The Hazardous Effects of Smoking - Report Example

The Hazardous Effects of Smoking Smoking is now widely regarded as an activity that can be associated with numerous health risks, not only for the individual engaging in the activity, but also for those who are in the immediate vicinity and thus must partake of what has been termed ‘second-hand smoke’. For these reasons, it has been determined in a variety of different venues and states, that smoking in public and public-use places, such as libraries and government offices, restaurants and shopping malls, should be banned. Smokers argue this is an unreasonable restriction on their freedoms, restricting their right to enjoy a nice smoke after dinner or while enjoying the outdoors, especially in light of the fact that many indoor areas have already placed a ban on smoking indoors. Non-smokers argue that they should not have to breathe in smoke when they have already made the choice not to smoke – by its very nature smoke from other people’s cigarettes contaminates the air they have no choice but to breathe. Thus, smoking in public infringes upon the non-smoker’s rights and freedoms to live a clean and healthy lifestyle. Because the choice not to smoke does not jeopardize the overall health of the smoker and may, in fact, even benefit it by encouraging him to quit, there should be a general nationwide ban on smoking in public. This ban is justified because there is proven scientific evidence that second-hand smoke does have adverse effects upon the health of non-smokers, this health risk is consciously pressed upon them by the smoker insisting on his rights to light up where he wants and the historic precedent for this kind of blatant disregard for human health and welfare in other but equally as dangerous situations labels this action criminal. Secondhand smoke is defined as that smoke that an individual inhales as a result of someone else’s smoking nearby. While some argue that the danger from this smoke is minimal, others have identified several properties of secondhand smoke that make it clear this form of smoke is more potent and therefore more dangerous than the smoke the smoker is inhaling into his or her lungs. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992), smoke inhaled through the filter of a cigarette has only half of the tar and nicotine that can be found in a similar sized cloud of secondhand smoke. Despite their non-smoking status, this same report indicates that approximately “3,000 non-smokers a year die from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke” and another “37,000 non-smokers a year die from heart disease attributed to secondhand smoke” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992). These numbers are supported by other evidence of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke such as the study conducted by Fontham et al (1994) in which it was shown that non-smoking women married to heavy smokers had twice the risk of non-smoking women married to non-smokers to develop lung cancer. Another study conducted on workers who were often exposed to repeated and extended exposure to secondhand smoke, such as bartenders and waitresses, also demonstrated a 25-75 percent greater risk of lung cancer, with the chances becoming increasingly likely with the number of years employed in such environments (Pisani et al, 2001). Children exposed to high levels of secondhand smoke are susceptible to greater instances of bronchitis, pneumonia and other respiratory infections, chronic ear infections and asthma (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992). When forced to concede the point that there are inherent dangers involved in breathing secondhand smoke, smokers will typically argue that smoking in public places does not force non-smokers to breathe it, but an examination of unofficial and even official designated smoking areas indicates otherwise. Many of these places, such as hospitals, libraries, offices and restaurants, are enclosed spaces with temperature-controlled circulated air. This means that without a filtration system designed specifically to target these dangerous chemicals, the toxins contained in secondhand smoke continue to circulate among the users of the building whether they are smokers or not. This pervasive quality of smoke to infiltrate even the partially segmented-off non-smoking sections of the establishment is given a rather crude but appropriate metaphor by Caroline Boase (2003): “A smoking section in a bar or restaurant is like having a peeing allowed section in a public swimming pool – it spreads! Would you swim there?” In addition, smoking sections are often necessarily located in sections of the establishment through which nonsmokers must traverse if they are to use the various amenities such as bathrooms, exits, etc. Even when smoking is moved to the outdoors, smokers typically have a tendency to congregate near the entry doors to smoke their cigarettes, thus creating a cloud of smoke through which all customers must pass if they wish to gain access to the establishment. Smokers argue that nonsmokers are not forced to visit these public spaces and therefore the smoker’s actions are not excessively infringing upon the rights of others while they remain adamant that nonsmokers insisting on clear airways to and from the bathroom are infringing upon the smokers’ rights. The difference here is not that there are no rights infringements, but that the infringement of the nonsmoker upon the smoker does not adversely affect the smoker’s health while the smoker’s infringement upon the nonsmoker increases the nonsmoker’s risk of deadly illness. As a consequence of their actions in lighting up a cigarette in a public space, knowing the consequences of secondhand smoke and infringing on others’ rights to breathe clean air, smokers are engaging in activity that has been identified as criminal. Under federal law, for example, child abuse and neglect is defined as “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitations; or, an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm” (CAPTA, 2003: §5106g). It has already been demonstrated through the evidence brought forward by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that children often suffer serious harm as the result of being exposed to secondhand smoke, placing it squarely within the bounds of this general definition. Where adults are concerned, the definition for the criminal action of battery can be similarly applied: “A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury” (Larson, 2003). That secondhand smoke is widely known to cause injury to those exposed, the argument that smoking in public places constitutes a criminal action only gains strength, but would be valid even should someone argue they were unaware of causing injury simply because of its invasiveness. The law is tempered with the stipulation that “the defendant must lack privilege to assault or batter the plaintiff” (Larson, 2003), but this again does not exclude the nonsmoker as they do not have a similar means of adversely affecting the health of the smoker. Although smoking has not yet become recognized as constituting criminal rights infringement upon nonsmoking neighbors, officemates and children, it is clear that smoking should be banned from public places nationwide. This ban not only serves to enforce the law regarding dangerous or harmful activity upon others, but also serves to increase the health of the nation. Those who frequent public places with the no-smoking ban would be less likely to develop lung cancer and heart disease, positively affecting national medical costs. Those who like to smoke would need to smoke in greater open air places where it is less likely that the toxins carried in the smoke would remain sufficiently strong to affect others. Despite any arguments to the contrary, smoking within enclosed areas necessarily exposes everyone within that space to secondhand smoke and increases their risks of illness. It is also undeniable that inhaling secondhand smoke does significantly increase the chances of a nonsmoker to contract cancer or experience smoke-related heart disease. There is a fringe benefit to a no-smoking ban for the smokers, who also experience much higher levels of disease than the non-smoking public. Under this type of ban, smokers would tend to smoke less as the inconvenience of the process becomes less appealing, thus further increasing the national health and reducing expenditures. It is true that the nonsmokers are infringing upon the rights and freedoms of the smokers in demanding that they not smoke in public places, but it is equally true that the smokers are infringing upon the rights and freedoms of the nonsmokers by insisting that public places be filled with deadly, cancer-causing toxins. Since one group of the two must have their rights revoked, it is better to err on the side of health and justice for the greater good of all. Works Cited Boase, Caroline. “Should Smoking be Banned in Public Places: The Yes Argument.” Online Scene. (November 15, 2003). July 24, 2007 The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. Washington D.C.: (2003). Fontham, E.T.; Correa, P.; Reynolds, P; Wu-Williams, A.; Buffler, P.A.; Greenberg, R.S.; Chen, V.W.; Alterman, T.; Boyd, P.; Austin, D.F.; et al. “Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Women: A Multicenter Study.” Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 271, (1994), pp. 1752-1759. Larson, Aaron. “Assault and Battery.” Expert Law. (October 2003). July 24, 2007 Pisani, Paola; Bray, Freddie & Parkin, Maxwell. “Estimates of the World-Wide Prevalence of Cancer for 25 Sites in the Adult Population.” International Journal of Cancer. Vol. 93, (2001). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.” Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. Read More