Second Artifact: Smoking Ban

Shortly after the nationwide ban on public smoking went into effect in Scotland, the pub workers in Scotland breathed easier, scientists said. Daniel Menzies and his collegues indentified 90 non smoking workers at 41 randomly chosen bars in Dundee and Perth.

Before the smoking ban was set in place in March, researchers met each participant one month to test the volunteer's breathing, sample their blood and note their health. The researchers continued the tests one and two months after the ban was set. One month after the ban was set, only 41 had shortness of breath, eye irritation, and a running nose. This number was decreased slightly from the 61 who reported these symptoms before the ban, and continued to decrease the next month, the researchers report in the "Oct. 11 Journal of the American Medical Association."

The people who worked at pubs also took tests. One showed that the workers had less white blood cells in the bloodstreams two months after the ban was set than before. This showed reduced inflammation. The second test calculated the workers' breath for nitric oxide, a gas that is made by inflammation in the lungs. Workers who were in good health showed no change after the ban, "but bar workers with asthma showed a 20 percent drop in expelled nitric oxide by 1 month afterward."

Even though the ban makes the workers and bar-goers healthier, the bar and restaurant owners are opposed to the ban, saying it will cut into their profits. The bars owners who strongly oppose the ban can sign for a waiver to allow smoking in their bars.

Questions:
1. If the ban in Scotland worked well, why didn't the US have one set before?
2. Wouldn't the ban help the bar owners increase profit because more people are against smoking?
3. Why would the ban affect the bar owners that much when they can get a waiver?
Galenet

Seppa, N. "Smoke out: bartenders' lungs appreciate ban.(Scotland bans smoking in public places)." Science News 170.16 (Oct 14, 2006): 243(1). Student Resource Center - Gold. Thomson Gale. Centennial High School (MD). 12 Dec. 2006
.

Third Artifact: Effects of Smoking on Teens

After reading facts on smoking from http://www.cdc.gov, I have learned that teens who smoke have lower lung growth and are more likely to use harder drugs.

"Teens who smoke are three times more likely to use alcohol, eight times more likely to use marijuana, and twenty-two times more likely to use cocaine," as stated by the Surgeon General, from 1994.

Teen smokers are affected by their surroundings. If teens have parents who smoke, they are more likely to smoke and become addicted to nicotine. Also, teens who start smoking early, continue to smoke throughout their adult years and are more likely to develop lung cancer and other smoking related cancers.

"The resting heart rates of young adult smokers are two to three beats per minute faster than nonsmokers."
"Smoking hurts young people's physical fitness in terms of both performance and endurance—even among young people trained in competitive running."
"Teenage smokers suffer from shortness of breath almost three times as often as teens who don't smoke..."

Smoking affects the heart and lungs. The tar from the cigarettes impact how the lung functions. The tar from the cigarettes can cause the lungs to funtion at a much lower rate and can lead to lung cancer. Also, because the heart has to work harder, the heart can become overworked and fail, causing a heart attack.

Questions:
1. What makes the smokers try to take on harder drugs?
2. If teenagers know these statistics, would they still try smoking?
3. Does their surroundings affect their habits, too?

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 9 Jan. 2007 .


parents-smoke
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005. 12 December 2006

Ist artifact

The site is mainly about the causes of lung cancer. Smoking tobacco leads to more than 8 of 10 cases of lung cancer. The longer a person smokes, the higher the chance of getting lung cancer. If they stop smoking before the lung cancer can develop, the lung tissue returns to normal. Second hand smoke is also dangerous. Spouses of smokers have a 30% higher chance of developing lung cancer than spouses of non- smokers. There are low tar cigarettes, but there is no evidence of the cigarettes reducing the risk of lung cancer. Also, when it comes to smoking and family history, are both risk factors, but smoking is the only controllable factor.

http://www.cancer.org helped me understand who is affected by smokers. The site also gave me statistics I can use in my paper.

Questions:
1. How long does it take for lung cancer to take effect?
2. Why do smokers continue smoking when they know cigarettes can kill them?
3. What is the most dangerous element in cigarettes?

American Cancer Society. 6 December 2006