Self-Analysis of Me!

I have started this blog because of my English 101 class, and I am now finishing it because of the different views I have established. I have learned so much from doing this project, and it has really helped me grow and learn as a student and become a better thinker.

I have learned about different ways to do internet research. When students have to do a research paper in class, doing the works cited page is strenuous and hard because you have to worry about every little period and colon on each line. In this project, all you have to do it put in the link and your done. It is a lot less stressful than a regular research paper. I have also learned by doing this assigment that the resources don't necessarily have to from .edu or .org domains in order to use them. We could use sites that quoted other credible sites, or that had statistics and looked professional. On the other hand, we could also use biased sites to prove an emotion or feeling in the post we were creating. It was a great experience.

I have also learned that my topic is not just plain black and white. There is definitely a grey area. You can't just have a group of people who think smoking is good for you and a group of people who think secondhand smoke is horrible. There are also people who believe that citizens have the right to chose what they want to do according to certain laws. I thought there would be a lot of nonsmokers who believed that secondhand smoke was harmful and should therefore outlaw smoking, or at least ban smoking in public areas. However, there was a significant number of sites online that I found people who didn't smoke believed in the rights of individuals to be able to do what they want to without having to take into account the health risks. New ideas are sprung out into the public eye everyday and must be taken into consideration for this issue. Every statistic must be viewed. Every person must be accounted for. It is so hard to tell whether or not smoking should be banned because it is really debatable on whether or not secondhand smoke causes lung cancer or heart risks. There are so many different factors to take into consideration because there are so many things that do cause cancer and health risks in general. This topic has really made me think about different new ideas that are being aroused every day.

I believe I have changed as a thinker for the better. At the beginning of this project I was kind of biased toward this topic, and I only concentrated on finding statistics supporting the fact that secondhand smoke was wrong and harmful and should be banned. However, I found myself learning more and more about the topic as a binary issue instead of just voicing my opinion. I began to state the other sides views and why smokers think it is okay to blow their smoke into someone else's face. I came to believe that we all breathe the same air, but some is just more polluted than elsewhere. I think I became more aware of why others thought the way they did rather than just what they thought. Sometimes I just thought people wanted to debate this issue because of addiction: a smoker can't give up cigarettes because they are addicted. But what was really the case was a lot more complex.

Through interactions with classmates, I have improved my communication skills. I am very shy in class, and this project has made me question, literally, all of the assumptions made in each classmate's blog. I enjoyed reading through certain blogs and commenting on what I thought was the right way to solve or address the issue. Also, I have found many of my classmates to be helpful in commenting on my own blog because it shows what I have missed in the explanation of certain topics concerning public smoking. I thought I would have to beg my parents and friends to leave comments to my site because I didn't think anyone in the class would be able to find something to comment on. I was definitely wrong in that assumption. Through reading the posts I had made, many classmates, I believe, changed their own minds about public smoking. This is really moving to me and I believe that has made this project worth it.

Different perspectives on an issue change as different resources become available. I have found that people change their minds about an issue more than one time as more and more evidence is presented. I have found myself questioning my own point of view on this smoking debate. Pretty much, there are many views on all different issues, and I have found that one view may change your identity in a totally new way that you never knew existed.

Link Me to Smoking Please...

This post is dedicated to a more insightful list of links for learning more about smoking in public and the effects of it. These links are from our library on campus and are reliable sources.

Pro-Smoking in Public Places: These links are to show why smoking should not be banned in public places. They state an issue and try to support why they think the way they do. Smoking is considered dangerous on both of these sites, but they believe there is something else besides a ban that can be done to fix this controversy.

Plea to Fix Secondhand Smoke
A Liberal's Perspective
United Kingdon Input
Student's Point-of-View about Bars

Covers Both Issues: These sites are very lengthy, but they do provide a lot of information and common knowledge about both sides of the issue at hand. They are reliable sources to read if you just want to learn a little bit of what is going on with the issue and why it is still unresolved.

Smoking Bans, the Good and the Bad
Smoking is In and Out of Public Favor

Anti-Smoking in Public Places: These sites are for the ban on smoking in public places because of the health risks. They support the ban because as of right now, there is not enough technology to remove the smoke efficiently from the air in public places such as restaurants. These are reliable because they show that there is support, a majority of support that is, for the complete ban on smoking in all public places.

Secondhand Smoke Deaths
Surgeon General's Input
Local/State Government Bans
Secondhand Smoke
Effects on a Child

So how do we solve this dilemma?

The polarized sides of this argument are very strong. One side believes in the rights for human beings to be established by the Constitution and the freedoms stated in it. The other side believes in the right to breathe freely without being worried about harmful chemicals in the air from smokers. In order for there to be unity between smokers and nonsmokers, there must be a solution to this issue before it gets out of control.

These two sides are completely correct in all of their arguments for freedom, but something must be done to connect this polarity before the country becomes complete chaos in this aspect. The state governments should be able to make their own laws concerning this issue, but they should consider both sides of the argument. At restaurants, smoking seating should be separate and outside, so if someone should want to smoke, they have a choice to either wait and smoke until after dinner, or they can sit outside in a certain area away from the restaurant. In bars, certain legislation could state that bars are for smoking customers or non-smoking customers.

Another possibility for cleaner air would be to invent a new ventilation system that can get all of the chemicals out of the air if possible from secondhand smoke. Smokers' rights should not be taken away because of their choice to smoke, but rather because their choice to smoke affects others health. The state governements need to decide on whether or not to ban this issue and not make it up to the federal government. Also, people who smoke should really start to realize their addiction is not healthy and quitting is the best way to go. But we all know this is not going to happen, so it is the job of the loved ones of smokers to help them quit and help them stop contaminating the air of loved ones.

Smoking Ban On Campus!!

I thought this was interesting. I found this letter from the Chancellor in my email today and it has to do with banning smoking on campus completely in January 2008. Please read this if you smoke!


Dear Carolina Faculty, Staff and Students:

I am pleased to announce a new University policy as a result oflegislation passed by the North Carolina General Assembly this summerand following consultation with the Faculty Council, Employee Forum andStudent Advisory Committee. While we have banned smoking insideUniversity buildings and facilities for years, beginning January 1,2008, we will expand the no-smoking boundary to 100 feet from allUniversity facilities, both on and off campus, and we will not have anydesignated smoking areas. Smoking in state-owned vehicles also will beprohibited.

This extension of our no-smoking zone, authorized by revisions to G.S.143-596, provides an opportunity for the University to sustain itsdedication to a healthy work and learning environment. It allows us toreduce the potential for exposure to second-hand smoke as we reinforcethe efforts of our colleagues in UNC Health Care. Since July 4, thehealth system, School of Medicine and Campus Health Services haveprohibited smoking anywhere on the grounds and parking areas aroundtheir buildings.

The practical effect of this University policy is that the campus willbe smoke-free. We will begin posting temporary signs throughout campusto ensure that visitors and members of the campus community are aware ofthe expanded no-smoking policy. Later, we will replace these signs withpermanent signs at the entrances to campus. The intent of the policy isto promote the health and well-being of people on our campus, althoughwe understand that implementation of this policy may be stressful forsome of our faculty, staff and students who choose to smoke.

As we restrict the areas where people can smoke, we also will providemany resources to help members of the Carolina community who would liketo quit smoking. For information about smoking cessation assistance,students should refer to the Campus Health Services Web site,http://campushealth.unc.edu, and faculty and staff should refer to theEnvironment, Health and Safety Web site, http://www.ehs.unc.edu.

When the new policy goes into effect on January 1, I ask that you treatsmokers courteously and, if you are comfortable doing so, simply requestthat people who are smoking within 100 feet of University facilitiesextinguish their tobacco product.

I wholeheartedly support this expanded dimension of our no-smokingpolicy because of its tremendous health benefits for the entireUniversity community, and I ask for your full cooperation as weimplement the policy and related procedures in January.

Sincerely,
James Moeser
Chancellor

Theory: The solution to smoking

To ban or not to ban.. that is the question. The answer to the most debated question on this blog...

This issue is as polarized as north and south. There are many reasons why it is still unresolved today. The first reason is because of the Constitution. Because the constitution states that people have a freedom of expression and that states get to decide other laws not stated in the constitution, there is a debate among smokers and nonsmokers. Some nonsmokers, though, also believe in these rights and side with the smokers. Another reason this issue remains unresolved today is because it is a health issue and is known to cause harm to individuals near secondhand smoke. Some people don't believe this is even a factor, and they believe secondhand smoke is not dangerous to anyone's health. When there is such a large issue at stake with so many sides to the argument, then it is hard for the sides to come together and decide on a solution. Public issues such as this, the death penalty, and abortion may never become resolved because of the strong beliefs of such separate sides of the argument at hand.

This issue became so contentious because I think people get tired of having to deal with the smell of smoke when they are in public places. Also, it became a large debatable issue in part because of the health risks involved for both sides of the argument. I believe that some of the nonsmokers think that if smoking is banned in public places, then it will lead the smokers to quit smoking and affecting their lives as well as others. If this happens though, the whole idea of banning, and smokers do quit smoking, then the tobacco industry, one of the leading industries in the United States, will plummet, and so will our economy. This is not a fallacy, but the truth because no one will be buying the cigarettes, and either the price will have to increase, or the United States will have to find another crop or industry to rely on more. This cannot and most likely will not happen overnight. So the United States of America needs to find a solution fast before this issue becomes chaotic.

Why shouldn't we ban smoking in public?

The act of banning smoking in public has become a recent issue. The government has been trying to reduce the risks of secondhand smoke amoung the younger population because of the health risks when they reach their forties and higher. Some people don't believe smoking should be banned because of certain governmental rights.

A certain liberal Stephen Tall believes the government shouldn't be able to limit specific rights such as smoking. He states that the health officials have not yet proven that this smoke from cigarettes is harmful to the health of other nonsmokers.

"Do you think the occasional waft of smoke inhaled down the pub is more likely to harm society than a child who lives with two chain-smoking parents? ...Children and adults are far more at risk from constant exposure to smoking in private places than they are from occasional dalliance with smoking in public places." Tall is stating that if a child is exposed to this secondhand smoke at home with parents who smoke, then they are still at risk and the banning of smoking in public places does nothing for this child. What he is getting at is if smoking should be banned, it should be banned altogether and not just in public places. He makes a very legible argument for this in that if we ban smoking altogether, then it would be very hard because of all the people who smoke now, and it would be like everything else that is supposedly illegal illegal.
Another source believes that smoking shouldn't be banned in bars because it is all adults who have already been in contact with secondhand smoke, but it should be banned in restaurants because young children come into contact with the secondhand smoke. This source also states that if adults do not want to be around secondhand smoke, then they should not enter the building. What about the nonsmokers right to live a healthy life? There is always a second side to every story.

--I had this story written, but I forgot to publish it.. I had only saved it instead..

Dear Smokers, Please Don't Kill Me With Your Breathe

This blog is not about how smoking is bad for you or how to quit smoking. It is not about information on how smoking deteriorates the body of a smoker. This blog is about how smoking affects other people. If you choose to smoke, that is your problem, but keep it away from the nonsmokers. If you choose to kill yourself from smoking, that is also fine and dandy, but don't kill innocent people, or even people you love, who don't smoke.
The main point here: raise awareness about the effects of smoking on nonsmokers, and explain the binary argument of smoking in public places.
There are many people in the United States, such as politicians and activists, who are working to ban smoking in public places. These public places include restaurants, bars, sports games, bowling arenas, fairs, planes, and any space which is open to the public. One thing in common with all of these places: there are a lot of people present at any given time.
To some, secondhand smoke is not an issue. They believe secondhand smoke is not cancerous and cannot cause any risks to health. In addition, these people who do not think secondhand smoke is dangerous, also believe their rights are being taken away by banning smoking in public places. It is the right of freedom that brings up issues on the opposing side of prohibiting a non-constitutional right. It is stated in the first amendment to the Constitution that there is a degree of freedom of expression and speech. This right of expression is supposed to be without intervention from the government, and most people believe smoking is an expression of who someone is. Smoking is not everything they are, but it is definitely an important contribution to the person. So is the Constitution evidence enough for smokers to be able to smoke whenever and wherever they want?
I would say that there has to be more information on the health risks of smoking toward other individuals other than the smokers themselves in order for smokers to be able to smoke wherever they want. Some people who are against the banning of smoking say that there are designated areas in many places for smoking and non-smoking customers, and also ventilation and air-cleaners to get eliminate the chemicals in secondhand smoke. Some say these places are separate and do not interact with each other in order to cause harm to simple observers. Others say this is false information.
So why not install ventilation systems in smoking areas and have separate rooms or areas for smoking and nonsmoking customers? Well the logic is somewhat simple. Ventilation systems are expensive and they can't get all of the chemicals out of the air from secondhand smoke. Smoke drifts in the room, therefore, all of the chemicals and all of the smoke cannot be extracted from the air in a certain area. Ventilation systems cost around $1,000 to $10,000 depending on what kind and how big of a space is being ventilated. Different types of ventilation include exhaust vents, cigarette and cigar vents, and others as well. An other issue is having different areas for smoking such as in Disney World. A problem with separate areas for smoking and non-smoking is that the areas are not completely in isolation of each other. So each area is exposed to the other, so smoke can drift the non-smoking area, and there is always a medium where the smoking and non-smoking sections meet. This medium is an important place because it is the most dangerous place for a non-smoker to sit or even be near.
Why isn't there a law against smoking in public? The initial reason there is still smoking allowed in public places is because there is no significant evidence stating secondhand smoke is an immediate cause for cancer. Even though there are studies where the odds are greater of getting cancer or heart attacks if you are around secondhand smoke, it is still an issue that is not yet proven.
Another main reason smoking is still mostly legal in public places is the tobacco industry. This industry is very important for the United States' economy. It is a large contributor to the economic success of our country, and without the tobacco industry, many states would go into debt and become unstable. In North Carolina, tobacco is one of the most important agricultural needs. Some believe we need tobacco in order to prosper as a state. Getting rid of smoking in all public places would probably cause some people to quit smoking and raise the tax on a pack of cigarettes. This would not be good for the economy because less people would buy the cigarettes because they couldn't smoke where they wanted to, and they couldn't be able to afford to buy the pack they crave each day.
So, enough about how smoking should not be banned. Smoking is the choice of the person. Fact. Constant exposure to secondhand smoke causes health risks. Fact. Secondhand smoke is preventable. Fact. According to the American Lung Association, there was a challenge made by the organization to try and get all of the states to be smoke-free in public places by year 2010. They have to get 10,000 signatures on a petition of people who want their community to be smoke-free. They believe they can do this because 21 of the states and territories of the US are already banning smoking in public places such as restaurants and bars. As stated on the National Cancer Institute's website, 250 chemicals in secondhand smoke are harmful and 50 are known to cause cancer. This is a fact that is way too high to not matter.

"Secondhand Smoke And Its Effect On...
The fetus and newborn: Maternal, fetal, and placental blood flow change when pregnant women smoke, although the long-term health effects of these changes are not known. Some studies suggest that smoking during pregnancy causes birth defects such as cleft lip or palate. Smoking mothers produce less milk, and their babies have a lower birth weight. Maternal smoking also is associated with neonatal death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, the major cause of death in infants between one month and one year of age. "
-AAO-ANS
So, as you can see from above, secondhand smoke also affects babies born to mothers who are exposed to it. Even though the risks are small in each instance listed above, these birth defects do happen in everyday situations.
Furthermore, smoking in public places is a binary issue because of the fact that it can be supported with evidence such as the tobacco industry and the belief secondhand smoke doesn't cause health risks. Under the FAQ section on this site, a person does not believe smoke is dangerous to one's health. On the contrary, it can be supported that secondhand smoke is hazardous to one's health and the government should therefore take control in protecting the health of citizens.

Nationwide Ban On Smoking?

Two Republican candidates for the 2008 election, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, announced their interest in the nationwide ban on smoking in public places. This issue was connected with Lance Armstrong's "War on Cancer" foundation for research. They both have their different approaches toward the issue, but the same idea in mind: Try to eliminate smoking in public places. Huckabee is saying that if he is elected as president, then he will support a nationwide ban on public smoking if the Congress will allow it. Brownback sticks with the Constitution in that he would allow states to continue with their awareness on smoking and anti-smoking issues.
Some say that this nationwide ban on smoking would violate the tenth amendment to the Constitution that states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to
the people."

Or in other words, if there is a right not specified in the Constitution, then the states get to decide if the right, or action, is allowed in its jurisdiction. Because the Constitution does not say anything about banning smoking in public places, or even banning something that would be hazardous to not only your's but someone else's health, then this issue must be settled by each state or local county.

Not only are these two candidates in support of the smoking ban issue, the are interested in increasing funding for research for cancer so that more money is spent to prevent the disease than in curing or treating it. Also, as for these healthy candidates, they have both encountered and destroyed cancer within their own families. Huckabee's wife was struck with a tumor on her spine deemed inoperable, and Brownback has overcome melanoma. But now back to the main point of this article, the importance of funding for cancer research. This research will help in the public smoking issue. To find out more information on this topic you can visit USA Today, the Des Moines Register, and AOL News.

Some Stats on Secondhand Smoke

First, I would like to start off with some real statistics that affect our daily lives. These statistics have been found from multiple sources.

• When someone smokes a cigarette, only about half of the cigarette is actually being smoked by the person, and the other half is, well, going into the air around them (i.e. the air we are breathing in).
  
• The correct term for secondhand smoke is 'environmental tobacco smoke', or ETS, and this causes more than 3,000 non-smokers to die from lung cancer.
  
• Continual exposure to ETS has been known to double to risk of a heart attack.
  
• Secondhand smoke, even in small amounts, can be dangerous to one's health.
  
• The adults who smoke has decreased by almost 20% since 1965.
  

So, the next time you step into a restaurant, and the hostess asks you, "Smoking or Non," think before you say "First Available Please." Here are some more facts about smoking.

Now I would like to turn over to a recent issue in California about banning public smoking in apartment complexes and condominiums. Last week, the legislature in two cities in California, Belmont and Calabasas, decided to vote on the issue of smoking in rented areas. The smokers are of course concerned with how they are going to be able to smoke if the place they live in is completely smoke-free. Read what some people have to say about this CA issue. According to USAToday, the apartments may have designated areas in the buildings in which the smokers can smoke, but the main purpose of this proposal is to keep the non-smokers still non-smokers. You can find out more about this story here.

I believe it is a good idea to make apartments and condos smoke-free especially if the tenants do not own their individual complex. What would happen when the next family comes to move in, and all the furniture smells musty and of smoke? Some people are arguing and that is where they live and they pay to live there, and that they are being denied their rights. I say no. If these people want to be able to smoke and can afford to live in an apartment complex where they can smoke and leave everything smelling like smoke, they can walk outside to a designated area, probably about 50 feet outside of their door, and light a cigarette. Smokers, is it really that hard to walk outside for five minutes if your body is craving that measly cigarette?

Hello!

Welcome to this weblog completely devoted to the issue of the recent ban on public smoking in the US and also other countries. One aspect of this issue is that any kind of secondhand smoking causes health risks in many different people. It is said that more than 45,000 people die per year from secondhand smoke by either heart disease or heart attack. There are more than 200 harmful chemicals in secondhand smoke. Just think, when you walk by someone who is smoking a cigarette and you smell the smoke in the air, you are breathing in TWO HUNDRED different harmful chemicals that are known to cause death.

I am 18 years old. If I have walked by someone smoking a cigarette one time per day for my entire life and inhaled the smoke for at least 40 seconds, I would have inhaled about 6,574 cigarettes. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. This is a very astonishing number to look at when compared to zero. So, smokers, the next time you light one up, think about how you are producing 2/3 of your smoke into the lungs of someone else.