Second hand smoking has become a major problem in today’s society, and it must be changed. Although there are multiple solutions to second hand smoke some solutions include establishing separate ventilation systems in each and every restraint, planting more trees, and establishing more oxygen rich sources in areas where smoking is engaged and to ban smoking in outdoor areas. Every day between 70% and 90% of non-smokers in the American population, children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker.
The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe. (University of Minnesota, 2003). Every year tobacco use kills more than five million people every year, more than HIV, AIDS, Tuberculosis and malaria combined. (World health organization, Dec 2009). But it does not have to be this way, with a few simple changes thousands of lives could be saved. Smoking causes an estimated 90 % of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80 % of all lung cancer deaths in women (CDC, 2012). Smoking is also estimated to increase the risks of coronary disease and strokes by two to four times. CDC, 2012). But smoking also harms second hand smokers too, it is estimated that second hand somek contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons (university of Minnesota, 2003). But should the innocent by stander really have to put his or her health at risk in order to allow the smoker to have stress control or satisfy their nicotine craving? Every day millions of families dine out at restraints across the country. Most of them having small children. Most restaurants have adopted a non smoking policy, but some still have not.
For the restaurants that have not adopted a smoke free facility, they should have to implement separate ventilation, and separate sealed rooms, so the non smokers can still enjoy a fresh meal, and not have to worry about what is in the air they are breathing in. If separated sealed rooms so the non smokers can still enjoy a fresh meal, and not have to worry about what is in the air they are breathing in? If the separate ventilation systems were established, the major costs would be filters to maintain the system and ensuring smokers remained in the smoking section of the building.
Other countries such as Ireland, Spain, New Zealand, Italy and Uruguay have all adopted smoke free establishments, and have had great success (World Health Organization, 2007). There is also no evidence that these bands have a negative economic impact on the hospitability sector (world Health Organization, 2003). The smoking section would have to be indoors to ensure that patrons that are outside of the restraint do not have to inhale cigarette smoke, many restaurants have a smoking area in front of their restraint, usually on a patio, but unfortunately smoke still lingers near the front entrance.
And in most cases smoke still enters the inside of the restraint through sliding glass doors or tether non sealed entrances. My proposal would eliminate this problem by requiring sealed entrances, separate ventilation systems and not allowing smoking outside of the restraint entrances. One study has been conducted on separate ventilation systems removed some of but not all of the gas particles. (CDC 2012) The study also showed that ventilation systems did not remove all of the gas and particles from the cigarette smoke, but improved the air quality by 50 %. (CDC 2007).
The substantial improvements from incorporation this would improve workers health, and the patrons that eat and or visit there. And in many ways it could improve the business for many establishments by catering to all patrons needs. Another proposal would be to establish smoking areas, and establish more oxygen rich sources such as trees, or plants around them. And in areas that this is not possible, I would propose to position an air filter in that area. To establish more oxygen rich sources such as trees, I would propose planting trees in the vicinity of the making areas, and issue grants encouraging businesses to plant more trees.
And in places where this is not possible I would propose positioning massive air filters in the vicinity to recalculate the air, and clean out all the toxins. Thus smoking areas would be vastly improved. The only disadvantage of such proposal could be the cost of filters, cost of maintained and the possibility depending on the air purifier the noise coming from such filter. But the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages in the fact that something is being done about the second hand smoking. My last proposal would be to ban smoking in public all together.
The benefits of such proposal would be enormous to not only the health of people but the environment. The health benefits of such proposal include better air quality, encouraging fellow citizens to quit smoking if they are smoking and decreased consumption of tobacco products (world health organization, 2003). According to the world health organization, only 100 % smoke free environments provide effective protection from second hand smoke (world health organization, 2003). Other benefits include lower medical costs, decreased risk of fires, higher productivity in the workplace and lower insurance premiums (world health organization, 2003).
To enforce the ban on smoking fines could be implemented to discourage fellow citizens from smoking in public. The fines would have to be hefty enough to encourage smokers not to light up in public, and to encourage a healthier lifestyle. The fine would be between 250-300 dollars. And would be enforced by local police departments and other law enforcement. Such as substantial fine would discourage smokers from engaging in smoking in public places, and would also be steep enough to be taken seriously. Because most of the citiziens would not take a law seriously if it did not take from their pocket.
Contrary to the belief, smoking bans do not infringe upon anyone’s rights as they are protecting peoples rights by regulating where to smoke, and where not to smoke. (World health organization, 2003). And they cost very little helping businesses and personal alike. In fact most smokers actually prefer a non smoking environment, and choose to eat at a smoke free environment (world health organization 2003). And once a smoker chooses to quit, it makes it easier to dine out at a smoke free restraint because it encourages them not to light up again.
In conclusion smoking in public would dramatically increase the health of the nation as a whole. It has been shown that second hand smoke causes multiple health problems, and by encouraging a healthier lifestyle ti could dramatically improve the lives and health of all citizens involved. It has been shown that most smokers prefer a non smoking environment, and many smokers are encouraged to stop smoking after living in areas where smoking is banned. Most people in the world are non smokers and should not have to be exposed to second hand smoke, and smokers should have every opportunity afforded to them to quit.