This review pertains to the planned change of a 1909 law in Palmyra, New York, which bills itself, “one of the friendliest spots on Earth” that forbids public spitting. The change in city code would increase the possible fine for those convicted of this offense from $2 to $50 currently, to $250 and adding jail time of up to 15 days to the sentence.
Arguments in favor of the changes to the ordinance:
1. The city of Palmyra has a right to protect its citizens from what it believes to be harmful to society as a whole and to promote the betterment of the community. Mayor Vicky Daly believes that in changing this ordinance, “we’re trying to have Palmyra be a pleasant place, and we don’t want people to spit.”
2. The reason behind the increase of the sentence for those convicted of this crime was a recent review of many ordinances on the books. The city council in increasing the to the fine and adding jail time was merely an attempt to bring a law written in 1909 up to the standards of 2003. In June they reviewed hundreds of codes, and decided on the increase to this ordinance quickly, moving on to other issues. The intent is to make this law up-to-speed with current times.
3. While probably intended to prevent tuberculosis in unsanitary Victorian times, this law could help to stop the spread of contagious diseases. While tuberculosis is no longer a threat, the possibility of SARS is out there. Palmyra is only trying to prevent was it sees as a potential health issue.
Arguments against the new change to the ordinance:
1. While other cities across the country are trying to enact laws that restrict smoking, noise and cellular phone use, Palmyra is changing one that prevents spitting. While legal reforms are working to get extinct laws of the books, here an outdated one is being given new life. Citizens think this law is making a mockery of their town. If regal reforms are to succeed, laws like this must not remain on the books.
2. In the past 6 years, a police officer Robert Grier has not once charged anyone with the breaking the present ordinance. He says, “It’s going to be an impossible law to enforce. I’m sure there are many unenforceable laws.” Why have a law on the books that cannot be enforced?
3. Until there is proof that spitting is the cause of SARS, there is no real danger in restricting public spitting.
Saliva is a watery liquid that is produced by the salivary glands (Martini et al., 2015). There are three pairs of salivary gland; the parotid, sublingual and submandibular. Each of these glands have different cellular structure and produces saliva with slightly different content that preforms different functions (Martini et al., 2015). The parotid salivary glands which is the largest produce a serous excretion that contains high amounts of salivary amylase which helps in the breakdown of complex carbohydrates. The sublingual salivary glands produces mucous excretion that functions as a lubricant and buffer (Martini et al., 2015). The submandibular salivary glands produces mucin which is a combination of buffers and glycoproteins, salivary amylase is also released. Each gland releases their products through their respective ducts into the buccal cavity or mouth. Saliva itself consist 99.4% of water and the 0.6% left are buffers, electrolytes, mucins, enzymes and antibodies (Martini et al., 2015). Sugar, Na+ and Cl- are in low concentration and this is to prevent interference with the sense of taste (Calhoun & Eibling, 2006).
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
People throughout the time have been worried about some acts that people make; these acts are sometimes performed unconsciously or without realizing these are affecting they negatively affect others. Some reasons why this happens, they do not realize they are making someone uncomfortable, or they simply do not care about it. Smoking is one of these activities. For a long time, smoking in public places has been extremely popular regardless of age or gender. Many smokers believe they are free to smoke wherever and whenever they. Even if they realize the damage they are causing to themselves, which is a personal decision, when they smoke in public places they ignore the collective damage they are causing others. It has been claimed that despite not engaging in the activity themselves, “passive smokers suffer the same horrifying bad consequences as active smokers” in the form of second-hand smoke (Ecobichon & Wu, 1990, p. 43). Smoking is thus a dangerous activity that is becoming more and more popular in campus every day and is becoming a social and educational problem. Schools should ban smoking from their campus, and those that have should implement stricter methods of enforcing such rules.
Smoking tobacco has long been an accepted form of recreational drug use despite a history of flip-flops of public opinion. The negative effects of smoking were not thought of or even known until the early 1900’s. (“Introduction to Smoking”) Over the last few decades there has been an ever increasing surge in the United States and all over the world to ban smoking in public places. The goals of these smoking bans are to prevent the numerous diseases and health complications that are produced from exposure to the toxic smoke and to improve the overall health of society. Some disagree with these motives by claiming that smoking bans have not actually saved any lives or prevented people from taking up the habit. Contrarily, global research now actually shows that smoking tobacco kills people both directly and indirectly; indirectly, of course, referring to second-hand smoke. Another argument against these smoking bans is that a number of people feel as though they infringe upon their individual rights. These people believe they have a right to smoke tobacco anywhere they choose; not unlike many people who also believe they have a right to avoid forced exposure to deadly second-hand smoke. One might wonder which of the two takes precedence. Another very important thing to consider is while these smoking bans may appear to have a good intent they present to society a difficult scenario if imposed and maintained; they threaten to set a precedent for the restriction of other freedoms that humanity may take for granted. Smoking bans may be justifiable but, like many other prominent moral dilemmas, it may take centuries if not millennia to satisfactorily answer the questions brought forth by the issue.
In a reading “Tobacco Free Campus Reading”: [Why should my college campus be smoke-free or tobacco-free?
In current events, a huge issue among state and city lawmakers all over the country is the debate over whether or not smoking should be banned in public places. Many argue that allowing people to smoke in public places proposes serious health risks for innocent bystanders. Though the health risks are high, many still oppose the proposal of such laws. Business owners presiding over such establishments as bars and restaurants worry that the smoking bans will severely hurt their revenues if passed. While this is an understandable concern, the health of our communities citizens is much more important than the loss of a handful of customers for businesses.
...aw, rendering it useless. A fine should be set at $250, with increasing severity for multiple offenses. The current ordanance does not contain this ever important increase for repeat offenses, and should thus be amended in "Sec.21A.300 PENALTY" to reflect this change. It is this clause which will keep people from smoking in public places, and this provision must also be added to make the ordanence effective in accomplishing its objective.
In 2006 Colorado’s Clean Indoor Air Act went into effect banning indoor smoking within restaurants, bars, and the majority of indoor facilities. The law also includes a ban on smoking within 15 feet of a public place, although according to a tobacco study by Stanford University, 25 feet is the recommended distance to avoid inhalation of second hand smoke. The Clean Indoor Air Act resulted in an estimated 100,000 fewer smokers state-wide and has protected bystanders from the danger of second-hand smoke, according to the Smoke-Free Colorado.org, a Tobacco Free Colorado Communities Initiative. Despite alteration to Colorado law, further action is necessary to fully protect nonsmokers from the harm of second-hand smoke and to prevent exposure to adolescence under the age of 18. Therefore, the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act needs to be extended to include outdoor city and state public areas.
Today, many communities are regulated where people may and may not smoke. As a result, owners of public properties and buildings are posting signs to notate where smokers cannot smoke. Tobacco and smoking has been a major part of American history for many years. At one point, medical professionals even prescribed smoking as a remedy. Now, though, we understand that smoking tobacco products can cause health issues such as cancer. Restrictions on where people can smoke are popping up all over as the population becomes aware of the health risks connected with smoking. Property owners post No Smoking signs to ensure that people adhere to the restrictions in public places. This ‘smoke free signage’ limits smoke exposure for those who do not partake in the habit.
Chapman, s. (2008). Going Too Far? Exploring the Limits of Smoking Regulations. William Mitchell Law Rev 34 (4), 1605-1620.
...ose who choose to live without cigarettes should not be forced to inhale cigarette smoke under any circumstances. Therefore, smoking in bars, pubs and restaurants should be prohibited. The ubiquitous cigarette smoke spoil time spent among smokers in these facilities by its unpleasant smell and additionally appreciably affect their health. No smoking in these areas indirectly dictate the laws designed to protect the right of non-smokers, but regulations by them are adapted or completely ignored. Smokers can choose when to light their cigarettes. Nonsmokers cannot choose when, where, and even whether to breathe. I sincerely hope that all smokers will think about the above arguments, and that they are convincing enough that at its next meeting in one of those facilities they would get up and went out to smoke, despite the fact that an ashtray is laid right before them.
This affects not only individuals who are currently smoking, but also individuals around and in the community. The effects of smoking is detrimental to all individuals in the community, smoker or not. Therefore, the stance of supporting the ban against smoking in outdoor, public places is one that I thoroughly believe will be beneficial to all members of society. Overall, the support and objections made regarding smoking in outdoor, public places exhibits many of the ethical dilemmas present in public health today, and one that involves and incorporates the decisions made by public health and governmental
So there is a tobacco law that says it is forbidden to smoke in school or in other locations where children and young people, in public transport like buses , trains and boat...
Dissuading against public use of tobacco products by use of injunctions are unlikely to convince individuals to stop smoking (Hudson 27). Tobacco users are aware of the of possible health risks that they are employing against themselves while simultaneously supplying their governments with necessary tax revenue. Lastly, prohibiting smoking in public locales will force smokers to use these products at home in the vicinity of their families and children. Given that residences are private property, there is no action that can be taken to effectively sanction smoking. Subsequently, this causes minors who are unaware of the dangers of tobacco smoke to experience the effects of second-hand
“…..Nearly half the adult population regularly performs a bizarre act which is necessary neither for the maintenance of life nor for the satisfaction of social, sexual, cultural, or spiritual needs; an act which is acknowledged, even by its adherents, to be harmful to health and even distasteful” (Aston and Stepney 1982: VII). Regarding the above statement a vast majority of anti-smoking campaigners believe that the restriction on smoking in public locations should be increased and effective actions should be taken by governments in order to reduce the consumption of tobacco. On the other hand, addicted smokers consider smoking prohibition as interference in their civil freedom. Though they argue that they have the right to smoke whenever and wherever they want; governments consider passive smoking’s threats as a major priority to deal with. This essay will discuss the policies taken by governments to decrease or even stop smoking among the public. Moreover, it will present smoker’s arguments regarding their right to smoke in public places.