Prohibiting smoking in public places - Research Paper Example

? November 12, Prohibiting Smoking in Public Places The legal system should regulate smoking in public places by prohibiting it, and by rigorously enforcing the ban. Murder, robbery, aggressive actions, sale of drugs that are considered to be dangerous, overt sexual acts, unauthorized use of explosives, transport of toxic materials, and many other potentially dangerous or offensive actions are strictly regulated or fully banned in public places. Cigarettes are dangerous and offensive to those people who are exposed in public places. The term, “in public,” implies shared space. It must be considered that there are ill people, infants and children, pregnant women, elderly people, valuable and contributing members of society, animals, birds, insects, trees, plants, and air in that shared space. All are vulnerable to contamination and poisoning by toxins released in cigarette smoke. It is the purpose and duty of the legal system to protect people in shared space, as well as to uphold the protections promised in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Second-hand smoke is damaging and illness-inducing. Victims are involuntarily exposed, and many have no voice or social influence to fight against this injustice. Infants and children, for example, cannot voluntarily leave a smoke-filled area, but are at the mercy of adult choices. It is known that the effects of second-hand smoke on children places them at risk for developing frequent colds, asthma, coughs that do not go away, ear infections, high blood pressure, learning and behavioral difficulties (The Cleveland Clinic). People who work in restaurants or other service-related industries, where they are frequently exposed to second-hand smoke, are another high risk group with no real choice to stop exposure, if they leave the area, they risk losing employment and income. If they stay, they regularly absorb carcinogens and various smoking-related toxins into their body, increasing their risk of lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, emphysema, eye and nose irritation (The Cleveland Clinic). Smoking cigarettes is potentially fatal. Because it is voluntary, it can be seen as an act of slow-motion suicide. When a smoker smokes, in public space, he/she is performing a public act of self-destruction, witnessed by children, teenagers, and other emotionally impressionable people. It is a horrifying act, a slower death than catching one’s body on fire, in protest, or jumping off a skyscraper, but horrifying anyway. Civilized people, who choose to kill themselves, should do so in private, not demand witnesses. This argument has merit precisely because the average person is informed about the potentially fatal consequences of smoking. The act of smoking raises imagery, based on real information in the minds of informed witness. The witness understands that smoking can lead to heart attacks, strokes, and lung cancer. The witness has seen examples of yellow teeth and yellowed nails on a smoker. The witness has smelled the stale aroma hanging in a smoker’s hair, house, and clothing. Perhaps the witness mourns the death of a loved one, lost to the consequences of smoking. The witness is involuntarily confronted by this imagery, when a smoker lights up in shared space. If the shared space is a restaurant, the witness suffers damage to a healthy appetite. If the witness has asthma, or other respiratory illness, the smoker obliviously antagonizes another’s health condition. If the shared space includes pregnant women, their unborn children are also endangered, along with the mothers-to-be. Along with the pregnant woman, the fetus comes into higher risk of developing lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, allergies and asthma (The Cleveland Clinic). If the shared space is a public event, attention is forcibly re-directed to the smoker. If the shared space is a church hall or parking lot, the witness may suffer offense to his/her faith. If the shared space is a park, the beauty of connection with nature is compromised. The smoker sets a bad example for children and teens, which become confused and assume there is no real danger, after all, and that smoking is a normal pleasure, a privilege of growing up. Why should smokers have that kind of power, to suicide publicly? Why should they needlessly arouse unpleasant imagery and memories, ruin appetite, endanger the health of others and even rob them of breath, command attention, offend religious faith, compromise nature-connection, and mislead children and teens? Obviously, they should not have such power, and the legal system of every country must strongly enforce a full ban on smoking in public places. Smokers argue that the government has no business regulating a personal right, but how personal is it, and what makes it a right? As a consequence of exposure to second-hand smoke, 3000 USA non-smokers die of lung cancer each year and 46,000 USA non-smokers die from heart disease each year (National Cancer Institute). There is increasing research evidence indicating a connection between second-hand smoke exposure and breast cancer, cancer of the nasal-sinus cavity, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults (National Cancer Institute). Research is also tying second-hand smoke exposure to leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors, in children (National Cancer Institute). Any argument about smoking being a personal right is completely unreasonable. There is a common saying that one person’s right ends where the other person’s nose begins. In other words, personal freedom cannot take away another person’s rights. Smokers argue that the nicotine released from a burning cigarette is vaporized and not very potent, so there is no danger to by-standers (Clemitshaw). However, nicotine is not the central chemical problem, and in fact there is no safe amount of secondhand smoke (National Cancer Institute). When a smoker makes a personal decision to smoke in public, a lot of very toxic chemicals are released into the air and absorbed by others in shared space. Actually, more than 7000 chemicals are released into the air, and more than 250 of these chemicals are known to be dangerous (National Cancer Institute). Out of those, at least 69 are absolutely known to cause cancer (National Cancer Institute). The release of these chemicals into shared space should horrify any thinking person. For example, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, radioactive polonium-210, vinyl chloride, and a variety of others are released into the air, from a burning cigarette, and are absorbed by anyone sharing public space (National Cancer Institute). The smoker’s personal decision has a very public consequence, not only a personal one. Smokers argue that the law should stand aside and let people and individual communities voluntarily make their own regulations, or choose not to (Clemitshaw). This is not possible, however, when the choice involves something that is unconstitutional. In the past, the government has had to invalidate local choices when they discriminate against a particular group of people. Some examples are the outlawing of slavery, child labor, segregation, immigrant harassment, and child abuse. The Preamble to the United States Constitution declares that the purpose of the Constitution is to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (The White House). The legal system, including the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the United States Government, and the vast legal support system in operation throughout the country, is pledged to defend and honor the Constitution. Smoking in public places is unconstitutional, although the Supreme Court has not yet declared it so. Smoking creates a dysfunctional union between smokers and their victims. It flies in the face of justice by targeting a vulnerable population and forcibly inflicting damage and death on the innocent. In bringing illness and death, as well as traumatic imagery, bad examples for children and teens, and public slow-motion suicides, smoking interferes with domestic tranquility. The common defense and general welfare are endangered when smoking in public places victimizes others, bringing illness and death. Where are the blessings of liberty when poisons are routinely released into the air, poisoning those who do not choose to be poisoned, and those who cannot escape the poisons? Smoking violates the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States (The White House). There is, therefore, no question that the legal system should completely prohibit any and all smoking in public places. Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights, says that whatever rights were not specifically mentioned, in the Constitution, are to be retained by the people (The White House). Surely the right to not be poisoned, sickened, and killed in public places, by people who are choosing to destroy themselves at the expense of others, is a right that must be recognized. Second-hand smoke exposure is reasonably included in the Ninth Amendment right. No country can promote the happiness and well-being of its citizens, so long as one group (smokers) is permitted to destroy another group (non-smokers). There have been a variety of international situations, recently, in which the United Nations and member nations have confronted, imposed sanctions on, and even took aggressive approaches toward leadership that made strong efforts to support the destruction of one group by another, based on personal group interest or extreme ideas. Examples are the situations in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Iran. Looking at history, it can be seen that there is strong ethical responsibility to legally intervene and stop unreasonable and extreme victimization. Examples are the Holocaust, by Hitler’s Nazis, the genocide in Ruwanda, and the sexual molestation incidents at Pennsylvania State University. All legal systems, globally, should immediately take a strong stand against smoking, and should prohibit it in all public places. Smokers argue that the economic impact of banning smoking in public places will damage businesses such as bars and restaurants and harm the income of employees (Clemitshaw). This argument inspires less sympathy if the cost of second-hand smoke, alone, is considered. That cost is hard to identify, but there have been studies that constructed estimates. Research findings in a Minnesota study showed that the cost of treatment, each year, for conditions resulting from second-hand smoke, was $228.7 million, four years ago, a per resident cost of $44.58 (Walters, Foldes and Alesci). As research studies continue to identify additional conditions for which second-hand smoke presents a high risk, it is reasonable to suspect that the annual cost is actually much higher than that. A research study done in Indiana found that the total health-related cost of exposure to second-hand smoke was $62.68 per resident (Zallinger, Saywell and Overgaard). This study was done 12 years ago, so would be vastly higher if research advances of the last decade (on second-hand smoke exposure health risks) were available then. A common argument of smokers is that cigarettes help the smoker to relax. They claim they cannot quit because they need cigarettes to survive daily stress, and that nonsmokers should respect that, even in public spaces. The truth, however, is that nicotine is a stimulant and so it stimulates, speeding up metabolism. Smokers are generally nervous and jumpy, and they are this way because they are addicted to a drug that is damaging them. Addiction adds to daily stress by causing physical and psychological craving, as well as guilt and low self-esteem (Stelling). When nonsmokers allow smokers to smoke in public places, out of a mistaken idea that it will help them to relax, they are making it easy for the smoker to continue addictive behavior. They make it easier for the addict to damage him/herself and others. The legal system should not reinforce addiction. They should prohibit smoking in public places. Conclusion Smoking is not simply a personal choice for gambling with personal risk. Smoking is antisocial, injurious to non-smoking children and adults, suicidal, and otherwise potentially fatal. It is unconstitutional, addictive, unethical, homicidal, financially and emotionally expensive to society. Smoking involves intentional damage by one group against another group. It damages fetuses, children, teens, adults, and tramples on their rights to breathe safely and feel good. Smokers say they feel picked-on and unfairly targeted, made to feel like criminals, as though their right to personal choice is not respected (Clemitshaw). Smoking should be classified as a criminal act, and should be prohibited in public places. That is the duty of the legal system, in order to protect the innocent, and sustain the rights and values upon which America was established. Works Cited Clemitshaw, Gary. "Smoking in Public Places." 2012. Citizenship Foundation. Web. 12 November 2012. National Cancer Institute. "Secondhand Smoke and Cancer." 12 January 2011. National Cancer Institute. Web. 11 November 2012. Stelling, Neil. "The Truth About Smokers' Relaxation Ruse." 2004. streetdirectory.com. Web. 12 November 2012. The Cleveland Clinic. "Live Well." 16 December 2008. Cleveland Clinic HealthHub. Web. 10 November 2012. The White House. "The Constitution." n.d. the White House. 11 November 2012. . Walters, Hugh R., et al. "The Economic Impact of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke in Minnesota." American Journal of Public Health (2009): 99(4): 754-759. Print. Zallinger, TW, et al. "Estimating the Economic Impact of Secondhand Smoke on the Health of a Community." American Journal of Health Promotion (2004): 18(3): 232-238. Print. Read More