Thanks to a new public smoking ban in France, the French will probably get to enjoy longer lives.
French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin announced recently that smoking will be prohibited in all public places such as cafes, nightclubs and restaurants by next February.
The decision was influenced largely by the fact that 5,000 people die annually in France from passive smoking - more commonly known in America as secondhand smoking.
If you take a look at the effects of public smoking bans in Italy, you can see why the French made such a wise choice. Italy banned smoking in all indoor public places in 2005.
A study by scientists at the University of Turin examined the number of heart attack deaths and hospital admissions for heart attacks immediately after the ban was enforced, and for the same time period the previous year.
According to the BBC, the scientists found that in the first five months after the smoking ban was enforced, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 11 percent, which was a contrast to the continuously rising heart attack rates from 2001 to 2004.
The scientists credited the improved health to the drop in passive smoking. The British Heart Foundation commented, "These encouraging findings show that smoke-free policies may have a significant short-term impact on the incidence of heart attacks."
And that makes the decision facing Arizona voters on our two dueling smoking propositions even more important.
There are many negative advertisements out there that are flat out lying to citizens, so let's try and sift through the rhetoric to find the facts.
Proposition 201 bans smoking in all public places and places of employment.
Proposition 201 would be enforced by the Arizona Department of Health Services.
Proposition 201 provides funding for its enforcement by raising taxes on cigarettes.
Proposition 201 allows cities to maintain stricter smoking bans if they choose.
Proposition 201 is backed by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and the American Lung Association.
Proposition 206 allows smoking in bars, and hotels and restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages.
Proposition 206 leaves enforcement up to police officers.
Proposition 206 does not provide funding for enforcement.
Proposition 206 prevents cities from enacting stricter bans even if their citizens would like to.
Proposition 206 is backed by the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company.
When you get rid of the disgusting campaign lies, it's not hard to see which ban is legitimate and which ban is trying to dupe voters.
New ads have recently surfaced from the Proposition 206 camp that insinuate Proposition 201 will raise your taxes and cost more than we spend on education or on tracking down sex offenders.
They fail to mention, naturally, that the taxes will be raised as a sales tax on cigarettes.
Another of the many political advertisements that has recently hijacked your television is of a Vietnam veteran who thinks he deserves to have a smoke with his buddies in a restaurant because of his service to our country.
The ad supports Proposition 206, which as you now know, would allow smoking in bars and restaurants. It's a nice emotional appeal, but I'm not sold.
I am grateful to all our servicemen and women. But it is unreasonable to assert that anyone, even a veteran, deserves the right to engage in an activity that kills others when done in public places.
Smoking is not a victimless crime; France can attest to that. Secondhand smoke kills 13 people a day in France alone.
If you appreciate clean air and want to be able to hang out at bars anywhere in Arizona without breathing in someone else's poisonous fumes, then make sure to vote in November.
And don't let yourself be duped. Vote yes on Proposition 201 and no on Proposition 206. If you have trouble remembering, think of the cheesy but useful catchphrase, Nix on Six.
Laura Thorson is a history and political science senior who might move to France if you vote for Proposition 206. Reach her at: laura.thorson@cox.net.
