is very important to watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q2wiZNtkQU

and read the pdf that I am posting in the files

all the instructions are in the pictures that I am posting on the files

NATIONAL CENTER FOR CASE STUDY TEACHING IN SCIENCE

“Coff ee and Cigarettes” by Patrick R. Field Page 1

It was Joshua Davenport’s dream to own a coff ee bar/bistro, the
kind that he had frequented in the Trastevere section of Rome
as an exchange student in his senior year of high school. Being
from the small town of Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania, situated on
the Delaware River, he wanted to bring that old world elegance
to his rural community, a place where neighbors could meet
and converse over espresso drinks prepared by an expert barista.

“Espressivo” was conveniently located in the borough and attracted many young people, especially the college students
from the nearby campus, where Espressivo was known as the hot spot (commonly referred to as “E”), a cultural mecca
with monthly art galleries, acoustic bands, and poetry slams. It also attracted an older clientele, who came before and/
or after work to either start their day or end it, as well as on weekends, as part of their shopping ritual for antiques and
other curios from the unique shops in town.

In keeping with the tradition of a European espresso bar, Joshua allowed smoking inside the bar and the patio that
surrounded the open-air layout of the corner location. Although Joshua was a reformed smoker himself, he wanted
his customers to feel comfortable. Besides, Pennsylvanians were known for being especially vocal about their personal
and political rights, rights that the Founding Fathers had established and fought for in the near by battles of the
Revolutionary War.

But in September of 2008, the state passed the Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act, which prohibited the smoking
of tobacco products in most indoor public places, although it included a provision that allowed businesses to off er
outdoor smoking on all patios, decks, and outdoor seating areas. Th e general public had become aware of the harmful
eff ects of second-hand smoke and the cover-ups of previous research by “Big Tobacco.” Public pressure not only
infl uenced the indoor smoking bans in many states, but also fostered negative attitudes towards smoking in outdoor
areas and the issue of second-hand smoke. After the Clean Indoor Air law was passed, many neighboring family-style
restaurants with outdoor seating began to extend the smoking ban to their outside dining areas.

Joshua had observed that many of his regular younger customers liked to smoke while enjoying their drinks and small
menu items, but he also noticed that his wealthier weekend/working clientele were negatively commenting about his
outdoor smoking policy, and there was a slight decrease in business from families. Joshua needed to decide whether
to continue to allow outdoor smoking or to ban smoking in keeping with the trend towards reducing exposure to
second-hand smoke.

Questions
1. What is meant by second-hand smoke from tobacco products? Why is it harmful?

Coffee and Cigarettes:
Second-Hand Smoke
and Smoke-Free Laws
by
Patrick R. Field
Biological Sciences
Kean University, Union, New Jersey

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

swamyu
Rectangle

·

I am writing this from the perspective of a café owner and I’m deciding whether or not to ban smoking in my café since passive-smoking brings medical, ethical and societal issues with it.

However, banning smoking in indoor and outdoor public areas, medically reduces the number of people that are exposed to second-hand smoke. More people would stay healthy if people exposed to second-hand smoking would decrease. For example, the Centers for Disease control and prevention (CDC) says that studies have shown that smoking bans in bars and restaurants improved the health of the population and workers. Individual freedom, improved community wellness and health, and the right to health are included of ethical and societal issues regarding smoking bans. These are legitimate reasons for passing smoking bans but not all of them are valid scientific reasons like non-passing smoking bans limits personal freedom for those that chose not to smoke. However, I do not believe the ban is only responsible for the better health condition and most likely clinical or medical explanations behind passing smoking bans are scientific proofs.
Due to potential health implications of second-hand smoking and differed views of allowing smoking in my café this topic became important to our society and brings many disadvantages with it as well as advantages about the health of non-smokers. However, there are many fears about second-hand smoking and according to Pennsylvania clean indoor air act, customers can only smoke outdoors which brings me in a difficult situation to whether or not ban smoking in my café.

Banning smoking in my café can cause losing potential customers. The majority in my café are smokers and enjoy a cigar or cigarette to their drink and food even though the wealthier and older customers do not support smoking indoor areas. As well people could have the option to go to another smoke-free bars or café instead of complaining and bothering my customers. If my employees feel like being at risk of second-hand smoking, they always have the option to work somewhere else. However, according to the CDC, since 1964, 2.5 million adults who were non-smokers died because of second-hand smoke and caused a lot of diseases in children as well, which I personally do not want to support, but just as I see the competition to other cafes and bars I am open to set up a smoking area to give non-smokers the chance to feel safe and enjoy their drinks instead of just banning smoking in my café. Second-hand smoking is a big issue in today’s society as well as smokers being addicted to tobacco. In my own experiences I have seen café’s/bars shutting down for either not having separate smoking areas or not allowing smoking at all.

 

Stepping out of my assigned role of the café owner, I would like to state that personally I feel that banning smoking is a controversial government issue because it has positive as well as negative effects on humans. Positively, it would improve second-hand smokers health as well as it could make a better and safer environment for cafes where families are going to. Negatively, it forces smokers to either find a restaurant, where they are allowed to smoke. They also have to, if they so chose, hold back their addiction to Tabaco during their time at non-smoking restaurants. The laws that prohibit smoking minimize the number of smokers and no longer tempt them to smoke in public places which can be seen as positive or negative depending on which position you are in.

 
 

Citation

Smoking & Tobacco Use, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 27 Feb. 2020, 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm (Links to an external site.)

The American Lung Association. “Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke.” American Lung Association, 

https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects/secondhand-smoke (Links to an external site.)

Cleveland Clinic. “Dangers of Secondhand Smoke: Risks and Prevention.” Cleveland Clinic, 

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/10644-secondhand-smoke-dangers (Links to an external site.)

white book, European lung. “Tobacco Smoking.” ERS, 

https://www.erswhitebook.org/chapters/tobacco-smoking/ (Links to an external site.)

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/improve_health/index.htm (Links to an external site.)

 

 ReplyReply to Comment

·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Ibrahim Azam Yusef Abu

Ibrahim Azam Yusef Abu

FridayFeb 5 at 1:16pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Delaine, nice to see after reading your post I realized that we have many things in common since we dealt with the same topic (coffe owner) we are in a world where people will never agree there will always be a percentage of people that they will think the opposite of one and my point of view when opening a coffe shop or a restaurant I would always look at the economic part and thinking like this my main objective is that more people come to consume my products and clearly so that That is the case, I should not allow smoking in the indoor area and create a smoking area outside so that my place is a suitable place for everyone who wants to come.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Greyson Been

Greyson Been

FridayFeb 5 at 10:38am

Manage Discussion Entry
Greyson Been

Dr. Swamy

CHM1020L U18

2 February 2021

The case study was about how an owner of a bistro/bar was in a predicament where Pennsylvania implemented the Clean Air Act that prohibited the smoking of tobacco products in most indoor public places. The Act is bad for the owner because he has two different clientele: smokers and non-smokers. 

As a non-smoker myself, I was glad when I heard Pennsylvania implemented the Clean Air Act. Even though I love Espressivo, whenever I walk in, I’m smothered with the smell of smoke; I don’t know why the owner allows this; you know some people just want to have a coffee without inhaling secondhand smoke. I’m a father of two daughters, and one of them has severe asthma, and she also loves Espressivo. Still, I’m always afraid of bringing her in because I wouldn’t want to trigger her asthma. After all, according to the CDC, it states that “ Tobacco smoke is a common trigger for asthma” and “ If you have asthma, it’s important that you avoid exposure to secondhand smoking”

(CDC (Links to an external site.)

). As well as my daughter having asthma, my mother was a heavy smoker, and I saw first hand what smoking does to someone, and it is not pretty. Hence, as I see the other customers smoke, I wonder why they smoke if they know it is damaging to their bodies and others around them?

I love the coffees Espressivo makes, but every time I enter the bistro, I smell the smoke from cigarettes before I smell the coffee, which concerns me because I came across a quit smoking commercial one night. The commercial showed a man who died from cancer due to secondhand smoking, not even first hand. I hope the owner decides to ban smoking indoors because smoke-free restaurants bring more families, which means more money for the owner. I pray that the owner values human life over smoking,  or the owner should allow smoking on the patio, which would benefit smoking customers either way. It would be helpful for non-smokers like myself.

 

References

CDC,. (2020, March 23). Asthma and secondhand smoke. Retrieved February 02, 2021, from 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases/secondhand-smoke-asthma.html (Links to an external site.)

 

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Ibrahim Azam Yusef Abu

Ibrahim Azam Yusef Abu

FridayFeb 5 at 1:09pm

Manage Discussion Entry
 

The coffee owner invests significant energy creating and tweaking menus with things that get clients. Baskerville recommends an objective of different buys – in any event two things for each client – and prompts a shop course of action that takes into account motivation deals. (chronic, 2020)

 

The coffee owner is one who has the most voice to decide about the event that was happening in the moment and he is right on the one hand because he is the owner and no matter how much he has the decision to put some rules in his premises without violating the law but on the economic side it is terrible since it only creates an environment so that a certain amount of people who are capable does not generate enough money.

 

I consider that this topic is very important since here in the United States there are many people who smoke, not so much cigarette smokers but rather electronic cigarettes, and there are people who also do not like the smoke of those electronic cigarettes, therefore it must be respected.

 

I am a person who smokes electronic cigarettes that smoke a lot and I am very dependent on it since when I wake up the first thing I do is smoke a little and many times it has happened to me that I go to places where many people go, such as restaurants, clothing stores , markets etc. and I have been approached personally and sometimes by the owners and they tell me that I cannot smoke there and I understand it perfectly since they want to preserve an environment that is suitable for all types of people.

 
 

There are three main facts about what smoking does to your health: Tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease and lung and bronchial infections. Smoke-free laws protect employees and customers from the harms of passive smoking in the workplace, Smoke-free laws help reduce the number of smoking people by providing them with public environments free from temptations to smoke. (chronic, 2020)

 

Giving my point of view about the character that I had to represent that would come as the cafe owner, I disagree with him because normally when you open a store you do it intending to generate a lot of income and for that you have to try to It is an environment that is suitable for all public and not only for smokers, because by making it from only smokers the range of people who can go to that place would be much less to one where it is smoke-free where families with small children, pregnant women and the elderly.

 
 
 
 
 

Reference:

chronic. (2020, January 15). career as a coffee shop owner. Work.Chron.Com. 

https://work.chron.com/career-coffee-shop-owner-19537.html (Links to an external site.)

houfkova. (2016, March 19). Why should smoking be banned in the restaurants? Eramusu.Com. https://erasmusu.com/en/erasmus-amsterdam/erasmus-blog/why-should-smoking-be-banned-in-the-restaurants-448362

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Delaine Goll

Delaine Goll

SaturdayFeb 6 at 2:46pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Ibrahim, 

you said that the cafe owner should be in charge of what is happening whether to allow or ban smoking. I totally agree with that as well as you said you are a smoker and experienced that the restaurant did not allow you to smoke. As a customer, you can always adjust to the situation and in today’s society, there are plenty of opportunities to whether go to a non-smoking restaurant or a restaurant where they allow smoking. 

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Shoulin Song

Shoulin Song

YesterdayFeb 7 at 2:12pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi，Ibrahim.

I agree with what you said that in the United States, the number of people using e-cigarettes is increasing. Although e-cigarettes will still cause harm to non-smokers, starting from your role, it is indeed more meaningful to create a comfortable environment for everyone than high benefits.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Shoulin Song

Shoulin Song

FridayFeb 5 at 1:36pm

Manage Discussion Entry

The role I played is from the perspective of a person who non-smoking. In today’s society, when the smoking ban has become a difficult task. When I saw smokers are free to smoke in public places, offices, and homes, while non-smokers suffer. With the passive inhalation of second-hand smoke, so that people who around smokers are the pain, but powerless, helpless. I think this irrational and abnormal phenomenon is a very irresponsible attitude towards others. The reason why smoking banned is important that when smokers ignore the occasion or difficult to control themselves, non-smokers cannot prevent themselves from being harmed. When I am a guest at a friend’s house, I am very vulnerable to secondhand smoke. Once I have a disease like lung cancer (American Lung Association, 2020), it’s hard to recover and it’s hard for others to take responsibility because it’s hard to tell who’s inhaling secondhand smoke from.

In 【Coffee and Cigarettes: Second-Hand Smoke And Smoke-Free Laws】’s article, I am hoping that Pennsylvania’s Clean Air Act works. When this bill can be implemented, it will help more people who don’t want to accept secondhand smoke. When I approach any similar coffee shop, I can enjoy a cup of coffee quietly instead of constantly avoiding secondhand smoke. Although it’s not very realistic to want to be completely smoke-free in every store, the best way for me is to classify each store. If each coffee shop owner can put a prompt board at the door, for example, we are completely non-smoking shops or we offer smoking areas in-store. In this way, we can better choose the coffee shop we can enter. The disadvantages of this method may cause some coffee shops to lose part of their guests, but on the other hand, it is also better to get some guests who do not want to smoke secondhand. When we can selectively enter a coffee shop, I can better enjoy the right to live, even though this right may restrict smokers, such as going to a specific place to smoke or always controlling one’s own addiction.

In the end, stepping out of my assigned role of the people who non-smoking, I would like to state that personally, I feel that banning smoking is a state government issue because, in the United States, each state has its own specific laws(Widerman Malek, 2020). The problem of the smoking ban is difficult to carry out the unified implementation of the whole country. Therefore, if the state government is not willing to impose some kind of statutory enforcement, the smoking ban will become very difficult to binding things, so that smoking ban in public will always be a controversial topic.

 
 

Reference :

American Lung Association, February 02, 2021, Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke, 

https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects/secondhand-smoke
 (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)

Widerman Malek, PL, August 28, 2020, Different State, Different Law – How do laws on certain topics change from state to state, 

https://www.legalteamusa.net/different-state-different-law/ (Links to an external site.)

 
 

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Valentina Aguilar

Valentina Aguilar (
She/Her/Hers
)

SaturdayFeb 6 at 7:12pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Shoulin,

I agree that non-smokers do suffer when they inhale the smoke caused by the smokers. Just by walking into the premises of the smoke, you are being affected by it in some sort of way. The effect may not be clear at that second but, as you mentioned, the damage may accumulate and may even cause lung cancer. Having designated smoking areas is an idea that might solve some of the secondhand smoke problems, but issues are bound to happen no matter what.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Delaine Goll

Delaine Goll

YesterdayFeb 7 at 3:02pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hey Shoulin, 

I see that you are very much against smoking in cafes and restaurants. I do agree that non-smoker suffers from passive smoking and that it can damage the lungs which cause some sort of diseases and maybe cancer. Like you said it brings medical issues with it and societally with this law, it would cause that none smokers do not need to worry about if the cafe is smoking free. On the other hand, smokers that enjoy a cigarette to their coffee can not do that anymore and this is why I, as a cafe owner, think that it should not be a law and that every cafe, restaurant, and bar owner should decide on their own to whether or not to allow smoking in smoking areas. 

 

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Brittany Heredia

Brittany Heredia

FridayFeb 5 at 2:36pm

Manage Discussion Entry

I am writing this from the perspective of a non-smoker.

The issue of banning smoking in public spaces, specifically Espressivo, is a problem that affects many people in the community. People on every side of the debate have their reasons, but the fact of the matter is that smoking has been proven to cause health issues. The risks involved with second-hand smoke are just as dangerous. Therefore, continuing to allow smoking at Espressivo puts the health of community members at risk, even the health of those that don’t smoke themselves. 

The Clean Indoor Air Act and other anti-smoking laws have been passed in light of the medical issues that have been proven to be caused by cigarettes. Scientific research has shown that smoking is a cause of cancers in multiple organs, heart disease, and pregnancy issues (CDC, 2020). These medical reasons are the only scientifically based reasons. However, there are ethical issues that surround this topic as well. Smoking has been part of American culture for years, enjoyed by many. Regulars at Espressivo love to get together with friends for a smoke (Field, 2010). However, as my peer

Michael Ojeda

has brought up in Discussion Board 2, it is not worth it to keep up with a cultural tradition when it is causing more harm than good. Smoking not only affects the smoker but also everyone else around them. As for societal issues, there have been blurred lines as to what level of government is able to control where smoking is allowed, especially at the business level. It is only logical that non-smokers such as myself will continue to pressure higher level government into asserting more smoking bans.

As a regular at Espressivo, whether or not smoking is banned in the outdoor area affects me, as well as many other non-smokers. Although some customers may be young people who smoke recreationally, the cafe is also open to people with families or pre-existing health conditions. I myself would not like to be exposed to the dangers of second-hand smoke, so I will have to find another cafe to go to instead if the smoke ban is not put in place. However, because many businesses are also continuing with allowing smokers, it will be difficult to find a place where my health will not be compromised. This is a huge inconvenience in the way I lead my life. There are no advantages to the continuation of smoking in public places for me or any other non-smoker.

Stepping out of my assigned role of non-smoker, I would like to state that personally I feel that banning smoking is a local government issue because I believe that allowing the federal, or even the state, government to decide whether businesses ban smoking or not is giving them too much power. Businesses and local government should be able to decide whether they want to eliminate smoking or not, especially if smoking is part of their location’s culture and brings in revenue. However, in areas such as state/national parks and other reserved natural areas, the state/federal governments should be the ones to dictate the smoking ban in order to properly preserve these environments.

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, April 28). Health effects. Retrieved February 05, 2021, from 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/health_effects/index.htm (Links to an external site.)

Field, Patrick R. (2010). Coffee and Cigarettes: Second-Hand Smoke and Smoke-Free Laws. https://fiu.instructure.com/courses/88544/files/13991478?module_item_id=3579056

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Isabela Llop

Isabela Llop

FridayFeb 5 at 3:01pm

Manage Discussion Entry
Isabela Llop

Joshua Davenport owns a coffee bar called Espressivo that was inspired by the types of coffee bars he visited in Rome during his year studying abroad. With the European traditional vibe, he allowed indoor and outdoor smoking but then had to ban indoor smoking because of the Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act passed (Field). Joshua began to wonder whether or not he should also ban smoking outside. Because the espresso bar is near a college campus, it attracts a younger crowd and is known as a hot spot. Although many of his younger customers enjoyed smoking a cigarette along with their drinks, it did bother some of the older, wealthier customers.

I, who am not a smoker, believed it would be better to ban outdoor smoking because it was possibly harming others by exposing them to secondhand smoke. Then, after watching the “smoking bad debate” video, I realized that I would still like to visit this café, even if others around me were smoking. I do not have the right to limit others from doing something they enjoy, just because it might bother me. If I am the one that doesn’t like it, then I can go eat or drink in someplace else. As mentioned in the video, if the owner of the bar does not mind the smoke, then it should be his choice to decide if he wants to allow his customers to be able to smoke at his bar.

One of the main attractions of this coffee bar is that it was meant to follow the tradition of a European espresso bar. When I lived in Spain for a while, I wasn’t bothered by people smoking at restaurants; it gave the place more character. I also have many friends that smoke, therefore I understand why they do not enjoy going to places that prohibit them from smoking. Since I would love to visit Espressivo for the first time with my friends, I think it would be ideal that outdoor smoking is available.

 

Resouces

Truths In Exile, youtube

Smoking Ban Debate (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)

second hand smoke case study

 

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Valentina Aguilar

Valentina Aguilar (
She/Her/Hers
)

FridayFeb 5 at 5:24pm

Manage Discussion Entry

I am writing this from the perspective of a cafe owner.

As the owner of Expressivo, I am in charge of what goes on and around my cafe. With secondhand smoke becoming a big issue around cafes and restaurants, I have to decide whether or not I should ban smoking from the premises of my cafe.

As one can conclude, secondhand smoking is caused by inhaling the smoke caused by a smoker nearby. With this in mind, secondhand smoke could be stopped just by taking away the rule allowing smoking in that area. According to Connect US, banning smoking in public areas can reduce the risk of secondhand smoke and may assist in other problems, such as improving work productivity and reducing the risk of fires. Not only will this allow most of my customers to enjoy their time in my cafe, but this will also save them from any possible dangers caused by the smoke.

However, because most of my customers enjoy smoking while at Expressivo, it would be difficult to ban smoking completely. Both banning and allowing smoking on my premises would be a disadvantage for me because either way, a group of customers would always be unhappy with the decision I have made. An advantage of banning smoking would be allowing my customers to have a meal without risking their well-being. According to Cleveland Clinic, secondhand smoke could cause asthma to lung cancer.

Stepping out of my assigned role of the cafe owner, I would like to state that I feel that banning smoking is a local government issue because the local government is in charge of everything from public safety to community development. This being, I believe the local government should look into creating these public places a safe place for everyone to enjoy in a safe manner.

Resources

Editor in Chief. (2015, September 24). 14 Central Pros and Cons of Smoking Bans. ConnectUS. 

https://connectusfund.org/14-central-pros-and-cons-of-smoking-bans (Links to an external site.)

Dangers of Secondhand Smoke: Risks and Prevention. (n.d.). Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved February 5, 2021, from 
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/10644-secondhand-smoke-dangers (Links to an external site.)

Eisenstein, L. (2020, February 12). What Are the Primary Functions of U.S. Local Government? Diligent Insights. 

https://insights.diligent.com/council-processes/what-primary-functions-local-government (Links to an external site.)

 

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Michael Ojeda

Michael Ojeda

FridayFeb 5 at 5:43pm

Manage Discussion Entry

I’m writing from the perspective of a non-smoker. Smoking has been proven to be a terrible act that affects not only your health but also others’ health due to second-hand smoking. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, we know that second-hand smoking can lead to heart disease, strokes, and lung cancer and that it is significantly worse if the victim was a child or much younger. Looking at Greyson Been’s post, what happens if that child has asthma or just a regular person? Smoke triggers asthma, and for some people, an asthma attack can be fatal. It is for those medical reasons why there is a push for laws regarding smoking indoors and out. However, some of the issues regarding ethical concerns are that you’re not affecting your health when you smoke. It isn’t ethically right to smoke if it isn’t just your health that you are jeopardizing, but the healths of others around you as well. In comparison, society carries negative views on smoking and is pushing for bills against it due to the evidence there is regarding smoking. However, out of the three, I believe that medical and ethical issues are scientifically based on the banning of smoking. Public smoking should be stopped altogether since, according to Vanessa Perez’s post, it is the only way to halt second-hand smoking while helping many people’s health with its banning.

This affects me (My character’s role) in having a more smoke-free environment where I know I don’t have to worry about my health because of someone smoking. However, With smoking not being banned entirely, other people and I are still at risk of second-hand smoking, especially children who have parents or guardians who smoke. Until smoking gets banned entire, I’ll still worried about smoke, but I don’t believe I have to worry all too much if smoking is no longer allowed indoors anymore. 

 Stepping out of my assigned role of a non-smoker, I would like to state that personally, I feel that banning smoking is a state government issue. The reason why is because this isn’t an issue that can be handled all at once nationally, but nor should it be conducted only on the local level. We need to consider that even though smoking is terrible for many peoples’ health, it is an industry with jobs. Banning smoking should be something that should happen at the state level to give confidence to other states due to it being a laboratory for democracy. Over time with enough results showing that it is okay to ban smoking in public and that the repercussions aren’t as bad, other states would follow suit. Suppose this were to be done on the local level. In that case, it will take forever to get public smoking banned all over. Doing so at the national level wouldn’t allow for the testing of policies to see if it performs well via the laboratory of democracy and doesn’t carry massive consequences. I also believe it to be a state issue because some states may not support the movement, and it is better to persuade people towards the truth that it is terrible than to force them with a national banning. We also need to consider how some states’ economies might depend on the tobacco industry more than others, so it might take time for those states to consider banning smoking in public areas. However, I also need to note that this is hypothetical in which people stop smoking less and less since they can’t do so in public. This gives another reason why it should be done at the state level to test changes. For example, let’s say a parent is smoking at home and smoking rates with families increase in close proximity with children, then states can be able to address the issue. At the same time, at the national level, there would be difficulties in continually trying to change things while dealing with the party scrutiny and polarization. In the end, this is why I believe this is an issue for the states, and this issue is better suited at this level, at least in my opinion.

 

References

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, June 24). Secondhand smoke infographics. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/infographics/secondhand-smoke/index.htm

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Manuel Perez

Manuel Perez

FridayFeb 5 at 7:38pm

Manage Discussion Entry

I am writing this from the perspective of the resident of the town. Smoking has become a controversial topic relevant to how it affects the indoor and outdoor public places, particularly the former. There has been a debate among the fact that due to its nature of causing negative health effects to people from first-hand or second-hand smoke, it should be prohibited when entering a public area to maintain the wellness of the environment.

 

The medical, ethical and societal issues are often debatable surrounding the idea of laws being formed in favor of reducing the amount of smoking activities on public places. To start off, the CDC briefly mentioned about the negative consequences from exposure to secondhand smoke, in which it may cause diseases and premature deaths to those who refuse to smoke in the first place (Smokefree Policies Improve Health, n.d.). Studies indicate that eliminating the frequent use of smoking within those areas provide benefits to the employees and the general societies’ health. This extends from an ethnical standpoint, in which nonsmokers are forced to endure the dangerous health effects from secondhand smoke against their own will. Smoking can also impact the society as a whole as it can be associated with a general increase of costs involved with increased morbidity, lowering of the social product and excess mortality (Smoking as a psychological and social problem, n.d.). Out of the three issues, the medical stands as scientifically based reasons.

 

Personally, I have yet to visit the café, but having visiting other places similar to its construction design, I could still predict on how the anti-smoking laws could affect on how I live my life.

Christian Diaz

made a good contribution in her post on the Discussion 2: smoker forum on the advantage of the recent law changes involving smoking with the statement of how secondhand smoke is notorious for its ill effects against humans from its dangerous substances (Diaz, 2021). I would not like to be in a position where I struggle to breathe properly due to the amount of smoking particles that entered into my human systems from secondhand smoke. I honestly couldn’t fandom on how anyone are able to endure the toxic environments that smokers produced themselves, and that is why I am pleased with the efforts that went into dramatically reducing the amount of smoking activities on indoor and outdoor places.

 

Stepping out of my assigned role of resident of the town, I would like to state that personally I feel that banning smoking is a state government issue because they have the responsibility in ensuring the safety of their citizen. While this also applies to the national and local governments, the state plays a major role in passing out laws that benefits society. For this case, allowing anti-smoking laws to go through would go a long way in deviating from harmful environments caused by the chemicals of the smoke. 

 
 
 
 
References
 

1. Smokefree Policies Improve Health (n.d.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/improve_health/index.htm

2. Smoking as a psychological and social problem (n.d.). National Library of Medicine. https://ethicalunicorn.com/2017/09/06/how-ethical-is-smoking/

 

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Jorge Sanchez

Jorge Sanchez (
He/Him/His
)

FridayFeb 5 at 8:35pm

Manage Discussion Entry

I am writing this from the perspective of a smoker.

The ban on outdoor smoking harms the right for people to smoke and sit outside enjoying a drink or something to eat. Smoking is a personal choice that people make and should not be shunned away from a restaurant for their life choice. Most people just want to destress and use smoking as an outlet. One of my peers stated how the first ban also infringes on the right of the café owner that can not choose to themselves to ban smoking inside or not. Another person also used the 9th amendment to protect the right to smoke. I know that smoking can cause harmful effects to my body, especially to my lungs and it sometimes harm those around me. But that choice is what I choose to do my body not someone else’s and if they do not like the smell they can leave me alone. It helps me distress and cope with the stressors of my life. 

Stepping out of my assigned role of the smoker.

I would like to state that personally I feel that banning smoking is a state government issue because the federal government should not have such a large control on policy issues with smoking. Second hand smoking does have a negative effect to people and I believe it should be banned in public places, but that should be up to the state because smoking in certain states are not as much as a priority as other things.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Valentina Aguilar

Valentina Aguilar (
She/Her/Hers
)

SaturdayFeb 6 at 7:47pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Jorge,

although banning smoking on the premises of the cafe may violate the right of people to enjoy their meal, smoking also causes harm to those around the smoke. Even though cafe and restaurant owners would want to please all of their customers, health and well-being come before anything else. Overall, it depends whether or not the owner of the location has the smoking ban set in place.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Shoulin Song

Shoulin Song

YesterdayFeb 7 at 2:33pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi，Jorge.

Although smoking can cause harm, I agree with you that smokers have the right to determine their own body and whether to smoke. From your role, although most smokers know that smoking in public places such as outdoor restaurants is wrong, sometimes smokers simply lack a smoking area. Because many public places do not provide smoking areas.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Delaine Goll

Delaine Goll

YesterdayFeb 7 at 3:14pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hey Jorge,

I do agree with you that smoking is an own choice and since it is addictive it could be ethically not right to be taken away from a smoker and that is why I think extra areas for smokers would be societally and ethically the best solution whether than banning it with laws from the government. As you said, cafe, restaurant, and bar owners should be making their own choice about it and I do believe since I am a cafe owner,  that banning it would lose a lot of customers for some bars and restaurants. However, these smoking areas would be a medical solution for the non-smokers as well.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Ryan Bello

Ryan Bello

FridayFeb 5 at 8:59pm

Manage Discussion Entry

I am writing this from the perspective of a local law maker and due to extensive research like the case study and video I have decided that banning smoking is what is best for the general public. Due to the effects of second hand smoking, the state of Pennsylvania has passed the Clean Indoor Air act effectively banning smoking in most public areas. Some businesses and individuals have felt impacted by this as some people simply want to eat and smoke a cigarette while they do it because they believe its their freedom to do so. But the fact of the matter is that, second hand smoking is affecting innocent people that should not be exposed to others cigarette smoke. Medically, a ban on smoking would obviously reduce the number of citizens exposed to secondhand smoke in indoor and outdoor public areas. This beneficial to society as a whole, because second hand smoking has such negative effects on the human body, lung cancer would decrease slightly and overall health as well. For example, the indoor smoking ban in New York State resulted in an eight percent reduction in hospital admission for acute myocardial infarctions and over $56 million saved on healthcare costs (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). Ethically, the ban would affect the workplaces as your personal liberties, although on really would test it ethically if someone decides to smoke while knowing its banned. Societal factors are mostly positive as society would become healthier and would be less out at risk of developing a disease related to second hand smoking. The only negative societal aspect is smokers would feel alienated and ridiculed due to these bans being put into place. Medically, can be determined scientifically as data collected would show the improvement in humans organs and health by performing tests on those who are exposed to second hand smoking and those that are not. Other than medically, the effects of smoking cannot be determined to be scientifically beneficial or negative. This affects my role as a local law maker because although as a law governing group we seek the safety and betterment of our citizens we can’t help but feel some compassion for those smokers who want to smoke because it is their freedom to do so. Apart from taking away someone personal liberty and freedom, the decision to reduce the amount of smoking in indoor and outdoor places is a no brainer in every other aspect. Francesca Gomez made a great point on the Discussion Forum 2 when she said “Although it’s known that smoking has no benefits, she doesn’t think the case study is fair towards smokers. As the case study fails to acknowledge the rights of smokers and the difficulty in quitting. It mainly focuses on non-smokers, while mostly ignoring the perspective of smokers”.

Stepping out of my assigned role of local law maker, I would like to state that I personally feel that banning smoking is a national government issue because it would have a greater positive impact on the population. Although some states, counties, cities may have more population therefore needing this ban more than others, it would most benefit our population as a national law. A drastic decrease in respiratory disease would occur due to the nation wide ban to smoking in public areas and although some states lean republican or democrat the should all agree that it is whats best for our people as a whole.

Citations

“Preventing Initiation of Tobacco Use: Outcome Indicators for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs-2014.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 15 Feb. 2018, 

www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/preventing_initiation/index.htm (Links to an external site.)

.

Field, Patrick R. (2010). Coffee and Cigarettes: Second-Hand Smoke and Smoke-Free Laws. https://fiu.instructure.com/courses/88544/files/13991478?module_item_id=3579056
 
 
 

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Valentina Aguilar

Valentina Aguilar (
She/Her/Hers
)

SaturdayFeb 6 at 10:37pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Ryan,
banning smoking in public areas, such as Espressivo, would be the best idea. As you said, the smoke can affect those who are not looking to be affected and with the ban in place, it will protect them. However, those who wish to smoke would not be satisfied with this conclusion. So, by creating designated smoking areas everyone would be satisfied.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Shoulin Song

Shoulin Song

YesterdayFeb 7 at 2:51pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi，Ryan.

From the perspective of protecting the environment and public health, a total ban on smoking is the best choice, but I agree with what you said that this will put smokers in a position of alienation from the public. At the same time, it is difficult to strictly enforce a total ban on smoking because it is difficult to control the environment and region where smokers are located. Therefore, while protecting the public, it may be a good choice to provide smokers with an effective smoking area.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Delaine Goll

Delaine Goll

YesterdayFeb 7 at 3:21pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hey ryan,

I somewhat disagree with your ethical and societal view of smoking in general. Medically, yes, it does harm your and passive smokers body but completely banning it would cost some cafes, restaurants, and bars a lot of customers and ethically you are taking away smoker’s addiction to smoking since they have already decided to harm their bodies. However, societally smoking affects others as well which I think it is controllable by setting up extra smoking areas which would be the best solution for every party. 

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Christian Diaz

Christian Diaz

FridayFeb 5 at 10:43pm

Manage Discussion Entry

I am writing this from the perspective of a local resident who has not visited the café but might want to in the future. Smoking in public areas should be banned considering how detrimental it can be to everyone’s health. With this being said, I would enjoy going to Joshua’s café, but he should ban smoking indoors and implement a designated area for smokers outside of the café. While Joshua’s initial plan was to keep the old school feel to the café that he was accustomed to, allowing people to smoke will most likely draw in only customers that enjoy it. This will also affect the health of the staff and people who do not engage in smoking through secondhand smoke.  

Even a small amount of exposure to smoking can have some serious health complications. (Secondhand Smoke, 2018). For me personally, I would not visit the cafe because of all the smoking going on in the surrounding area. The smoking can lead to me possibly having some of the complications associated with secondhand smoke. These complications include heart disease, lung cancer and possibly a stroke. (Secondhand Smoke, 2018). Smoke free laws can help in reducing the amount of heart problems and lung cancer cases we see yearly. The Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act is an excellent example of this as it prohibited smoking tobacco products indoors but did allow the businesses to allow smoking outdoors in designated areas.

This can affect me in a positive way because it provides a boundary for the people who choose not to smoke like myself. If someone is willing to smoke and live with the damage why should I also be affected? Stepping out of my assigned role of a local resident who has not been to the café but would like to in the future, I would like to state that I personally feel that banning smoking is a national government issue. I believe that this is a national government issue because not everyone should be subject to the fatal effects of smoking.

References:

Secondhand Smoke (SHS) Facts. (2018, January 17). Retrieved January 19, 2021, from 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm#shs-harms (Links to an external site.)

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Valentina Aguilar

Valentina Aguilar (
She/Her/Hers
)

SaturdayFeb 6 at 9:15pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Christian,
I agree that smoking in public places should be banned. If cafes and restaurants want to be safe places for everyone, then the smartest thing to do would ban smoking on their premises. Just like you mentioned, secondhand smoke can cause later complications, so it is better to control the issue than ignore it.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion
Shoulin Song

Shoulin Song

YesterdayFeb 7 at 3:06pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi, Christian.

Starting from your role, despite your choice, don’t go to a coffee shop full of smoke. But if there is a smoking area in the coffee shop so that other guests will not be affected by smoking, it may be the best choice. This is why I agree with your point of view. A total smoking ban is the best choice, but it is difficult to strictly enforce a total smoking ban, so providing smokers with effective smoking areas will better protect others I believe.

 ReplyReply to Comment
·

Collapse Subdiscussion

Daniel Mcauliff

Daniel Mcauliff

FridayFeb 5 at 11:47pm

Manage Discussion Entry

This is being written from the perspective of a smoker.

As a smoker who frequents Espressivo, I think the current situation is already fair and does not require any additional controls. Smokers have already been relegated to smoking outdoors in a clearly marked designated area. Smokers go into the shop, place their order, and then head outside to the designated area to drink the coffee and catch up on current events by reading the newspaper or maybe engaging in conversation with other smokers in the same situation. As long as everyone uses the ashtrays provided and disposes of their cigarette butts in the appropriate place to keep the area clean, this practice should be allowed to continue.

Banning outdoor smoking begins to infringe on the rights of citizens. Smoking is a personal choice, and even though secondhand smoke can negatively impact the health of non-smokers, relegating this activity to controlled outdoor areas is a solid compromise because it allows smokers to have the right to decide to smoke.  It also clearly identifies the outdoor areas where people are allowed to smoke so those who are non-smokers and have concerns about secondhand smoke can easily avoid those areas.

The shop owner at “E” should also have the right to allow smoking in a designated outdoor area. There is a certain clientele that consistently visits the establishment, and part of this reason is because they can enjoy a cigarette with their morning coffee. Smokers should have the right to combine multiple things that they enjoy like smoking and coffee, and they should be allowed to have a space that lets them do it as long as this space does not infringe upon the rights of the non-smokers (who, by the way, can also decide not to go to Espressivo anymore if they don’t like the policy).

Stepping outside my character:

I believe a smoking ban should be decided at the state government level rather than the federal government level. The federal government should not have such a granular influence on topics that largely impact local populations. Another problem with banning smoking is the economic side. Adults are legally allowed to purchase cigarettes and the government willingly collects taxes from cigarette sales. The United States made an approximated 12 billion in 2019 on taxation of Tobacco. 15% of the US population smokes, this is down by 20% since 2005. One thing the US could do is continue to heavily advertise heavy for Tobacco Free and gradually decrease the total number smokers. This allows them to not infringe on people’s rights because people would stop smoking of their own free will.

 
References:

Truth In Exile. (2011, July 21). Smoking Ban Debate [Video]. Youtube.

https://youtu.be/2Q2wiZNtkQU (Links to an external site.)

 

Field, P. F., & Field. (2010, October). Coffee and Cigarettes: Second-Hand Smoke and Smoke-Free Laws. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science.

 Reply