No Smoking Legislation - Essay Example

No Smoking Legislation Introduction No smoking legislation is a policy that aims at banning smoking in public. Various countries have taken the initiative to ban public smoking among their citizens; the core reason for the bar is to reduce health risk associated with both active and passive smoking. The law illegalizes smoking in public places. As a result of the ban legislation, different premises or places are supposed to flaunt a no smoking display, to inform citizens that smoking is prohibited in that locality or the premises. Some of the premises affected with the veto include offices, bars, factories, shops, hotels, restaurants, casinos, clubs, dance hall, sport centers, petrol stations, and transport system or public vehicles. The designated locations for the display have similar characteristics, they all holds large number of persons. The legislation has some exceptions to particular business premises; the law allows the businesses to designate or allocate enclosed regions where their customers can smoke. No smoking legislation is effective in reducing health problems in the population (Ahn, 2012). Different countries globally have adopted the legislation after carrying out researches. There has been evident change in terms of health as a result of the ban; cases related with both active and passive smoking drastically reduced. Personally, I support the ban or no smoking legislation, with the bar it has reduced the number of children admitted as result of asthmatic attacks in hospital at both United States and United Kingdom (Carter, 2012). Children are the most victims of passive smoking in the society, hence, ban in public smoking will be an initiative to safeguard children’s and passive smoker’s health. Statistics shows that before the ban, the percentage of children being admitted due to serious asthma attacks were increasing by 2.2% each year in United States. After the implementation of the no smoking legislation, the percentage of children admission accordingly to asthmatic attack reduced by 12.3% and there is further reduction by 3% annually. Other research conducted in Scotland and china had similar outcome, reflecting in the reduction of public health problem because of passive or active smoking. Therefore, on personal perspective, the ban on public smoking should continue to be implemented (Carter, 2012). Past and Current Cases Related To Ban There have been many cases that evolved after execution of no smoking in public policy, which are both positive and negative. On the past cases, after public ban, there was court petition at Ohio to stop implementation of the law. People who filed the petition were citizens and other business personalities. For the business owners, they filled their petition citing that the law was invading on the business property rights, hence affecting their ability to generate income (Ahn, 2012). Citizen filed petition on the ground that it affect their personal life, thus citing that the law should either be amended or abolished. After implementation of the law, there has been imposition of fine to the public and private premises that violates the act. Many businesses have been taken to court after failing to abide to the law. In some of the past cases where bars at Ohio failed to respect laws; bars did not have posters on No smoking and it allowed its citizens to smoke in public. The magistrate fined the bars showing examples to other business to abide to the provided decree. After the attainment of ban in several parts globally, countries have gone further to abolish or prohibits advertisement of tobacco product. Some countries prohibited Tobacco Company to sponsor any sporting events. The ban of sponsorship and advertisement in the European Union (EU) in the year 2005 impelled formula one management to find other ways, which allows display of the livery or racing color of tobacco sponsorship (Gilleskie & Strumpf, 2000). These later led to some of the scheduled races to be cancelled in the favor of a more friendly tobacco market. In the year 2007 after prohibition of sponsorship, only one team, the scuderia Ferrari received sponsorship from Tobacco Company. Other teams sought sponsorship from other companies; Marlboro turn to be the major backer as it sponsored two teams. By the year 2012, despite the prohibition by European Union on advertisement, there were still large billboards in Germany advertising tobacco products. In the year 2009, the Ireland followed EU instruction on prohibition, as they bar display and advertisement of tobacco products at retail store. This implies that stores will hoard tobacco product in closed areas where it cannot be viewed (Ahn, 2012). On current cases or current development related to no smoking legislation, there has been criticism among citizens and business fraternity on implementation of the law. There has been several activist who have criticizes government involvement and interference of individuals lifestyle. This group of individual claimed that the law is misguiding. Their arguments are based on the interpretation of harms principle by john mill. They perceive or view the law as the hindrance to consumption of tobacco rather than affecting or harming other persons. According to property right, some sections of citizen and business people challenged the government by drawing division between private or individual owned premises and public environment. They believed that government should allow citizen to run their business freely within their properties. After the ban of smoking in public was attained, different countries have gone ahead to ban smoking tobacco product in their state. In 2012, Bhutan was the first nation to abolish harvesting, sale, and production of tobacco product. The Pitcairn also banned sale of tobacco and illegalized tobacco smoking within countries boarders. Currently, New Zealand is working hard to attain tobacco free country by the year 2025. In Finland in 2012, anti-smoking groups lobbied for licensing of smokers. They stated that smokers should be given license to smoke, and after they have decided to quit their licenses will be taken back. In the same year, Brazil government became the first to abolish flavored tobacco products in the market including menthols; it then banned the use of 600 additives in cigarettes and allowed to use only eight additives, which are not harmful (Gilleskie & Strumpf, 2000). Current Public Perspective on the Ban According to Gallup poll, they found that 54% of the American citizens were advocating no smoking in restaurants, and any other public places. About 34% of the public wanted no smoking in hotels and 29% wanted no smoking in streets and congested regions. In the same poll, about 27% of the American citizens were against the ‘No smoking’ legislation due to varies reasons. According to the survey conducted by… which involved over 26500 Europeans, they found that majority of the sampled population were supporting the abolishment of tobacco smoking in public places such as restaurant, hotels, bars, offices, in public vehicles, and in the institutions. The poll further indicated that majority of citizens feels that, abolishment in working environment is more active than at bars and restaurants. Countries that have implemented the legislation enjoy majority support from its citizens. On the aspects of displaying ‘No smoking’ notice in public places, about 87% of the population supported it, while minority believes it should be a self-driven initiative. Public opinion regarding fines imposed to those violating the law, about 78% of the population believed that, fines would enable smokers and business fraternities to respect and abide to stipulated laws. According to a group named anti smoking, they believed that they voice concerns of the majority citizens, and they state that, public smoking has harmful health effect to the populace. The group stated that there is economic and health benefit as a result of the ban, they explained that there was a drop in hospitals admission related to heart attack and asthmatic attacks. They supposed that, the decline or drop in this admission in hospitals is attributed to ban in public smoking of tobacco products. According to the survey done by Gilleskie and Strumpf, they stated that, there is diminution in smoking rate at the state as a result of the ban. They alleged that majority of citizens are confident their will be reduction in number of people smoking tobacco after full implementation of legislation (Gilleskie & Strumpf, 2000). CDC attributed the leveling off in tobacco smoking due to the ban, and the affirmed that, these has positive impact on the growth of countries economy, as less fund will be utilized to treat affected population. There are groups of individual who believed that ban in tobacco smoking at public places is not a way forward to protect its citizen’s health. These sections of people consider that, the legislation was aiming at interfering personal life, and be allowed to smoke where they want. As majority of citizens are supporting ban, it can be concluded that, the perspective of the public support the ban of public smoking (The impact of the United Kingdom comprehensive smoking ban on air quality and economic business of hospitality venues, 2013). Business Perspectives Different studies have been conducted to investigate economical impact after the implementation of the ban, and it yields different outcomes. According to EU, there is no negative outcome to business industry, but it has positive outcomes. Study in Australia at Sydney showed that the number of people who attended clubs and bars increased after the implementation of the law. Contrary to these finding, study done in Germany showed that number of customers in bars and restaurant drastically reduced; claiming that majority of its customers were smokers, hence avoid coming to their business premises (Evaluate the implementation of the smoking ban, 2012). According to the interview to business owners on their take regarding implementation of law, they claimed that the law had negative impact on their business. They affirmed that, majority of rural clubs were closed as most of their customers were smokers and they were coming at their premises to smoke. Major industries known to manufacture tobacco products recorded reduction in profit; the company claimed that there was decline on purchase, as large number of citizen’s quitted smoking due to restrictions. On statistical point of view regarding the impact of ban on business, German hotel, and restaurant association abbreviated as DEHOGA, they asserted that the ban has deterred customers from drinking and taking meals. The association states that 15% of business adopted the law; these businesses reported declines of 50% of their customers. In United Kingdom, the fall in sales by 7% was reported after the introduction of legislation. According to the survey involving registered business owner, they report that 58% of the regular customers reduced visiting their premises and 73% of those who visit the facility spend less time (The impact of the United Kingdom comprehensive smoking ban on air quality and economic business of hospitality venues, 2013). Causes and Effect of Smoking Causes of smoking have been attributed with peer pressure and environment of an individual. Majority of smokers started smoking during their teenage, because of peer pressure. Most young people started smoking slowly and continuously it becomes their habit or addiction Some individual at their adulthood, imitate people they view as their role model hence emulate them in smoking leading to addiction (Gilleskie & Strumpf, 2000). On the other hand, addiction or a cause of smoking is due to individuals surrounding or environment. If an individual lives in an environment where tobacco smoking is not a big deal, or the entire community acknowledges smoking, it will influence people around to start smoking, hence a habit or addiction (Evaluate the implementation of the smoking ban, 2012). Addiction or smoking remains to be the leading cause of illness and death in the population globally. In America, it is estimated that about 440,000 people die with illness or diseases associated with cigarette smoking, which accounts about one-fifth of every deaths that, occur in state. It is estimated that smoking kills large number of people compared to alcohol, AIDS, accidents, and suicides. According to CDC, the cost of the state in direct management of illness associated with smoking is high, as it is approximated to be about $100 billion annually (Shephard, 2004). Approximate 19% of the America population smokes and men are slightly more than women; about 21.5% men smokes and 17% women smoke. These pose negative economical effect to the nation, as large amount of its gross domestic income will be directed to health sector. In curbing this increased rate of smoking and its effect, the United States adopted the no smoking legislation (Gilleskie & Strumpf, 2000). Comparing smokers and non-smokers, smokers are fourteen times at higher risk of dying with cancer of throat, mouth, and lung. They are also two times at higher risk of dying with heart problems. Illness and conditions associated with smoking include heart diseases, stroke, hypertension, lung cancer, bronchitis, emphysema, pneumonia, peptic ulcer disease, burns, and cervical cancer. Smoking has psychological effect to smokers; the main psychological problem associated with smoking is depression. Smokers believe that through smoking they get “high feelings” or good feelings (Shephard, 2004). Their body will then start craving for high feelings, for this reason, end up depending on this chemicals for their survival and better functioning. If they fail to get sufficient chemical or not able smoke enough, they end up depressed. Therefore, the body will be used to feeling high and the smokers need to retain this state leading to addiction. With smoke ban at public places, it will reduce psychological effects to individuals. Conclusion No smoking legislation aims at promoting health of the population. Because of the ban, business premises are supposed to display No smoking sign to inform their customer that it is illegal to smoke in those places. Some of the affected region or premises include shop, restaurant, bar, offices public vehicles, and streets. The ban has health and economic benefits to citizens. Admission in hospitals reduced as most children and passive smokers were not affected. On economical benefits, most non-smokers could be able to visit restaurants and bars with no fear of being affected with smokes. Major health problems associated with both passive and active smoking include lung cancer, stroke, hypertension, and asthmatic attacks. References Ahn, B. (2012). The acute effect of tobacco-smoking and nicotine on the elctrocardiogram especially during induced hypoxia a clinical and experimental investigation. Stockholm: Appelberg. Carter, A. (2012). Passive smoking. Albany: Legislative and Governmental Services, New York State Library. Evaluate the implementation of the smoking ban. (2012). Tallahassee, Fla.: Committee on Regulated Industries. Gilleskie, B. and Strumpf, S. (2000). The behavioral dynamics of youth smoking. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Shephard, J. (2004). The risks of passive smoking. New York: Oxford University Press. The impact of the United Kingdom comprehensive smoking ban on air quality and economic business of hospitality venues. (2013). Hawthorn, Vic.: BioMed Central Ltd. Read More