Discussion(NCM)
Classmate 1:
I would agree with the referendum which is concerning no smoking in public places including bars and restaurants. Exposure to secondhand smoke from burning tobacco products causes disease and premature death among nonsmokers. There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke, and even brief exposure can cause immediate harm. Studies have shown that smoke-free laws that prohibit smoking in public places like bars and restaurants help improve the health of workers and the general population. Some of these improvements in health outcomes, such as reductions in hospital admissions for heart attacks, begin to be realized shortly after the laws take effect. I would like to list down my reasons for agreeing for this referendum.
1. They reduce the risk of second-hand smoke -Advocates for smoking bans claim that passing a law to prohibit smoking in public places can lessen the possibility of second-hand smoke being inhaled by non-smokers (Rashiden, Tajuddin, Yee, Zhen, & Nordin, 2020). Second-hand smoke, according to experts, can lead to increased risk of emphysema, cardiovascular disorders, and respiratory problems. By restricting the places where smoking is allowed, this can be prevented.
2. They lessen air pollution
3. They improve work productivity -Proponents point out that not all people smoke at the office. If smoking is allowed, non-smokers can still inhale the smoke and it can be bothersome for them to smell the smoke. On the other hand, if it is prohibited, employees can be more productive.
4. They reduce healthcare costs.
5. They decrease the possibility of fires -Smoking can increase the risks of fire in places with highly flammable materials. There have been instances of fires that started from lit cigarettes. Moreover, accidents related to explosions at worksites can also happen if smoking will not be prohibited.
6. They reduce wastes.
7. They contribute to lower energy consumption and personal expenses - If smoking is banned in public places such as malls and restaurants, there will be lesser need to use ventilation and this can result to lesser energy consumption and in effect, lesser expense. As for smokers, advocates say that an individual who smokes a pack a day spends less than $20 each day and around $720 a year. With smoking bans, it can reduce the expense for cigarette purchase of a smoker in half.
8. They result to cleaner areas where food is prepared and manufactured - With restricting smoking, supporters posit that this can ensure cleanliness is observed in food preparation in restaurants and in the streets. Moreover, smoking bans in workplaces and pharmaceuticals also contribute to cleaner indoor quality as well as maintaining cleanliness.
Classmate 2:
Smoking has to be banned in public places like restaurants and bars to reduce the secondhand smoking which can have a huge effect on non-smokers as well as smokers. Smoking increases the SHS in the air effecting the individual, people around them and environment.
After the implementation of the legislative bill, a research was conducted around the hospital in Canada. The smoking was strictly prohibited indoors and everyone including the working staff was not allowed to smoke. The results of the research showed the air was cleaner and less need for air filters which can be a saving in budget for the establishment and also a good environment to workers and patients which further improved their health. The referendum to ban smoking in public places like bars and restaurants had to be established in all the states for health of people and less environment pollution.