Smoking in public - Essay Example

Pope Urban vii banned tobacco consumption in porch ways and church, where he did not allow any form of consumption of the said drug. This was through chewing, sniffing, and most importantly smoking, which is the main concern here (Trex). To end public smoking, the penalty was excommunication from the church, and this is the first and earliest documented instance of concern over public smoking. King James, who looked to establish a smoke-free England due to what he labeled as an uncouth practice, raised further concerns in England.

King James labeled smoking as a custom of slavish Indians that was loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose and dangerous to the lungs, as well as harmful to the brain (Trex). The king further went on to raise taxes and tariffs on tobacco to achieve his dream of a tobacco-free England. In most recent times, concerns have been raised over smoking in public, which has led to the ban of tobacco use, in public, in many cities across the globe. There are two opposing sides on the ban of smoking in public, where there are those who agree with the ban and those that are against it.

Those that do not agree with banning of smoking in public places have a number of beliefs that are backed by solid evidence. To those who are opposed to the ban, denying smokers the right to smoke in public is a form of discrimination against a minority. This is considering that those that smoke are a minority of the global population, whereas non-smokers make the bulk of the population. By not allowing public smoking, smokers are deprived equal rights to engage in their pleasurable activities at will and freely.

They also view as a form of discrimination considering that it is a very small number of people that make decisions on the ban on public smoking. In addition, they are of the opinion that there are worse conditions out there in the world than smoking. As a result, they view it as a waste of time banning smoking rather than handling other conditions, that research describes as dangerous and as an epidemic, such as obesity and alcohol abuse. Banning smoking in public is viewed as a decline in democracy and tolerance in the society, where the two are supposed to work hand in hand for the good of the society (Mallon).

As such, the rights of the minority smokers are infringed due to propaganda that smoking is bad for one’s health while it is one’s choice to either smoke or not smoke. Those opposed against smoking in public argue that banning smoking in public bears numerous health benefits. Arguments are that it reduces risks of heart attacks in younger individuals and those that do not engage in smoking activities. This is because coming into contact with smoke raises the chances of heart attacks by 26% as researchers say.

For non-smokers, banning smoking in public is said to improve their health as exposure to secondary smoke tends to make the blood sticky; thus, increasing the chances of suffering a heart attack (“Banning Smoking In Public Places”). In addition, for those that would like to quit smoking, the ban is welcome. This is because the ban prevents the temptation to smoke, which results in their ceasing of the smoking habit. The consequences of smoking in public, especially following the ban are high; thus act as a deterrent against smoking, which makes it easy for smokers to