smoking

             A blockbuster study published in the January issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) examined the impact of exposure to ETS on the progression of athersclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and concluded, in part, that the arteries of non-smokers exposed to ETS thickened 20% faster than non-smokers with no second-hand exposure (JAMA). Another study published in Pediatrics in January estimated that, about half of the cases of early childhood cases of asthma, chronic bronchitis and wheezing are attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke (JAMA). Smoking in public areas such as bars and restaurants can be harmful to the health of not only the smoker himself, but everybody around him. Recent studies on the number of deaths as a result of smoking confirmed that eight out of ten people affected with diseases affiliated with smoking were a cause of second hand smoke. Laws are in the process of being passed to make certain places completely non-smoking. Why should a person who has been careful about their health be subject to smoker's health problems? Why should a family going out to dinner have to smell the smoke from someone else when the family has just as much right to be there as the smoker does? Isnt there some way to compromise between the two? Wont someone be unhappy no matter what the decision about banning smoking is? The fact is that everyone has the right to smoke if they want to; but there is no way that a non-smoker should be forced to inhale smoke that isnt theirs. Although, wont a restaurant lose a lot of business if they cut out the smoking sections? The Institute for Social Research at York University for the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit at the University of Toronto performed a study on smoking attitudes and behaviors. First of all, only 19% of Toronto adults smoke, 15% daily (institute). The study proved that, eight out of 10 smokers in Toronto say they would follow the rules if there were more restrictions on smoking, even without the threat of a fine.