Should Smoking Be Prohibited in Public Places - Essay Example

Lecturer’s Smoking Should/Should Not Be Prohibited in Public Places The prohibitions on smoking in public places, also known as smoking bans, are public policies, which include certain laws and regulations that govern the occupational safety and health of the public, and prevent people from smoking tobacco either in their places of work or in spaces that are public. Different places have different legislation on the exact definition of smoking in public, and these can range from carrying, to having any type of tobacco product, which has been lit. Currently, there is a lot of debate on the issue of whether it is right to pass legislation to prohibit smoking in public places or not and both sides of this debate make some very convincing arguments. Herein, both sides of the arguments will be considered with the intention of proving to the reader that the removing the smoking ban is a better option than maintaining it. According to Singleton, a spokesman for Reynolds American, it should be the decision of the establishment owners to decide if they want to uphold the rules on the environment (Winslow). The anti-smoking ban group “NYC Clash, Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment” stated after the ban was upheld by as new york judge that these laws are vague and infringe the smokers’ rights by violating the 1st and 14th amendments. It denies them the freedom to choose how they live since smoking is a personal choice and since the smokers are aware of the risks; the government has no business dictating how and when they smoke. Furthermore, according to Winslow, several thousand nonsmokers die due to conditions attributed to second hand smoke hence giving credence to the argument that cigarette smoking harms not just the smokers but their neighbors. Statistics show that bans on cigarette smoking have caused drastic reductions on the levels of cancer by an average 17% with the greatest drop being witnessed in nonsmokers (Winslow 2009). This is ample evidence that smoker do not only jeopardize their health but that of those who do not smoke hence the need for a ban. Notwithstanding, many people claim that smoking is their right, and any attempts to ban them from engaging are tantamount to infringing their freedom because they believe they should be able to move anywhere they want, more so in public, and restrictions on this are unconstitutional. Smokers hence claim that, banning smoking in public is an infringement on their freedom. However, proponents of the ban argue in the opposite direction they hold that it the rights of nonsmokers which will be infringed upon if they smoke bans are disallowed they will lose their right to live in a clean and healthy environment due to the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke. In addition, the city health officer, Thomas Friedman argued that, the “Smoke Free Air Act” was intended to protect the city resident’s health from the effect of secondhand smoke. To this effect, arguments have been made to prove that workers in bars and restaurants are vulnerable to the effects the many cigarettes being smoked in the premises. Therefore, as a potential health hazard in the workplace, the ban on public smoking is very much justified. Cigarettes pose a health threat not only because of the diseases they can cause but also as a fire hazard, since poor disposal of glowing butts can lead to fires resulting in the destruction of life and property (Dillenberger 1). On the other hand, several NYC claim that smokers’ personal lives are private, and the government has no right to interfere with it. Those in support of this argument state that people who are banned from public smoking are being marginalized by these bans. They state that it is wrong for the government to interfere with liberty and personal freedom of an individual all in the name of protecting the health of the public when many nonsmokers do even worse to their own bodies’ every day through other activities (Saulny 2004). In addition, the other argument against public smoking ban is that it has a very bad economic impact on businesses. Claims, smoking in public places should be allowed to ensure that there is no damage to the trading activities of some businesses. This is because customers who are used to smoking on the premises might for instance be annoyed and take their business elsewhere if one day they are told they can no longer smoke therein, especially in bars, restaurants and cafes. Establishments patronized by smokers will hence suffer if the majority of the customers are forced to stay away because of this bans leading to losses and possible closure of business, this could translate to negative effects on the economy (Fleck Pg. 60). On the other hand, according to proponents of the argument that smoking should be banned, Banning of cigarette smoking in public is said to be in the interest of protecting workers interests in work the work place. Those who pass laws that ban smoking in places of work fail to consider the fact that workers, especially those in industries or factories, are exposed to chemicals, which are many times more harmful than tobacco smoke. It is, therefore, not logical for the government to ban tobacco smoking whose harm to such workers is completely negligible and leave out those chemicals that bring harm to them. It can be argued that workers choose to do a dangerous job and the choice, therefore, no different from police officers who do a very dangerous job but do not complain about the conditions in which they are working. As such, if they can be allowed to use their discretion when it involves work, they should be given the same autonomy in issue of smoking. Therefore, banning smoking for people working in an environment that already is hazardous is the epitome of hypocrisy and double standards. However, those who oppose the ban on smoking in public have argued that such businesses as bars and restaurants would suffer if this ban were to be put in place. This, however, has proven not to be true and, in fact, there are reports that there has been an increase for business since these bans were instituted. Instead of there being a lack of customers, these places have come to have large numbers of patrons who have brought in a lot of business and this has also ensured that there is an increase of employment opportunities in this industry. Ultimately, to smoke or not to smoke is a personal choice made cognizant of the risks that cigarettes pose, notwithstanding, prohibition of cigarette smoking is a subject that will have deep seated effects whichever side of the debate one supports. However, it is evident from the evidence presented that a ban on cigars smoking constitutes a gross violation to the rights of smokers in view of the fact that most there is no real hard evidence to support the claim that their activities cause any significant to risk to the nonsmokers. Moreover, smoking of tobacco has been happening in our society for over half a millennium without complaints against it, and its ban will also have negative effects on business, which might have to close down if smokers are kicked out and the owners may be forced to shut down their business leading to unemployment. Hence, conclusively it can be said that the prohibition on public smoking is very unfair to those who it affects because it infringes on their right to personal freedoms. Works Cited Dillenberger, Cassandra. "Smoking in the Workplace: The Haze may be Clearing." Contractor's Business Management Report.4 (2010): 1-13. Fleck, Robert K. "Why Understanding Smoking Bans is Important for Estimating their Effects: California's Restaurant Smoking Bans and Restaurant Sales." Economic inquiry 46.1 (2008): 60-76. Saulny, Susan. "Rejecting Constitutional Claims, Judge Upholds Smoking Bans." New York Times. Apr 09 2004. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. Winslow, Ron. “The Case for Bans on Smoking." The Wall Street Journal.2009. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. Read More