to reactions from cigarette smoke. These reactions range from eye irritation, coughing, and nasal symptoms, to headaches, and even dizziness.
According to the World health Organization, side stream smoke, the smoke that is exhaled, contains twice as much nicotine as the mainstream smoke inhaled by the smoker, Conclusive evidence to date suggests that side stream smoke contains three times as much benzopyrene (a cancer-causing agent), and up to fifty times more ammonia than mainstream smoke.
The question about enacting legislation to govern nonsmokers’ rights has become a civil rights Issue. On one side of the argument we have the smokers, who champion that regulating this area of personal choice threatens the Individual freedom this country was built upon. Unsurprisingly, this side receives support from the cigarette company executives, who maintain that in opening ourselves to this type of legislation, we are in effect leaving ourselves wide open to increased government restriction In every area of our lives. The nonsmokers, diametrically opposed to this view, simply feel that when in public places they should be afforded the right to inhale clean air without the hindrance of tobacco smoke.
If this Issue could be resolved effectively through mutual respect and common courtesy, I could se no reason for government legislation. But, in concluding, I must state that an individual’s right to smoke ends when the smoke of his cigarette reaches the nose of another person in a public place, who might suffer Irritating of distressful consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment