The ban on smoking in public places - Essay Example

This seven page paper presents a detailed examination of the ban on smoking in public places in the of New York. The takes the reader through an exploratory journey where the history and the law enactments are discussed. In addition the impact the ban has had on society both socially and financially are examined. There were five sources used to complete this paper. Introduction The dangers of smoking are not new to mankind. The first hint that smoking was a health hazard dates as far back as the 18th century according to experts but it wasn’t until the 1920’s that serious research began about the hazards of smoking to health. Even then researchers had concerns about the hazards of smoking as they pertained to second hand smoke and people who inhaled it(Comfort pp 14). Commonly referred to as passive smoke, those who were around smoke without actually smoking themselves soon proved to have several definitive health risks associated with being near the smoke and inhaling it through passive (second hand methods). “Medical concerns about the dangers of passive smoking--inhaling other peoples tobacco smoke--can be traced back to the 1920s, and there is also now a widespread consensus that such passive smoking can cause disease. Other peoples tobacco smoke, either from the burning tip of a cigarette or the smoke that is exhaled by the smoker, is classed as a known human carcinogen by the US Environmental Protection Agency(Comfort pp 14). “ This knowledge was the driving force behind several states working to implement a ban on smoking in public places within their jurisdictions. For the most part public place for the purpose of legislative ban incorporated any “enclosed or semi-enclosed area that members of the public have access to which provides a business or a service including workplaces, buildings and public transport(Comfort pp 14). “ The populations that are targeted for protection under the bans include women who are pregnant, adults with heart disease or other health issues, healthy non smoking adults and children. “Direct benefits revolve mainly about respiratory health, and regular exposure to smoke may trigger asthma in infants and young children. The indirect benefits to young peoples health associated with smoke-free policies is seen to relate to the general reinforcement of the messages that non-smoking is now increasingly the norm within the community and would thus help to promote non-smoking lifestyles in future adult generations(Comfort pp 14).” While the ban is primarily directed at health issues there are non-health issues that are also derived from a non-smoking policy. They include the smell of nicotine not getting into clothes and hair simply being in a public location, and the absence of littering with butts, ashes and cigarette packages. While many states have entertained the idea of banning smoking in public places few have actually moved forward and taken the step. New York State however recently became the third state in the country to introduce and implement smoking ban to test drive its effectiveness(Comfort pp 14). When the ban on smoking in public was first suggested for the state of New York business owners united to argue against such a policy(Spitzer, 24). Citing economic hardship, enforcement problems and smokers’ rights as three reasons that a ban should not be implemented they lobbied in conjunction with the nation’s largest tobacco companies to block the attempt to pass the ban. “There is little reliable data on the economic consequences of the state ban. Opponents claim it has resulted in the loss of 2,000 jobs and $28.5 million in wages. In New York City, where a public smoking ban predates the statewide law, restaurant and bar patronage reported an 11 percent increase after the laws enactment. In truth, most reporting of adverse economic effects has been anecdotes from resentful business owners and smokers whose comments suffer in reliability and objectivity(Spitzer, 24).” While the beginning implementation was confusing to all who were involved it quickly settled into a routine whereas health department officials now conduct regular compliance checks to determine if the ban is being complied with or violated. Recent research on the ban in New York indicates that the ban did not in any way have a negative impact on the financial business of those who were affected by the ban. Part of this may be due to the fact that there are less smokers today than there were in years past. Fifty years ago half of the population smoked whereas today only 22 percent of the population participates in the tobacco habit(Spitzer, 24). The ban began with the push by NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg signing an edict in December 2003 to ban smoking from public places. All bars, restaurants and public places became a haven for non-smoking activities(Usbourne pp 58). Detractors from the ban believe that it hurts those businesses financially though later studies proved this to be unwarranted. Those who supported the ban on smoking in public places believed that it would curtail the exposure to toxins for those who made the decision not to smoke but until the ban were faced with the passive smoke issues in public places. While the health issues attached to smoking, both first hand and secondary cannot be denied banning it has its negative repercussions according to a study conducted following New York’s decision to implement a ban(Usbourne pp 58). The bar and restaurant owners in New York City have banded together and formed a group to warn other entities about the pitfalls of a public smoking ban. They allege that the ban in their city cost the city’s eating and drinking business more than 2,500 jobs however state officials deny the allegations(Brindley pp 19). “New York City officials said after the first year of the ban about 100,000 smokers quit the habit and seven million fewer cigarettes were smoked. Subsequent New York government claims that hospitality industry revenue and jobs have increased - up 9% and by 10,600 jobs respectively - after the ban have been disputed by bar and pub owners(Brindley pp 19). “ Conclusion The ban on smoking in public places in New York raised a debate between politicians and business owners. Business owners insisted a ban would hurt not only their bottom line but also their ability to provide jobs. Once the ban went into affect, they warned that they would have a downturn in business because people would not frequent bars and restaurants as often and it would cause a lay off status. Following the first year of the ban research indicated the opposite was actually true. Statistics indicate that there were several benefits to the trial run of the ban including 1,000 fewer smoke related deaths in New York that year. In addition revenue increases were evident throughout New York according to government tax records turned in by the businesses that claimed a ban would hurt their bottom line. Following the first year there was an increase of $1.4 million dollars in tax revenue realized which translated into a significant increase in sales revenue. The state liquor license authorities reported an increase in applications for liquor licenses during the same time frame. While the debate continues the city officials refuse to back down from the ban. Statistics show that 80 percent of New Yorkers are currently non-smokers and politicians refuse to force them to endanger their health for the 20 percent of the population that smokes. "Weve measured air quality, and during one minute in a smoky bar, you are exposed to as much pollution as you would be standing for an hour at Holland Tunnel during rush hour(Brindley pp 19)," said one official. While bar and restaurant owners continue to protest bans it is evident from statistics that bans on smoking in public places has not hurt their revenue. In addition the bans have provided health benefits and safeguards for those who go into public buildings. Several other states have followed suit and enacted their own versions of public place smoking bans. As the nation continues to realize the dangers of smoking it appears the banning trend will continue to gain popularity. WORKS CITED Brindley, Madeleine. “New York warns Wales smoking ban cost jobs News Examiner” (2004) Comfort, Daphne. “Smoking in public places.” Town and Country Planning. (2004) Hill, Miriam. “A Year after New York Smoking Ban, Debate Still Rages over Effects.” The Philadelphia Inquirer (2004) Spitzer, Robert. “Clearing the Air. Fury Over New York’s One Year Smoking Ban Misplaced”. The Post-Standard (2004) Usborne, David. ”Smoking policy revisited.” The Independent (2003) April. Read More