Arizona started a smoking ban on May 1, 2007. A study done by two universities say that there were less visits to hospitals due to the ban. It reduced hospital charges by $16 million dollars in the first 13 months. To make sure it wasn't just a reduction in visits all together they tested admissions for AMI, which was reduced by 13%, angina admissions dropped 33%, acute strokes dropped 14%, and asthma, which dropped 22%. These are all from secondhand smoke. Also there were no significant drops in visits that did not deal with secondhand smoke.
I think this is a great way to reduce the visits to hospitals. Tobacco products are still a major role for some of the deaths in America and this can help reduce that number. Tobacco is very addicting and many people would like to quit. This ban could help them get off their addiction and live healthier lives. I do realize that this will hurt the economy but it is worth the change. Instead of draining the soil from its nutrients we could use it for other crops that could be grown in Kentucky. Also the amount of horse farms in Lexington is greatly being reduced. This could either provide more land for horse farms or even more room for houses and other residential buildings. That way it would be helping make up for the loss of money the tobacco brought in. Also people would not have to pay as much for insurance so that money could also go back into the economy. As I stated the ban in Kentucky would help more people the opportunity to live healthier lives which is extremely important.
Though some people gripe about smoking bans infringing upon their liberties, what is even more of a breach upon the rights of others who do not wish to be consumed by a cloud of toxic fumes that heart so many of our vital organs and functions. A ban would allow smokers to participate in this activity in private areas, but would ensure others the peace of mind that they will not contract any negative health impacts because others choose to smoke. Fewer hospital attendants would mean that more time could be spent on those in critical conditions and is a way to prevent illness before it even occurs. Smoking bans would not only effectively reduce the number of hospital attendants, but even move beyond the immediate health implications; smoking bans would improve air quality by decreasing the number of toxins and carcinogens released into the atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteThis is fairly interesting. Imagine the impact this ban would have on every state in America. By cutting back the money on people who sit around killing themselves with cigarettes, that could be more money towards the cure on cancer or more money towards alternative energy. If this ban turned into a movement we could be looking at a greener earth. :-)
ReplyDeleteA ban on smoking in public places realistically does not motivate many long-time smokers to quit. Still, it may result in fewer people ever starting, lighter smokers quitting, and certainly a reduction in second-hand smoke. Kylah brought up an interesting point about cigarettes impact on air quality - I remember when we had a speaker come and they showed us the long list of dangerous chemicals in cigarettes. Smoking and littering the butts releases these chemicals into the environment, but a ban would reduce this environmental impact. I find it ridiculous that some people would argue that a smoking ban impinges upon their personal liberties. In reality, a ban protects others' rights to their health. Lexington has had a smoking ban in public places for many years. I am unsure of the actual economic impacts of this ban, but it seems to me that the tobacco industry is doing fine still.
ReplyDelete