Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!rdin!sarah
From: sarah@rdin.UUCP (sarah)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: The Great Smoking Debate Continues . . .
Message-ID: <303@rdin.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Aug-83 10:00:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: rdin.303
Posted: Tue Aug 23 10:00:14 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Aug-83 22:55:27 EDT
Lines: 62

cFb4*9



	Open question to those who oppose the regulation of smoking:

	  Are you advocating absolutely no restrictions on smoking?
	  (except, of course, in areas where there are highly
	   flammable substances)

	I must admit I am puzzled as to why you are so vehemently opposed
	to the idea of judicious regulation--the smoker is perfectly free 
	to avoid the areas where there are restrictions, or to enter those 
	areas and not smoke.  The non-smokers, of course, can avoid the 
	areas where there are smokers, but if non-smokers must for some 
	reason enter such an area, they cannot choose to not breathe.

	I think bans on smoking in elevators, subways, etc. are great
	ideas.  I also am overjoyed that there are non-smoking sections
	in airplanes, as smoke in a poorly ventilated environment makes
	me throw up (literally).

	However, aside from my personal likes and dislikes, it is a
	documented fact that side-stream tobacco smoke is harmful.

	  "Many substances in cigarette smoke are irritants, and
	   conjunctival irritation, nasal discomfort, cough, sore 
	   throat, and sneezing have been noted in nonsmokers exposed
	   to cigarette smoke.  Measured changes in heart rate, 
	   systolic blood pressure, COHb, psychomotor functions, and
	   small airway dysfunction have also been reported in non-
	   smokers who are exposed to smoke."

		      Science, 1 July 1983, vol.221, no.4605, p. 11
	
	It is less well-documented that long-range harm can be traced
	to passive smoking; however, there is some strong evidence that
	parents who smoke contribute to respiratory disease in their
	children, and that non-smoking partners living with smokers
	have a higher incidence of lung cancer than those living with
	non-smokers.[Sources: British Medical Journal, International
	Journal of Cancer, Committee on Indoor Pollutants, National
	Research Council]

	I believe there is enough evidence to support steps towards
	the minimization of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke.
	I don't subscribe to the notion that all smokers are inconsiderate
	boors, however, I do know that many of us non-smokers will suffer in
	silence rather than risk offending a boss/customer/co-worker.

	Also, as an ex-smoker, I know that I was often quite unaware of
	the discomfort I was causing others.  It didn't occur to me
	that the smoke was so offensive to others, since it was a normal
	and pervasive part of my environment.  

	People are entitled to their rights up to the point where they
	begin to infringe upon the rights of others.  I believe the
	right to breathe supersedes the right to ingest nicotine.

					 Sarah Groves
					 New York
					 philabs!rdin!sarah