Initiative 901 Research Paper
Running head: KICKING BUTT…AND TAKING NAMES!
Initiative 901 – Kicking Butt and Taking Names!
(New York’s ban on smoking in public establishments…Is it legal or just a puff of smoke?)
TUI UNIVERSITY
Richard E. Pyle
Module 5
ETHICS 301
Prof. Steven J. Gold
July 26, 2008
Abstract
In this paper, we discussed the ethical implications of New York’s ban on smoking in public places. We looked at two considerations with this policy, Utilitarianism - greatest overall amount of good or happiness and deontology - rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves, not the consequences of those actions. We discussed several issues involved with Initiative …show more content…
The official ballot summary on Initiative 901 reads, "This measure would prohibit smoking in public places and in places of employment. Current laws allowing designation of certain smoking areas would be repealed, including current provisions allowing designation of an entire restaurant, bar, tavern, bowling alley, skating rink, or tobacco shop as a smoking area. The prohibition would include areas within 25 feet of entrances, exits, opening windows and ventilation intakes, unless shorter distances are approved by the director of the local health department." …show more content…
“But this partnership with Mr. Bill Gates underscores how much the tide is turning against this deadly epidemic.” [7] “I want to highlight the enormity of this problem and catalyze a global movement of governments and civil society to stop the tobacco epidemic,” said Bloomberg. “We challenge governments to show leadership by implementing tobacco control measures, as an increasing number 's are doing, and to increase funding for these efforts.” Let me briefly explain a bit farther my thoughts concerning this subject. Smoking is not inherently wrong, one has the right to smoke but when that right to smoke can adversely affect another especially their health then it should be controlled. Understandable, employees that work in a bar inherently take on reasonable risks in the performance of their duties, but should they be needlessly subjected to cancer causing agents like tobacco and second hand smoke? I say
Initiative 901 – Kicking Butt and Taking Names!
(New York’s ban on smoking in public establishments…Is it legal or just a puff of smoke?)
TUI UNIVERSITY
Richard E. Pyle
Module 5
ETHICS 301
Prof. Steven J. Gold
July 26, 2008
Abstract
In this paper, we discussed the ethical implications of New York’s ban on smoking in public places. We looked at two considerations with this policy, Utilitarianism - greatest overall amount of good or happiness and deontology - rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves, not the consequences of those actions. We discussed several issues involved with Initiative …show more content…
The official ballot summary on Initiative 901 reads, "This measure would prohibit smoking in public places and in places of employment. Current laws allowing designation of certain smoking areas would be repealed, including current provisions allowing designation of an entire restaurant, bar, tavern, bowling alley, skating rink, or tobacco shop as a smoking area. The prohibition would include areas within 25 feet of entrances, exits, opening windows and ventilation intakes, unless shorter distances are approved by the director of the local health department." …show more content…
“But this partnership with Mr. Bill Gates underscores how much the tide is turning against this deadly epidemic.” [7] “I want to highlight the enormity of this problem and catalyze a global movement of governments and civil society to stop the tobacco epidemic,” said Bloomberg. “We challenge governments to show leadership by implementing tobacco control measures, as an increasing number 's are doing, and to increase funding for these efforts.” Let me briefly explain a bit farther my thoughts concerning this subject. Smoking is not inherently wrong, one has the right to smoke but when that right to smoke can adversely affect another especially their health then it should be controlled. Understandable, employees that work in a bar inherently take on reasonable risks in the performance of their duties, but should they be needlessly subjected to cancer causing agents like tobacco and second hand smoke? I say