I'm sorry to all of you smokers out there who read this and become offended, but thankfully someone is aware of the effects of second hand smoke to all of us who choose not to injure ourselves and the ones that we love by smoking. The Surgeon General has published the first new study since 1986 that has proved conclusively that second hand smoke doesn't 'possibly' cause lung cancer, it definitely causes lung cancer. And not only that, it also affects second hand smoke inhalers by contributing to SIDS deaths and heart disease.
As the vice president of national policy and advocacy of the American Lung Association, Paul G. Billings is quoted as saying, "Essentially, the Surgeon General slammed the book on any scientific debate on secondhand smoke. The evidence is clear. Secondhand smoke is harmful and needs to be eliminated." (ScoutNews)
According to ScoutNews, 126 million Americans are exposed to second hand smoke. There are many risks associated with this, with adults being more likely to develop heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers, and ear infections, asthma attacks, respiratory problems, ear infections, and not least, SIDS. Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen (A substance capable of inducing cancer in an organism) and is composed of more than 50 carcinogens. Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by 30%, according to the Surgeon General's report.
I know that right now in St. Paul smoking is banned. In Minneapolis, smoking is prohibited in places that serve food. In Bloomington, smoking is banned in public places, including bars and restaurants. Golden Valley has smoking banned in indoor and outdoor areas of eating and drinking establishments and all public areas to 25' from the doors. And it hasn't hurt the economy, according to research done in the areas.
I realize that forcing smokers to be unable to go out and smoke is impinging on their rights to do what they want, but is it fair to be affecting others' health while doing so? While those nonsmokers basically don't have a choice? Is it fair to be asking those nonsmokers to go to other places to avoid smoke when smokers are protesting that exact reason? That smokers are being forced to go other places to smoke? So who is more right here? Who is the law more on the side of? I think that if I had a behavior that was harmful to others I would try to keep that behavior from the others that I could potentially harm. Is it all right to have pregnant women inhaling smoke, only to give birth to a child who then dies of SIDS that attributable to the smoke? I don't think so, and I hope that others do not find this acceptable, either. An innocent life, that hadn't even had a chance to do anything with the gift that they were granted, taken because someone thought that smoking is their right and whoever doesn't like it should just walk away. Not everyone has that choice - like some people in hospitality and tourism. For some of them, that job is their only source of income, and they cannot get any other job.
I am going to wrap up my diatribe now, but I ask of you smokers, please please think of others also. They have just as much right to choose not to smoke as you do to smoke. But is their choice harming your health without your consent?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Go Dana!
You know I hate second-hand smoke with a passion (HELLO! I work in the most smoke-filled environment south of the city!), but the blame for these deaths and illnesses could be attributed to other things as well. 'Think about this, you could sit in a car with the windows rolled up and smoke 5 packs of cigarettes and what would happen to you? You'd probably feel very ill, but would not die. BUT if you got in a car, windows up, put one end of a tube around the exhaust and the other in the crack of a window what would happen to you? DEATH. So think about all the time you spend at stop lights, in traffic and regular routine driving.' Hmm...
(ALA=04/2006)
I DO think that smokers should be the ones who are inconvenienced and have to go away from non-smokers to execute their habit though. I'm reminded of an article a (retired English teacher) friend of mine once told me about from years and years ago. Let's see if I can remember it. He said it was about a man who greatly enjoyed "Coke Spitting". He would go over to his friends house with his Coca-Cola in hand, take a sip and spit it in their face and on their clothing. He'd sit on their couch, chit-chat and spit some Coke on their furniture. When he was out and about he would spit his Coke on complete strangers, walking down the street, in restaurants, you name it! His friends and everyone around him found it extremely offensive. He couldn't understand why. Wasn't it HIS RIGHT to drink his Coke and spit it where ever he chose to? SO, most everyone would say this behavior is unacceptable, yet SMOKERS are allowed to do just as they please. I didn't ask to have smoke in my face or on my clothing at work, but it's a smokers 'right' to put it on me. If I don't like it, I should find another job and stay away from them, right? NO! I'd love to spit some Coke in their face though! Haha!
I also had to randomly paste this thing I just read because I HATE when people EXCESSIVELY do this. Frickin' quit hitting your cigarettes!:
----------------------------
Dear Cecil,
...As an occasional smoker, I learned as a teen the importance of "packing" one's cigarettes before smoking. "Packing" is the process of compressing the tobacco toward the filter end, ensuring smooth burning. Unpacked cigarettes may burn unevenly, which can cause the cherry, or lit portion, to fall off. This process is usually accomplished by tapping the unopened pack repeatedly on the filter end, but an alternative method is to tap an individual cigarette before striking. (I use my watch face as the striking surface.) --Paul Krieg, via the Internet
Cecil replies:
I don't believe this. Next you'll be telling me you bury knots at crossroads to get rid of warts.
In a halfhearted attempt to be scientific I bought a pack of cigarettes. I tapped a couple and compared them with some untapped samples. The difference was slight.
Not being a smoker and having no desire to start for the sake of something this ridiculous, I didn't light up to see what practical result my tapping may have had. But I did call up a couple of the major tobacco companies, and I also had this question posted to the Usenet. The result, if we eliminate certain extraneous data points, was unanimous agreement that I was right. The most anyone could offer by way of an excuse for this practice was that it may be a throwback to the days of hand-rolled cigarettes.
The best reply came from Bill Penrose of Aurora, Illinois:
The reason people tap cigarettes is because Humphrey Bogart did it. It is one of the rich vocabulary of gestures that cigarettes allow you to make.
Tapping cigarette on end: Suave, sophisticated.
Throwing cigarette on ground and grinding it out: I'm about to do something significant.
Blowing smoke in someone's face: (If a man) Let's take it out in the parking lot. (If a woman) How fast can you get your clothes off?
Holding smoke a long time and exhaling through nose: I'm thinking real hard.
Blowing smoke out through ears: I have defective eustachian tubes.
Going to sleep with cigarette in mouth: In the next scene the firemen will be putting out the fire.
Lighting one cigarette from another: (If a war movie) You can share my foxhole anytime. (Between a woman and a man) We can share oxygen tents.
Quitting a 3-pack-a-day habit overnight: My doctor just discovered a tumor the size of a cantaloupe.
-------------------
HAHA...HA!
Let's start smoking, Dana, so we can be sophisticated! :P
Lots more information on smoking bans in Minnesota on our website (www.alamn.org) and our blog (www.alamn.org/media/blogger.html)
Post a Comment