The Freedom of Choice vs Smoking Ban - Essay Example

I. Background on the Controversy Surrounding Freedom of Choice versus Smoking Ban. A. Reactions to the ban proposal illegal 2. unconstitutional B.Economics of Smoking C. Thesis Statement: Even if one were to suppose that the ban on smoking had political and economic costs, whether to the concept of individual liberty or lost revenues, the fact is that strong measures need to be taken against smoking, because the practice untold health, economic and environmental harms and acts as an immediate threat to the rights and liberties of non-smokers. II. The argument for banning smoking is clear: cigarettes kill smokers, pollute the environment and damage the health of non-smokers. A. Health Consequences B. Environmental Consequences C. The real question is whether the decision to smoke should be left to individuals and considered a sacrosanct right as per the doctrine of individual liberty and freedom. III. Despite scientific evidence pertaining to the harms of smoking, tobacco is marketed, advertised, promoted, and sold to minors in contradiction to all laws. A. Statistics show that almost 1.3 million youth become addicted to smoking each year. B. Smoking is addictive. C. Ban on smoking is a response to the harms of smoking. IV. Many opponents against banning smoking have suggested that banning smoking would have a negative effect on the economy of all countries that rely on tobacco for their income. A. Poor tobacco producing farmers will not be harmed as other crops may be grown B. Tobacco-exporting countries will not be harmed as other crops may be grown and exported C. The ban will only effective the rich multinational corporations V. Cigarettes smoking cannot be defended, nor should the habit fall under the category of individual choice and free will. A. Smoking pollutes the environment. B. Smoking is more addictive than any prohibited drug. C. Smoking kills smokers and non-smokers. VI. There is no doubt that smoking does tremendous harm to smokers, and statistics have proven that it is deadly. A. Smoking covers a wide range of different major deadly diseases like cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, pancreas, uterus, cervix, kidney bladder and heart disease. B. Leading cause of preventable deaths. C. Harms of smoking overwhelm anti-ban arguments. VII. Smoking publicly is another major issue because smokers are not only hurting themselves as they smoke in public places but also damaging the health of other surrounding non-smokers. A. Statistics on Passive Smoker Deaths B. Chronic health problems traced to passive smoking. VIII. Smoking is uncontrollable and is spreading at an extremely fast rate, due to both peer pressure and advertising. A. Teen smoking statistics B. Causes and consequences of underage smoking. IX. Advertisement is another factor which has greatly contributed to the fast growing rate of smoking among teens. A. Economics of tobacco advertisement B. Proliferation of tobacco ads. C. Consequence of tobacco advertisements X. The harms of smoking are such that it is imperative to pass a ban on public smoking as a means of discouraging the habit and limiting its harms, irrespective of arguments claiming that doing so would be a violation of inalienable human freedoms. In social, political and legal environments which uphold freedom of choice and personal liberty, the decision of some governments and local authorities to ban smoking in public places has been a subject of controversy and debate. In reaction to Scotland's decision to ban smoking in public places, Gillian Bowditch expressed concern over the way that governments are increasingly using the health concern and public welfare argument as an "excuse to invade personal freedom, reduce freedom of choice and create an artificially homogenous society." This is not an isolated reaction as in response to the Minnesotan federal government's proposal to ban smoking in public areas, Craig Westover argues that this is contrary to the US Constitution and against the very principles that the United States was founded upon. The US Constitution and the country's founding principles emphasise the inalienable right to individual liberty and freedom of choice, with the implication being that the government, whether local, national or federal, does not possess the right to prohibit smoking in publicly owned properties (Westover). It is therefore apparent that the ban on smoking has been interpreted by some as a dangerous transgression against individual liberty and freedom of choice. It has further been interpreted by others as an irresponsible decision, or proposal, with disastrous economic consequences for many. In 2004, an Economist article entitled "A Smoking Ring" noted that a ban on smoking could cost the global economy billions of dollars per year in lost revenues, with the burden of the loss falling upon tobacco farmers and industry workers. Even if one were to suppose that the ban on smoking had political and economic costs, whether to the concept of individual liberty or lost revenues, the fact is that strong measures need to be taken against smoking, because the practice untold health, economic and environmental harms and acts as an immediate threat to the rights and liberties of non-smokers. The argument for banning smoking is clear: cigarettes kill smokers, pollute the environment and damage the health of non-smokers. Scientific facts illustrate that "for each 1000 tons of tobacco produced, about 1000 people eventually will die" (Tuttle). Research shows that both passive and active smoking are the cause of 32% of all forms of fatal cancers, 88% of lung cancer, 21% of fatal heart diseases, and 90% of fatal throat cancer (Tuttle). Incontrovertible scientific evidence proves that smoking permanently damages the health of smokers and, in a significant number of cases, kills them. Not only that but scientific evidence further indicates that smoking kills non-smokers, or passive smokers. As reported by Dr. Klerman, a medical practitioner and researcher, paediatrics studies indicate that the greater percentage of infants and children raised in a smoking environment, or who are regularly exposed to cigarette smoke, suffer chronic respiratory problems and are vulnerable to sudden infant death syndrome. Environmental studies only serve to solidify the argument against smoking and for a ban on smoking in public places. The environmental scientist, Dr. Akhbar-Khanzadeh reports that studies have proven that cigarette smoke is only of the leading causes of indoor air pollution. Considering that exposure to this form of pollution has been directly linked to the development of heart diseases and chronic respiratory conditions, it becomes increasingly difficult to support the rights of smokers to smoke ("Secondhand Smoke"). In other words, bearing the aforementioned facts and figures in mind, the real question is whether the decision to smoke should be left to individuals and considered a sacrosanct right as per the doctrine of individual liberty and freedom. Despite scientific evidence pertaining to the harms of smoking, tobacco is marketed, advertised, promoted, and sold to minors in contradiction to all laws. Statistics show that almost 1.3 million youth become addicted to smoking each year, and that this figure is constantly rising ("Incidence of Initiation"). Furthermore, despite campaigns that have been carried out to show the harms of smoking, very few smokers have been able to permanently give up the habit for the very simple reason that nicotine is a highly addictive substance ("Tobacco Use Among Youth"). Noting that smoking is both the source of numerous chronic health complications ad highly addictive, not to mention the fact that over a million youth pick up the habit every year, it is evident that smokers need be pressured into giving up this habit and that potential smokers need to be actively discouraged from adopting the habit. A ban on smoking can help achieve these objectives. Opponents of this argument say that this is contrary the doctrine of individual liberty and the principle of freedom of choice but, the same arguments are not made to support the legalization of drugs and, smoking is no less harmful to society. Many opponents against banning smoking have suggested that banning smoking would have a negative effect on the economy of all countries that rely on tobacco for their income. They argue that farmers will become bankrupt (McCarten). This claim is weak for the simple fact that tobacco farmers and countries will not be permanently effected as they can easily, and gradually, grow other crops to replace tobacco and the income lost. In fact, over-concentration on the negative economic impact of banning smoking on tobacco-producing countries and farmers, appears to be a consequence of promotions carried out by multinational tobacco companies, and not by the concerned countries and farmers. These two, as stated earlier, can eventually harvest other crops and make up for their economic losses, but the tobacco companies cannot do a similar shift in manufacturing and will lose billions of dollars if such a ban was ever made (McCarten). In fact, as a proof against claims stating that tobacco-producing countries and farmers will suffer a permanent economic damage, many of the world's largest tobacco-exporting countries are supporting a ban on all tobacco advertising (Brown). In doing so they know that this action will cut down on their profits and, therefore, would not have made such an appeal if there was any threat of bankruptcy. They know that cigarettes kill, and know that they can, eventually, grow another crop besides tobacco. Thus, in the long run, tobacco-producing countries and farmers will not suffer extreme economic damage. However, the situation is different for the rich multinational companies who cannot as easily undertake a shift in the type of product they manufacture. Besides that, given the profitability of the industry and the billions of dollars tobacco sales generate every year, it is unlikely that tobacco manufacturers would ever seriously consider changing their activity. In the United States alone, tobacco manufacturers exceed the two billion dollar profit mark in annual sales to underage consumers ("Underage Smoking Generates Profits"). What other product could bring in such profits Cigarettes smoking cannot be defended, nor should the habit fall under the category of individual choice and free will. Smoking pollutes the environment, it is more addictive than any prohibited drug, and it kills smokers and non-smokers. According to the Oral Cancer Foundation, "each year, smoking kills more people than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires - combined" (Tuttle). Statistics illustrate that smoking is the cause of approximately 20% of all deaths in the United States (Tuttle). Therefore, should it be treated any differently than guns which are designed to kill There is no doubt that smoking does tremendous harm to smokers, and statistics have proven that it is deadly. First of all, smoking covers a wide range of different major deadly diseases like cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, pancreas, uterus, cervix, kidney bladder and even heart attack ("Fatal Behaviour"). Furthermore, it also dominates the percentage of the cause of those deadly diseases. For example, smoking causes 32% of fatal cancers, 21% of fatal heart disease, 88% of fatal chronic lung and nearly 90% of all lung cancer and throat cancer (Napier). As we can see, not necessarily all the cancers are caused by smoking, but a great percentage of them are. While it is true that not all smokers suffer cancer or the diseases listed, they are 50% more likely to (Tuttle). As stated by Kristin Napier, "cigarette smoking is by far the leading cause of preventable death." Thus, a ban against smoking will not benefit both smokers and non smokers. Such a ban may be seen as a contradiction to the concept of freedom of choice, but people should not be able to chose to adopt a habit that has proven dangers to both themselves and society. Just as drugs are illegal because of the negative effect they have on both users and society, cigarettes should also be made illegal for the same reasons. Smoking publicly is another major issue because smokers are not only hurting themselves as they smoke in public places but also damaging the health of other surrounding non-smokers. One non-smoker dies of second-hand smoke for every eight smokers, and over 53,000 Americans die each year from passive smoking which ranks as the third-leading cause of preventable death ("Fatal Behaviour"). Also, countless others suffer from cardiovascular diseases as a direct result of passive smoking ("Fatal Behaviour"). If smokers chose to harm themselves, they should not be able to chose to harm others. Smokers do not have this right but, since they appear incapable of stopping the habit the law should interfere. Banning smoking is not simply a matter of protecting smokers from themselves, but protecting all of us from them. Smoking is uncontrollable and is spreading at an extremely fast rate, due to both peer pressure and advertising ("Why Do Young People Smoke"). More and more people, especially teens, become smokers each day. Ninety percent of smokers start smoking when they are teens, and 3000 young people become regular smokers everyday ("Fact Sheets" 1). In 1998, 35.1 percent of 12th graders in the United States smoked, in addition to one third of all seniors in high schools (1). Within an environment such as that it is easy to see how the behavior of friends could influence a teenager to adopt this habit. If smoking were banned, teenagers would not be pressured to smoke and, eventually damage their health and pollute the environment. If smoking were banned, 3,000 youth will not become addicted to tobacco everyday. Simply stated, banning will save lives. Advertisement is another factor which has greatly contributed to the fast growing rate of smoking among teens. Tobacco products are actually one of the most heavily advertised products in the United States, and advertisers spend over 6 billion dollars on cigarettes advertising and promotion a year ("Fact Sheet"). Those brands that advertise the greatest are those that are most heavily sold ("Fact Sheet"). However, efforts to control advertising have failed. Thus, while it is now illegal to advertise cigarettes on television, manufacturers can advertise through magazines, newspapers and signs on stores. Wherever we look, we find cigarette advertisements and there is no possible way of controlling it. Even if there were, the fact remains that peer pressure and addiction will keep this dangerous habit alive. The only solution to this incredible problem is a ban on smoking. People are dying everyday from smoking, and the rate is rapidly increasing since tremendous amount of people become smokers everyday especially teenagers. There is no way to just educate people about the harmful effects of smoking since they either already know it or are already addicted to it ("Total Ban Will Help Curb Smoking Habit"). This method has completely failed, and the only option left is to force people not to smoke or to ban smoking. This proposal should be reasonable since smoking is no different from recreational drugs; it only differs from recreational drugs in that it is legal. Smoking has been scientifically proven to harm the health of the smokers just like drugs. Then, why should cigarettes be legal while drugs are not Works Cited "A Smoke Ring That'll Cost You $280 Billion." Economist, 372, 8393. 18 Sep. 2004. Academic Search Premier. Online. EBSCOhost. Akbar-Khanzadeh, Farhang. "Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Restaurants without Separate Ventilation Systems for Smoking and Nonsmoking Dining Areas." Archives of Environmental Health. 58, 2. Feb. 2003, Academic Search Premier. Online. EBSCOhost. Bowditch, Gillian. "A Smoking Ban Too Far." The Sunday Times. 5 March 2006. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2070602,00.html Brown, Phyllidia. "African States Call for Ban On Tobacco Advertising." http://www.fctc.org/news134.shtml "Fact Sheets: Effect of Advertising On Children's Use of Tobacco." National Institute of Media and Family. http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/research/fact/tobac.shtml "Fatal Behaviour: Why Oregonians Die Prematurely." Oregon Health Trends. 44. Dec., 1995. http://www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/chs/newsltr/no44.pdf "Incidence of Initiation of Cigarette Smoking Among U.S. Teens." http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/youth/initfact.htm Klerman, Lorraine V. "Protecting Children: Reducing Their Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure." Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2, 6. Apr., 2004. Academic Search Premier. Online. EBSCOhost. McCarten, James. "Quitting Smoking Often As Hard for Governments As It Is for Canadians." Yahoo. 28 Jan., 2002. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020128/6/hyib.html Napier, Kristen. "Cigarettes: What the Warning Label Doesn't Tell You." American Council on Science and Health, 1996. http://www.acsh.org/publications/smoking/intro.pdf "Secondhand Smoke Linked to Heart Attacks." Indoor Environment Quality Strategies. 17, 5. May 2004. Academic Search Premier. Online. EBSCOhost. "Total Ban Will Help Curb Smoking Habit." Tribune News Service. 13 Jan., 2002. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020113/cth3.htm Tuttle, Bill. "Types of Tobacco." Oral Cancer Foundation. http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/types_of_tobacco.htm "Why Do Young People Smoke" http://www.who.int/archives/ntday/ntday98/ad98e_5.htm "Underage Smoking Generates Profits, Taxes: Prohibition On Sale of Tobacco to Minors Poorly Enforced." 30 June, 1999. Umass Medics. Westover, Craig. "The Dark Side of the Smoking Ban." 26 January 2005. http://craigwestover.blogspot.com/2005/01/dark-side-of-smoking-ban.html Read More