Second hand smoke laws term papers

Free Essays from Bartleby | of Second-Hand Smoke Imagine yourself sitting Coffee and Cigarettes: Second-Hand Smoke and Smoke Free Law Summary and .
Table of contents

One study showed that just 30 minutes of exposure to second hand-smoke causes the same cardiovascular health problems in the non-smoker as those encountered directly in the smoker. Second hand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, contaminates the surrounding air with as many as 4, hazardous compounds, more than of which are carcinogenic. Second-hand smoke assaults the senses by causing a displeasing odor, staining fabrics and burning the exposed eyes.

Health hazards associated with second hand smoke exposure include, but are not limited to, lung and other organ cancers , emphysema, asthma , general respiratory ailments, heart disease , and circulatory problems. Also, it can aggravate already-existing problems such as diabetes and cystic fibrosis. In fact, studies have shown that second hand smoke can even cause damage to DNA , since it crosses the lung cell membranes.

Often, we are not aware of the presence of second-hand smoke, or any lingering toxins such as carbon monoxide. This is especially true for children, who may likely encounter residual smoke chemicals in public places such as bowling alleys, restaurants, day care centers, schools and even grocery stores.

Mayor, citing own research, says second-hand smoke is not harmful

For children who live with smokers, avoidance is not an option. They must endure chronic exposure to an unseen, intangible danger, which will have a negative impact on their future health. This is especially heinous, given the fact that they will endure exposure, oblivious to any harmful consequences, because they trust and rely on their parents. Long-term consequences that these children may suffer include the aforementioned ailments, but are likely more complex in the developing child. This may be because of slower lung development, which is correlated with second-hand smoke exposed children relative to children of nonsmokers.

Some frightening statistics indicate that there are between , and , serious lower respiratory tract infections, including pneumonia, in children younger than 18 months of age per year, which result in roughly 7, to 15, hospitalizations each year. Synthesis - Synthesis Papers require students to draw upon multiple sources, generally combining summaries of other material in order to create a new, thesis-driven essay.

Premature Babies - Premature Babies research papers look into the numerous reasons for a premature birth of infants born before thirty-seven weeks of gestation. Thirdhand smoke is the smoke left behind—the harmful toxins that remain in places where people have smoked previously. Thirdhand smoke can be found in the walls of a bar, upholstery on the seats of a car, or even a child's hair after a caregiver smokes near the child.

This may lead to many serious health problems, including:. The health risks go up the longer the pregnant woman smokes or is exposed to smoke. Infants have a higher risk of SIDS if they are exposed to secondhand smoke. Children of smokers cough and wheeze more and have a harder time getting over colds. They miss many more school days too. Secondhand smoke can cause other symptoms including stuffy nose, headache, sore throat, eye irritation, and hoarseness.

It may cause more asthma attacks and the attacks may be more severe, requiring trips to the hospital. Children who grow up with parents who smoke are themselves more likely to smoke.

The Effects Of Second Hand Smoke On Children

Children and teens who smoke are affected by the same health problems that affect adults. Secondhand smoke may cause problems for children later in life including:. Children can be exposed to secondhand smoke in many places. Even if there are no smokers in your home, your children can still be exposed to secondhand smoke. Places include:.

The Harm Of Second-hand Smoke At Work Is Real

Set the example. If you smoke, quit today! If your children see you smoking, they may want to try it, and they may grow up smoking as well.

If there are cigarettes at home, children are more likely to experiment with smoking—the first step in becoming addicted. Remove your children from places where smoking is allowed, even if no one is smoking while you are ther e. Chemicals from smoke can be found on surfaces in rooms days after the smoking occurred. Make your home smoke free. Until you can quit, don't smoke inside your home and don't smoke anywhere near your children, even if you are outside.

Don't put out any ashtrays. Remember, air flows throughout a house, so smoking in even one room allows smoke to go everywhere. Make your car smoke free. Until you can quit, don't smoke inside your car. Opening windows isn't enough to clear the air and can actually blow smoke back into the faces of passengers in the back seat. Choose a babysitter who doesn't smoke. Further, they state that the disinformation spread by the tobacco industry has created a tobacco denialism movement, sharing many characteristics of other forms of denialism , such as HIV-AIDS denialism.

A study by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat , published in the British Medical Journal , argued that the harms of passive smoking had been overstated. Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a letter to Philip Morris , Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment In , Enstrom and Kabat published a meta-analysis of studies regarding passive smoking and coronary heart disease in which they reported a very weak association between passive smoking and heart disease mortality.

Gio Batta Gori , a tobacco industry spokesman and consultant [] [] [] and an expert on risk utility and scientific research, wrote in the libertarian Cato Institute 's magazine Regulation that " Another component of criticism cited by Milloy focused on relative risk and epidemiological practices in studies of passive smoking. Milloy, who has a master's degree from the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, argued that studies yielding relative risks of less than 2 were meaningless junk science. This approach to epidemiological analysis was criticized in the American Journal of Public Health :.

A major component of the industry attack was the mounting of a campaign to establish a "bar" for "sound science" that could not be fully met by most individual investigations, leaving studies that did not meet the criteria to be dismissed as "junk science. The tobacco industry and affiliated scientists also put forward a set of "Good Epidemiology Practices" which would have the practical effect of obscuring the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer; the privately stated goal of these standards was to "impede adverse legislation".

  1. ray charles research paper!
  2. Search form!
  3. What is environmental tobacco smoke?!
  4. vtu phd coursework question papers.
  5. Tobacco Control;
  6. annonces postes medecin anesthesiste.

In , Levois and Layard, both tobacco industry consultants, published two analyses in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology regarding the association between spousal exposure to secondhand smoke and heart disease. Both of these papers reported no association between secondhand smoke and heart disease. The reports, appearing in the British Sunday Telegraph [] and The Economist , [] among other sources, [] [] [] alleged that the WHO withheld from publication of its own report that supposedly failed to prove an association between passive smoking and a number of other diseases lung cancer in particular.

In response, the WHO issued a press release stating that the results of the study had been "completely misrepresented" in the popular press and were in fact very much in line with similar studies demonstrating the harms of passive smoking. When all the evidence, including the important new data reported in this issue of the Journal, is assessed, the inescapable scientific conclusion is that ETS is a low-level lung carcinogen.

With the release of formerly classified tobacco industry documents through the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement , it was found by Elisa Ong and Stanton Glantz that the controversy over the WHO's alleged suppression of data had been engineered by Philip Morris , British American Tobacco , and other tobacco companies in an effort to discredit scientific findings which would harm their business interests.

  1. We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans!
  2. Associated Data.
  3. Secondhand Smoke and Cancer - National Cancer Institute.

This campaign was carried out using a network of ostensibly independent front organizations and international and scientific experts with hidden financial ties to the industry. In , the United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA issued a report estimating that 3, lung cancer related deaths in the United States were caused by passive smoking annually. Philip Morris , R. Reynolds Tobacco Company , and groups representing growers, distributors and marketers of tobacco took legal action, claiming that the EPA had manipulated this study and ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled in favor of the tobacco industry in , finding that the EPA had failed to follow proper scientific and epidemiologic practices and had "cherry picked" evidence to support conclusions which they had committed to in advance. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning…".

The EPA's appeal was upheld on the preliminary grounds that their report had no regulatory weight, and the earlier finding was vacated. In , the U. Department of Health and Human Services, through the publication by its National Toxicology Program of the 9th Report on Carcinogens, listed environmental tobacco smoke among the known carcinogens, observing of the EPA assessment that "The individual studies were carefully summarized and evaluated. The tobacco industry's role in funding scientific research on secondhand smoke has been controversial.

Surgeon General's report criticized the tobacco industry's role in the scientific debate:. The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.

Secondhand Smoke | Smoking & Tobacco Use | CDC

This strategy was outlined at an international meeting of tobacco companies in , at which Philip Morris proposed to set up a team of scientists, organized by company lawyers, to "carry out work on ETS to keep the controversy alive. Philip Morris then expect the group of scientists to operate within the confines of decisions taken by PM scientists to determine the general direction of research, which apparently would then be 'filtered' by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity. Philip Morris reported that it was putting " Measures to tackle secondhand smoke pose a serious economic threat to the tobacco industry, having broadened the definition of smoking beyond a personal habit to something with a social impact.

In a confidential report, the tobacco industry described increasing public concerns about secondhand smoke as "the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred. Philip Morris et al. Accordingly, the tobacco industry have developed several strategies to minimise the impact on their business:.

Who we are

Citing the tobacco industry's production of biased research and efforts to undermine scientific findings, the U. Surgeon General's report concluded that the industry had "attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus District Court, in U. The positions of major tobacco companies on the issue of secondhand smoke is somewhat varied.

In general, tobacco companies have continued to focus on questioning the methodology of studies showing that secondhand smoke is harmful. Some such as British American Tobacco and Philip Morris acknowledge the medical consensus that secondhand smoke carries health risks, while others continue to assert that the evidence is inconclusive. Several tobacco companies advocate the creation of smoke-free areas within public buildings as an alternative to comprehensive smoke-free laws. On September 22, , the U. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against Philip Morris and other major cigarette manufacturers.

The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that secondhand smoke causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants. The ruling also concluded that tobacco companies were fraudulently continuing to deny the health effects of ETS exposure. On May 22, , a three-judge panel of the U. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling. Since then, many others have followed suit.