As more cities consider bans on smo

As more cities consider bans on smoking in public places, Kentucky, as one of the heavier tobacco-using states, will undoubtedly continue to debate the pros and cons of this issue with considerable fervor. As a health and physical educator, I feel the need to weigh in on this topic. As you might expect, I support smoking bans with few reservations. Here are five reasons why.

No. 1: Secondhand smoke has serious negative health consequences. I personally don’t care what you do to your own body, although the educator in me would advise you to quit for your own good. I do care that your behavior affects the health of others.

Unlike other self-indulgent behaviors like eating fast food or drinking alcohol in public, secondhand smoke is not singularly linked to the participant. The negative effects of smoking in public carry over into other people’s lives with a tangible, measurable, and sometimes permanent impact. Whereas eating fast food for every meal or excessive alcohol consumption is likely harmful to the individual, the negative impact on others is minimal. Some may argue that eating too much fast food may cause an earlier death and the associated increased cost of medical care is a burden on the taxpayer. While probably true, the link is weaker, less immediate and less measurable than the one between secondhand smoke and health.

Secondhand smoke exposure is clearly linked with negative outcomes on a person’s health. While the exact degree of harm is debatable, a recent study published in the medical journal Circulation reviewed 13 studies from around the world and found that banning smoking in public places can reduce heart attack hospitalizations by up to 36 percent over time, regardless of geographical location. Clearly, it’s become increasingly more difficult to make a case that secondhand smoke causes no measurable injury to the breather — especially over time. The scientific evidence that links secondhand smoke with heart disease and cancer has been mounting for decades. Not only that, the effects of temporary exposure to smoke are also well documented and include headaches, breathing problems, and even nausea. The bottom line is that secondhand smoke has numerous short-term and long-term consequences for innocent bystanders.

No. 2: Litter reduction. Cigarette butts account for millions of pieces of litter annually and detracts from a location’s aesthetic. If smokers would dispose of their waste properly when they’re in public places, this might not be an issue, but the fact of the matter is that they don’t. The evidence is there, littering attractive buildings and the surrounding landscape with cigarette butts. A smoking ban would reduce litter. Although not a primary argument in support of a public smoking ban, it is still a credible one.

No. 3: The lingering odor of stale cigarettes. In bars and restaurants and other establishments that permit smoking, many patrons find the smell of cigarettes to be unpleasant and annoying. Cigarette smoke tends to linger on people’s clothes and hair and takes longer to fade even after the offending party has left. Clothes worn to a smoky bar may still smell like smoke days later.

No. 4: The right to a healthy workplace. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe and healthy environment for its employees. While many workers choose to work in workplaces that permit smoking, others may prefer not to be around smoke but persist because they need the employment. A smoking ban opponent may simply say, “work somewhere without smoke,” yet I would argue that your insistence on smoking in public is not as important as that employee’s health and livelihood. Smokers’ unwillingness to control their urges should not force people to change jobs in the name of personal health and welfare.

No. 5: The cost of secondhand smoke. We’re not talking only about the high cost of the smoking habit, which can average $1,500 a year just for the cigarettes. But there also are smoking medical costs. For example, a smoker with poor lung function may have much higher medical bills because of the smoking habit. Smokers also pay more for life insurance and health insurance than nonsmokers, because of their higher risk of health care costs. Smoking lowers the potential resale value of home and cars, because most buyers are not interested in purchasing a house or car that smells like cigarettes. Not to mention the cost to businesses and taxpayers to beautify streets, buildings and other public places that have been littered and damaged by smoking. These are some of the hidden costs of smoking.

Final thoughts. I must add that despite my argument for banning smoking in public, I do support a person’s right to smoke in private settings where the impact on other people is controlled and negligible. My position is that with the use of controlled substances comes the responsibility to respect other people’s health.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

As more cities consider bans on smoking in public places, Kentucky, as one of the heavier tobacco-using states, will undoubtedly continue to debate the pros and cons of this issue with considerable fervor. As a health and physical educator, I feel the need to weigh in on this topic. As you might expect, I support smoking bans with few reservations. Here are five reasons why.No. 1: Secondhand smoke has serious negative health consequences. I personally don’t care what you do to your own body, although the educator in me would advise you to quit for your own good. I do care that your behavior affects the health of others.Unlike other self-indulgent behaviors like eating fast food or drinking alcohol in public, secondhand smoke is not singularly linked to the participant. The negative effects of smoking in public carry over into other people’s lives with a tangible, measurable, and sometimes permanent impact. Whereas eating fast food for every meal or excessive alcohol consumption is likely harmful to the individual, the negative impact on others is minimal. Some may argue that eating too much fast food may cause an earlier death and the associated increased cost of medical care is a burden on the taxpayer. While probably true, the link is weaker, less immediate and less measurable than the one between secondhand smoke and health.Tiếp xúc với hút thuốc thụ động rõ ràng là liên kết với các kết quả tiêu cực về sức khỏe của một người. Trong khi chính xác mức độ tác hại là gây tranh cãi, một nghiên cứu gần đây được công bố trên tạp chí y tế lưu thông được nhận xét 13 nghiên cứu từ trên khắp thế giới và tìm thấy những gì Cấm hút thuốc tại nơi công cộng có thể làm giảm cơn đau tim nhập lên đến 36 phần trăm theo thời gian, bất kể vị trí địa lý. Rõ ràng, nó trở nên ngày càng khó khăn hơn để làm cho một trường hợp hút thuốc thụ động đó gây ra chấn thương không thể đo lường để tạm nghỉ việc — đặc biệt là qua thời gian. Bằng chứng khoa học rằng hút thuốc thụ động với bệnh tim và ung thư liên kết đã gắn kết trong nhiều thập niên. Không chỉ vậy, những ảnh hưởng của tạm thời tiếp xúc với khói cũng tốt tài liệu và bao gồm nhức đầu, thở vấn đề, và thậm chí buồn nôn. Điểm mấu chốt là rằng hút thuốc thụ động có nhiều hậu quả ngắn hạn và dài hạn cho người ngoài vô tội.Số 2: Xả rác giảm. Thuốc lá butts tài khoản cho hàng triệu mẩu rác hàng năm và detracts từ một vị trí thẩm Mỹ. Nếu người hút thuốc sẽ xử lý chất thải của họ đúng cách khi họ đang ở nơi công cộng, điều này có thể không là một vấn đề, nhưng thực tế của vấn đề là họ không. Bằng chứng là có, xả rác nhà hấp dẫn và cảnh quan xung quanh với tàn thuốc lá. Ban hút thuốc sẽ làm giảm rác. Mặc dù không phải là một đối số chính để hỗ trợ cho một ban công hút thuốc, nó vẫn là một trong những đáng tin cậy.No. 3: The lingering odor of stale cigarettes. In bars and restaurants and other establishments that permit smoking, many patrons find the smell of cigarettes to be unpleasant and annoying. Cigarette smoke tends to linger on people’s clothes and hair and takes longer to fade even after the offending party has left. Clothes worn to a smoky bar may still smell like smoke days later.No. 4: The right to a healthy workplace. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe and healthy environment for its employees. While many workers choose to work in workplaces that permit smoking, others may prefer not to be around smoke but persist because they need the employment. A smoking ban opponent may simply say, “work somewhere without smoke,” yet I would argue that your insistence on smoking in public is not as important as that employee’s health and livelihood. Smokers’ unwillingness to control their urges should not force people to change jobs in the name of personal health and welfare.No. 5: The cost of secondhand smoke. We’re not talking only about the high cost of the smoking habit, which can average $1,500 a year just for the cigarettes. But there also are smoking medical costs. For example, a smoker with poor lung function may have much higher medical bills because of the smoking habit. Smokers also pay more for life insurance and health insurance than nonsmokers, because of their higher risk of health care costs. Smoking lowers the potential resale value of home and cars, because most buyers are not interested in purchasing a house or car that smells like cigarettes. Not to mention the cost to businesses and taxpayers to beautify streets, buildings and other public places that have been littered and damaged by smoking. These are some of the hidden costs of smoking.Final thoughts. I must add that despite my argument for banning smoking in public, I do support a person’s right to smoke in private settings where the impact on other people is controlled and negligible. My position is that with the use of controlled substances comes the responsibility to respect other people’s health.