Reasons for the Smoking Ban - Essay Example

Smoking Ban YourFirst YourLast Introduction Smoking bans are policies that include health regulations, occupational safetyand criminal laws that prohibit tobacco smoking in the workplace, in public areas and in enclosed spaces. The rationale behind this law is to keep non-smokers safe from harmful effects of secondhand smoke (Burns, 2000). These effects include increased risks of emphysema, cancer, and heart disease among others. Smoking bans make indoor smoking illegal. It is applied in many countries around the world. Scientific evidence suggests that tobacco smoke is as harmful to non-smokers in the smoker’s environment, just as it is to the smokers themselves. Reasons for the Smoking Ban There are a several reasons, which the US government has come up with on why it should impose smoking bans in certain public areas. Some scientific studies conducted using accurate mathematical designs and based on real life measurements reveal that, concentrations of tobacco second-hand smoke in outdoor areas are as high as those of indoor locations or even higher (Keltner & Grant, 2006). This implies that the American public is at a potentially great risk because it is involuntarily predisposed to the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke. Outdoor cigarette smoke in some states such as Iowa has been declared as a poisonous air pollutant. Cigarette smoke whether outdoors or indoors triggers medical conditions such as asthmatic attacks, bronchial infections and other serious health complications in non-smokers. This is the case for the approximately 90 million Americans who suffer from chronic sinusitis, emphysema, asthma, chronic bronchitis, and other respiratory disorders, which make them very vulnerable to the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke (Abate, 2013). Irrespective of whether an individual has respiratory complications or not, studies have indicated that inhaling second-hand cigarette smoke is dangerous (Ojeda, 2002). The Centre for Disease Control warns that inhaling cigarette smoke for short periods of time of even as short as 20 minutes can increase the likeliness of a non-smoker in suffering a heart attack in the same manner that a smoker is likely to suffer the same. The risk is even higher for persons with coronary problems or who are likely to develop such problems. These include obese persons, men who are over forty years of age, postmenopausal women, diabetics, individuals with high blood pressure, or persons with a family history of circulatory and heart conditions. Society acknowledges the inherent rights and freedoms of an individual, which include the right of an individual not to be involuntarily subjected or predisposed to potentially harmful substances, even if it is for a brief moment or in small amounts. The federal government of the US officially classifies second-hand cigarette smoke as a human carcinogen. In addition to the fact that second-hand cigarette smoke is an air pollutant and a health hazard, it is annoying and irritating to most people to be involuntarily forced to inhale such smoke. As much as they are not a potential health risk, many activities in the states of the US are banned in public areas simply because they are annoying and irritating. Such activities include using profanity, engaging in proactive sexual activity, playing loud music on boom boxes, or inappropriate dressing among others. Impact of Smoking Bans According to researchers at the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately half of US populace is covered under local or state laws, which have implemented and adopted smoking ban laws in their legislation. Marc Steinberg who is a professor at the R.W Johnson Medical School in New Jersey states that community and state smoking bans have a positive impact on health across the nation. According to him, these positive effects of smoking bans also include reductions in environmental cigarette smoke exposure, which includes second-hand smoke exposure. In addition to this, Steinberg states that smoking bans also send a positive message to the youngsters and that these bans act as a motivation to those who want to quit smoking. This is because of the inconveniences, which are associated with smoking bans. Smoking bans make it less convenient for smokers to continue practicing the habit, and in this regard, potential quitters find this as a great opportunity to quit smoking. Tom Peterson who is a director at Helen Children’s Hospital states that apart from prevention of second-hand cigarette smoke to non-smokers, smoking bans also effectively discourage potential smokers from engaging into the habit of smoking. Benefits of Smoking Bans Research studies reveal that there is a significant decline in the number of patients with respiratory infections visiting emergency rooms and medical facilities due to smoking bans. Research finding also show that there is a sizeable reduction in the number of patients with heart related problems due to smoking bans. Smoking bans immensely minimize smoking effects on individuals with asthma, hence improving their quality of life. Following an analysis of the findings of smoking ban studies carried out in Scotland, Ireland and California, scientists from the Centre for Disease Control corroborate that smoking bans have resulted in a significant decrease in respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath. These scientists also note that there are notable improvements in the quality of life for asthmatic persons including improvements in lung functions for individuals who have a history of working in smoke filled areas (Anger, Kvasnicka & Siedler, n.d.) A recent study done in Iowa confirms that due to smoking ban, there are fewer hospitalizations for chest pain, stroke, heart attack, and asthma. Researchers from the Centre for Disease Control provide some insights and statistics on the impacts of smoking ban. These statistics assert that cigarette smoking, and more or less half of all those who smoke cigarettes will die from diseases, which are smoke related, cause about 90% of lung cancer cases. These statistics also warn that smokers have increased risk of stroke, heart disease, low birth weight, cancer and other illnesses. Smoking is classified as the single most significant and preventable cause of sickness and death (Brodeur, n.d). Scientists classify second-hand cigarette smoke as a carcinogen. They estimate that it costs the US Government in the region of one billion dollars annually in the provision of medical services to smokers. Scientific findings also show that non-smokers living with smokers have approximately 26% increased chances of lung cancer, and 34% increased chances of heart diseases. The findings continue to show that passive exposure to cigarette smoke heightens stroke risk by approximately 84%, while exposure to passive cigarette smoking heightens lung cancer risk by up to 43%, and increases risks of suffering a heart attack. These statistics continue and show that passive cigarette smoking in workplaces increases the rate of consultation with physicians, absenteeism and increases the rate of prescribed usage of drugs by a physician. In addition to this, scientists also believe that an individual who is predisposed to second-hand smoke (either involuntarily or voluntarily) means that, this individual is exposed to not less than sixty agents, which are recognized to cause cancer. The individual is also exposed to other chemical elements that increase blood pressure and cause malfunction and damage to the lungs and kidneys. According to these statistics, smokers lose between ten and fifteen years of their life expectancy. Criticisms against Smoking Bans Opponents of smoking bans argue that smoking bans breach people’s freedom of choice. They argue that people have the freedom to decide whatever they want to do so as long as it is not in contravention to the law. According to these critics, smoking bans violate the fundamental human rights of free will. They argue that since smoking is legal, and the person is above eighteen years old, then he has the inherent right to decide on whether or not to smoke (Gottlieb, 1999). They continue and contend that designated smoking areas violate this fundamental human right. Non-smoking areas existed even before the inception of smoking bans. Some social venues such as shops and restaurants already had in place rules, which prohibited smoking within their premises. Man is a social being and people like to socialize and relax in comfortable places. Such places include pubs and restaurants where they can eat, drink alcohol and even smoke cigarettes. Smoking bans prohibit smokers from smoking in public areas, and they have to look for designated smoking zones, which have been set aside for them. This inconvenience discourages smokers from visiting such bars and instead prefers staying at home, which then becomes a potential health hazard for the smoker’s family including the smoker himself. This trend affects other smokers from other families because they lack the company they are used to in the pubs they previously visited, and prefer staying at home like their fellow smokers. This places more and more families at potential risks of second-hand cigarette smoke exposure. Government Intrusion Some opponents of smoking bans contend appeal to private property laws, which govern and define private property, ownership, management and disposition of such property. They argue that a clear distinction should be made between privately owned places and nominally public places. Privately owned places include bars and restaurants while nominally public places include government and state buildings. Because of economic efficiency, the critics of smoking bans contend that contractual freedoms together with the fundamental institutions of private property rights are capable of resolving conflicts without government institutions. According to them, preferences of smokers and non-smokers can be handled without imposing laws, which appear prejudicial to either side. In their arguments, people should be free to visit any establishment, which they will feel comfortable. Since smoking bans already existed prior to the enactment of smoking ban laws by the government, the government according to these critics should have let people be governed by their preferences and consumer choices (Oh et al., 2012) Attack on Personal Liberties and Rights Any government’s interference in the communications amongst organizations and individuals brings about the issue of civil rights and liberties. In many instances, the government bans smoking in public places, and, in addition, bans all tobacco advertisements, marketing activities and promotions in an effort to reduce usage among the citizens. Many tobacco organizations and users have criticized this move severally in the past, arguing that smoking is a personal activity done by adults. They additionally argue that individuals engage in smoking activities while well aware of the effects of smoking and therefore, the government need not have any role in controlling usage or promotion activities. Others have categorically criticized the government for intruding into people’s personal spaces. An individual’s resolve to smoke is a personal decision, well protected within the bill of rights (Oh et al., 2012). Pro-smoking groups and organizations have argued that it is not within the governments mandate to decide for its citizens what is bad for them. Therefore, the public health measures of banning smoking in public places are an infringement on personal rights and spaces. In the past, smoking has been compared to feeding on junk. Junk food is harmful, and causes many health complications, yet, the departments of health never attempt at any one time to control or ban fast food restaurants. Everyone else should be allowed to make a personal decision that is not influenced in any way, so long as they are within the confines of the law. Discrimination The organization, which defends smoker’s interests, is the freedom organization for smoker’s rights to enjoy tobacco smoking. This organization believes that smoking bans in the country have caused discrimination against smokers. According to this organization, predictions on the occurrence of discrimination to smokers had been made before the smoking ban was applied in most of the states in the US. However, in most cases, many organizations are only interested in the opinions of non-smokers, and as such, discrimination against smokers has been overlooked. Opponents of smoking ban also argue that smoking bans affect the social designs of a community. They argue that smoking bans contribute to change of behaviours in individuals involuntarily. Individuals are denied the opportunity to decide on their social interactions due to smoking bans (Craven & Marlow, 2008). Due to smoking bans, cigarette smokers are forced to adapt to new ways of life. To some extent, smoking bans elevate the degree of cigarette smoking among smokers because smokers program themselves on when and where to smoke. Smokers will limit the number of cigarettes they smoke according to the circumstances, such as work places. However, this temporary reduction of cigarette smoking in work places is compensated for at home. Smokers increase the quantity of cigarettes smoked at home which at times surpasses the usual number of cigarettes smoked in a normal day. This trend leads to addiction of cigarette smoking in smokers. Critics of smoking bans also contend that smoking bans increase children’s exposure to harmful elements associated with cigarettes. They argue that smoking bans make adult smokers smoke a lot at home. This is because of the restrictions imposed on smoking through smoking bans. In the process, children are predisposed to harmful second-hand cigarette smoke and exposed to smoking habits. The inquisitive and curious nature of children makes them want to experiment on new things. In this regard, children are tempted to emulate what they witness in their homes. Homes are the immediate environment for children where activities going on in homes have a profound effect on growing children and youngsters. Cigarette butts contain harmful carcinogens which these children may touch and rub their eyes, mouths or ears with their fingers (Burns, 2000). This poses a great risk to these children due to the harmful chemicals contained in the cigarette butt and the likelihood of children to engage in cigarette smoking. In this way, the opponents of smoking ban argue that these bans are detrimental to the social fabric of the communities and society. Conclusion The benefits of imposing smoking bans far outweigh the disadvantages of not having them applied in society. In light of the arguments put forward by the opponents of smoking bans, the only substantial argument against smoking ban is from the smokers’ point of view. This means that smokers’ rights should be observed and respected. Smokers deserve to be treated well and should not suffer any form of discrimination. Opponents of smoking bans contend that these bans increase the addiction rates in smokers. The critics argue that smoking bans make smokers and other people change the behaviours. This fact is refuted by proponents of smoking bans who contend that, increases in smoking due to these bans is offset by the fact that smoking bans discourage potential smokers from engaging into smoking habits. Opponents of smoking bans also contend that these bans translate into extra medical costs for the government in treating addictions and smoke related diseases. They also argue that smoking bans result into increased medical expenses for coronary related diseases. These opponents claim that a ban on smoking leads to increased eating habits, which end up in unhealthy eating disorders such as obesity. Such disorders bring about coronary related diseases such as cardiac arrests and high blood pressure. On the other hand, proponents of smoking bans contend that smoking bans have resulted in low medical costs because of a considerable decline in the number of patients visiting medical facilities with smoke related diseases. According to the proponents of smoking bans, there has been an increase in the general health of the populace since the inception of these bans. The proponents have sited significant improvements in the health of individuals because of limiting the involuntary exposure of second-hand smoke to non-smokers. From the economic point of view, the negative effects of smoking ban are compensated for by a decrease in health expenses associated with smoke related diseases. Smoking ban improves the health of individuals and societies, and does not negatively affect the economy of the country. References Abate, M. (2013). Cigarette smoking and musculoskeletal disorders. Muscle, Ligaments And Tendons Journal. doi:10.11138/mltj/2013.3.2.063 Anger, S., Kvasnicka, M., & Siedler, T. One Last Puff? Public Smoking Bans and Smoking Behavior. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1588732 Brodeur, A. Smoking, Income and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Smoking Bans. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2066485 Burns, D. (2000). Primary prevention, smoking, and smoking cessation. Cancer, 89(S11), 2506-2509. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20001201)89:11+3.3.co;2-# Craven, B., & Marlow, M. (2008). ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF SMOKING BANS ON RESTAURANTS AND PUBS. Economic Affairs, 28(4), 57-61. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0270.2008.00867.x Gottlieb, S. (1999). Smoking bans do not hurt tourism. BMJ, 318(7197), 1510-1510. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1510c Keltner, N., & Grant, J. (2006). Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette. Perspect Psychiat Care, 42(4), 256-261. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6163.2006.00085. Oh, J., Lim, M., Yun, E., Shin, S., Park, E., & Park, E. (2012). Cost and effectiveness of the nationwide government-supported Smoking Cessation Clinics in the Republic of Korea. Tobacco Control, 22(e1), e73-e77. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050110 Ojeda, A. (2002). Smoking. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. Read More