NationStates Jolt Archive

Noting that smoking in a public places has shown that people nearby can catch cancer through passive smoking and that no such person should have to have the fear of catching something that can cause untold damage to their health and could even end up killing them through no fault of their own.

We feel the need of the UN to bring in a law banning smoking of all substances in public places where it might cause harm to others ie: pubs, clubs, restaurants and other places where people congregate in large numbers.

Defining necessary reasons to ban smoking in public places:
It will reduce deaths and other health related issues in the general populace especially cancer (Leading to healthier lives).

It will also reduce the amount of money the health services need to spend on people with diseases caught through smoking, allowing this saved money to be put to better use elsewhere in the health sector

We are pro-legalisation of drugs and will not be supporting your proposal. Although clubs, pubs etc. can ban smoking we feel no need to mandate this internationally.

The statement 'allowing this saved money to be put to better use elsewhere in the health sector' appals me as it suggest separation between 'deserving' and 'undeserving' patients.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States.

I am not saying there are 'deserving' and 'undeserving' patients, but due to the costs involved in treating patients with smoke related dieases much needed money is being used to treat these people when it could be used elsewhere if there was a ban on smoking in public places which would reduce the amount of people needing treating for smoke related dieseases.

My governement is concern about the effect of second hand smoking. However, my government also believes that smoking is an individiual choice. As long as everyone involved , meanning the employees who work in smoke filled areas, agree to smoking, I dont see why we should ban it. We wouldnt ban people who eat alot of fast foods so we can save money on taking care of people who are obese.

Dee Marx, Prime Minister of ROADP

We, the enlightened peoples of North Zerovia, would like to encourage and provide subsidies to the malodorious peoples of South Zerovia to facilitate the mass distribution of cigarettes and "chew" to all citizens.

The North Zerovian delegation wholeheartedly supports any resolutions forbidding paper currency in favor of rolling-paper-currency, and wishes to extend an olive branch of tobacco leaves to our neighbors, the South Zerovians, in hopes that they will permit our Administration of Food and Drug Administration, Department of Narcotics Rationing (AFDA-DNR) to deliver humanitarian aide in the traditional unfiltered, carton form, in hopes that no man, woman, or child, might need to go a single night of fitful craving.

I agree, I feel that if you want to smoke, do it, just not when I am there getting cancer because you want smoke. There should be places in public designated for smokers.

Okay, first of all, second hand smoking does not cause cancer. Yeah, I know, nobody likes it, and I'm not saying I do. But banning something that a lot of people do just because people don't like it is not fair. And yeah, I know that the people smoking the cigarette have a high chance of getting cancer, but it's their choice. So me and my country, the Democratic Rebublic of Hendrix J disagree with this proposal.

Okay, first of all, second hand smoking does not cause cancer. Yeah, I know, nobody likes it, and I'm not saying I do. But banning something that a lot of people do just because people don't like it is not fair. And yeah, I know that the people smoking the cigarette have a high chance of getting cancer, but it's their choice. So me and my country, the Democratic Rebublic of Hendrix J disagree with this proposal.

secondhand smoke can cause cancer, and I do not believe it is a total ban, however if it is or if there are no public areas designated for smokers I will also disagree

secondhand smoke can cause cancer, and I do not believe it is a total ban, however if it is or if there are no public areas designated for smokers I will also disagree


My government supports this sentiment. I can only support this proposal if public designated areas for smoking are allowed.

It's been proven that Second Hand Smoke is just as deadly if not more so, as regular smoke. Not everyone knows of these statistcs, so not everyone is willing to vacate a building when someone lights up. Smoking should be banned from MOST Publice Places, such as theme parks, most restraunts, most bars, but not everywhere. Allow some private areas for smokers ONLY. None the less, I fully suport this.

As a leader in a representative-democratic nation, I am apalled at the thought of one seriously considering abusing an international moderation entity to infringe on the rights of individuals. I recognize the negative affects tobacco has on health, but seriously, it is up to individual nations or even individual provinces within nations to decide on matters such as this. Smoking in public has absolutely NO CONSEQUENCE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.

Sincerely,
Phi Rowe of Raskolnikov,
The Republic of Boll United

1. What is secondhand smoke?

Secondhand smoke, also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is the combination of two forms of smoke from burning tobacco products: sidestream smoke and mainstream smoke. Sidestream smoke, which makes up about half of all secondhand smoke, comes from the burning end of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe. Mainstream smoke is exhaled by the smoker. Exposure to secondhand smoke is also called involuntary smoking or passive smoking.

2. What chemicals are present in secondhand smoke?

Many factors affect what chemicals are present in secondhand smoke. These factors include the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, how the product is smoked, and the paper in which the tobacco is wrapped. More than 4,000 chemicals have been identified in mainstream tobacco smoke; however, the actual number may be more than 100,000. Of the chemicals identified in secondhand smoke, at least 60 are carcinogens (substances that cause cancer), such as formaldehyde. Six others are substances that interfere with normal cell development, such as nicotine and carbon monoxide.

Some of the compounds present in secondhand smoke become carcinogenic only after they are activated by specific enzymes (proteins that control chemical reactions) in the body. After these compounds are activated, they can then become part of a cell’s DNA and may interfere with the normal growth of cells. In 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that there is sufficient evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer in humans and classified it as a Group A carcinogen. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) formally listed secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen in The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 10th Report on Carcinogens. The most recent report can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html on the Internet.
Scientists do not know what amount of exposure to secondhand smoke, if any, is safe. Because it is a complex mixture of chemicals, measuring secondhand smoke exposure is difficult and is usually determined by testing blood, saliva, or urine for the presence of nicotine, particles inhaled from indoor air, or cotinine (the primary product resulting from the breakdown of nicotine in the body). Nicotine, carbon monoxide, and other evidence of secondhand smoke exposure have been found in the body fluids of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers who live with smokers in homes where smoking is allowed are at the greatest risk for suffering the negative health effects of secondhand smoke exposure.

3. What are the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke?

Secondhand smoke exposure is a known risk factor for lung cancer. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is also linked to nasal sinus cancer. Some research suggests an association between secondhand smoke and cancers of the cervix, breast, and bladder. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link to these cancers.

Secondhand smoke is also associated with the following noncancerous conditions:

* chronic coughing, phlegm, and wheezing
* chest discomfort
* lowered lung function
* severe lower respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis or pneumonia, in children
* more severe asthma and increased chance of developing asthma in children
* eye and nose irritation
* severe and chronic heart disease
* middle ear infections in children
* sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
* low birth weight or small size at birth for babies of women exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy

Certain other noncancerous health conditions may also be associated with secondhand smoke. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link between these conditions and secondhand smoke. These conditions include:

* spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)
* adverse effect on cognition and behavior in children
* worsening of cystic fibrosis (a disease that causes excessive mucus in the lungs)



It is clear that secondhand smoke is detrimental to the health of human beings. However, since not all NSUN nations consist of human beings, and because of our belief that nations stupid enough not to ban cigarette smoking in public places on their own deserve to have ridiculously high cancer rates, we would not support this proposal. Fatus Maximus has such a ban in place- smoking is allowed only in private places. We have no desire to violate the national sovreignty of other nations- they are as free to force their non-smoking citizens to be exposed to carcinogens as they wish.

As a leader in a representative-democratic nation, I am apalled at the thought of one seriously considering abusing an international moderation entity to infringe on the rights of individuals.

You're asking us to choose between the rights of the smoker to smoke in public or the non-smoker to breath fresh air in public. We're inclined to decide in the non-smoker's benefit. Smoker's can always do it in the privacy of their own homes. However, you're right, this is a national decision- let the individual nations choose if they want to give their non-smoking citizens lung cancer. :rolleyes:

I tried something similar a long time ago - on hindsight I think it would be impossible to expect nations to universally enforce.

I tried something similar a long time ago - on hindsight I think it would be impossible to expect nations to universally enforce.

Yeah. How would a nation still in the Stone Age enforce this ban? I suspect that their effective options for truly deterring, preventing, or eliminating such behavior would be in violation of previous Human Rights legislation by this body.

In 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that there is sufficient evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer in humans and classified it as a Group A carcinogen.

That study was censured by a US District Court, charging that the EPA cherry picked results and misrepresented statistics. Or so they say on Penn & Teller's Bullshit!

Still, let's keep this from becoming a General-forum-style debate.

The only way I could ever see something like this working was if it was designed to protect the health of employees who work in the public. Bars and restaurants for example it could be argued that whilst it is in the rights of the individual to smoke, it is not in their rights to affect people who work in such places.

It’s not a total ban, as people could smoke outside, but it would be slightly more enforceable.

This issue has absolutely no international standing. No support, I'm afraid.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN