HOT TOPIC: Ohio Approves State Smoking Ban

• click the BLUE LINKS to learn more throughout this hub

With almost Fifty-Three Thousand comments on this controversial issue on the TOPIX website people are having their say. The introductory blurb states:

"Ohio voters have approved a ban on smoking in virtually all public buildings. Voters approved the sweeping ban while rejecting a competing measure that would have exempted bars and restaurants, the Cleveland. . ."

Looking at both sides of this issue, we see Freedom Fighters wanting to be able to smoke in public places, such as restaurant, office, pub, work-place, university, etc.

These Freedom Fighters feel it is their right to smoke and enjoy this leisure activity, if it only harms their lungs and themselves. That is their prerogative and will accept the consequences. These people feel an injustice that they could be controlled and removed of their ability to smoke where and when they want to light up and take a puff. They are also very fearful that this is just the beginning of what the government will control in their lives.

The government agencies, with the duty to safe-guard the people, must have felt a need to create a secure place for the non-smokers who either don't like to smoke or are health conscious and know [as stated on the package] smoking is dangerous to your health and may cause...

The people who side with the government decision and the Ohio State's new ruling believe this is just for the safety and health of the majority of people. Not just to set an example to the children, but to have definite action.

Creating this rule will help "clean the air." Both in the environment where people eat, work and meet and also in the physiological bodies of those who would be exposed and inhale the toxic fumes.

Both sides have a point to make. I suppose there remains the option for smokers to meet in each others homes and backyards. [not in cars - see below]

Lawsuit: Companies Have Option to Fire Employees Who Do Not Smoke At the Office:

• Investigation Concerning Termination of Smokers And/Or Charging Smokers Higher Healthcare or Disability Premiums.
  
• Click the link above to read about two companies that are charging employees higher insurance premiums due to increased cause for health care. Do you think the employees have a right to do this?
• In 30 states and the District of Columbia, state law makes it illegal for companies to impose smoking bans on their employees when they are off duty.
• There is a fine line to our civil rights.

Advocacy Groups Try to Ban Smoking in Cars in London

• They say it is for the sake of the children who are locked in these small quarters filled with second hand cigarette smoke.
• They are backed with new statistics released by the British Heart Foundation showing that smoking costs the government $8 billion a year. I wonder how many asthmatic children are directly related to households with parents who smoke?

No Smoking Laws in Your Apartment or Dwelling with Adjacent Walls

• I'm really surprised to learn how far California will go with the ban on smoking
• Belmont City resident violators face a $100 fine from the city, as well as eviction if smoking violates their lease agreement.

This really gives us something to talk about!

Off Topic: Inspirational Movie That I Did Not Know Health Insurance Agencies Made These Types of Films

• How Do Parents and Grandparents Effect Their Offspring by what they say and do? A beautiful film.
• Hysterically funny film about totally irresponsible man who on his 30th birthday decides to do something worthwhile with his life.
  

Due to the new law we may see a reduction in cigarette smoking and an increase in another industry. All the public buildings will need signage. You can view the variety of signs that people will see every where they go. What a boon for the sign industry.

I'm wondering whether these signs will be ignored just as the Warning Labels on the Cigarette boxes themselves. Humans have a tendency to take notice of some thing that is new in their environment or when something is out of place. I would hypothesize that people will "see" these signs as they are newly posted. They may grumble about or praise the situation. And after a number of months to years, I believe these signs will be virtually invisible as they fade into the common environment.

Hopefully, the children will take note and ask their parents what the signs mean and why the government had to take this regulatory action. They can understand a STOP sign or Traffic Light to keep traffic flowing and allow people to safely cross the streets. How will adults choose to explain the need for logical responsible adults having government taking control of their personal lives? Will they give an analogy about the laws for seat belts? Will this initiate some good discussion around the theme of "responsibility" and "freedom?"

Ohio voters passed Issue 5 on Nov. 7, 2006, creating Ohio’s indoor smoking ban under a new chapter of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) effective Dec. 7, 2006. This new law requires “public places” and “places of employment” prohibit smoking as of that date. These businesses and organizations must also post “No Smoking” signs that contain the telephone number 1-866-559-OHIO (6446) for reporting violations; and remove ashtrays and other smoking receptacles.

Wikipedia has a varied selection of
Warning Signs from Countries Around the World.

Government Warning Labels Are Rotated:

• SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy.
  
• SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting Smoking
  Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.
  
• SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking by
  Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature
  Birth, and Low Birth Weight.
  
• SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke
  Contains Carbon Monoxide.

_{A personal story: It's true, when mothers smoke their infants have low birth weight and the child is born addicted to nicotine throughout their lives and finds smoking exhilerating and relaxing making it difficult to quit.}

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2009 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate voted 79-17 Thursday to pass a bill that would toughen tobacco laws, including authorizing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco.

Among other things, the Family Smoking and Tobacco Control Act would give the federal government the power to regulate cigarette ingredients, ban the marketing of "light cigarettes" and require graphic warning labels, The Washington Post reported...

Times are changing with the changing of the guard. President Obama and the new government agencies in power feel that stricter controls must be set into place. I'm sure the "smoke-filled" discussion rooms are fuming with ideas and controversy. How much control should government take on these issues?

With Health Care being top on the list, one way to reduce hospital and medical costs is to PREVENT acute and chronic illness. It has been determined, and every body knows, that smoking effects asthmatics and the respiratory system and causes emphysema, lung disease and cancer. Cause and effect. Simple.

Anxiety is also rampant. And smoking can calm nerves and reduce anxiety for those who love to smoke. What say you? How can we weigh the argument? Are there other ways to relieve anxiety before going to a social event, performing in public, or taking a test? Will people end up becoming obese from over-eating instead of lighting up? When does government leave off and people take control?

Enjoyment in smoking. Many people love a cigarette after sex, in the morning, with coffee, after a good meal, while relaxing on a walk, etc. I don't think this law takes those pleasures away, except if people are in a public place.

Home fires. I remember reading somewhere about the number of fires started from people who smoked in bed. Houses have been destroyed along with lives of entire families due to these events. Government would definitely be stepping over the line if they decided to ban all smoking, even in the privacy of one's home. However, with the new laws in place we may see a reduction in smoking in a new generation and possibly those already addicted. A side effect would be a reduction in home fires.

The government now regulates smoking because it is considered a drug and is addictive.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asserted that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco should be considered nicotine delivery devices. Nicotine, the active ingredient in tobacco, is inhaled into the lungs, where most of it stays. The rest passes into the bloodstream, reaching the brain in about 10 seconds and dispersing throughout the body in about 20 seconds.

Smoke Gets In Your Eyes, however smokeless tobacco will not effect other people and thus is not banned from public places. Wasn't there a time in America when Spitting was banned?

Smokeless Tobacco and Kids

I highly suggest you read the PDF file linked abover written by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. I wonder whether this new ban on smoking will turn children to another vice.They say the past 40 years has seen a huge shift in usage from older men to young men and boys. Chewing snuff type products leads to many more diseases of the mouth, lining of the esophogus, skin and lungs. The major problem is that beginning with smokeless tobacco leads to smoking cigarettes within four years.

SPECIAL REPORT: Smokeless Candy for Children

Made by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the lozenge-like Camel Orb is being test-marketed in Columbus, Ohio, Portland, Ore., and Indianapolis.

Don't think that this ban on smoking applies just to the United States or her individual states as one by one they vote in more regulation. Other countries are either ahead of us or will follow soon.

As people throw caution to the wind and continue to smoke for so many understandable reasons, psychologists find ways to intercept the addictive thinking patterns.

Package Design Study Shows Results

• Adult smokers in Mexico were asked to bid in an auction on two packs of cigarettes
• One pack had a text warning and the other had text plus graphic imagery
• The pack with the graphic image had a mean attributed value which was 17% lower ($3.21 pesos) than the pack with the text-only warning, and this difference remained statistically significant within subgroups defined by sociodemographics, amount of smoking, number of quit attempts, and levels of perceived smoking risks.

We know how every day things in our environment do not effect us. The text messages were not making a difference in our actions, so they implemented gross images of diseased lungs to make an impact. Do you think this will make a difference, even for a short while? Take a look at the pictures English smokers will face when the new product design is completely in place by the end of 2009.

I think young children are very concerned about their health today and it may delay or keep them from starting to smoke. Does any parent really want their child to smoke?

Did you catch this story? June 2009 NPR show informs listeners that thousands of non-smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer, a majority are women. I feel this program needed to ask more questions than the simple statement. I understand it was bringing to public awareness this fact, but we need to ask how can this happen?

Science News: Why Do Some Lifelong Nonsmokers Get Lung Cancer? Studies show the majority of lung cancers are related to smoking and approximately 16,000 to 24,000 lung cancer deaths each year are due to other factors.

Why Non-Smokers Get Lung Cancer: 

• radon
• secondhand smoke
• asbestos
• radiation therapy
• combustion products
• other carcinogens

Science News: Good Diet and Gardening Linked To Lower Lung Cancer Risk

To bring some light on the subject. Here is a positive action we can take to lower risk.