Smoking Ban

In June of 2011, the editorial board from the Austin American Statesman wrote an editorial about the proposed statewide smoking ban that had an opportunity to be looked at in the special session. Creditability is established based on the fact that the Austin American Statesman is a well-respected and reputable newspaper in Austin. However, it could be considered less credible because the author is not clearly stated. It only says "Editorial Board". Who exactly is the editorial board? Also, because the Statesman is more of a liberal newspaper (it's an Austin Newspaper!), there may be some bias present in regards to healthcare. However, the statistics that this editorial provides are pretty captivating, and in my opinion does a good job of connecting to the audience, who are health conscience Texans and business owners. This editorial is also targeted towards people who are worried about exposure to secondhand smoke, which is inevitable when someone is smoking in a public place like a restaurant. The full editorial can be read here.

The Statesman editorial board argues that the Texas legislatures should revisit this issue in the special session because of the healthcare money it would save in regards to people who need treatment from being exposed to secondhand smoke. The editorial board provides evidence that a ban on indoor public smoking would save, “$404 million in health care costs” and that there would be a “general fund savings of $13 million in the 2012-2013 biennium should the bill become a law”. These are logical statements. If there are not as many opportunities to be exposed to secondhand smoke, then there will be an obvious decrease in patients who have clinical complications (such as pneumonia and bronchitis or the even more extreme, lung cancer and hear disease) due to secondhand smoke. The only thing that is unclear is what the government would be doing with those savings. Regardless, everyone has lungs. Everyone has a cardiovascular system. Just like the editorial states, there is no safe place for secondhand smoke.

The editorial also argues that since more and more Texan municipalities have already adopted bans on indoor smoking, other Texans would too if given the choice. It is stated that San Angelo “approved an indoor smoking ban by a whopping 60 percent”. Now I’m not sure if 60% is considered whopping, but nevertheless, it is the majority. I agree that if many cities already have banned indoor smoking, then it seems to be a popular idea that other cities would not mind adopting through a statewide ban.

Based on these arguments, this statesman editorial board feels that the proposed indoor smoking ban should be discussed in the special session since both science and Texans would back it up.

I am in agreement. As far as the evidence in this editorial goes, it is accurate because when I researched this topic, I have seen the same figures - it is hard evidence. Overall, this editorial provides a good argument in wanting to ban indoor public smoking in Texas.