About a month and a half ago, while I was out in Wisconsin, I was surprised to find that smoking is still allowed in restaurants. Being a native New Englander who has also lived in California -- where smoking in restaurants and bars has been banned for quite some time -- my personal knowledge of smoking bans caused me to be somewhat presumptive in thinking this was a nationwide trend. No offense to Wisconsin (or any other states that don't have a restaurant/bar smoking ban) ... but shouldn't it be?

If you take a recent Women's Health article on the topic of secondhand smoke into consideration, it's hard to argue against such a suggestion. According to said article, it takes thirty minutes or less for secondhand smoke to damage blood vessels and increase your risk of cardiovascular disease. Even such brief exposure disrupts normal expansion and contraction of blood vessels -- and it destroys EPCs, cells that help repair the arterial lining.

Look, I'm all in favor of people having the right to live their life without too much government interference. But, people eating at a restaurant also have the right to not have secondhand smoke destroy their blood vessels. While it's true that these folks could always eat somewhere else if the smoke bothers them, frankly, shouldn't it be the smokers who should go somewhere else?

Your thoughts?

Source

Though smokers in India start later than in the U.S. and smoke fewer cigarettes, they're still in danger of a major smoking epidemic that could lead to up to a million deaths in the next few years. Many of those smokers are poor and illiterate, and health experts believe that picture warnings on cigarette packages may be more effective than written warnings. Tobacco companies have so far successfully fought to keep the warnings off cigarette packaging.

Though smoking bans are becoming more popular in the U.S., in India, says MSNBC, smokers light up anywhere, including school playgrounds and hospitals. Most smokers in India, according to a recent study, don't stop smoking until they fall ill. Health experts in India are taking this research seriously, but it's clear they have a long way to go.

Source

Whenever there's a story about a public smoking ban or a lawsuit involving secondhand smoke, we usually get one or two commenters who think it's unfair that smokers are under such duress. I can see the logic in some of their arguments, but yet I can't get past the fact that smoking doesn't only harm the smoker.

Take, for instance, this story from Michigan. A young woman recently died from an acute asthma attack while working as a waitress in a smoky bar. Smoke is a trigger for many asthmatics, though this is the first recorded case of a death that can be directly linked to secondhand smoke.

Asthmatics can avoid eating and socializing in smoky establishments, but what about the people who work there? There's a bar in my town that's become locally famous, because they banned smoking shortly after one of their longtime waitresses was diagnosed with heart disease. They didn't want to lose her, so they made their patrons quit smoking. Now they're more popular than ever.

Source

Lighting up cancer sticks at home hurts your kids' lungs -- it may also hurt their high school test scores. According to a new study in the Journal of Adolescent Health, 16-18 year-olds sucking in secondhand smoke suffer academic consequences -- a whopping 30 percent decrease in the odds of passing standardized achievements tests.

Interestingly, the researchers set out to analyze prenatal smoking's impact on adolescent test performance. They discovered secondhand smoke exposure was worse than prenatal. The study does not explain why secondhand smoke increases test failures rates, but prenatal smoke exposure has been connected with a higher risk of cognitive and academic defects, impulsivity and even learning disabilities.

About one-third of women in their childbearing years smoke, while up to 60 percent of kids may be exposed to secondhand smoke in the home. Quitting is rough stuff. Keep trying! At the very least, don't light up in the home or car -- head outside.

Source

This past Thursday, researchers in the U.S. stated that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke resulted in toxin levels inside non-smokers that were measurable by medical instruments.

NNK -- a carcinogen linked to cancer and found in cigarette smoke -- was found in the bodies of workers who did not smoke but were employed in a bar or restaurant where smoking was permitted.

It seems incredibly clear that exposure to secondhand smoke is indeed toxic, and in global cities across the world which are banning smoking in public places, the results of this latest study are no surprise at all.

Source

If you're a smoker, do yo subscribe to the belief that second-hand smoke causes no damage when inhaled by non-smokers? While some smokers I know defend the position that there are no ill effects from second-hand smoke, I just don't buy it.

Apparently, many researchers agree with me, as a recent round of research has added to the body of evidence that second-hand smoke is indeed dangerous, even in small amounts.

This new research showed that second-hard smoke can "can harm the function of the arteries in children," among other things. Adding to that, the inhalation of second-hand smoke was found to be "harmful to the cardiovascular system of healthy schoolchildren." What about adults who breathe in second-hand smoke? I would venture to guess the disadvantages are pretty much the same.

Source

Smoking seems to be under attack worldwide as people realize that secondhand smoke can be just as devastating to non-smokers as those who smoke cigarettes. The freedom to smoke in your own home or in the open air are still placed where smokers can go to smoke, but if Toronto, Canada gets its way, smoking may be banned from apartment buildings.

What do you think? Smoking in apartment buildings, which generally have interconnected airways for ventilation, can expose non-smoking residents to secondhand smoke -- definitely not a good thing. But then again, one's own living quarters is about the only place left for many to smoke these days with public bans coming to countries around the globe.

Source

It seems like many U.S. states -- like New Mexico -- are fervently attacking smoking in public places, as 17 states so far have introduced (and passed in many cases) legislation that makes smoking in many public places against the law. I'm all about personal freedom, but what second-hand smoke crosses my path in a public place, I'm going to stand up for my health.

As Texas also considers a ban, will more states consider anti-smoking legislation soon? Remember that public smoking bans generally apply to bars, restaurants, stores and other public workplaces.

The right to smoke in private and in any amount should never be taken away from the American public in my opinion. But, the freedom of non-smokers to enjoy public places without fearing for their health is a top concern for many non-smokers.

Source