Abstract
This paper examines the smoking ban laws in the U.S. and U.K., which have received both support and criticism from the public. The paper relates that these bands have resulted in huge losses of revenue for pubs in these two countries in terms of the pub sales revenue and customer turnover. However, smoking bans have actually boosted business for the restaurants. The paper relates how various pub and restaurants owners have modified their property to apply these smoking bans. An outline is included in the paper.

Outline:
Overview
What is a Smoking Ban?
What Smoking Ban Entails
U.S. and U.K. Legislation
Effects of Smoking Ban on Sales Revenue
Effects of the Smoking Ban on Customer Turnover
Properties Changes to Apply It
Conclusion

From the Paper
"Smoking bans which are also referred to as smoke free laws are meant to bring down the demand for tobacco products by creating a situation where intake of these products becomes increasingly difficult. Smoking ban policies are supported by tax measures, cessation measures and public awareness campaigns that are meant to lower the levels of smoking in the society through change of human behavior by ensuring that people change from the unhealthy smoke addictive behaviors towards healthy living styles."

Tags:separate, secondary smoke, responsible home, well ventilated

Abstract
This project discusses the bans that many municipalities are enacting against smoking in public. This movement has seen New York ban smoking in bars and restaurants as an effort to make non-smoking more normative in character. This paper proposes that while such public bans against smoking are normative in character with the utilitarian intent to elevate the general public good, they are at root a public attempt to modify behavior on an individual level.

From the Paper
"This project discusses the bans that many municipalities are enacting against smoking in public. This movement has seen New York ban smoking in bars and restaurants as an effort to make non-smoking more normative in character. This paper proposes that while such public bans against smoking are normative in character with the utilitarian intent to elevate the general public good, they are at root a public attempt to modify behavior on an individual level."

Tags:smoking, work, place

Abstract
This paper first states that, while most smokers will admit that non-smokers have a valid point for supporting smoking bans, few non-smokers would admit smokers have a point in not supporting smoking bans. The paper then outlines the smokers' simple requests, based on scientific, medical and economic research, for respecting their freedoms and rights to be able to smoke in public. The paper presents arguments that weaken the claims about the health risks, economic and health costs, taxes and freedom in regards to smoking in public and suggests that the smoking public should align itself with conservative voters to fight the current no-smoking legislation.

From the Paper
"In response to the claim that the non-smoking public is subjected to the second-hand smoke of smokers, one could argue that they are not or do not have to be. Plenty of public areas exist that have specially designated smoking areas for the smoking public to use that prohibit the spreading of second-hand smoke to smoke free areas. Also, public venues can install ventilation systems that return the air to a non-harmful state. In fact, according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the "findings are that ventilation techniques for restaurants/pubs with separate smoking and non-smoking areas are capable of achieving non-smoking area environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) concentrations that are comparable to those of similar facilities that prohibit smoking outright"."

Tags:responsibility, health detriments, majority rule, second-hand smoke, public venues

Abstract
The paper explains that the argument for smoking bans is that smoking in the restaurant subjects non-smokers to the medical and physiological consequences of smoking without their consent. The paper then considers the counterargument that non-smokers have the option of not working or entering any business establishment, but they have no right to impose their sensibilities on other people. The paper, however, reaches the conclusion that the dangers involved are more serious than many other types of pollutants that we regulate very strictly to protect public health, safety and welfare, and therefore there certainly is justification for smoking bans in restaurants.

Outline:
Introduction
Argument
Counterargument
Refutation of Counterargument
Conclusion

From the Paper
"Restaurants frequently maintain strict rules about both employee and customer attire, purely for their desired image or "ambience," yet there are no complaints from workers who oppose the business's right to impose rules of attire. Neither private restaurants nor public authorities have any desire to discriminate against smokers for being smokers any more than they discriminate against loud belchers or nudists. On the other hand they have at least as much justification for prohibiting smoking on premises as they do to require ties and to prohibit loud belching and nudism in their establishment."

Tags:safety, public, health, pollutant

Abstract
The paper explains the position of proponents of anti-smoking legislation who believe that nonsmokers have a right not to be exposed involuntarily to second-hand tobacco smoke in public. The paper then considers the view of those who work in the food and drink service industry, because they are exposed to second-hand smoke continually, as well as the perspective of the health issues regarding minor children inhaling second-hand smoke. The paper offers counter-arguments that highlight how ultimately, the issue boils down to how much governmental regulation is appropriate in a free society. The paper contends that in a culture than permits other equally dangerous involuntary exposures, smoking bans violate the principle of freedom and autonomous choice.

Outline:
Introduction
The Argument For and Against Smoking Bans

From the Paper
"Five years ago, New York City became the first large American city to enact anti-smoking ordinances in restaurants and bars. Since then, anti-smoking legislation has spread to many other American and European cities alike. In 2006, a New York City civil court judge ruled that second-hand smoke between apartments violates the implied warranty of habitability of nonsmokers and several dozen residential buildings in the city have prohibited smoking anywhere inside their buildings, including inside private apartments. (O'Neill & Light 2008)"

Tags:public, exposure, health, second-hand, smoke, children, workers, government, protection

Abstract
This paper answers the question, "Should government intervene in our lives to prevent us from making choices that might make us sick, injure us, or even kill us? How do we strike a balance between public health and individual liberty?" The paper concludes that the government should prohibit addictive and harmful foods and substances rather than allowing those addicted to them to make the determination.

From the Paper
"Federal tobacco regulation and smoking bans are a controversial topic. Although the deleterious effects of firsthand and secondhand tobacco smoke are extensively documented and notably severe, smokers continue to oppose government regulation of tobacco products and smoking as a violation of their individual liberty. Furthermore, recent news stories have identified a new trend in smoking restrictions; some employers are requiring their employees to stop smoking-not just at work but completely-in order to retain their jobs. The no-smoking rules are enforced by blood tests..."

Tags:tobacco, smoking, bans, government, fda, individual liberty, public health

Abstract
The paper provides statistics to demonstrate how restaurant workers in establishments that allow smoking are exposed to significant health risks through their passive smoke exposure. The paper goes on to argue that prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars makes the practice less socially acceptable, less costly to the nation in terms of healthcare and less costly in terms of worker health. The paper contends that more than a few indignant restaurateurs' bottom line, the costs of society and the costs to these workers' well-being must take the forefront of public concern.

From the Paper
"Bar and restaurant owners also contend they have the right to set the terms of their employment, and to create a particular atmosphere in their restaurants--including a sophisticated or seedy image that allows for smoking. However, foot traffic at restaurants and bars actually rose after the ban went into effect (Rutenberg & Koppel 2005, p.1). Even one smoker admitted he was converted to a non-smoking atmosphere, saying now: "I'm all for it. My dry-cleaning bill's gone way down...And I'm smoking less" (Rutenberg & Koppel 2005, p.2). Once upon a time, smoking was allowed in all workplaces. However, as the health consequences of smoking became know, more people adapted to the smoke-free environments, and Americans are less likely to smoke, because it is less socially acceptable. Just like 'sin taxes' and banning vending machines, prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars makes the practice less socially acceptable, and less costly to the nation in terms of healthcare, as well as less costly in terms of worker health. It sets an example for all patrons that smoking is not normative.
"Nonsmoking restaurant patrons should not have to suffer inhaling the smell of tobacco, especially while paying New York City prices for food and drink. Furthermore, the ban does not apply to outdoor locations or cigar bars, so people can still smoke in a few select hospitality-related establishments (Cross 2009). However, by severely limiting the types of establishments were smoking is allowed, as well as the location, career waiters and other industry employees will not have to chose between their livelihood and their lives--they can choose to work in a non-smoking environment."

Tags:smoke, exposure, waiters, busboys, bartenders

Abstract
The paper focuses on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold gun rights in the famous Washington DC gun ban case and argues that allowing citizens over the age of eighteen to own handguns increases both gun related death and injury in addition to crime. The paper argues further that injuries and deaths will especially rise in the vulnerable groups of juveniles and the mentally ill. The paper calls for a federally mandated gun ban that will solve the problem of gun crime and gun safety.

From the Paper
"With the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold gun rights in the famous DC gun ban case, the issue of gun control has become a topic of great discussion in recent weeks. While the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the second amendment in terms of private citizens answers some constitutional questions about the issue, it does not put an end to all firearm regulations. For instance, the sale of firearms can still be regulated; criminals and the mentally ill can still be banned from carrying weapons; bans in certain areas, like schools, are still permissible; and conceal and carry laws are still in place (Doherty). Despite the regulations that remain, lifting the Washington, D.C. gun ban has implications for both legal and criminal justice fields."

Tags:juveniles, mentally, ill, crime, safety, firearms

Abstract
The paper addresses the political and social climate leading up to the gun bans put into effect during President Clinton's term in office and explains how the intense crime wave from which the nation was suffering led to an emotional appeal for gun control from gun control advocates. The paper explores the background, provisions and constitutional validity of the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban and Bureau of Alcohol Firearms and Tobacco (BATF) regulations. The paper notes the limited measure of success from the Assault Weapons Ban but then shows where and how the Assault Weapons Ban failed. The paper emphasizes how the pro-control polices and legislation of the Clinton Administration were ultimately unsuccessful in achieving their desired results.

Outline:
Section I: Introduction
Section II: National Sentiments Leading to Gun Bans
Section III: Brady Bill
Section IV: Assault Weapons Ban and BATF Regulations
Section V: Where the Bans Achieved Success
Section VI: Where and How the Assault Weapons Ban Failed
Section VII: Conclusion

From the Paper
"Through the 1980s, the American people suffered through a crime wave that was peppered with headline grabbing mass shootings perpetrated with the assistance of media-dubbed "assault weapons." The American people turned in fear to their government, demanding comprehensive crime control. Groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formed from Handgun Control Inc., pushed strongly for gun control, launching nationwide campaigns to increase the registration, restriction, and government control of firearms. The results from this push for control were varied pieces of legislation which were passed in multiple states, but the culmination of the efforts for more gun control were manifested in the laws passed during and the policies practiced by the administration of President Clinton."

Tags:Brady, Bill, Assault, Weapons, Ban, gun, control, violence, crime, advocacy, BATF

Abstract
This paper discusses the newspaper articles on San Francisco's ban on plastic bags; San Francisco voted ten to one that plastic bags used at grocery stores be banned. While San Francisco is the first state to ban plastic bags, more cities may follow their example. The paper encourages the reader to consider the facts about plastic bans, compare the facts about compostable bags and paper bags, and decide to take immediate action about these plastic bags.

From the Paper
"Imagine the number of plastic bags used throughout the United States. Charlie Goodyear (2007) for the Chronicle states that it takes over 400,000 gallons of oil to manufacture 100 million bags. San Francisco voted ten to one that plastic bags used at grocery stores be banned. While San Francisco is the first state to ban plastic bags, more cities may follow their example. Consider the facts about plastic bans, compare the facts about compostable bags and paper bags, and decide to take immediate action about these plastic bags."

Tags:plastic, paper, ban