Should There Be a World-Wide Smoking Ban in Public Places - Essay Example

?Should there be a world-wide smoking ban in public places? "Many people believe that smoking is harmful and socially unacceptable in today's society. On the other side of the argument, it's a person's right to be allowed to smoke freely, not to be dictated to by legislation and public pressure. It helps people relax, provides income for governments through taxes that contribute in many ways to the public purse". Introduction In the United States alone, it is estimated that almost 45 million people- or 21% of the adult population, smokes on a regular basis. The majority of these citizens do not only smoke in the privacy of their homes but also in public areas. The second hand smoke that this creates affects other members of the public that do not smoke. Second-hand smoke is dangerous because it contains dangerous elements that are hazardous to human health. Second hand smoke is descriptive of any smoke from burning cigars, pipe tips, or cigarettes in a public area. It has been established that second hand smoke is as detrimental to human health as the very act of smoking. This is the reason why the act of smoking in public places has been banned in many nations. Thesis Statement: Breathing in the fumes from a smoker’s cigarette can adversely affect the health of a non-smoker. For this reason, public smoking ought to be banned from all public avenues. The Chemicals in Second-Hand Smoke There are many ways in which tobacco smoke affects the human body. Second-hand smoke is virtually a toxic by-product. According to Eagan (2006) more than 126 million non-smoking citizens in the United States alone are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in public vehicles and trains, in workplaces, restaurants, and even residential homes. In residential homes, it is underage children who are often exposed to second-hand smoke when there are family members who are regular smokers. According to Eisner (2009) nearly 22 million children- or slightly less than two thirds of all American children are exposed to cigarette smoke regularly in the home. Second-hand smoke contains dangerous chemicals such as hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and arsenic. Fig. 1- The Incidence of Second-hand Smoke (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention 2013) According to Gotz, van Tongeren, Wareing, Wallace, Semple, and MacCalman (2008) the exposure of young children to second-hand smoke can be evaluated by examining indoor air for elements such as nicotine. Testing the saliva, blood, or urine of people who live near or around regular smokers for carbon-monoxide, cotinine, and other smoke-related elements will also reveal the level of toxic elements in their body systems. According to WebMD (2013) second-hand smoke contains approximately 250 hazardous elements such as benzene, arsenic, butadiene, beryllium, chromium, cadmium, ethylene oxide, polonium, nickel, and vinyl chloride. Certain elements such as toluene, formaldehyde, and benzopyrene are known as cancer causing agents. Effects of Second hand smoke According to Gotz, van Tongeren, Wareing, Wallace, Semple, and MacCalman (2008), non-smokers who live with spouses who smoke on a regular basis are likely to suffer from heart diseases that may be caused by the chemicals that exist in second-hand smoke. Past researches into the subject have also established that the carotid artery walls of non-smokers who are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke tend to thicken with the passage of time (Lee, Dietz, Arheart, Wilkinson, Clarke, and Caban-Martinez 2008). Pregnant women who engage in smoking may give birth to still-born infants. Their babies are also more likely to have decreased lung function as well as low birth weight. Moreover, even pregnant women who are non-smokers but live near smokers could manifest identical symptoms with those who smoke regularly. Scientific Evidence Research into second-hand smoke has proved that it is as dangerous to non-smokers as the process of smoking is to regular smokers. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has confirmed that every year, almost 50, 000 American citizens are casualties of heart disease and lung cancer which results from second-hand smoke (Lee, Dietz, Arheart, Wilkinson, Clarke and Caban-Martinez 2008). There are other conditions such as chronic lung weakness, and weak infants born to women who are exposed to second-hand smoke. When non-smokers are first exposed to cigarette smoke, the first reaction they notice is the irritation caused to their eyes and a subsequent cough if they remain in the vicinity of the smoker. Second-hand smoke has also been known to cause sore throat, headaches, nausea, and dizziness among non-smokers. According to a research study conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), second hand smoke can result in lung cancer among people who have never smoked but who live with smokers (Lemstra, Neudorf and Opondo 2008). According to this report, even the prospect of regularly being in public places that do not ban smoking can increase, by 25% the chances of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer at some stage in his or her life. Being around smokers also increases by 30% the chances of non-smokers developing coronary heart disease (Pechacek and Babb 2004). A research carried out by the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) which was sponsored by the British government also confirmed a rise in the incidence of ischaemic heart disease among adult non-smokers who were regularly exposed to second-hand cigarette smoke (Raupach 2006). This study also discovered that among children who were exposed to second hand smoke in homes as well as public venues, there was a greater incidence of middle ear infections, cot deaths, and asthma problems. These studies have helped the respective governments to craft laws that outlaw smoking in public venues so as to curb the outbreak of these serious ailments. According to a research conducted among non-smokers who live with smokers in Japan, exposure to second hand smoke can actually adversely affect coronary blood flow (Schroeder 2009). Such researches prove beyond a doubt that second-hand smoke is detrimental to public health. Governments have the mandate to protect public health and so should pass laws that ensue that non-smokers are not affected by the hazardous activities engaged in by smokers through free choice. Changing Behavior so as to fit in with Society There should actually be a world-wide ban enacted on public smoking so as to curb the effects of second-hand smoke. In the recent past, many corporations that manufacture cigarettes have began to invest heavily in third world markets in order to maintain productivity as smoking is a practice that is no longer presented as being attractive in many Western nations. Enacting a worldwide ban on public smoking would deal a major blow to the advertising directed to third world consumers. It would also save third world governments a lot of spending on health-related complications of smoking. Tobacco manufacturing corporations are well aware that third world nations may not have adequate legislation to counter their aggressive marketing tactics. In addition, third world governments have many other issues that require attention and funding and so may not dedicate adequate attention to the issue of dealing with public smoking. This is why general laws that forbid public smoking would be quite helpful in curbing the incidence of diseases associated with second-hand smoke. This is something that is quite easy for governments or even international organisations to enact. Society has always been quite successful in determining the right course of action for its citizens. In the nineteenth century, for instance, it was quite an accepted practice for young and old men to chew tobacco and then spit the excessive saliva in public platforms. The fact that all public areas were equipped with spittoons proves this fact. Even though there were probably members of society who were disgusted with this practice, it was still accepted in many parts of society. Moreover, with the outbreak of diseases such as tuberculosis, this practice was gradually stopped. It was discovered that spittoons were actually contributing to the incidence of the dreaded disease as germs in the spittoons could be transferred from person to person. The entire society was compelled to revise its opinions about tobacco consumption and spitting in public areas. Slowly, the habit of spitting became socially unacceptable. Moreover, at about the time when tobacco chewing was being re-evaluated, the discovery of cigarette smoking as a safe alternative to chewing tobacco and smoking took place. Many tobacco chewers were convinced to embrace the new drug of choice which appeared to be more sanitary than its predecessor. The practice of smoking cigarettes was also accepted because it did away with the risk of contracting or spreading diseases such as tuberculosis. However, the fact is that there were new successors to the formerly infectious diseases that could be easily spread. In actuality, one range of diseases such as tuberculosis were exchanged for the more degenerative varieties such as coronary disease and lung cancer. Moreover, it could be stated that smoking cigarettes is even more dangerous that chewing tobacco because it also affects people who do not smoke. In the same way that chewing tobacco was discouraged as a practice until it was almost eradicated due to public censure, smoking can be gradually phased out of society. Conclusion It has already been established by esteemed scientists that no safe level exists of exposure to second-hand smoke. Being exposed to low amounts of second-hand smoke is just as hazardous to human health as the smoke being inhaled by the smoker. The only way in which non-smokers can be totally protected from second-hand smoke is by slowly phasing out the practice of smoking- beginning with a ban on smoking in public places. This is necessary because even using processes of air purification or separating smokers from non-smokers in public platforms does not really cleanse the air of all the dangerous elements contained in cigarette smoke. References Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013) Data & statistics, viewed 15 Nov 2013 from . Eagan, T. (2006) ‘Decline in respiratory symptoms in service workers five months after a public smoking ban’, Tobacco Control, vol. 15, pp. 242–246. Eisner, M. (2009) ‘Second-hand smoke and obstructive lung disease. A causal effect?’ American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 179, pp. 973-974. Gotz, N.K., van Tongeren, M., Wareing, H., Wallace, L.M., Semple, S. & MacCalman, L. (2008) ‘Changes in air quality and second-hand smoke exposure in hospitality sector businesses after introduction of the English Smoke-free legislation’, Journal of Public Health, vol. 30, pp. 421–428. Lee, D.J., Dietz, N.A., Arheart, K.L., Wilkinson, J.D., Clarke, J.D. & Caban-Martinez, A.J. (2008) ‘Respiratory effects of second-hand smoke exposure among adults residing in a “clean” indoor air state’, Journal of Community Health, vol. 33, pp. 117–25. Lemstra, M., Neudorf, C. & Opondo, J. (2008) ‘Implications of a public smoking ban’, Canadian Journal of Public Health, vol. 99, pp. 62–65. Pechacek, T. & Babb, S. (2004) ‘Commentary: how acute and reversible are the cardiovascular risks of second-hand smoke?’ BMJ, vol. 328, pp. 980-983. Raupach, T. (2006) ‘Second-hand smoke as an acute threat for the cardiovascular system: a change in paradigm’, Eur Heart J, vol. 27, pp. 386-392. Schroeder, S.A. (2009) ‘Public smoking bans are good for the heart’, J Am Coll Cardiol, vol. 54, pp. 1256-1257. WebMD. (2013) Effects of second-hand smoke, viewed 15 Nov 2013 from . Read More