It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States

Con asserts that second hand smoke inhaled outside on public property is safe, even if there is a slight amount of risk. He goes to the conclusion of the US Surgeon General Report, but in the report it is also said " The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist" (1) Not to mention, the Surgeon General Report also referred to there being no safe level of second hand smoke in their follow up release "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: Secondhand Smoke and What It Means to You", saying, "There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. " (2) However, a more convincing claim was in the actual report when they claimed "For infants, children, and adults with asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible individuals. " (1) So, even if Con's assertion was correct that most people can't be overly harmed by brief intakes of secondhand smoke, there is a minority that could see major health problems from having more smoke in the air. Con then asserts that outdoor smoking has little risk because air currents carry the smoke away, as it dilutes and therefore is not overly harmful. However, a study by Stanford University showed that inhaling smoke in the air can be much like inhaling smoke indoors. Wayne Ott who helped run the study said "if you're at a sidewalk caf", and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke. " (3) Therefore, this study shows that it can be just as dangerous to be with someone smoking outside as it is inside, which following the logic quoted by Con from the Surgeon General Report ("[e]liminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. "), then smoking on outdoor public property should be eliminated. Also, one has to account for all the indoor buildings that are public property, that people work in. (4) The Science Daily article shows that merely being around someone smoking can cause harm, as "Exposure to the secondhand smoke produced by as little as two cigarettes was found to almost completely stop the function of a cell's sodium pump within a few hours. " (5) Once again, reinforcing the idea that there is no safe level of exposure. Even though the exact level of harm is unknown, it is known that it is harmful, as "The competence of the cell's sodium pump, i. e. , its inability to regulate sodium, is predictive of cell damage, disease progression and ultimately, survival. " (5) Not knowing the exact level of how harmful something is, but knowing it's harmful is not appealing to fear. Con himself did the opposite when he claimed he didn't know at what level second hand smoke becomes dangerous. Same with saying something could be harmful in the long run. I was using Con's logic that the more frequently you're exposed to smoke, the more harmful it is. Therefore, in the scenario I suggested of a person who has to frequently go to an area with a lot of smoke, means by Con's logic could potentially be very harmful in the long run. For example, say someone has to ride public transit everyday to get to work and everyone smokes there. Just because something's illegal doesn't mean it is enforced when there is nobody around to enforce it. However, if someone is around, it becomes a health risk as explained above. To conclude, second hand smoke poses multiple health risks in any environment, so therefore it should be illegal to smoke on public property, because being a potentially lethal health risk, it violates one's unalienable right to life. 1-. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... 2-. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... 3-. http://news.stanford.edu... 4-. http://www.wisegeek.org... 5-. http://www.sciencedaily.com...