Introduction
As people are becoming gradually more thoughtful with healthier lives and living longer, the harmful effects of live style and habits are becoming matters of significant considerations. One of the issues of lifestyle that are controversial today is matters of smoking in public places. In the pursuit of achieving healthy and clean environments, banning of smoking in public places is essential. The adoption of laws that will ban smoking in public places will mean that smoking will a thing of the past in health facilities, workplaces, parks, religious areas, educational grounds, sports and recreational facilities. Essentially, such policies aim at restricting smoking in areas that are considered public and that exposes a considerable number of people to smokes making the passive smokers. The topic is significantly important for discussion because there have been several cases of respiratory diseases like Tuberculosis and are usually associated with smokes. The rampant numbers of cases for children and passive smokers that are being recorded makes the matter more urgent because if immediate action is not taken then the numbers of people contacting the disease will increase tremendously.
Respiratory diseases are airborne and smoking will serve to advance the conditions of respiratory diseases. Apart from the reduction of respiratory diseases banning smoking in public will serve to assist reduce the number of smokers, as they will consider quitting smoking because they will be forced to adopt new routines that are not in consensus with their smoking habits. This will lead to change of smoking routines and hence the change of the habit altogether. The significance of this topic is far reaching as it makes an exploration of the chances of a person taking caution with their health issues. Air pollution reduction will also be a significant move that will be achieved via the adoption of the policies since the number of smokers will reduce and the number of new smokers rising will be reduced. Researching on the topic will also serve to access the public opinions on what they think of smoking, the policies and the general perceptions on banning smoking in public utilities. Since democracy will always be considered on every legal move that affects the public, the argument will always be two-way. A considerable number will support the ban whereas another group will be against the ban. The paper will argue about the significance of banning though it will take into account the arguments of those who are against the ban. The paper is in support of the ban based on clean and healthy environment concerns.
Clean and healthy environment in one that is free from smoking. There is a need to adopt a law to ban tobacco smoking in any public areas. This will prohibit smoking in areas where it exposes the public to smokers’ risk. Smoking is found to cause respiratory diseases like tuberculosis to both active and passive smokers. It has been researched and realized that passive smokers are profoundly affected by the inhalation of the cigar particles. This is possible due to the air borne type of transmitting ion and low concentration of the particles providing a greater area for its chemical reaction. Banning of public smoking will also help the smokers to quit since the smoker will smoke under restrictions thus he will at times bypass smoking.
Research indicates that smokers subjected to smoke free areas are prone to quitting. The young are easily influenced by the senior on what they do. Air pollution can be reduced if smoking is banned. Although the culprits do no support this notion, it impacts leadingly to the environment and healthy life thereby giving is considerable importance. The banning of smoking in workplaces has immensely improved the health conditions of the general public. The idea has revealed both environmental and health benefits to passive smokers. Research reveals lower hospital admissions due to banning of public smoking in some countries. The respiratory infection common in countries that allow smoking in public places was minimal. The main reason for banning smoking in workplaces is to protect the workers of an organization. This will result into long term will affect the smoking cycle or pattern of the employee. A friendly environment for work and economic development is attained with the burning of smoking in workplaces.
The journal by Zoss highlights on the need to ban smoking in public places and indoor worksites as supported by South Dakota. The main reason for using this journal is to find the significance of banning smoking in indoor places. The idea of having specific restaurants that allow smoking adopts the policy of banning smoking in public places by having precise smoking zones. The research also reveals the high possibility of smokers’ quitting when subjected to smoke free zones.
An article by Luton that focuses on Jamaican governments reveals a plan to ban smoking. The doctor in charge of the health ministry indicated to the parliament the need to ban smoking in workplaces, government buildings, health, recreational, educational facilities and public transportation. The reason was to reduce the increasing number of children who start smoking at an early stage. This will create a healthy environment. The doctor revealed that tobacco is the only product that kills its loyal clients. The company project manager negatively responded to this.
Media play a pivotal role in educating the public on the effects of smoking. A clip on YouTube posted by 7news centers reveals the need to ban smoking outside Victoria hotel and restaurant. It highlights the highlights by the anti-tobacco campaigners as a reason for urgent action to banning smoking in the area. The clip gives views from professionals with the understanding that the hotel accommodates a large number of people with inclusions of kids. The clip reveals the concern of doctors about the number of people with respiratory diseases that are difficult to cure.
One you tube clip of liberty highlights the view of a professor who notes the high rise of smoking bans in America. The clip indicates the emergence of conflict from smokers and non-smokers with each side believing they have rights. It depicts the importance of placing laws that allow for smoking in bars and restaurants alone to create privacy and protect the public from its consequences. The various consequences of smoking are more detrimental because they affect the social relations of individuals in their environments. The case of separation between smokers and non-smokers are intolerable as it causes division hence boundaries that can possibly cause a rift between smokers and non-smokers.
An article in the internet focuses on issues related to public smoking laws and regulations. It explains the effect of tobacco to the environment through its contamination. 600,000 people are approximated to die as a result of causes related to effect of environment by tobacco smoke. The extent of this effect is not known to the public and its severe impact on passive smokers. “This is according to a report by the institute of Medicine” (carpenter 35). Many studies focus on personal and public effects rather than environmental effects.
Banning smoking in workplaces and public places has reduced the exposure and environmental risks related to tobacco smoke. “The work force is also referred to as second hand smokers” (Allwright 81). This decline to tobacco exposure has vastly improved the health system in areas that previously were exposed. In some countries, there is proof that details the reduction of hospital admissions with respect to tobacco banning. Changes in cultural behavior and beliefs usually are progressive and slow in pace. A tilting point when reached results to the urge for change becomes irresistible.
There are a number of health benefits that have resulted from banning of smoking in public places. According to a research that was publicized in a popular newspaper, hospital admissions for heart attack related complications and coronary complications reduced by 17 percent. “This is mainly on nonsmokers and passive smokers during the year that Scotland banned smoking in public and social places” (Jeremy). Further study revealed 67 percent for second hand smokers in the whole decline of heart related illnesses on hospital admissions.
The banning of smoking in public places and workplaces is beneficial to the heart. It helps in reducing heart attack related issues. Tobacco free environment helps in deterrence of emphysema and lung cancer. This condition grows gradually and results in heart attack. Cardiac benefits are experienced to grow when the ban is extended. “Various research has made a projection by implying that nationwide ban on smoking in public can deter almost 154,000 cases that are related to heart attack” (David 22). These are relevant projections because of their findings these reveal that secondhand exposure to tobacco is equally dangerous.
Prohibition of smoking public places and homes as illustrated in the article relates to the adults. “This prohibition results to pervasiveness. Smoking affects all parties in the society” (Wakefield 34). By banning smoking, homes and developments with considerable behaviors and health. This prevents influence by teenagers to the habit and result to sick population. Tobacco is linked to 4000 chemicals that are harmful to the body. Fifty percent of the chemicals are linked to cancer causing hormones. Therefore, smoking behaviors largely affects both the passive and active smokers and requires banning to secure every affected part of the society.
A significant number of harmful gases are produced in different concentrations when cigarettes are combusted and the gases are compelled to multitudes. The government provides the various public utilities and every citizen has a legal right to access any public utility of interest. It is very much annoying to have people smoking in such areas because it will mean that the government is not protecting the safety rights of its citizens by allowing the air around them contaminated. It is not reasonable for citizens suffer as passive smokers at the watch of the government and thus it is important for smoking be banned in public places. The harm is more serious if the various susceptible groups like children and pregnant mothers are the victims (Carpenter). The effect of smoking is detrimental to pregnant women in that it affects the infants and it is at times alleged to cause abortions. Though it is genuinely arguable that freedom action is vital and holding, it is immoral for people to smoke in public places because people differ in what they consume and what they consider important to them.
The economic effects of cigarette smoking are no doubt known to every smoker. Various breadwinners of several families spend a lot of their money on buying cigarettes. The money spent on cigarettes is much if accounted to other more important activities like catering family daily expenditure. In addition to this, several amounts of resources are not only spent by individuals but also spent by governments and various organizations like NACADA. If the policies restricting smoking are made effective, the result will be the reduction of the bills and expenditures that are budgeted for the reduction of smoking and treatment of the various diseases that are associated with smoking. This usually includes the most deadly diseases like cancer, Tuberculosis, heart diseases and Asthma. In his writings, Dr. Meyer presents that avoidance of smoking will serve to reduce heart attack cases estimated at 154,000 and other detrimental diseases associated with cigarette smoking. (David 22).
The bad impression and negative effect that smoking creates in the minds of teenagers is very much detrimental because curiosity serves to impel the youth to seek for anything faddish and exciting and smoking is a very know ease activity that lures children.” The public however has no information of the extent to which public smoking has very severe impacts on passive smokers that is according to a report by the Institute of Medicine” (Carpenter 35.). If smokers will be allowed to appear in public will mean that in the next coming decades, nations will be investing on manufacturing chimneys to drive away smokes from cigarettes, as it is more likely that several people will be smokers. The public appearance of smokers will always attract children who might end being smokers and if the trend continues then every person will be a smoker after some years.
However, people in deny of the ban argue that smoking is vital because it helps people to relax and at times it improves concentration and its ban in public will deny them time to relax and it thus means the ban will be depressing them. Many people consider smoking as a vital activity before exams or while relaxing with friends. The argument is genuine because recreational and sport facilities are considered public places and are meant to help people relax. The banning of smoking in such places is thus detrimental, as smokers will not consider it a relaxing place.
It is clear that banning cigarettes in public places will reduce the smoking rates of cigarettes and the end result will be the reduction of sales and production of cigarettes. Governments significantly get a lot of revenue from taxing cigarettes. The revenues obtained from these taxes are publicly used as they are directed to various sectors of the economy. The revenue could be used to finance projects aimed at building hospitals, schools and other public amenities that are more important in the social and economic development of nations. The tobacco industry is a vital employer of several tens of thousands of people in the world especially in poorer civilizations like India and Zimbabwe. The situation of such people is an imaginable if cigarette production is reduced. ”Studies have established that legislations as regards to smoke-free workplaces and also in public places have been able to reduce the exposure and risks posed by Environmental tobacco Smoke both to the general populace and also to the workforce. The workforce is also referred to as second hand smokers” (Allwright 81). It is also genuinely arguable that people should be allowed to make free choices on whether to smoke or not rather than intimidation through smoking ban policies. It is important that smokers should not smoke rooms with non-smokers but they should at least be allowed to be free to smoke elsewhere.
The argument that smoking should not be banned in public places is advanced from the position that, this is a free country and thus smokers need to be accorded their basic rights to smoke at any time and place that they want. However, everybody is a supporter of human rights as long as smoking is does not affect the health conditions of others. It is arbitrary for a person to argue that their country is not free and thus every person needs to be allowed to do, as they want, as long as their actions do not damage the health or life of other citizens. Definitely, every smoker has the rights of free choice and action but so do every non-smoker (Carpenter).
Despite the various arguments presented by smokers against the banning of smoking cigarettes in public places, the arguments against cigarette smoking in public places are stronger and worthwhile supporting. Smoking is in no doubt dangerous to the health of people and their surroundings. Heart diseases, lung cancer and bronchitis are linked to cigarette smoking and yet their treatment and prevention measures are very much expensive. The government is losing a lot of resources because of the several numbers of peoples who turn up to seek medication for tobacco smoking related problems. There is a concern for passive smoking. Recent researches have confirmed that there is a possibility for non-smokers to suffer respiratory problems if are exposed to smoking zones for longer periods. Despite the arguments of freedom of choice and rights to do all that one desire, health concerns of individuals in their settings are more preferable as it constitutes matters of public interest. Generally, the world would be much better without smoking but the decision as to whether one should smoke or not should be of individual concern. Smoking in public is detrimental and policies to effect its ban should be enacted and implemented explicitly as every society is seeking for sustainability of its environmental use in every activity and yet smoke is a considerable contributor of environmental destruction.
Works Cited
7News. Fresh Calls for Smoking ban. Web.12 Nov 2013 from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtshusOGaUo
Allwright, S. (2008). The impact of banning smoking in workplaces: What are the early effects? Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 6(2), 81-92.
Carpenter, Christopher, Sabina Postolek, and Casey Warman. "Public-Place Smoking
Laws and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)." American Economic
60(http://search.proquest.com.HYPERLINK "http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/879419152"ezproxyHYPERLINK "http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/879419152".HYPERLINK "http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/879419152"apollolibraryHYPERLINK "http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/879419152".com/docview/879419152
David Meyers. Banning Smoking In Public Places And Workplaces Is Good For The Heart.
Http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090921173121.htm
Jeremy Singer. Study Supports Health Benefits of Smoking Ban. Hospital Admissions Fall
17% after Scottish Law Enacted; Businesses Balk at Restrictions. July 31, 2008.
Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB121745760276798609
Learn Liberty. Smoking Bans: Banning Freedom. 2012. Web.12 Nov 2013 from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwIUfLttd0A
Luton, Daraine. Government to Ban Smoking in Public Places as of July 15. 2013. Web.12 Nov 2013 from: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/latest/article.php?id=46004
M A Wakefield. Effect of restrictions on smoking at home, at school, and in public places
on teenage smoking: cross sectional study. 9 June, 2000.
http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7257/333
Zoss, Laura. "South Dakota Passes Law Banning Smoking in Indoor Worksites, Public Places." Knight Ridder Tribune Business News: 1. Jun 30 2002. ProQuest. Web. 12 Nov. 2013
