Chris Hogg reports that China has recently banned smoking in public places, although the Chinese people are largely ignoring the new law. According to Hogg, many Chinese do not realise how dangerous cigarettes are, so even in restaturants and pubs, you "often ... find people smoking at the next table" (2011, ¶ 8). Further, the people who own the restaurants, pubs and other businesses do not want the laws because their customers don't like them. The purpose of the new laws is to reduce the number of deaths from cigarettes in China, where tobacco is a very popular drug of addiction, but as Hogg also says, the new laws do not actually punish people who break them.
I think that the Chinese people and Chinese business owners are right, and their government is wrong. It is very popular in many countries these days to think that the government should control everything, about everyone's life, and a popular excuse is that if something is unhealthy or dangerous, it should be banned. This whole nasty way of thinking seems wrong to me. It is only just and reasonable to ban something if it is unhealthy or dangerous to other people, not to the person who is doing it. For example, eating the very delicious fatty pork leg that is so deservedly popular on the streets of Bangkok is surely unhealthy - all that delicious pork fat can't be healthy - but does it follow that the Thai government should make khao kha mu illegal, fine the buyers and throw the sellers into prison? No, this does not follow. That fatty pork is unhealthy is not a good enough reason for the government to ban it because eating it only harms the person who is eating it. They might be increasing their chances of heart disease and other obesity related illnesses when they enjoy a plate of khao kha mu everyday, but they have the right to make such decisions. And in exactly the same way, people who happen to enjoy smoking cigarettes have teh right to decide to indulge in that unhealthy pleasure if they want to. Of course, they must not put other people's health at risk against their will. But if business owners make up the policies for their own premises, that will not be a problem. Many people, such as myself, hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and would not go to a restaurant that allowed smoking; however, my personal dislike of smoking is not a good reason to stop other people who like it from enjoying that very unhealthy activity, so they should be free to smoke in restaurants that allow it. I will just go to the non-smoking restaurants. This seems to me a much fairer solution to this problem than the government telling everyone how they may use their own private property and how they may live their own private lives.
Bangkok's fatty pork leg sellers are not criminals and should not be treated as such. They are hard working business people providing a much valued service, just like restaurant owners who allow smoking in their shops.
__________
References
Peter
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your opinion, I think the chinese people are worng, because they are ignoring the new law. The government should punish the people, who break the new law by smoking in public places and offices, For instance, I had a personal experience in China at one dinner meeting in a closed room, some of the chinese men were smoking and I could not leave the place. I think breathing second hand smoke can be more dangerous than inhaling smoke through cigarretes; For this reason I disagree with your opinion because as my example It is unhealthy and dangerous to other people.
Peter
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with you because I think you can't compare fatty pork with cigarretes.If you eat the bad food, you're what you eat but if you smoke it's not only kill yourself you'll kill the people who be around you too. I agree with Susana that breathing as a second hand smoker is very dangerous. From the point that you mentioned that they have the rigth to smoke in their own place. They can but how about the staffs that have to work in that place. Is anyone ask him "do you mind if I smoke?. I think the answer sholud be "No". If they don't want to breath smoke but they have to work. They need money for survive. I mean they have no choice.I insist that the Chinese goverment make the right decision this time.
To protect the human right of non smoker.
Art and Susana,
ReplyDeleteI think that you raise two separate issues:
First, how dangerous is second-hand smoke from cigarettes? Is it as dangerous as smoking? Is it more dangerous? Is it less dangerous than smoking? How much more or less?
I agree that it is certainly dangerous - but I'm sure that the evidence is that second hand smoke is much less dangerous to those nearby than it is for the smokers who get it direct. For example, one large study reported in an Oxford University journal found that the risk of cancer was only "modestly elevated among nonsmokers exposed as adults at home or in the workplace" and even more surprisingly "that there was no increase in risk associated with exposures to [second-hand smoke] in childhood" (Blot & McLaughlin, 1998, ¶ 2). reliable source showing that second hand smoke is as dangerous as direct smoke from a cigarette?
Second, is when it is acceptable for a government to tell people what they may not do. I think that people who know the risks, whether of tobacco, fatty pork, alcohol, or car racing, should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to take the risk or not, and that it is only just and reasonable to ban something if it harms people who do not have any choice. If smoking in restaurants is decided by the owner, then everyone has teh choice of going into a smoking or non-smoking restaurant. Why do you think that people should not have that free choice?
(I like your arguments against my idea, but I don't think that they are strong enough, so I'm supporting my idea.)
References
Blot, W. J. & McLaughlin, J. K. (1998, October). Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer Risk: What Is the Story Now? Journal of the National Cancer Institute 90(19), 1416-1417. Retrieved May 4, 2011 from http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1416.full
The question that Art and Susana have raised about the danger of cigarette smoke to non-smokers who are nearby seems to me similar to the question about the human need for meat that some people have been arguing about in response to Law's idea. And both need solid evidence to decide what the facts are.
ReplyDeleteEither passive smoking is normally very dangerous or it is not.
Either human beings normally need meat or they do not.
In both of these cases, one view is right and the other is wrong, and it matters which is correct. I'm waiting for someone to provide any solid evidence that human beings really do need meat since Law's observations, as well as those of Pree, do seem to suggest that human beings really do not normally need any meat to be perfectly healthy. So, if you think that humans need meat, where is your evidence? What reliable expert opinion, or research results, can you cite to support your belief?
Of course, deciding teh factual issue won't settle the arguments, but it is an important step to at least get the basic facts right.
Oops - there was a small mistake in my reference list entry above. The name of the Oxford journal should be in italics. The correct reference citation is:
ReplyDeleteBlot, W. J. & McLaughlin, J. K. (1998, October). Passive smoking and lung cancer risk: What is the story now? Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 90(19), 1416-1417. Retrieved May 4, 2011 from http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1416.full
I've also corrected the name of the article, which should be written without the capital letters, except for the first words. Sorry - I didn't check it carefully before clicking "Post Comment".
For help on how to add italics, links, teh ¶ symbol and other things in comments, see my notes in the Comments help page in "AEP Class Blog - information pages" on the right. These are all useful skills to learn and practise.
We are agree that smoke is dangerous, now I will try to evidence that secondhand smoke is more dangerous than direct smoke. My overwhelming support to say that is the report about of "the campaign tobacco-free kids", where it is offered different science search more recently than Peter's example. For instance U.S. Surgeon General (2010) – In the report, How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking Attributable Disease, The Surgeon General concluded that:Exposure to secondhand smoke has an immediate adverse impact on the cardiovascular system, damaging blood vessels, making blood more likely to clot and increasing risks for heart attack and stroke.1”(campaign tobacco-free kids ¶ 7,13). Also in this report there are other examples that evidence the secondhand smoke are increased risk with several illness children as sudden infant death, acute respiratory infections, ears problems, and asthma. For this reason I said that The government should punish the people, who break the new law by smoking in public places, because It's unhealthy and dangerous to other people.
ReplyDeleteReference:
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0103.pdf
1 US Department of health and human services 2010
Susana,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the more recent report. I was a bit worried about the fact that the one I cited was from 1998 - our knowledge improves over time, and as you remind us, more recent research is generally preferable. Another weakness in the report I cited was that it only discussed the risk of cancer, not other tobacco related health problems.
As I wrote in my comment at May 5, 2011 12:22 AM., "I agree that [smoking cigarettes] is certainly dangerous" ( ¶ 3), and we agree on this. Where Susana and I disagree in in whether second-hand smoke is as dangerous as direct smoke for non-smokers. I said "that the evidence is that second hand smoke is much less dangerous to those nearby than it is for the smokers who get it direct" (¶ 3), and I think that Susana's new source supports this opinion.
For example, The International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] says that the increased risk of lung cancer for the non-smoking partner of a smoking spouse is 20 - 30%, which is consistent with, supports, what I say in my earlier comment (as cited in Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, 2010, p. 2). A 20 - 30% higher risk of lung cancer means that for this disease, the danger of second-hand smoke is much lower than is the cancer risk for direct smokers, who are 10 to 20 times as likely to die from lung cancer - a 1,000% increase in this danger ("Health effects", 2011).
The IARC similarly reports that the increased risk of heart disease is 25 - 35% (as cited in Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, 2010, p.2), which is again much less dangerous than the risk to smokers, for whom the corresponding risk of heart disease is 40 times, or 4,000% higher than it is for non-smokers ("Health effects", 2011).
I agree, and always have, that second-hand smoke is very dangerous to non-smokers, but I don't think that anything in Susana's cited source shows that second-hand smoke is anywhere near as dangerous as direct smoke.
More importantly, my argument that laws banning smoking on private property does not depend on whether it is safe or not - I agree that smoking is dangerous to non-smokers, but my original argument is that danger is not a good enough reason to ban something if people freely consent to take the risk, as a non-smoker does when he or she chooses to enter a restaurant that allows smoking. If the owner is allowed to decide the policy, some restaurants will be smoke free because the owner wants those customers who hate cigarette smoke and its dangers, who will sensibly choose smoke free restaurants. (I would join them - I hate smoke around when I'm eating.)
Similarly, smokers and their friends who enjoy or do not mind smoking over their meal or drinks will freely choose the restaurants and pubs that allow them to do that. By banning it everywhere, the government denies people a free and fair choice, and that denial of a free choice to everyone is unjust and a violation of people's rights.
But please keep arguing if you think I'm wrong and that the current Thai, Chinese, American and other such laws banning all smoking in public places are not unjust.
References
Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. (2010, December 16). Health Harms From Secondhand Smoke. Retrieved May 7, 2011 from http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0103.pdf
Health effects of tobacco. (2011, May 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:40, May 7, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_effects_of_tobacco&oldid=427813150
I think they should provide smoking areas for smokers in public place such as restaurant ,club and so forth. Smokers are addict with nicotine they need to smoke or they might be anxious. Even though some smokers are pregnant they can't give up smoking. Five to 10 per cent of all foetal and neonatal deaths are blamed on smoking during pregnancy("Vitamin C may help",2005,¶ 1). Babies are at a risk for premature delivery, growth retardation and death. Maternal smoking can also cause decreased pulmonary function and increased respiratory illness in offspring.(2005,¶ 2).
ReplyDeleteReferences
Vitamin C may help protect smoker mom's foetus ,Indo-Asian News Service, PTI Retrieved May 9, 2011 from http://www.hindustantimes.com/Vitamin-C-may-help-protect-smoker-mom-s-foetus/Article1-32054.aspx
Pree,
ReplyDeleteYes, smokers are drug addicts just as much as heroin addicts, alcohol addicts and marijuana addicts, but I'm not sure that that is good reason to provide smoking areas in all public places.
In the narrower set of public places you specified, I think that is a fair option if the owner of those private places (they are not public property), wants to do that. But for the same reason, that it's the owners right to decide the policy and his customers' right to decide to enter or not, that option should be just one of many, including smoking everywhere and smoking nowhere on the property.
I don't especially like it, but if my friends enjoy it and want to go, I don't mind going into a pub that allows smoking. I would not go to a restaurant that allowed smoking - my friends would have to join me at a non-smoking restaurant. But I don't think my personal preferences should be forced on everyone by unjust laws.
As for public property, since everyone must have exactly the same right to enter without risk to their health, smoking should be banned on all public property - including government offices, roads, footpaths and perhaps also parks, although perhaps it would be OK to allow smoking in some areas of parks. But not on streets and footpaths - non-smokers should not have to suffer stinking, unhealthy cigarette smoke whilst walking down Silom Road or waiting for a bus.
Peter
ReplyDeleteIn my faculty, a lot of guys smoke in our buildings. some smoke at the entrance or the hallway of these buildings. They usually smoke before they present their researches or their homeworks. I study in a public university which is the property of our gorvernment. It's illegal to smoke in the government's property. There are many young smokers in my university(every faculty has smokers). Non- smokers are suffered from cigarrette smoke. Most of our professors are smokers too. This is really bad. I think it might be a good idea if we provide smoking area for smokers.
Pree,
ReplyDeleteSuch behaviour (May 10, 2011 9:47 PM) sounds very ill mannered to me. Polite, well mannered people would not want annoy others in that way. They should at least move far enough away from other students and staff that their smoke does not bother them.
I agree with you it would be reasonable and a helpful solution to designate a couple of areas, not the entrance or hallways, where smoking is permitted, and then not tolerate it elsewhere. Perhaps fining or reprimanding a few professors would set a good example? They should already be setting a polite and responsible example, and if they are not, they should be told they are rude and in the wrong, as well as being criminals breaking the law.