Smoking and Its Affects on Americans - Essay Example

Smoking and its Effects in America While it cannot be denied that smoking causes harm to America’shealth in various ways, it must also be understood that the issue of whether or not to allow smoking is introducing a distinct threat to America’s freedoms. America’s campaign against smoking anyplace even in open, well-ventilated areas is an example of good intentions gone wrong. Smokers do not have a legal or moral right to cause harm to others by exposing them to toxic fumes, a fact readily acknowledged by both non-smokers and smokers alike. Smokers even more than non-smokers understand the health consequences because they are living with the ill-effects of their habit and willingly take the necessary steps to ensure their smoking does not infringe on others. However, excessive, over restrictive policies and laws regarding smoking bans ignores the lawful rights of those who choose to smoke. Although smoking has not yet become recognized as constituting criminal rights infringement upon nonsmoking neighbors, officemates and children, it is clear to most that smoking should be banned from enclosed public places. A sensible ban which includes enclosed areas is justified because there is proven scientific evidence that second-hand smoke does have adverse effects upon the health of non-smokers. At one time, people did not fully understand the health risks of smoking or second-hand smoke. It was common for someone to light-up anywhere, anytime such as in an elevator. Watching a black and white television series confirms what today is considered completely unacceptable smoking etiquette was once common practice. Bans had to be instituted because so many continued to habitually smoke in familiar places such as restaurants after the dangers of smoking became universally accepted. However, now that the risks are widely acknowledged, such a ban is no longer necessary as most smokers realize the danger their habit poses to others. In light of new realizations regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke, few smokers would smoke unless they were outside or had confirmed the establishment or venue they were in allowed smoking. Despite this, the anti-smoking advocates would extend a ban to any public place including bars, outdoor restaurants, parks and sidewalks regardless of the preferences of the patrons or the relative ventilation of the area. This not only is an instance of a group imposing its will on another without just cause therefore diminishing their civil liberties, it also diminishes the profits of businesses thus negatively impacting the economy. “Bars and restaurants, as well as other public businesses, must incur additional costs to accommodate their smoking customers, or lose their patronage. Many of the restrictions, such as smoking in outdoor parks or indoor cigar bars (established specifically for cigar smokers), will not reduce the rate of cancer in nonsmokers, but merely restrict one particular behavior that may be annoying to some people” (Fu, 2006). Laws that impede personal freedoms are unconstitutional, defy the intentions of the Founding Fathers and therefore are un-American. Only when a person’s actions negatively affect another does the government have a right to intervene. This is the definition of freedom as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Legislators will not ban smoking entirely because they indicate regulation regarding what adults do in privacy including what they can put into their bodies is clearly unconstitutional and an infringement on personal liberties (Fu, 2006). Our code of law is founded upon a principle of presumptive rationality.  Rational adults should be allowed to make personal choices as long as those actions cause no harm to others.  In banning smoking from enclosed general public places, the public health is protected, but in extending this to apply to all areas outdoors and all interiors of private businesses, the rights of some Americans are revoked in favor of others with no true justification. The U.S. government is unequivocally unjustified in choosing this particular personal freedom to ignore at such colossal cost to society. The vast majority of those who like to smoke are happy 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. However, they, like their non-smoking neighbors, also have the right to enjoy public spaces that their tax dollars help support. Although smokers are not insisting upon filling America’s public spaces with cancer-causing toxins, it is true that non-smokers are infringing upon the rights and freedoms of smokers in demanding that well-ventilated, open-air spaces be included in smoking bans. 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. It has 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 (Larson, 2003). 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). Reasonable persons who happen to smoke, an overwhelming majority, acknowledge that actions such as smoking in a car with the windows rolled up while the kids are in the car is at least a mild form of child neglect. It is unreasonable for citizens not allowed the civil liberty to engage in any activity that does not harm other persons or their property. Smokers have actually become an oppressed minority in the U.S. As an example, smokers are commonly the victims of workplace discrimination due to their unfortunate cigarette addiction. According to a 1988 survey taken by the Administrative Management Society, the policy of about 6,000 employers (six percent of all U.S. companies) disallows smoking whether on the job or off. This percentage has certainly grown since that time (Stascia, 1991). The overly-restrictive smoking laws are but example of a larger problem, the enactment of laws which restrict freedom without sufficient justification, ‘no harm’ laws which include, among others, seatbelt and helmet laws, prostitution and gambling. How far is it from this step to laws restricting the movements of adults after midnight, for example, or to the relinquishment of privacy rights? We, as a society, are continuously growing toward intolerance in both our legislation and our minds. To what extent personal freedom should be permitted is not the issue. Personal freedoms are an American birthright that is slowly but surely eroding over time. Whether or not the American people have the courage to protect and restore these freedoms is the real issue. 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. While restrictions in closed-area spaces may be reasonable and justified, smokers argue that unreasonable restrictions on their freedoms such as enjoying a nice smoke after dinner in the designated smoking section or while outdoors crosses the line of reason and damages the concepts of liberty and personal freedom as defined by the nation’s founding documents. Works Cited Fu, Edward. “Should Drugs be Legalized?” Drug Policy News. Drug Policy Alliance. (March 8, 2006). August 23, 2008 Larson, Aaron. “Assault and Battery.” Expert Law. (October 2003). August 23, 2008 Stascia, A. “New Look at Wellness Plans: Well-Designed Programs Trim Fat.” Health Care Tab, Bus. Ins. (February 18, 1991). 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. Child Welfare Information Gateway (2003). August 23, 2008 Read More