Cities Have the Right to Ban Smoking in Public - Essay Example

? Topic: Cities Have the Right to Ban Smoking in Public. Introduction: Humans have different cultures and prefer different lifestyles. Cigarette smoking over the past decades has not only become a lifestyle for some, but was on the verge of becoming a culture before governments saw it fit to introduce restrictions. The most current maneuver was the ban imposed on public smoking in some city states such as New York (Brandt, 2009). One of the main reasons behind the ban on public smoking is the health risks associated with both passive and active smoking (Britton, 2004). John Britton (2004) in his brief analysis on the “ABC’s of Smoking” highlights the numerous health risks related to both active and passive smoking. For starters, smoking is addictive owing to the massive amount of nicotine. Health specialists also report that Nicotine subsequently increases the levels of cholesterol in the body. Secondly there are other more serious risks such as lung cancer associated with tar, a major component of tobacco cigarettes. There are also numerous cardiovascular conditions that may arise such as Coronary thrombosis and cerebral thrombosis (Britton, 2004). The government postulates that putting a ban on public smoking will reduce the chances of these diseases claiming more lives than they already have. A national survey in America, for instance, indicates that tobacco related deaths supersede those related to AIDS, Murder and car crushes combined. Seeing as these deaths are preventable it would be against the public interest if the government did not take appropriate actions. This ban may also be beneficial to the smoker. Boyle et al (2010), postulate that the ban encourages the smokers to quit because they will smoke in only restricted areas. Reduced smoking will reduce the above mentioned diseases significantly and even mitigate the spiraling health care costs. In the year 2009, in light of the public smoking ban in Colorado, reports indicate that there was a 41% drop in heart attacks (Haber, 2010). However, other findings indicate that an individual under pressure such as the smoking ban is more likely to smoke more when they get the chance to do so (Britton, 2004). On the other hand, social behaviorists hope that reduced public smoking will reduce the chances of other people especially young people from adapting the habit. Nonetheless, there is something this ban overlooks in regard to the youth. First, youths derive pleasure from engaging in illegal activities more than legal ones. Secondly, other social media such television (movies in particular) makes smoking seem acceptable to the youth (Boyle et al, 2010). The most controversial stand both the pro smoking ban and those against it take is the constitutional approach. Persons who smoke claim the ban is against their personal liberties while non-smokers claim to smoke in public undermines their personal liberties (Brandt, 2009). The Fifth and fourteenth amendment dictate that personal liberties should not be deprived without due process. The Supreme Court agrees that the term “liberty” as described in Section One of the 14th Amendment is subject to ambiguity. John Locke in his writings on the Second Treatise on Government maintains that there are entities that are above individual rights (Brandt, 2009). These entities include the government and society. In view of this, for as long as personal liberties infringe on these two entities, the government can strike down the individual liberties. Stewart Mill is of the same opinion and voices this fact in his text “On Liberty”. In summary, societal rights take precedence over the rights of an individual in instances where the actions of an individual infringe on those of the public. With this argument coupled with the numerous health factors associated with smoking, banning public smoking is logical and imperative (Brandt, 2009). Much as, there is no “Right to smoke”, “due process on this matter according to critics is lacking in which case the critics against smoking need to take a step back and analyze a few facts before they plunge head on into banning smoking in all public places (Brandt, 2009). The first critical approach is clearly outlining what a public place constitutes. The cities should also indicate whether the ban encompasses indoors, outdoors or both. California Law, for instance, stipulates that the ban applies to both the outdoors and the indoors (Haber, 2010). There are establishments considered public entities that do not support the restrictions on public smoking. Secondly, this ban is a bit extreme considering there are other toxins in the environment that do not discriminate public and private areas (Haber, 2010). Perhaps there should be a few designated public areas where persons can still smoke (Brandt, 2009). Smokers should be glad that the government did not take strict stands on their personal liberties such as is the case with mercy killing (euthanasia). The ethical dilemma has three possible fronts. Do people support ban smoking because they want to protect themselves or those who can not protect themselves like the sick, the disabled and the children whom research finds to be at a greater risk than most other persons? The argument on the constitutional liberties of individuals answers this question. As earlier mentioned, the rights of a few individual should not be above those of the majority. Is it a political front? Most debates take a political approach during their onset, but it is clear that cigarette smoking goes beyond politics (Brandt, 2009). In my view, smoking in public undermines human sanctity in regard to personal liberties seeing as numerous nonsmokers are subject to illness and discomfort against their consent. Secondly, there are so many cities all around the world that ban smoking, therefore, the political argument is just but a smoke screen. However, Britton (2004) takes on a fair approach in his analysis. For instance, aside from giving the negatives of smoking, he also analyses the situation from the smokers’ perspective. Cigarette smokers report feeling calm after smoking a cigarette (Britton, 2004). With so many stress factors in the environment toady, people are likely to overemphasis the benefits of smoking making the therapeutic argument less compelling. Other research indicates that smoking may reduce the chances of contracting some risky health conditions (Haber, 2010). This is ironic considering the death sentence attached to the smoking habit. These conditions include gum disease, Parkinson’s disease and breast cancer. Aside from Parkinson’s disease, mental illnesses in America such as Alzheimer's are on the increase especially in the older generation (Haber, 2010). Neuroscience has established a link between cigarette smoking and reduced anxiety, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. Other experts claim that smoking reduces the chances of getting obesity. Earlier, I mentioned that Nicotine increases the levels of cholesterol in the body! It is such loopholes that pro smoking activists rely on to rally supporters for their cause (Britton, 2004). Economists also indicate that the government should not forget the profitability of the tobacco industry especially in relation to taxes (Boyle et al, 2010). This argument is distressing considering the current state of health and health cost in America. Establishments such as pubs and bars also claim that this ban cripples business. Interestingly even non smokers who own such establishments are against the public smoking ban. European countries such as Italy seem to against all the odds mentioned herein. For instance, the restaurants and bars seem to be doing well even with the public smoking ban. Secondly, there is not much debate in view of the constitution and personal liberties (at least not as much as in America) (Brandt, 2009). The question at the back of everyone’s mind should be are these revenues gathered from cigarette smoking worth the hazardous nature of this habit? Boyle et al (2010) give a different perspective on the issue of to smoking in relation to smoking. They establish that smoking leads to a loss of personal revenue. These economic arguments are in view of the impact individual loss has on public loss for developing and developed countries (Boyle et al, 2010). Conclusion: When it comes to alcohol personal harm, is higher than and social harm (Haber, 2010). On the other hand, cigarette smoking has a direct effect on individuals who do not partake. This is the first reason why I support that cities have the right to ban smoking in public. Secondly, however, blurred the restrictions on personal liberties are in the constitution, public interests will always be above those of an individual (Brandt, 2009). Finally, the economic argument against the ban of public smoking is a sign of public addiction to the cigarette industry. The human capacity to invent better ways of making revenue should supersede the need to retain the superiority of this industry (Boyle et al, 2010). However, smoking should not be banned entirely; therefore, cities should be restricted to making public policy decisions only. The decision to smoke in the privacy of ones “space” remains as such, a private affair (Britton, 2004). References: Brandt, A. (2009). The Cigarette Century. New York: Basic Books. Britton, J. (2004). ABC of Smoking Cessation. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons. Haber, D. (2010). Practical Applications for Health Professionals (Health Promotion and Aging), Fifth Edition. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Peter Boyle, N. G. (2010). Tobacco: Science, policy and public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More