Tag Archives: Smoking Ban
50 years ago the American surgeon general, Luther Terry, released the first report that directly connected cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other health disorders.
The report influenced greatly people’s attitude towards smoking, changing it from an acceptable, to inacceptable in the public. According to Kathleen Sebelius, who is secretary of Health and Human Services, since 1964 report success in tobacco control has greatly reduced smoking rate in the general public.
Due to implementation of laws banning smoking, people now may comfortably eat in restaurants without coughing and sneezing, walk in parks without inhaling tobacco smoke, fly in airplanes, walk around malls breathing fresh air.
At the beginning of 2014, current American surgeon general has released a new report on smoking effects called “Health consequences of smoking – 50 years of progress.” A number of studies do suggest that tobacco use continues to be a main cause of a number of diseases in this country. According to the report, total economic impact from tobacco abuse will be $299 billion each year.
Experts are worried by statistics numbers. However, many people take too easy all that information and continue to smoke and modern smokers prefer to buy cigarettes online. Today almost 19% of population in the USA enjoy smoking. Do they know that they harm not only their own health but also of people around? Latest studies demonstrated that secondhand smoke is as hazardous as proper smoking.
When a patient undergoes a treatment, doctors normally recommend him to change health habits, but few of them recommend to totally quit smoking. However, refusal from smoking helps the body to fight a disorder.
In different countries there is a different attitude towards smoking. Take Singapore, that is a very clean country. Smoking in public places is banned here and if you light up in the street, then you will be subjected to a fine or even arrested.
This is a good example to follow, and we have a lot to do in order to eliminate smoking from our lives.
Smoking inside apartments and other multiple housing units soon may be banned in San Mateo County, state of California. The Board of Supervisors discussed recently the effects of secondhand smoke in order to return soon to smoking ban proposal.
The draft of proposed law had been created at the beginning of March by Brian Zamora, Family Services Director, and Jean Fraser, Health System Chief. Smoking ban was proposed by Supervisors Carole Groom and Adrienne Tissier and was supported by their board colleagues.
Tissier is happy with the proposed initiative saying that people who grown up in families where one or two parents were smokers, now do not want to do same harm to their kids. Modern science revealed that secondhand smoke affects people negatively.
Neil Klepeis, a researcher from Stanford, on the meeting explained how tobacco smoke drifts between housing units through ventilation systems. People who live next door to a smoker are exposed to high levels of smoke particles.
Groom considers that ban should include not only tobacco products but also e-cigarettes that are extremely popular today among smokers who believe they are absolutely safe for their body. In fact, e-cigarettes aren’t safe.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which prohibits e-cigarettes in county buildings and noted that it would consider ban into other anti-smoking ordinances.
Smoking in San Mateo County will be banned in all housing facilities with two or more units. It will work in common zones and newly rented or sold units, but would not be applied to current residents until 14 months after the law is adopted.
According to the Health System, there will be made an exception for buildings with designated areas located at least 30 feet from the non-smoking spaces. People who will violate the law will be subjected to fines ($100 first infraction, $200 second infraction, $500 all the next ingractions).
The new anti-smoking law will be applied to more than thousand residential units within the unincorporated areas of the county, most of which are in North Fair Oaks.
The Northampton Board of Health want to implement new smoking regulations. From June 2014 smoking will be prohibited in city parks, playgrounds, and within 25 feet of city buildings.
The ban includes tobacco, e-cigarettes and marijuana (even for medical purposes). Since 2010 the Board of Health updated for the first time their regulations.
Glenn Colby of Northampton said that individuals who enjoy a smoke out of restaurants, workplace, and even out of their own homes, to be forbidden from that.
At Pulaski park, cigarette butts may be seen right near children’s playground. The Health Department aims to reduce people’s exposure to secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke is proved to be as bad as smoking. Besides this, cigarette butts on the ground are bad for the environment. The Board of Health will inform people about the new regulations by posting special no smoking signs. Those who will violate the new law will be subjected to a $100 fine.
Merridith O’Leary, the city’s Public Health Director, said that if there is a complaint of issue, people will know to call there at the Health Departments.
The new law bans sale of tobacco at stores that have a pharmacy, which may affect businesses in city of Northampton. Also each individual who buys tobacco is carded, regardless of how old they look.
The smoking ban in Boston, Massachusetts, was proposed by the Mayor Thomas M. Menino and it came into action from the beginning of 2014. The lnew law prohibits to smoke not only cigarettes but also e-cigarettes, marijuana and vaporizers in all city open spaces such as parks and cemeteries.
The ban includes Boston Common located close to campus which makes the park a popular place for many Emerson smokers. However, with the smoking ban students have to look for other place to smoke.
Residents of the city say that it will be quite hard to make this law work because there are many people that choose to smoke in the Common. It is a common place for smokers, especially for Emerson students for whom it is the only place to smoke.
Those who violate the law will have to pay a $250 fine. However, at the beginning the enforcement will be on a peer-to-peer basis, which means that ordinary park visitors will inform smokers about the new anti-smoking rules. Fines will be applied in the last resort. People should be well informed about the new rules that recently came into action.
Some people consider the peer-to-peer aspect of the initiative to be problemati. They say that the only people who will eat smoker’s out are those affected by tobacco smoke. Silvia Stantcheva, a junior political communication major, told that Emerson students will not change their smoking habits. Stantcheva smokes about four Marlboro Reds daily and she added that many smokers pretend they are not aware about smoking ban.
Recently the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky made a poll whose results appear to demonstrate widespread support for a statewide smoking ban including restaurants and bars and support for anti-smoking policies in local communities that already have implemented their various policies.
The question in the poll: “Would you favor or oppose a law in Kentucky that would ban smoking in public places, including public buildings, workplaces, restaurants, offices, and bars?” The majority o respondents told “yes.”
Those who proposed statewide smoking law are aware that when they provide a choice in such polls, the majority of people would favor smoking bans in public places but not on privately owned property.
A big number of government buildings have already implemented smoke free policies because citizens often visit them. And even most privately owned public places have already banned smoking in order to make air cleaner for the customers and workers. .
McDonald’s and The Crazy Fox have prohibited smoking long ago, when there was no official statewide law that prohibits smoking. This all happened without a statewide law.
Another question in the poll: “Where do respondents live?” The answers on it showed the differences in views on various subjects. For example, people from urban areas may have different views than people in rural areas.
According to Susan Zepeda, the foundation’s president and CEO, smoking ban laws are needed for people to quit smoking or to keep from returning to the habit. Zepeda, who smoked in her past, stopped after the Surgeon General said it is harmful. Kentucky’s smoking rates are lowering without a statewide ban which shows the effectiveness of such warnings.
Starting from January, new smoking policy comes into effect at Ohio State University. New smoking ban prohibits use of tobacco on university property but new rules does not penalize those who break them as they do rely on passers-by to remind smokers politely of the ban.
The success of the policy totally depends on the cooperation of smokers and non-smokers. In order to help with rules implementation, groups of volunteers will walk through campus seeking smokers and asking them to stop. Also in next weeks there will be distributed to smokers informational cards calling them to stop.
However, in spite of new anti-smoking rules, students continue to smoke near OSU buildings or while walking across campus. They know about the smoking ban, but say that only a serious penalty can prevent them from smoking.
Dr. Peter Shields, deputy director of the university’s cancer center, says that this smoking ban is going to work because it is not the first university to introduce it. Soon people will understand that they aren’t permitted to smoke cigarettes and so they begin to follow policies. Policy cannot force students to comply. It is not a state law. The policy works in the university only, that is why law enforcement officials cannot punish for policy violations.
Those who repeatedly violate the smoking ban can only be punished for discipline break under existing codes of conduct that require them to follow university policies, However, nothing demands tobacco users to identify themselves, and there is no complaint system even if they do.
Smoking ban was expected to begin in August 2013 as an attempt of Ohio Board of Regents to make public-college campuses of tobacco-free. But the ban was delayed until January 1, 2014.
Is a tobacco-free state, however, there may be made some exceptions for use of tobacco products outdoors near student residence halls. and conference centers.
Use of tobacco products is prohibited indoors and within 10 feet of building entrances.
Smoking is prohibited indoors and near buildings outdoors including Beaver Stadium.
Becomes smoke-free from January 1, 2014. no smoking permitted inside or outdoors on campus, including private vehicles.
Smoke-free state by law.
Tobacco-free from January 1, 2012, except for Native American ceremonies, theatrical productions, some campus retail locations, Nationwide Arena and designated outdoor zones at the Schottenstein Center.
Smoking is prohibited indoors but is permitted in designated private residences or hotel rooms including near building entrances. Sale of tobacco products is prohibited on university grounds.
Smoking is prohibited indoors and within 25 feet of building entrances but is allowed at theater performances, Native American ceremonies, research studies and private vehicles.
Smoking is prohibited indoors and within 25 feet of building entrances, but is permitted in designated areas. University apartment and hotel rooms can be designated smoking areas.
Smoker Joan Claunch, who lives in Bruce, Mississippi, says that smoking ban approved recently in the city by the Board of Aldermen does not bother her at all as long as it is not taken too far.
She says that it would never do to ban smoking in her car and this causes a problem.
Other smoker Kenny Oliver told while he was pumping gas at a Bruce convenience store that probably the new smoking ban is a sign he should quit the habit for good. He wanted to quit some time ago and he believes that this ordinance would help him do it this time.
In his turn, Bruce Mayor Rudy Pope, said he is not against smokers as he has many friends who smoke cigarettes. There is a number of reasons why he decided to outlaw smoking in town of Bruce. First of all, it was estimated that 80% of the people in Mississippi do not smoke, therefore other 20% should be thoughtful of non-smokers.
Smoking ban in Bruce prohibits smoking in almost every public building and in parks, including town square. Also a number of businesses are included as well.
The mayor hopes that a 20-foot no-smoking area for the businesses where smokers will be far enough to avoid secondhand smoke. The ordinance will not touch those who smoke at home.
Accirding to Pope, authorities want to control places which people do visit and stay and if they do not smoke, they also should be protected from secondhand smoke. The majority of people in Bruce support the anti-smoking initiative.
First violation of the law will cost the offender $100. A second offense will cost $200 and a third – $500 fine. The Mayor says that if possible, the city wants to avoid those fines and might even offer counseling services.
Jesse Arreguin, the Councilman of Berkeley City, proposed to prohibit smoking in single-family homes. In her turn, Susan Wengraf, the Councilwoman, was appalled as she supports the proposal to prohibit smoking in multiunit homes.
The major aim is to protect people living in multiunit buildings from secondhand smoke that is considered to have negative effects on health. Residents consider the notion of a single-family-home ban scary. The proposal of Wengraf makes the multiunit ordinance seem reasonable.
Anthony Sanchez, the Arreguin adviser, says that the recommendation is really just a nonactionable subject of future consideration.
Berkeley already has prohibited smoking outdoors in such places as parks, commercial districts and bus stations, and now nonsmokers may walk without inhaling tobacco smoke. Does prohibiting smoking in the workplace, at restaurants and bars mean that work of nonsmoker-rights advocates is already done? No. The job is not done yet.
Therefore, the Berkeley proposal to prohibit smoking in multiunit dwellings is not the first one in Bay Area. Wengraf says that tobacco smoke can enter ventilation systems and spread through a building. But what if does not? What if in the building secondhand smoke does not spread and neighbors does not feel it? So in this case tobacco smoke does not bother others. However, if you smoke in an apartment, you are guilty.
Enter Arreguin, considers that the multiunit ordinance would fall unfairly on residents. Therefore, if the Berkeley City is going to tell what people can do in their own lodgings, it should adopt a ban in any dwelling including single ones.
Arreguin suggests that the ban to be applied if a minor lives in the home or a non-smoker older person. He names it most ambitious smoking ban at private spaces and says it does not matter if you permitted it everyone in the room. However, a man aged 63 cannot stay near a smoker. Cynthia Hallett, the representative of Nonsmokers, says that right now, the policy trend is really for multiunit housing.
Coast Community College District wants to introduce smoking ban at its three campuses and asks its students and college staff for theirr opinion on the subject. The smoking ban to be voted in spring 2014 and it would touch such colleges as Golden West in Huntington Beach, Orange Coast in Costa Mesa and Coastline, which has campuses in Fountain Valley and Newport Beach.
These days, smoking is banned in OCC and Coastline within 20 feet of a building entrance or window. Andreea Serban, vice chancellor of educational services and technology, said that in 2007 smoking was prohibited in Golden West in all zones of campus except parking lots, The smoking policy of the district would ban not only use of tobacco but also e-cigarettes.
Trustees received a warning from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) and after that they began to review board procedures.
While district staff is working over a new smoking policy, trustees asked first to find out opinion of students. Trustee David Grant says that it is very important to know what students say about it and their opinion should be taken into consideration.
Andreea Serban, vice chancellor of educational services and technology, says that the board should delay making decisions, especially until they have decided how to implement the ban if it is approved. He thinks that if you place No-smoking signs at Orange Coast campus, people would accept it.
However, at the moment people smoke by buildings or may sit down next to you and smoke a cigarette. So it is very important to introduce smoking policy on campus.
Coast is not the first community college district in Orange County tp introduce a smoking ban. Different smoking policies do already exist at Orange’s Santiago Canyon College, Santa Ana College and Fullerton College.
However, smokers are against smoking ban at campus. They do understand that secondhand smoke is harmful for people therfore the ban must be comprehensive.