Support of Colorado House Bill 1175 - State Wide Smoking Ban - Essay Example

Order 119488 Support of Colorado House Bill 1175 - Wide Smoking Ban History of tobacco Tobacco is a plant which is widely grown in the North as well as South America. It is a very noxious plant like the poisonous nightshade, and is of the same family as the potato and pepper. Tobacco is said to have started its growth in America during 6,000 B.C. Even during the early times as of 1 B.C, tobacco has been used in many various ways, by the American Indians -- in religious and medicinal practices. In the 1600's tobacco became so famous that it was also used as money. But these were also the years when few people began to understand that tobacco smoking was hazardous to health. During the later years the chemicals in tobacco were being recognized by scientists, which made them realize the serious health effects that it can create. It was then in 1826, when the pure form of nicotine was fully discovered. Later the scientists concluded that nicotine is poisonous and began to warn people about the dangers of smoking tobacco. It was only during the 1900's that the manufacture and selling of cigarettes, which was a major tobacco product, began. (History of Tobacco) During World War I, the use of cigarette became so enormous that it was called as the "soldier's smoke". Then during World War II, cigarettes were provided to soldiers as a part of C-Rations like other food products. Later in the 1950's it was proved with evidence that smoking was a major cause for lung cancer. The Surgeon General's report on "Smoking and Health" in 1964, helped the government to regulate the market and sales of cigarettes. In the 1980's there were a number of lawsuits which were filed against the tobacco industries due to the hazardous effect that the product creates on people. But it is only in recent times that there are evidences revealing the fact that the tobacco industry is continuing to market and sell its product, knowing very well the harm that it causes to the public. It was also proved that the tobacco industry establishers knew that nicotine creates addiction and that they revealed this to millions of people knowingly to make them a prey to this addiction. (History of Tobacco) Negative effects of second hand smoke Second-hand smoke - SHS, kills 53,000 non-smokers every year in U.S. and is found to be the third leading reason for preventable death in the country. This Second-hand smoke is alternatively known as passive smoke or environmental tobacco smoke - ETS. Research has revealed that each time a person breathes in second-hand smoke, he/she intakes over 100 harmful chemical agents like the carcinogens and toxins. This kind of SHS is the cause for death due to the following diseases: low birth weight, spontaneous abortion, heart diseases, stroke and negative results on the growth of cognition and behaviour, exacerbation of cystic fibrosis, lung as well as nasal sinus cancer, cervical cancer and also the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. (Second-Hand Smoke) The SHS also has a serious impact on children which causes bronchitis and pneumonia, asthma induction and exacerbation, constant respiratory indications, middle ear getting infected and also low birth weight. The other factors of the SHS is that it is a major source of the Particulate Matter - PM pollution, which is a factor for pulmonary diseases, asthma and other lung diseases like cancer. Generally 3 cigarettes on fire in a room emit 10-fold more PM pollution than an eco-diesel engine. When children inhale this SHS smoke during their childhood it causes neck pain, spinal pain and back pain in their later ages of life. This kind of Second hand smoke also damages the child's ability to learn, and it is neurotoxic at very low levels. Studies revealed that more than 21.9 million children are proved to be at a danger of getting reading disabilities due to this second hand smoke. A greater level of exposure to this smoke also causes an increased disorder in math and visuospatial reasoning. (Second-Hand Smoke) Even if a person inhales the second hand smoke for just half an hour, it damages their heart similar to that of a habitual smoker. The heart arteries of the non-smokers reflect a reduced ability to dilate, thereby sending a lesser amount of blood to the heart. The second hand smoke exposure can lead to heart attacks from a process known as the antherosclerosis. This second hand smoke is also injurious to the foetus as it is to the mother when the mother inhales the smoke directly from the cigarette. Young and mostly premenopausal women live in a high risk of a possibility of becoming a prey to breast cancer if they inhale this smoke for a long-term. The scientific evidence is irresistible and that is there is no doubt about the causes that arises due to the SMS smoke, such as heart disease, lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, sudden infant death syndrome - SIDS, asthma and middle ear infections in children and many other respiratory illnesses as said above. There have been many studies in the past twenty years that concludes that second-hand smoke is hazardous to health. In the year 1979, a U.S. Surgeon General report stated that there are several respiratory problems caused for both children and adults, and also acute cardiovascular problems which are associated with the exposure to tobacco smoke. Another U.S. Surgeon General report in 1982 had an intense focus on the carcinogenic effects of smoking and also warned that spontaneous smoking may cause lung cancer. Further a 1986 report of the U.S. Surgeon General along with the review of the U.S. National Research Council in the same year concluded that "involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy smokers". There are more than hundreds of studies that have reported on the effects of second hand smoke right from 1986 onwards. About 63% of the reports have given evidence of the harm caused by second hand smoking. It was concluded by The International Agency for Research on Cancer - IARC in the year 2002 in its Monograph on the tobacco smoke and second hand smoke that "there is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking which is exposure to second-hand or environmental tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in humans" (Second-Hand Smoke) There is an acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease that is associated with the tobacco smoke and is non-linear at low doses, and gradually increases with small doses such as those attained from second hand smoke - SHS. This was determined by the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention who have also warned that all the patients who are suffering from coronary heart diseases should stay away from all indoor environments that allow smoking. A study by the British Medical Journal in 2004 confirmed that there are no health differences between active and passive smoking. The risks of heart diseases are virtually the same and are seemed to be double than what was previously thought of, and make no difference between active smokings and second hand smoke which is the passive smoking. (Second hand Smoke: The Science) The 10th report submitted by the 2002 Environmental Health Information Service on Carcinogens classifies SHS as a Group A Carcinogen, which is a substance that causes cancer in humans. In addition to this in 2002 the World Health Organization International Agency's - IARC Monographs on Tobacco smoking, confirmed that the exposure to the carcinogens, are both similar to active and passive smokers. In the data of 1991, it was found that 90% of the U.S population has measurable amounts of serum cotinine in their blood. In 2002, the report of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals concluded that since the period of 1991, there was more than a 75% decrease in median cotinine levels for nonsmokers in the U.S - which showed that smoke-free environments eventually reduce the exposure to Second hand smoke. (Second hand Smoke: The Science) Colorado House Bill 1175 - State Wide Smoking Ban Smoke-free laws help seven out of ten smoker's who have an urge to quit smoking by making the environments free of any pressure and temptation for smoking. (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) It was with this aim that Colorado House Bill 1175 was initiated due to the health risks as well as public health costs related with second-hand smoke. (Smoking Ban: City Council - Jeanne Robb, Dist. 10) In Colorado, about 20% of the population are smokers. It is estimated that 130,000 smokers develop smoking related diseases annually, and thus the costs related to health care in the state exceeds $1 billion or $259 on every person. (People Ban: CO State Alert) In order to take action against this increasing impact of smoking, a state wide smoking ban was signed by Gov. Bill Owens after it was finalized by the lawmakers. Colorado became the 13th state in the U.S to approve a state-wide smoking ban after the approval of the House Bill 1175 on a 38-24 vote a day after the Colorado Senate approved it 19-15. (House sends smoking ban to governor) This House Bill 1175 is the important example of the legislative session, of the civic busy bodyness that is enforced on the people of Colorado. (Smoking bill has a clear path) This ban will come into effect from July 1, 2006, as a result of which smoking would be banned even on enclosed areas inclusive of pool halls, restaurants as well as indoor sports areas, three-quarters of a hotel's rooms and also buses and trains. But still smoking would be allowed in cigar bars, at the Denver International Airport, bars where food is 25% or even less of their annual gross revenue, and other race tracks and private clubs where employees are only three or fewer. (Senate OKs watered-down smoking ban) Casinos could only smoke in their gambling areas and not in their bars and restaurants. There are places of employment which are exempt, but the bill makes requires that the employer provide a smoke-free work area if it is requested by an employee. (People Ban: CO State Alert) Therefore the House Bill 1175 will change the entire culture of smoking in Colorado Springs where the bars and restaurants can make their own rules. The group of people who support the bill, which was led by sponsor Rep. Mike May, R-Parker, accept that the legislation is such that it will help the public in safe guarding their health and also will protect the bar and restaurant workers from second hand smoke. It is also said that a state-wide ban will equalise the playing fields between communities who possess these smoking bans or those who do not. (House OKs indoor smoking ban) Why businesses would not support Colorado House Bill 1175 and why they would Though there is a growth of the smoke-free laws nationwide there is also on the other side an increased false allegations raised from the cigarette companies that such laws will affect the local economies and business. (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) Some of the businesses who comment against such smoking bans are the businesses that currently allow smoking, inclusive of the bars. Since smoking would be banned in restaurants with the implementation of smoking ban law, the restaurant associations feel that they have losses in their business. (People Ban: CO State Alert) The reason why businesses may not support the bill is that it is a government attack on the sanctity of private enterprises. It is also because the business houses feel that the issue is about the freedom of businesses and consumers to do whatever they feel and the bill goes against this freedom of theirs. (Smoking bill has a clear path) This new smoking ban does not include the heavy money donors, but warns to shut down or at least disable the small-business owners. Few businesses feel that the ban is not correct on so many aspects and they feel that there is not enough space to put all of them into one short letter. It is felt that the ban crushes the individual liberty and private property ownership and control, and there is no concern about public safety here and it has some unclear collective "right" which is not to come in contact with tobacco smoke. The exception allowed for the casinos confirms this point. It was stated by Chuck Ford of the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association that the bill could affects the business for bars and pubs. (Where there's smoke: Smoking ban not likely to bankrupt businesses) Lobbyist Chuck Ford works for bars and pubs and he is not willing to compromise on the point that either all bars are covered by the smoking ban or none of them are covered. (People Ban: CO State Alert) He says that it is like either it should be taken or left out totally. He states that partial bans only tend businesses to move to bars from restaurants, or from one place to another. (Smoking Ban: City Council - Jeanne Robb, Dist. 10) But even then many scientific and economic researches show that the smoke-free laws do not affect restaurant and bars, their employment, sales or even their profits. (Where there's smoke: Smoking ban not likely to bankrupt businesses) It is most unpleasant that the laws have not effect even though they produce some positive trends at times. For instance a study in the journal 'Tobacco Control' shows a review on all the studies relating to the economic impact of smoke-free workplace laws and then concluded that there is no report of impact on sales or employment by the smoke-free restaurant and bar laws. In a study on the smoke-free laws conducted by researchers at the University of Kentucky's College of Nursing and the Gatton College of Business and Economics of the Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky that took effect from April 27, 2004 it was stated that "In general, selected key business indicators in Lexington restaurants, bars, and hotels have not been affected by the smoke-free law". (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) Taking into account the population, unemployment as well as seasonal variation in Lexington, there was a little amount of decline in the hotel/motel employment in about 10 months after the smoke-free law took its effect, though the employment in restaurants and bars remained stable. Taking seasonal variation into account, after 10 months of the commencement of the effect of the law, there was no drastic impact of this smoke-free law on payroll withholding taxes in restaurants, bars or hotel/motels. The law also did not have any effect on the business openings or closing either in alcohol serving business or in non-alcohol business. There was a research conducted at the Harvard School of School of Public Health of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' on the state-wide smoke-free law that took effect from July 5, 2004 which established that "Analyses of economic data prior to and following implementation of the law demonstrated that the Massachusetts state-wide law did not negatively affect state-wide meals and alcoholic beverage excise tax collections". (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) Even the employees in the food and drinking services, accommodation industries and keno sales were not impacted by the law. Another study which was taken up by the research economists of the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research stated that the state's smoke-free law, which began to be effective from July 1, 2003, did not affect the sales or employment in the hotel, restaurant and also the tourism industries. The study added to analyzing the total sales, also assessed the revenue of the restaurants as a part of the total retail revenue in which the underlying economic conditions in the state could be taken into account. Later after the smoke-free law became effective a proportion of the retail sales in the restaurants, lunchrooms, and catering services in Florida increased greatly by 7.37%. (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) It was during the year 1995 in New York City when the law of smoke ban began to be effective, but it was found that between 1993 and 1997 there was a vast growth in the restaurant employment in the city which was thrice the growth of the other states. An added point on this is that the diners in the New York City were not having any impact due to the smoke-free laws. Studies have shown that the local smoke-free policies in Massachusetts are not having any considerable impact on the total sales of the restaurants. An additional aspect is that the taking up of the local smoke-free restaurant policies did not seemed to be the cause for any considerable change in the town taxable meal revenue. (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) We shall now have a look at the support for the Smoking ban from the business community from states other than Colorado and understand that the businesses in Colorado will also not be affected by this ban as being stated by certain business sections of the state. Michael O'Neal, a former president of the New York State Restaurant Association said that "I feel strongly that it is pro-business and pro-health to eliminate smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants. Smoke-free workplace legislation does not hurt any business Smoking prohibitions in California, Utah, Vermont, Maryland and Maine as well as in hundred of cities all over the country prove that smoke-free-workplace legislation is good for all businesses, including the restaurant business. That should not be a surprise. Even smokers prefer to breathe clean air". (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) The support to the New York's law has also been extended by bar and restaurant owners. In the Feb 6, 2005 issue of The New York Times, James McBratney, President of the Staten Island Restaurant and Tavern Association was being quoted that "I have to admit, I've seen no falloff in business in either establishment [restaurant or bar]". (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) As per The New York Times he was being quoted that "He went on to describe what he once considered unimaginable: Customers actually seem to like it, and so does he". (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) A survey rendered based on the thoughts of California bar owners, managers, assistant managers and bartenders found to render a support for the smoke-free bar law in California, It was found that these employees wanted a smoke-free workplace law which protects their health and also the health of the other bar employees. It is the comment of 77% of the bar employees and managers that abiding the law is being very easy. (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) Even in the state of Colorado, there are now businesses which opt for this Smoke Ban Bill. There are many businesses that have begun to render their support to the smoke-free laws, thereby understanding that it will impose a positive impact on the public health and also that of their business. On protecting the neighbourhood places from the Bill, the lack of exemption for pubs provides support from these sections of the business community. (House OKs indoor smoking ban) The state-wide smoking ban is also supported by the Colorado Restaurant Association trade group. An alliance of the consumer and health groups and the Colorado Restaurant Association accept that the bars should also come under this ban. (Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars) Thus it needs to be understood that smoking ban to come into effect from 1st of July, 2006 will not affect the businesses, but would be helpful in protecting the second hand smoke which is proved to be the major cause for many diseases like cancer, heart diseases and many others. References Ashby, Charles. House sends smoking ban to governor. Pueblo Chieftain. 18 March, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1142665200/6 Accessed 3 April, 2006 Ashby, Charles. Senate OKs watered-down smoking ban. Pueblo Chieftain. 28 February. 2006. Retrieved from http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1141110000/2 Accessed 3 April, 2006 History of Tobacco. Retrieved from http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/tobacco/history.htm Accessed 3 April, 2006 Hughes, Jim. Smoking bill has a clear path. Denver Post. 18 March, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3614700 Accessed 3 April, 2006 Mitchell, Carlyn. February 11, 2006. House OKs indoor smoking ban. The Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.gazette.com/display.phpid=1314584&secid=1 Accessed 3 April, 2006 People Ban: CO State Alert. Retrieved from http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.phpname=News&file=article&sid=2587 Accessed 3 April, 2006 Second-Hand Smoke. Retrieved from http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html Accessed 3 April, 2006 Secondhand Smoke: The Science. Retrieved from http://www.no-smoke.org/document.phpid=215 Accessed 3 April, 2006 Smoke-Free Laws do not harm business at Restaurants and bars. Retrieved from http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0144.pdf Accessed 3 April, 2006 Smoking Ban: City Council - Jeanne Robb, Dist. 10. Retrieved from http://www.denvergov.org/CouncilDistrict10/template114987.asp Accessed 3 April, 2006 Where there's smoke: Smoking ban not likely to bankrupt businesses. March 22, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.gazette.com/display.phpid=1315827&secid=13 Accessed 3 April, 2006 Read More