- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,412
- Points
- 0
I pretty much wrote 80% of this tonight, in 4 hours or so. Thankfully I had all my sources and stuff ready to go or else I would of never finished. It's a neutral, informative research paper. Thoughts?
Drug addiction is a serious issue in today’s society and the leading cause of preventable death. Drugs have been a prevalent part of life for hundreds of years, but they are slowly decreasing in popularity. Taxes, workplace bans, and state preventions are the biggest reason why smoking has decreased. On average only 20% of every state’s population smokes (Stobbe).
Smoking bans seems like a logical way to prevent smoking, but is it justified? Banning smoking can save the lives of both smokers and non-smokers. Researchers found that in England there were 1,200 fewer heart attack cases in the 12 months after the introduction of laws that prevented smoking (Laurance). Cigarettes contain benzene, ammonia, acetone, carbon monoxide, and many other dangerous chemicals (Coster). Cancer is a very real possibility if one takes up the habit of smoking. In addition to smoking's many long-term effects, it also has short-term effects which are just as – if not – worse! If you take in even the slightest bit of smoke, it can have immediate effects on the blood and cause it to thicken and clot, triggering heart attacks (Laurance). Obviously it wouldn't be good for the smoker's blood and body, but it's horrible to think about innocent bystanders being affected. In a recent ****ysis of the dangers of passive smoking, researchers found that smoke-free laws reduced the rate of heart attacks by an average of 17%. The benefit increased with time: After three years, the rate had dropped about 26%. The biggest declines in heart attacks were seen among non-smokers and people between the ages of 40 and 60 years. A 17% to 26% reduction of risk “is a big deal,” says Steven Schroeder, a physician at University of California, San Francisco, and a proponent of smoking bans who wasn't involved in the studies. “We can make immediate public-health progress if we cut exposure to second-hand smoke,” he says (Winslow). There aren't any initiatives in Washington aimed at adopting a national smoke-free law. Efforts do continue however in local communities to implement or broaden smoking bans. Laws against smoking in public places remain controversial. Dr. Sargent recalls an “ideal experiment in which the ban was turned on, and the heart-attack rate went down. We turned it off and watched it go back up.” The reduction was 40% in absolute terms—102 heart attacks per 100,000 person years after the ban, compared to 170 before the ban. Heart-attack rates rose sharply again after the ban was revoked, he says (Winslow). Passive smoking is the cause of 165,000 deaths a year among children from respiratory diseases and 379,000 deaths among adults from heart disease. Lung cancer, the biggest cause of death among smokers, accounts for just 21,000 deaths among passive smokers (“Passive Smoking 'Causes 1 Per Cent of All World's Deaths'”).
On the other hand, some believe that the smoking bans should have not been put in place, and are fighting for future legislation to act in their favor. Kicking out all smokers has stalled as the recession worsens and lawmakers fear of hurting business at bars, restaurants and casinos (Wyatt). “This economy, it creates a little more sympathy for the business person. So when we say this is going to put us out of business, believe me, they're listening,” said Mike Moser, executive director of the Wyoming State Liquor Association. In cities that have banned smoking in bars, “it's just killing them,” said Mike Reid, owner of a wine bar in Casper. I completely agree with Reid because “when someone builds a business with a clientele that smokes, they should be able to go in there and smoke (Wyatt).” Though health is a huge concern, the business owners are more worried about their business. Government needs to run the government, but do they really need to run businesses too? All in all regulation isn't too excessive, but the bans do seem to create a problem for the already poor economy and make it really difficult for those who are used to having their business as an area where smokers are welcome.
So how much regulation is necessary? Unless legal challenges delay or kill the plan, in 2012 each cigarette pack sold in the U.S. will carry an image chosen from among such possibilities as a woman blowing smoke on her baby or a man exhaling smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his neck (“Graphic Warnings Turn Tables on Cigarette Marketers”). Compared with non-smokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer; women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. In 2008, 30% of young people ages 12-17 still didn't see great risk in smoking a pack or more a day (“Graphic Warnings Turn Tables on Cigarette Marketers”). What is most shocking is that 90% of smokers pick up the habit before they are 19. (“Graphic Warnings Turn Tables on Cigarette Marketers”). The labels having an increased effectiveness should certainly deter people from buying the drug to fulfill their expensive habit. Since smoking statistically starts at a young age, around 19, it's necessary for these warnings to be made with that audience in mind. Nary a teenager will be bothered to just read the plain old 'wordy warnings.' Is the extent of this regulation going too far?
Many people are against regulations such as the wide range of brightly colored, grisly visual warnings for all cigarette packs and advertisements being proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, and say that it will cause more harm than good (Jaffe). Simultaneously, a new federal law prohibits tobacco companies from using any pictures, illustrations or colors, except black and white, in a broad range of media, even where adults are an overwhelming majority of the readership (Jaffe). There is no new information contained in these warnings. Unlike all other governmentally mandated ad disclosures, this is not simply a requirement to provide truthful, neutral information to the public. The visual warnings may still get their point across, but in terms of actually being informative, they are far from it. One of the main purposes of the new law is to reduce the number of smokers in the name of improving “public health” (Chapman). It is argued that smoking is not really a public event, but more of a private one. Though when one smokes in the public, it then does become a public health concern. The way in which the government is going about protecting the public is still drastic: Cigarette-makers are forbidden to use color in ads in any publication whose readership is less than 85 percent adult. They are barred from using music in audio ads. They are not allowed to use pictures in video ads. They may not put product names on race cars, lighters, caps or T-shirts. From all this, you almost forget the fleeting passage in the Constitution that says “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” (Chapman).
Smoking is an activity that ultimately needs to be decided upon by the individual. Though companies and the government can try and change people's ways, personal responsibility will always come into play when choosing whether or not to smoke (and choosing to do so around others). Irritability, impatience, hostility, and anxiety are just a few of the many symptoms of nicotine withdrawal that one will face if they try and quit. Drug addiction is certainly not limited to any age group, and its effects are many. Think carefully if you are presented with the opportunity to light up.
Drug addiction is a serious issue in today’s society and the leading cause of preventable death. Drugs have been a prevalent part of life for hundreds of years, but they are slowly decreasing in popularity. Taxes, workplace bans, and state preventions are the biggest reason why smoking has decreased. On average only 20% of every state’s population smokes (Stobbe).
Smoking bans seems like a logical way to prevent smoking, but is it justified? Banning smoking can save the lives of both smokers and non-smokers. Researchers found that in England there were 1,200 fewer heart attack cases in the 12 months after the introduction of laws that prevented smoking (Laurance). Cigarettes contain benzene, ammonia, acetone, carbon monoxide, and many other dangerous chemicals (Coster). Cancer is a very real possibility if one takes up the habit of smoking. In addition to smoking's many long-term effects, it also has short-term effects which are just as – if not – worse! If you take in even the slightest bit of smoke, it can have immediate effects on the blood and cause it to thicken and clot, triggering heart attacks (Laurance). Obviously it wouldn't be good for the smoker's blood and body, but it's horrible to think about innocent bystanders being affected. In a recent ****ysis of the dangers of passive smoking, researchers found that smoke-free laws reduced the rate of heart attacks by an average of 17%. The benefit increased with time: After three years, the rate had dropped about 26%. The biggest declines in heart attacks were seen among non-smokers and people between the ages of 40 and 60 years. A 17% to 26% reduction of risk “is a big deal,” says Steven Schroeder, a physician at University of California, San Francisco, and a proponent of smoking bans who wasn't involved in the studies. “We can make immediate public-health progress if we cut exposure to second-hand smoke,” he says (Winslow). There aren't any initiatives in Washington aimed at adopting a national smoke-free law. Efforts do continue however in local communities to implement or broaden smoking bans. Laws against smoking in public places remain controversial. Dr. Sargent recalls an “ideal experiment in which the ban was turned on, and the heart-attack rate went down. We turned it off and watched it go back up.” The reduction was 40% in absolute terms—102 heart attacks per 100,000 person years after the ban, compared to 170 before the ban. Heart-attack rates rose sharply again after the ban was revoked, he says (Winslow). Passive smoking is the cause of 165,000 deaths a year among children from respiratory diseases and 379,000 deaths among adults from heart disease. Lung cancer, the biggest cause of death among smokers, accounts for just 21,000 deaths among passive smokers (“Passive Smoking 'Causes 1 Per Cent of All World's Deaths'”).
On the other hand, some believe that the smoking bans should have not been put in place, and are fighting for future legislation to act in their favor. Kicking out all smokers has stalled as the recession worsens and lawmakers fear of hurting business at bars, restaurants and casinos (Wyatt). “This economy, it creates a little more sympathy for the business person. So when we say this is going to put us out of business, believe me, they're listening,” said Mike Moser, executive director of the Wyoming State Liquor Association. In cities that have banned smoking in bars, “it's just killing them,” said Mike Reid, owner of a wine bar in Casper. I completely agree with Reid because “when someone builds a business with a clientele that smokes, they should be able to go in there and smoke (Wyatt).” Though health is a huge concern, the business owners are more worried about their business. Government needs to run the government, but do they really need to run businesses too? All in all regulation isn't too excessive, but the bans do seem to create a problem for the already poor economy and make it really difficult for those who are used to having their business as an area where smokers are welcome.
So how much regulation is necessary? Unless legal challenges delay or kill the plan, in 2012 each cigarette pack sold in the U.S. will carry an image chosen from among such possibilities as a woman blowing smoke on her baby or a man exhaling smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his neck (“Graphic Warnings Turn Tables on Cigarette Marketers”). Compared with non-smokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer; women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. In 2008, 30% of young people ages 12-17 still didn't see great risk in smoking a pack or more a day (“Graphic Warnings Turn Tables on Cigarette Marketers”). What is most shocking is that 90% of smokers pick up the habit before they are 19. (“Graphic Warnings Turn Tables on Cigarette Marketers”). The labels having an increased effectiveness should certainly deter people from buying the drug to fulfill their expensive habit. Since smoking statistically starts at a young age, around 19, it's necessary for these warnings to be made with that audience in mind. Nary a teenager will be bothered to just read the plain old 'wordy warnings.' Is the extent of this regulation going too far?
Many people are against regulations such as the wide range of brightly colored, grisly visual warnings for all cigarette packs and advertisements being proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, and say that it will cause more harm than good (Jaffe). Simultaneously, a new federal law prohibits tobacco companies from using any pictures, illustrations or colors, except black and white, in a broad range of media, even where adults are an overwhelming majority of the readership (Jaffe). There is no new information contained in these warnings. Unlike all other governmentally mandated ad disclosures, this is not simply a requirement to provide truthful, neutral information to the public. The visual warnings may still get their point across, but in terms of actually being informative, they are far from it. One of the main purposes of the new law is to reduce the number of smokers in the name of improving “public health” (Chapman). It is argued that smoking is not really a public event, but more of a private one. Though when one smokes in the public, it then does become a public health concern. The way in which the government is going about protecting the public is still drastic: Cigarette-makers are forbidden to use color in ads in any publication whose readership is less than 85 percent adult. They are barred from using music in audio ads. They are not allowed to use pictures in video ads. They may not put product names on race cars, lighters, caps or T-shirts. From all this, you almost forget the fleeting passage in the Constitution that says “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” (Chapman).
Smoking is an activity that ultimately needs to be decided upon by the individual. Though companies and the government can try and change people's ways, personal responsibility will always come into play when choosing whether or not to smoke (and choosing to do so around others). Irritability, impatience, hostility, and anxiety are just a few of the many symptoms of nicotine withdrawal that one will face if they try and quit. Drug addiction is certainly not limited to any age group, and its effects are many. Think carefully if you are presented with the opportunity to light up.
I was going to branch off into smoking weed in the essay, but I felt I should just keep it about one thing and not make it about which one is more healthy (since weed would obviously win).