Study Document
Smoking Bans in Restaurants Second-Hand Essay
Refutation of Counterargument:
James Repace, is a former senior science policy analyst who worked at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA) for 19 years and as a research physicist at the Naval Research
Laboratory for 11 years. According to Repace, OSHA first proposed regulating secondhand smoke as a workplace hazard after determining that it caused as many as 14,000 worker deaths annually, far surpassing any other toxic hazard to workers.
Subsequently, the National Cancer Institute endorsed an estimate by the California EPA
that passive smoking caused as many as 65,000 deaths a year in the United States from heart disease and lung cancer alone (Repace, 2004).
Furthermore, while nobody is obligated to work (or to eat) in any particular restaurant, there is no justification for requiring non-smokers to choose between taking a specific job and eating at a restaurant or subjecting themselves to second-hand smoke. In principle, non-smoking restaurant workers should not have to make the choice between accepting a job offer at the expense of their health or rejecting it and non-smokers in public should not have to be exposed to medical risks that others choose to take without their consent.
Conclusion:
The fact that second-hand smoke is harmful is no longer in question and the dangers involved are more serious than many other types of pollutants that we regulate very strictly to protect public health, safety, and welfare. If anything, the available information about the consequences of smoking (both first and second hand), suggest that the real question is whether smoking should be permitted anywhere outside of private property and whether smokers should be held more responsible for paying for a greater share of healthcare costs attributable to their choice to ignore the recommendations of medical authorities and government agencies responsible for protecting human health.
References
Aamot, Gregg. "At One Minnesota Bar, the Show's Over" Associated Press, March 14,
2008. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from the Fox News website, at:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Mar14/0,4670,SmokingBanLoophole,00.html
Nizza, Mike. "Watering Down Smoking Bans" The New York Times, March 28, 2008.
Retrieved April 20, 2009, from The New York Times website, at:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/watering-down-smoking-bans/?hp
O'Neill, Xana and Lite, Jordan. "Real Estate Companies Making it Tougher for Smokers
in Their Homes" The New York Daily News, March 30, 2008. Retrieved April 20,
2009, from the NY Daily News website, at:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/30/2008-0330_real_estate_companies_making_it_tougher_.html
Repace, James. "Who's Protecting Workers' Health?" Washington Post, August 27,
2004; A20. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from the Washington Post public website, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37210-2004Aug26.html.
Sample Source(s) Used
References
Aamot, Gregg. "At One Minnesota Bar, the Show's Over" Associated Press, March 14,
2008. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from the Fox News website, at:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Mar14/0,4670,SmokingBanLoophole,00.html
Nizza, Mike. "Watering Down Smoking Bans" The New York Times, March 28, 2008.
Related Documents
Study Document
Smoking Ban Tobacco Smoke Should Certainly Be
Smoking Ban Tobacco smoke should certainly be considered a toxic chemical, and its risks to human health have been well-known for decades. Any reasonable person -- or indeed anyone who is even slightly familiar with the medical and scientific evidence -- would certainly know this today. Forty years ago, the federal government banned tobacco advertising from radio and television and put warning labels on tobacco products, while class action lawsuits have
Study Document
Smoking Ban Anti-Smoking Campaigns Have
And many people believe that in the long run, people will get used to dining without smoking, just as they did with flying on airlines without being allowed to light up (Frumkin pp). But not all New York restaurateurs are happy with the law, such as the owner of the Cellar Bar in Larchmont, New York and manager of the Willett House in Port Chester, New York, who claims of
Study Document
Smoking Ban Put in Effect for Dallas Texas
Ban eliminated smoking in most public places. The idea is to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke. Smokers view this as a violation of their Constitutional rights. The question is whose rights take precedence. Controversy The mayor of Dallas supports the ban. Restaurants feel the ban will hurt business. Councilwoman says the ban does not go far enough. Restaurants try to get enforcement of the ban blocked. Smokers group tries to get ban's wording changed by using a petition. Health
Study Document
Smoking Bans -- Justification Cigarette
Some states like New York and California have banned smoking in bars and restaurants and in outdoor public places such as parks (Harris, 2012). That also makes a lot of sense because when customers sit next to smokers, they have no choice but to inhale their smoke. Various smokers' rights groups have objected to these types of bans and complained that their rights are being interfered with (Harris, 2012). It
Study Document
Smoking Ban and Cost of
" (Montini, Bero, 2008) During their research, Montini and Bero spoke with many bar owners and discussed the problem of compliance with the law. They found that generally they all wanted to comply because compliance meant no fines and bars had very slim margin of profits which meant they did not want to owe any money to the agencies. But they complained of "level playing field" issue. For a restaurant owner,
Study Document
Second Hand Smoke Should There Be a
Second Hand Smoke Should there be a ban on smoking in public places? Many people say yes, because they do not want the negative effects of second hand smoke on their lungs and other organs. Innocent people can be harmed by this second hand smoke. Since not every person chooses to smoke cigarettes, pipes, or other tobacco products, people who do not smoke should be protected from those who do.