Smoking in Public - Essay Example

?Smoking in Public The 20th century witnessed tremendous attitudinal shifts towards tobacco. During the early part of the 20th century smoking was a widely accepted social activity and was regularly supported in advertisements by prominent celebrities and public figures. After the growing popularity of smoking, increasing medical reports emerged as to the cancerous risks associated with smoking. Further evidence emerged that attested to even the dangers of second-hand smoke to have detrimental health affects. With this increasing medical understanding public perception drastically shifted against smoking, and it became outlawed in restaurants and many public spaces. This essay considers arguments that present the dangers of smoking in public, as well as a counter-argument to these contentions. There are a number of prominent medical arguments for the need to ban smoking in public. While it is a readily accepted fact the smoking contributes to cancer, the detrimental impact of second-hand smoke is a relatively new understanding. Still, a growing body of scientific research points to the negative impacts of second-hand smoke. Consider a study conducted in 2004 that demonstrated non-smokers who live with a partner who smokes in the house have a 20-30% greater risk of lung cancer (Sasco, Secretan, & Straif). This same study indicated that non-smokers who work in a workplace where smoking is permitted and occurs regularly have a 16-19% greater chance of getting lung cancer (Sasco, Secretan, & Straif). In addition to these reports, other reports have even indicated that second-hand smoke contains carcinogens that are oftentimes more harmful than direct smoking. These findings constitute a strong medical argument against second-hand smoke in public. Another prominent argument against smoking in public is the significant impact it has on air quality. From a qualitative perspective, one notes that the smoke that emerges from cigarettes can be pervasive to the point of obstructing individual’s views of surrounding scenery, or significantly hindering the public atmosphere and environment. In this context of understanding, scientific evidence has also indicated that smoking in public spaces greatly increases the production of respirable suspended particles. These are particles that are both medically dangers, as well as obstructing the quality of view of the surrounding area (‘Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report’). Studies have also demonstrated significant improvements in air quality after smoking bans were established (‘Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report’). This data indicates that smoking in public significantly hinders air quality. While there are many arguments supporting the ban of smoking in public places, there also exist a number of counter-arguments to this contention. Even as medical evidence has emerged that strongly demonstrates the detrimental health impacts of second-hand smoke, a number of civil rights activists have argued that this does not constitute a significant enough reason to restrict the rights of others. Indeed, a number of counter-arguments to smoking bans have emerged that list the restriction of human rights as a significant objection (Hoggart). Perspectives within this realm of thought argue that since smoking is legalized they should subsequently be granted the right to smoke in public places. In this context of understanding one considers that although smoking in public has a detrimental medical affect, it is more of an infringement of individuals rights to restrict this action. Another prominent argument supporting smoking bans is that in allowing smoking in public places the air quality is significantly affected in negative ways. Counter-arguments to this claim emerge along a number of lines. Similar to the argument that smoking bans infringe on human rights, the argument that smoking in public places causes air pollution is objected to on the grounds that restricting this constitutes a significant human rights violation. In addition to these arguments, a number of other arguments have been levied against smoking bans on economic grounds. Frequent businesses, most prominently bars and restaurants, indicate that while air quality is a concern, being forced to prohibit smoking significantly hinders their ability to draw customers and sustain a profit (Hoggart). These individuals argue that oftentimes smoking carries with it significant economic gain as the smokers are more willing to engage in the facilities’ amenities, including alcohol sales and other recreational business aspects. Ultimately, these arguments demonstrate that there is significant concern over prohibiting smoking based on air quality concerns. While significant arguments for and against smoking bans exist, ultimately it’s clear that banning smoking constitutes the most socially responsible action. When one considers this debate, it’s necessary to consider utilitarian ethics that note one must act in accord what is of the greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people (Paulson). Within this context of understanding one considers that smoking in public places adversely affects all those who come into contact with the second-hand smoke. While the rights of the smokers are infringed upon, more people would benefit through the prohibition of smoking in public places. There are a number of considerations within this position that demonstrates the ethical superiority of banning smoking in public places. In these regards, one considers that while smokers have the option of smoking, individuals in public do not have the option of refraining from breathing the air in the environment. Furthermore, while smoking bans may hurt some businesses, an even greater proportion will be hurt by the detrimental medical affects suffered from second-hand smoke. Ultimately the collection of these reasons, as established through the foundation of utilitarian ethical theory, demonstrate that banning smoking in public places is the most socially responsible action to take. In conclusion, this essay has considered arguments in favor and against banning smoking in public places. Supporting arguments have indicated that smoking in public holds significant negative medical impacts for both the smoker and individuals suffering from the secondhand smoke. Smoking is also demonstrated to cause significant air pollution. Counter-arguments to these claims contend that banning smoking is both an infringement on individual rights and bad for businesses. Ultimately, it’s demonstrated that banning smoking is the most socially responsible action to take, as this prohibition holds the greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people. References Hoggart, Simon (2007). "Is the smoking ban a good idea?". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 7 Apr. 2010. ‘Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 12 November 2004. pp. 1038–1041. Paulson, Douglas. (1999). Utilitarian Ethics: A Contemporary Approach. New York: Templeton Press. Sasco AJ, Secretan MB, Straif K. (2004). "Tobacco smoking and cancer: a brief review of recent epidemiological evidence". Lung Cancer 45 (Suppl 2): S3–9. Schick S, Glantz S. (2005). ‘Philip Morris toxicological experiments’ Tob Control. 14 (6): 396–404. Read More