MEDIATION OF INDOOR SMOKING BAN By: Josh Fullenkamp

BACKGROUND  First indoor smoking ban was created in Minnesota in the year 1975 called the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act.  This act prevented smoking in some workplaces  In 1990 San Luis Obispo, California passed the first smoking ban that completely prohibited smoking in all public workplaces  Including restaurants and bars

THE DEBATE  Should a law that forces a nationwide indoor smoking ban be passed by the government.  Many Pros and Cons for both sides

PROS OF BANNING INDOOR SMOKING  Health risks of second hand smoke would be reduced greatly  In North Carolina, 77% reduction of nicotine levels in air. (Waring and Siegel, 2007).  In other states this study was also run and even greater reductions of nicotine levels in the air in restaurants in Texas were found. The reductions ranged from 71%-99% (Waring and Siegel, 2007).  Create a more family oriented atmosphere.

CONS  Encroachment of the peoples rights.  Taking away property rights of business owners( Hammar, 2004).  Allowing government to take away this freedom will lead them to take even more away from citizens.  Claim the banning of indoor smoking will cause more problems than it fixes  Withdrawal symptoms cause crime rates to rise especially domestic violence.  Study showed there was an increase in domestic violence cases in an area that recently introduced an indoor smoking ban  (McClernon, Westman, Rose, 2004).

MEDIATION  Pass a nationwide indoor smoking ban but with certain requirements  Every workplace must have a designated smoking area outside of the building that is a safe distance away from entrance  Businesses with age restrictions of 21 years or older can allow smoking in establishment  Such as Casinos and gentleman’s clubs

WORKS CITED  Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events, comp. Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects : Making Sense of the Evidence / Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Washington D.C.: National Academies, Print.  Hammar, Henrik. "Add to E-Shelf Restaurant Owner Perceptions of the Effects of a Smoking Ban." Health Policy 70.2 (2004): Web. 22 Mar Print.

WORKS CITED CONT.  Hudson, David L. Smoking Bans. New York: Chelsea House, Print.  McClernon, F. Westman, E.C. Rose, J.E. “Addictive Behaviors.” Elsevier, June 1, Print.  Gilmore, Noel. “Cleaning the Air: The Battle over the Smoking Ban.” Liberties Press. December 31, Print.

ExcellentGoodFairNeeds Work Context Purpose: perceptive definition of central question, visual & verbal; scope is narrow, question consistent throughout X Substance Development: sufficient summary & insight; slides focused & yet fully developed; mix of verbal & visual information X Sources: appropriate for topic, pertinent in placement, and accurately cited; quotations & data introduced correctly X Organization Thesis: a thesis, early or late, that clearly states both sides of question & its mediation X Introduction and Conclusion: overview of organization given at the beginning; conclusion sums up key points X Relationship: relationship of ideas clear; coherent; visual cues guide us through presentation X Style Style: clear & to-the-point text on-screen; same for data on-screen; the verbal component fits the visual X Verbal performance: engaging presence, name given, neither too colloquial nor too formal; no mumbling X Conventions & Correctness  free from data errors  free from word errors (SP, etc.) X Response Team Response: Questions in class & written responses demonstrate understanding; response helps enhance presentation (rated “Excellent,” “Good,” or “Fair.” X

Overall Comments: Most of my misgivings have to do with what you’re mediating, itself. Isn’t an indoor smoking ban already the norm, almost everywhere in the US? The places where smoking’s allowed are already the exception, aren’t they? Thus you’re not exactly finding middle a controversy, and your final “mediation” slide describes a situation that already exists, if not by law, at least by de facto agreement. Otherwise I concur with the Response Team, this is fine stuff, and you handled the personal aspects of presentation, like voice and body language, well too. I appreciated the cartoons — and more importantly, they were pertinent. You posted a thorough Works Cited, as well, and handled the two Team questions intelligently. A- or 92.

Presentation Response Presenter: Josh Fullenkamp, VE Team: Fieldsend, Sillman, Dehotal Indoor Smoking Ban Josh Fullenkamps presentation focused on the pros and cons of the indoor smoking ban. There have been many different variations of the ban since the mid 1970s and most states have adapted this ban. Pros that were mentioned was the decrease in second-hand smoke that some people find just as bad as actual smoking and can have a huge impact on the development on the lungs of a small child. Cons that were mentioned were an invasion of personal rights to people who do choose to smoke, and also people could start to overreact if they go a long time without having a cigarette. Josh’s mediation was to have business offer a designated smoking section close to the office but far away from the entrance, and also allow smoking in public places like casinos and gentleman’s clubs. Josh Fullenkamp had a very smooth delivery and was easy to follow because it wasn’t rushed. All of his points and topics were in good succession of one another. To make the presentation even more successful we could have strayed away from reading the PowerPoint, even though it was mainly for facts, and making better eye contact with the audience. Overall, the presentation was well put together, and it was obvious the topic was well researched.