Smoking is not only bad for your own health, but it also affects people around you. When people inhale smoke which smokers make, it is called "Hukuryuen", it causes much more damage than those people who smoke.
Lately, it is decided that smoking is banned in all taxis in Nagoya, Oita, and so on. It is a bad news for smokers, and good news for non-smokers. The question is, is it really neccessary to do a regulation like this?
4 件のコメント:
I am a smoker and i know it is not good for my health... but how can we quite smoking cigarette???? Is there any good idea??
Today there has been movements against smoking all over the world and it's becoming a hard place for smokers to live.
When I visited Belgium the other day, I was astonished to find how rigid the restriction is there. No single resturants there accepted smokers. I've also heard that in england, smoking is not premitted even in pubs.
Non smokers have the right to be free from other's smoke (嫌煙権) and at the same time smokers have the right to smoke (喫煙権). But the approval rating of non smokers seems to be higher. Peole can easiley get the vague idea that smoking isn't good. i think that's why
I agree with Ayaka that smoking directly or indirectly (through someone's secondhand smoke) are both unhealthy, but I'm surprised by her claim that secondhand smoke causes more damage than direct smoking. I don't think this is accurate. It seems against commonsense to say that secondhand smoke would be more dangerous than smoke inhaled directly from a cigarette. According to the
American Lung Association secondhand smoke is responsible for about 3,000 deaths of non-smokers every year in the U.S. due to lung cancer. On the other hand, deaths due to diseases contracted by people who were themselves smokers totaled 400,000 people last year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. That means that direct smoking is FAR more deadly than being exposed to secondhand smoke, although both are undesirable. It's especially unfair that people are put at risk for disease or death even though they've chosen not to smoke.
I was glad to hear Ayaka's news that smoking was banned in taxis in Nagaoya, Oita, and elsewhere in Japan. I disagree with her though when she states that "It is bad news for smokers, and good news for non-smokers." In my opinion it's good news for both smokers and non-smokers. It will lead to an improvement in the health of smokers if they have to desist from smoking in taxis. Laws that restrict smoking may "inconvenience" smokers but, as they must cut down on their smoking, it can only be a benefit to their health in the long run.
Kaoru noted how surprised he was to see how strict smoking regulations were in Belgium. In the U.S. smoking regulations are generally made and enforced at the municipal, rather than national, level, so some cities are more smoke-free than others. New York and San Francisco have particularly strict regulations. Personally, I don't think people have "a right" to smoke if their smoking interferes with the health or comfort of others. It's said that a right of one person ends where the right of another person begins. Looked at in this way you can say that if non-smokers have a right to breath clean air (and I think this IS a genuine right), a smoker's "right" to smoke--if (s)he has one--stops at the point where his/her smoking would cause the non-smoker's rights to be violated.
Cheers,
Joseph D.
I think it is necessary to make regulations like this, because it is unfair that people around smoker gets more damage. I sometimes feel irritated when all my cloths gets smell of smoke.
I have heard the one cigarette make people's life span 12 minutes shorter, and people who born from smoker have 4 % of low IQ. Like this, smoking is not only effected to themselves, but also for non smokers.
コメントを投稿