The Support of Smoking Bans in ALL Public Places - Essay Example

Smoking tobacco has a long and storied history. Native Americans use tobacco as part of animist worship. Colonialists in America discovered its useas a cash crop for export, causing the consumption of tobacco to go global. Once upon a time in Hollywood, smoking added glamour and sexuality to the stars; first for men and later for women. But times have changed amid concerns about the health risks of smoking. The glamour is gone, yet nearly one billion people on earth smoke tobacco in some way, shape or form each day (Brizer, 5). Many people are now seeking for ways to curb the appeal of smoking. A smoking ban in all public places is a good method for both preventing new smokers from starting and helping existing smokers quit. This ban is necessary due to the health risks associated with smoking, the negative social aspects of smoking and the efficient administration of the law at the state or federal level. The health risks associated with smoking have bee known for many years but have only been widely accepted for the past few decades. In the late 1990s, many claims were brought against tobacco companies accusing them of colluding to hide evidence of the harmful nature of smoking. It was revealed that as early as the 1920s, tobacco companies knew their product was addictive and it could be associated with ailments such as bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer. The sensational nature of these trials led to a settlement between tobacco companies and many of the plaintiffs. The tobacco companies agreed to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars. This money was used to compensate those harmed by the tobacco companies and to fund anti-smoking messages intended to reach young people. Since the tobacco trials, information about the health risks of smoking is more widely spread in America. Numerous studies have shown smokers are at a higher risk of contracting any ailment involving the lungs. Smoking also increases the risk of stroke, heart disease and cancers of the mouth, tongue and throat (NCI, 1). The facts that smokers are harming their bodies by ingesting tobacco smoke are irrefutable. Allowing people to participate in such a harmful action in a public place sends an implicit message to all the members of our society. What we are saying is, yes, we know smoking is bad for us but we really don t think it is terribly bad on the whole. Or, in other words, we are saying smoking is a personal decision and really doesnt hurt anyone else but the smoker. Perhaps if this were true we would not need to ban smoking from all public places. Unfortunately, however, smoking does harm others in society beyond the smoker. Smoking needs to be banned in all public places because of the effects of second hand smoke. Second hand smoke refers to the smoke that gathers in an enclosed place when exhaled from a smokers lungs or is discharged into the room directly from the burning cigarette. Many studies have shown when people are exposed to second hand smoke on a regular basis they are at an increased risk of the same health problems as smokers. Many of these people are defenseless against this second hand smoke because the smoke is constantly present in their places of employment. People employed in enclosed public spaces allowing smoking, such as restaurants and bars, are forced to work in an unsafe environment. They cannot control how much second hand smoke is present in their workplace at any given time. As long as smoking is allowed in public places, these workers will be at risk of developing smoking related diseases whether they are smokers or not. Another negative societal impact centers on the addictive nature of tobacco. Nicotine is the chemical in cigarettes that is addictive. Nicotine addiction is very difficult to overcome. It is a powerful drug that relaxes the body and makes it feel calm. Any time an addictive substance is openly consumed in public within a society, that society will need to bear a certain cost for this addiction. One sign of addiction can be seen when individuals lose their free will and become compelled to spend their money on obtaining the substance they are addicted to. In the case of cigarettes, the addictive substance is nicotine. Society pays for these addicts by bearing the burden of their healthcare costs and by absorbing their lost productivity due to illnesses relating to their addiction. Being an addict also gives tremendous power and wealth to the individuals and firms that supply the addictive substance. In this case the big tobacco companies and their shareholders profited from selling tobacco to addicts. Allowing addictive substances to be consumed publicly is harmful to a society because it sends the implicit message that society really does not frown upon consumption of that substance. Banning smoking in public will also help us establish a more civil society in some ways. The very nature of law is to compel society to take a course that caters to the public good. Laws are designed so that one segment of society is not allowed to impinge upon the rights of another. Beyond the health risks, smoking in public causes other people to smell like smokers. This is offensive to many people in our society and should not be forced upon them simply because they ride on public transportation or choose to have lunch in a restaurant. A smoking ban in all public places prevents the rights of non-smokers from being infringed upon. Some have argued a partial or voluntary ban on smoking in some public places would be better. For example, they suggest all government facilities and public transportation should be smoke-free, but that bar and restaurant owners should have a choice in whether they ban smoking or not. They say if they allow smoking in their establishment and a patron does not like it, then they can simply dine somewhere else. This argument appeals to the American sense of individualism and freedom very well, but is seriously flawed. Smoking needs to be banned in all public places because the real authority to regulate smoking needs to be the state. If local municipalities begin to be the primary driving force for a complete smoking ban, we will be stuck with a patchwork of local ordinances. These ordinances will be difficult to enforce and regulate. Local districts with many restaurants and bars may vote to pass ordinances allowing smoking in their districts, effectively eliminating the availability of smoke-free dining establishments. As these local municipalities enact their laws, the state at some later point may wish to establish a uniform law. This may result in protracted litigation and political wrangling. This will be costly in both time and tax money. The state needs to enact a uniform ban on smoking in public to eliminate these legislative problems. The partial ban argument is also flawed because it does not protect all workers equally. Dangerous working conditions need to be controlled by a uniform set of rules that apply to all work places. For example, acceptable levels of radiation exposure are the same whether you work in a nuclear power plant or a hospital. The level of danger is established by the best available science and a threshold is set. In the case of second hand smoke, if smoking is allowed in one restaurant but not in another, then some waiters are being exposed to toxic substances in their workplace but others are not. The acceptable level of second hand smoke is not able to be established, therefore smoking should be banned from all public places so all employees can enjoy a safe, clean working environment. Finally, what about the media? Movies, television, magazines and the internet are all public places in their own way. This is where many ideas and items are marketed and exchanged. The promotion of smoking, especially to minors, needs to be eliminated from these media outlets. Studies have shown that many of the young people that choose to begin smoking are greatly influenced by images they see of people smoking in the media (Daines, 1). While there have been more restrictions places on cigarette advertisements in recent years, by using product placement in films, tobacco companies can still subtly promote their wares to the public, many of whom are children. The depiction of smoking or the presence of tobacco products needs to be eliminated from any media outlet that is designed to reach children and young adults. Smoking is a global phenomenon. Humans have been consuming tobacco smoke for millennia. But in a modern society where the health risks and negative social consequences of smoking are more, smoking has no place in the public lives of our citizens. Smoking should be banned from all public places. Works Cited Brizer, David. Quitting Smoking for Dummies. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. Daines, Richard. Interview. "U.N. Report on Smoking Deaths." News Forum. NBC. WNBC, New York. 24 Feb. 2008. National Cancer Institute. 11 April 2004. Cigarette Smoking and Cancer: Questions and Answers. 08 April 2008 . NCI see National Cancer Institute Draft Smoking has been around for a long time. But now that we are more aware of the dangers of smoking, we need to rethink how we view all aspects of smoking, including whether we should allow smoking in public or not. Banning smoking from all public places is one way we can encourage people to stop smoking and prevent others from taking up the habit. The ban needs to be for all public places, not a partial ban if this method is to address the many health, legal and societal concerns caused by smoking. The primary reason for a ban on smoking in all public places is the health damage smoking causes. Smoking causes many lung related ailments as well as increasing the smokers chances of having a heart attack or a stroke. Society al large bears the burden of these ailments smokers bring upon themselves. These ailments are costly in terms of medical treatment and lost productivity to businesses and industry. A second reason smoking needs to be banned in all public places is the effects of second hand smoke. Smokers inflict health damage on other non-smokers in their vicinity by creating second hand smoke. People who work in public places that allow smoking at in danger of contracting the same illnesses smokers get just because they work around people that smoke. This is unfair to these workers. Smoking should be banned from public places because it is addictive. By allowing smoking in public, our society is implicitly stating that smoking is really acceptable, or that it is a matter of personal choice. By banning smoking from public, our society will state that smoking is something that should not be done in a public place because of the damage it inflicts on our society and the health of individuals. A full ban on smoking in all places is necessary, not a partial or piecemeal ban. The health of workers in all public places needs to be protected. It would not be fair to force some workers to work in environments where second hand smoke is present, while protecting other workers from this same risk. The law must be uniform to ensure the health and safety of all workers and patrons alike. Read More