Bar and restaurant owners also contend they have the right to set the terms of their employment, and to create a particular atmosphere in their restaurants -- including a sophisticated or seedy image that allows for smoking. However, foot traffic at restaurants and bars actually rose after the ban went into effect (Rutenberg & Koppel 2005, p.1). Even one smoker admitted he was converted to a non-smoking atmosphere, saying now: "I'm all for it. My dry-cleaning bill's gone way down…and I'm smoking less" (Rutenberg & Koppel 2005, p.2). Once upon a time, smoking was allowed in all workplaces. However, as the health consequences of smoking became know, more people adapted to the smoke-free environments, and Americans are less likely to smoke, because it is less socially acceptable. Just like 'sin taxes' and banning vending machines, prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars makes the practice less socially acceptable, and less costly to the nation in terms of healthcare, as well as less costly in terms of worker health. It sets an example for all patrons that smoking is not normative.
Nonsmoking restaurant patrons should not have to suffer inhaling the smell of tobacco, especially while paying New York City prices for food and drink. Furthermore, the ban does not apply to outdoor locations or cigar bars, so people can still smoke in a few select hospitality-related establishments (Cross 2009). However, by severely limiting the types of establishments were smoking is allowed, as well as the location, career waiters and other industry employees will not have to chose between their livelihood and their lives -- they can choose to work in a non-smoking environment.
The consequences of smoking are never limited to the individual:...
Smoking Ban Tobacco smoke should certainly be considered a toxic chemical, and its risks to human health have been well-known for decades. Any reasonable person -- or indeed anyone who is even slightly familiar with the medical and scientific evidence -- would certainly know this today. Forty years ago, the federal government banned tobacco advertising from radio and television and put warning labels on tobacco products, while class action lawsuits have
Deception of the Tobacco Industry Smoking is a factor, and an important factor, in the production of carcinoma in the lung," wrote Richard Doll and Bradford Hill some fifty years ago. It was this first study which would initiate all others. It was this first study which would be expanded and eventually establish smoking as a major health risk linking it to problems including everything from heart disease to bronchitis,
Indoor Air Quality This report discusses viable options for reducing indoor pollutants in order to improve indoor air quality. This work focuses on three major concerns in regard to indoor air quality: poor ventilation, indoor smoking, and other indoor pollutants. The media bombards us daily with information regarding external pollution such as the emissions from automobiles, water contaminants, basic garbage and of course the smoke stacks of industry. But most
Bans save cash. It is costly to encourage smoking in prisons. Smoke-harmed detainees and staff require costly medical care, for different tobacco impacts. Citizens pay, both by expanded duties, and by expanded insurance rates. The prison authorities must raise the issue with government officials and ask them how much smoking costs citizens. When inmates smoke in jail, more bills, hospital expenses, come to citizens: for the smokers' conditions, and
tobacco industry has made its business by portraying smoking as hip, debonair, classy, and a symbol of stature in society. The way the tobacco companies went about doing this was by flooding the advertising markets with advertisements in both print and other media and recruiting public figures to promote their products. Over the years the tobacco industry has caused millions upon millions of addictions and deaths due to public
Psychosocial factors, such as depression, anxiety and social support, also induce drinking. This study confirmed that social cognitive factors drove college students to report on their own drinking. Psychosocial motives drove them to do so only at 1%. Social support was the only significant psychosocial predictor. The awareness of both the positive and negative consequences of drinking was quite likely behind the willingness of college students to report on
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now