Should Smoking Be Allowed in Public Places - Research Paper Example

 Should smoking be allowed in public places? Should State allow smoking in public area? With the development in the world, the human mind has broadened its perspectives. The spread of knowledge has enabled a person to know how human beings have evolved as well as to understand their position and rights in the society. Gone are the times when people used to be suppressed by their powerful counterparts. With this evolution the recognition of the self and civil liberties have been understood. People have reached to levels where they believe that they possess complete control of their lives to an extent that they advocate euthanasia with an argument that they have the right to choose death over pain. In such a period the development of laws to ban personal activities can prove to be very offensive. This is the case with the proposal of ban on smoking in public places. The state has the right to create laws for the betterment of its people but when these laws intrude the personal issues of a person, it can be a reason for argument. The state is chosen by the people to take care of their needs but by imposing bans in private issues, the state is actually interfering with matters that are beyond its scope of work and the opponents of this ban have very convincing thoughts regarding this issue. The prohibition of smoking in public places by the State has been an issue of major debate. The proponents of the ban argue that smoking has been declared as a more severe risk to human life than other addictions. Cigarettes alone are responsible for the waste of more human lives than collective danger of alcohol, accidents, suicidal crimes, AIDS and illegal drugs. Despite that, 21% of adults, 22% of high school students and 8% of middle school students smoke. One in five of all deaths every year in the United States have been credited to smoking, killing more than AIDS, suicide, alcohol, car accidents, homicide, and illegal drugs combined (American Cancer Society, 2004). They argue that smoking is badly affecting the society. It is the most common addiction all around the world. In developing countries where literacy rate is low, people are more addicted to smoking and hence their behavior towards their relatives, education, society and future changes. With the adverse affect on health they also face mental sickness. To decrease the rate of smoking many countries are taking necessary steps as Bishop and Yoo (1985) declared that a surgeon’s general report in 1964, regarding the knowledge of severe health affect of smoking, showed a diminution in cigarette sales. Before the provision of this report, taxes fixed on cigarettes were intended just to raise the revenue on the sale of cigarettes. However, after the provision of the Surgeon General’s report, the taxes fixed on cigarettes had an additional purpose of discouraging cigarette smoking (Meier & Licari, 1997). The proponents of the ban on smoking in public places present with researches carried out on the topic which clearly shows that smoking in these public places is harmful to the health of many individuals who are exposed to the smoke involuntarily (Carb 2003). They argue that the smoke in these public places can cause non smokers to passively smoke and some asthmatic patients can have a triggered asthmatic attack because of it (National Health Survey 1994). Similarly patients who are already suffering from fatal diseases would be triggered by this tobacco smoke if they are exposed to it highly as reported by the CDC (Washington Post 2004). They bring forward laws which provide every human life in this world with the right that they should not be exposed to carcinogens which would affect their health and if this ban on smoking does not take place then these individuals would be exposed to the carcinogens of cigarette (U.S Department of Health and Human Services). They also bring forward other harms which may be caused by cigarette smoke to the society. The cigarette butts that are left behind by the smoker can be a cause of fire at many places and by imposing ban on smoking the government can ensure that these incidents are avoided (Daily Courier 2004). Similarly it is found that these butts of cigarettes also constitute a great part of the litter found on the beaches and if bans are strictly imposed on these recreational places the cost of cleaning the places would be much low. (Chicago Sun Times 2003). It is seen that many of the recreational places also have imposed these bans on smoking so that passive smoking in the society is reduced. Children are most susceptible to this smoke given off by cigarettes in the public places. Children do not have an excellent immunity yet developed to counter carcinogens which are found in cigarette smoke thus they are more susceptible to respiratory problems because of this smoke. Banning smoking in public places would help to curb all these issues as put forward by the proponents of the ban (University of Toronto News, 2003). The opponents present with stronger counter arguments against the claim of the proponents. It is argued that presentation of a bill which stops a person from smoking is actually an invasion into a person’s independence and choice of lifestyle. The major reason for the ban is the exposure of the people who do not smoke to the carcinogens and harmful components of cigarette smoke which would affect their health. But with this comes the claim that there are other factors which harm human health. These include the risks posed by obesity and other dietary problems so if restriction is imposed on smoking other lifestyle choices are also being risked at. Hence the ban is actually not restricted to the smokers but it is a means of intrusion into personal lifestyle choices. Another prospect is that the ban on smoking is actually for the preservation of health. But it is clear that a person who would smoke would not completely stop smoking because of the ban but rather he would just not smoke in public places. Thus this rejects the claim that the number of smokers would reduce if smoking is banned (Daren Bakst 2009). A human being has a tendency to repel something that opposes his personal views to a great extent. Hence the factor of a ban on smoking in public places can provide a promotion to smoking. Another important aspect is that the air and the external environment that exists in this world are not primarily owned by specific people. Everybody has an equal access and right to it. If people are prohibited from smoking in public, they are actually being shown that the non smokers have a greater right to the environment. Thus if a non smoker has a right to access air without smoke it can very well be argued that smokers also possess a right to smoke anywhere. The decision regarding whether there should be a restriction on smoking in public places should be left to the holder of these places. This is because in this way they will be able to cater to the maximum number of people who come to these places and hence this will pose a minimum effect on their business (Thomas A. Lambert 2006). Before the harmful effects of smoking were understood, the stigma attached to this issue did not exist. With awareness and knowledge it was understood that smoking posed health hazards for the smokers and the non smokers. By 1999 there was a great reduction in the number of smokers and all this occurred without the government intervention. Thus a ban would truly not be very helpful. The sarcasm associated with cigarette and smoking was that though the government opposes it but still it earns revenue from it to an extent that a report in 1999 showed that 13.8 billion dollars went into government bank accounts as a result of the taxes imposed on tobacco. Another very important point to be considered is that this ban would greatly affect the local restaurants and leisure places as it would lead to a reduction in their customers. These locally operating outlets serve as a means of employment for many and hence their losses would affect the employees as well as the employers. Certain restaurants and public places operate with a complete no smoking zone and people actually turn to these places because of this unique characteristic. When all the public places would operate in a similar manner these unique places would lose their distinctiveness and hence their earnings (Sherry Rindt). Every individual possesses a right over what he owns. Similar is the case with the owner of the public places. These places in the true meaning belong to them and the atmosphere of these places are also theirs. Then the ban on smoking by the state is actually an intrusion into the rights that a person has over his property. Also a person who visits public places is fully aware of the fact that whether smoking is permitted in that particular place or not. If he considers the risk of facing second hand smoke in that place too great than he can avoid his visit. Thus it is a personal choice that a person has. That is it is the choice of a smoker to smoke and it is the choice of a non smoker to avoid the second hand smoke by not going to that place. An imposition of rules on either one is actually breaching the rights of a person (Daren Bakst 2009). It can hence be concluded that smoking should be allowed in public places. The state should not impose any ban on smoking in public places. To smoke or not to smoke is a personal choice. The property owner has a right over his property and it is his choice as to what he decides that whether he should permit it in his premises or not. Thus integrity of the rights of a being and the rights of property are above these bans. The state should definitely work towards the improvement of the quality and atmosphere of the state but consideration of all factors is necessary before taking drastic measures. Bibliography: Bakst , Daren “The Smoking Ban Bill .Make no mistake; it’s an attack on property rights,” SPOTLIGHT no. 372, John Locke Foundation. (2009) CARB (2003) "Technical Support Document for the Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part A," Technical Report. California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Chapter 5, pp. V6-V19; Repace JL. Banning outdoor smoking is scientifically justifiable. Tobacco Control 9:98 (2000). “Cigarette butts on the beach are unsightly to tourists and residents alike,” (citing Stephanie Smith of the Lake Michigan Federation) Wisby, Lake Group Seeks Smoking Ban, Chicago Sun- Times, September 18, 2003. Current Estimates From the National Health Survey (1994). Top of Form Lambert, Thomas A. "RISK - The Case Against Smoking Bans - Despite Their Political Popularity, Government-Mandated Smoking Bans Are Not Justified." Regulation. 29. 4 (2006): 34. Bottom of Form Top of Form Meier, K J, and M J Licari. "The Effect of Cigarette Taxes on Cigarette Consumption, 1955 Through 1994." American Journal of Public Health : JPH. 87. 7 (1997): 1126. Bottom of Form “Most non-smokers and smokers agreed that outdoor public places frequented by children should be designated as non-smoking areas.” Wong, Outdoor Smoking May be Next on Restricted List, Researchers Say, University of Toronto News, March 19, 2003. Rindst, Sherry.“Should smoking be allowed in public places?” Helium: Politics, News and Issues. Secondhand Smoke Poses Heart Attack Risk, CDC Warns, Washington Post, April 23, 2004: “The CDC disclosed its new advisory in a commentary to a study published in the British Medical Journal yesterday, saying doctors need to warn people with heart problems that secondhand smoke can significantly increase their risk of a heart attack. The agency said that as little as 30 minutes' exposure can have a serious and even lethal effect.” Top of Form Smith, R. A., V. Cokkinides, and H. J. Eyre. "American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer, 2004." CA -ATLANTA-. 54 (2004): 41-52. Bottom of Form Yarnell Man Faces Charge of Starting Wildfire with Cigarette, Prescott (AZ) Daily Courier, June 30, 2004. 10th Report on Carcinogens, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, [http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc10.html] Read More