Good Why Smoking In Public Areas Should Be Illegal Essay Example

1. Introduction
Never ending debate about the banning or making it illegal to smoke in public areas has been seen around the globe in recent past. There are various arguments why the regulation is needed and also contra arguments that will be further presented. The enormous negative health and economic impacts of smoking cannot be overlooked. Does the right to smoke prevail over the right of not being exposed to the secondhand smoke in public places? The consequences of smoking will be presented with the global statistics and statistics for the United States, which will try to prove that smoking in public areas should be illegal because of the health related reasons.
2. Health related reasons
Tobacco use causes around 6 million deaths per year worldwide and the predictions for the future are greater with estimations of more than 8 million deaths annually by the year 2030. Smoking has vast negative impacts on all organs in the human body and results in around 16 million Americans living with a disease that was caused by the tobacco. 480.000 deaths annually are recorded in the United States and with the important fact that around 42.000 deaths among all caused by tobacco was the result of the secondhand exposure. This means that when 6 people die because of the smoking related issues, one death is caused by the second hand smoking exposure. Smoking causes various different diseases from the most known cancers to the hearth diseases, stroke, diabetes, lung disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Beside those mentions it also increases risk for various other health issues such as eye problems, tuberculosis, and collapse of the immune system, rheumatoid arthritis and erectile dysfunction. Tobacco is also responsible for earlier death since it has been estimated that non-smokers live 10 years more than smokers. Tobacco is the largest preventable cause of death and disease in the country (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n. p.). Tobacco is based on the World Health Organization (n. p.) the only legal drug that kills half of its users. Nearly 80% of the world’s smokers live in low and middle income countries. It is the biggest public health threat on the world scale. Preliminary death results in deprived family income, rising costs for health care and it is has hindered the economic development. The second smoke in restaurants, offices and closed spaces expose the individual to the around 4000 chemicals used in tobacco smoke of which 50 are causing cancer and another 250 are known to be harmful. Almost half of the children breathe regular smoke polluted air in public places. 28% of the child deaths attributed to second hand smoke in the year 2004 (World Health Organization, n. p.). A rough estimation of the United States is showing that around 40% of the children younger than 5 years and 22% of children younger than 18 years are living with an individual who smoke. Infants are exposed to the second hand smoke since they spend the most of the time at home. Thousands of children are being unprotected from the expose from private and public smoking (Jarvie and Malone, 2140-2145).
3. Economic related reasons
Great health expenditures are caused because of the smoking and the “direct medical costs of SHS (second hand smoking) exposure among US children total approximately $4.6 billion per year” (Jarvie and Malone, 2140). Health related costs of smoking have been worldwide acknowledged. In the year 2005 in the United States “the annual costs of excess medical care, mortality, and morbidity exceeded $10 billion and additional $5billion from indirect costs (disability, lost wages)” (Barnoya and Navas-Acien, 790).
There are also the economic concerns of policy-makers and stakeholders that the various restrictions and ban of smoking would have negative impacts on the economy. The significant reduction in tobacco consumption can result in the many lost jobs, which has been overstated for various reasons. If the people would spend less money on tobacco they would spend it for other goods and services which would create jobs in other areas. The worries about the reduction of the tobacco consumption are that government revenues of tobacco sales would fall and it looks like the health is being weighed against the tax collected and governmental revenues. The arguments that go against the restriction are that if the restriction will get stricter the cross-border smuggling may increase, which would only result in the reduced taxes for the country but no change in the health of the nation. The smuggling component is important but should not be regarded in the area of public health policy but rather in the area of law enforcement (World Health Organization, 10-12). Preventing of the bans on smoking in public areas and spreading the false information is nothing new. “94 per cent of the tobacco industry supported studies reported negative economic impact. However, this was found in none of the 60 independent studies” (Gilmore, Hogan, McKee, 326). No impact or a positive impact was found by banning smoking in restaurants and bars and the claims of the tobacco industry about the negative economic consequences have been dismissed by various independent researches (Gilmore, Hogan, McKee, 325-326).
4. Worldwide national smoke-free laws
There are various different researches made which intervention for control of use of tobacco is the most effective. The measures taken to be the most effective are raising the prices of the tobacco products that affect the age, sex and socioeconomic status and result in the reduction of tobacco use. Others actions include the consumer education, bans on promotion and advertisement of the tobacco products, nicotine replacement and other therapies that help smokers stop smoking. In this paper the action connected with the smoking restriction that the most important one, since the prohibition of smoking in public places could be included in this sub-category of measures that try to reduce the percentage of people that are using tobacco products. Legal restrictions appear to be effective in reduction of the tobacco consumption and also demand. It is hard to quantify these measures since they are not the only factor that impacts the individual decisions of stop or continuing smoking and it is also hard to get the reason why the decision to stop smoking was made. Various systematic interventions in the area of smoking in public places were affected in a reduction of demand and consumption of tobacco (World Health Organization1, 3-17). “As to restriction at work setting, there is evidence that the prevalence of smoking is reduced by almost 4% at smoke free workplaces, and may yield reductions of up to 10%” (World Health Organization, 8). The debate whether to ban the smoking in public places has been long going on between the tobacco and hospitality industry and opposes. Everyone should have the right to stay healthy and protected from the harm done by others, but only around 1.8 billion of the world’s population which is around 18% are protected by the national smoke-free laws (World Health Organization, n. p.). North America has implemented various laws with creating smoke-free public spaces that have been identified as an effective way to reduce smoking rates. The first legislation in US was seen in Minnesota back in 1975. By the year 1999 50 US states and District of Colombia had some of the smoke-free laws and restrictions (Jarvie and Malone, 2140-2145). American Nonsmokers’ Right Foundation (1) have reported that progress has been made toward cleaner indoor air since in January 2016 4.565 states, commonwealths, territories and municipalities existed with restrictions where smoking is allowed, mainly in bars and restaurants. In the United States 82% of the country’s population is covered by the 100% smoke-free provisions in non-hospitality workplaces, restaurants, or bars (American Nonsmokers’ Right Foundation, 1-3).
5. Effect the ban of smoking in public places had on the individuals
The national smoke-free legislation is having an impact on home smoking habits. After the implementation of partial smoking restrictions, with national smoke-free legislation in the proportion of home smoking bans has increased significantly. The number of smoked cigarettes per day stayed the same or decreased. The research done by Allwright et al. (n. p.) found “that smoke-free legislation does not lead to more smoking in smokers’ home”.
The importance of making it illegal to smoke in public places is also the research made in Canada (Glaizer, Naiman and Moindeddin, n.p.) which examined the impact of the public smoking bans on exposure to secondhand smoke. Implementation of smoke free policies can reduce the negative effects of secondhand smoking and related health issues. Implementation of the full smoking ban is associated with the largest decrease in secondhand smoke exposure while partial bans can have inconsistent effects. Overall smoking bans have appeared to be one of the most important actions in decreasing the exposure to the secondhand smoke in public places and increase the prevalence of complete smoking restriction at work.
The effect of the smoking bans on the environmental tobacco smoke show that the policy resulted in the reduction of the ambient concentrations and vary from the type of pollutant between 70-95%. The number of cigarettes smoked per day reduced. Similar environmental tobacco smoke reduction is impossible to achieve with ventilation systems and other alternatives. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure in pubs, hospitals, restaurants, and clubs has been shown to be problematic because of the special provisions of smoking areas. The policy on smoking bans did not have the positive effects on the protection of children from cigarettes smoke exposure. The smoking prevalence is showing the reduction trend which means that the heath of smokers is improving. The concerns were raised because of the ban of smoking in prisons and psychiatric hospitals where there have been studies that help to tackle certain issues (Gill and McNabola, 741-758).
6. Public opinion about the ban of smoking in public places
The law usually comes from the values in the society and that is why in the proposing the smoking in public areas should be illegal should also have a supporting public opinion. Based on the Gallup research (McCarthy, n. p.) the majority of Americans – 58% in 2015 said that smoking in public places should be outlawed. Among all asked there were one in four that believed the smoking should be entirely illegal – 24%. It has also showed that women are more likely to support smoking bans than men. The support to make the smoking in public places illegal has been increasing since the year 2013 onward. The cigarette smoking has been declining with much smaller percentage of the citizens smoking in comparison to the past (McCarthy, n. p.).
7. Conclusion
Smoking in public places should be made illegal because of various different reasons. The states and countries that do not have any ban on smoking should start to consider the effect the tobacco has on the health of the nation. It can cause various diseases and it is globally known to kill the majority of its users and it is causing various direct and indirect diseases with affecting all of the human organs and it is the largest preventable cause of death. By making the smoking in public places illegal the health of the population would increase as have shown in various researches. The prohibition affects the individual values and results in the less smoking at private areas which would decrease the health impacts and smoking related economic costs. It should be illegal since the contra arguments have shown to be false and contradictory to the research made so far. Secondhand smoking is the main reason why the smoking in public should be illegal since individuals do not have the right to choose healthy life and are exposed to various toxins even if they do not smoke. Much improvement has already been seen, but much still waits to be done in the future with continuing rising public support.
8. Work cited
Allwright, Shane, Bas van den Putte, Breitling, P. Lutz, Brenner, Hermann, Fong, T. Geoffrey, Guinard, Romain, Mons, Ute, Nagelhout, E. Gera, Potschake_lnager,Maritna, Willemsen, C. Marc. Impact on National Smoke-Free Legislation on Home Smoking Bans – Findings From International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project Europe Surveys. Tobacco Control. 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4010876/>
American Nonsmokers’ Right Foundation. Overview List – How Many Smoke-free Laws? 2016. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/mediaordlist.pdf>
Barnoya, Joaquin, Navas-Acien, Ana. Protecting the World From Secondhand Tobacco Smoke Exposure: Where do we Stand and Where do we go From Here? Nicotine & Tobacco Research. Vol 15. No. 4. 2012. pp.798-804. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3601911/>
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking and Tobacco Use. N.d. Web. 15 Mar.2016. < http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm#toll>
Gill, William Laurance, McNabola, Aonghus. The Control of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: a Policy Review. Int. Journal Environmental Research Public Health. 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672352/>
Gilmore, Anna, Hogan, Helen, McKee, Martin. Why We Need to Ban Smoking in Public Places Now. Journal of Public Health. Vol. 26, No. 4 (325-326). Web. 15 Mar. 2016. < http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/4/325.full.pdf>
Glazier, H. Richard, Naiman, B. Alisam Moineddin, Rahim. Is There an Impact of Public Smoking Bans on Self-Ported Smoking Status and Exposure to Secondhand Smoke? BMC Public Health. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064640/>
Jarvie, A. Jill, Malone, E. Ruth. Children’s Secondhand Smoke Exposure in Private Homes and Cars: An Ethical Analysis. American Journal Public Health. 2008. Vol. 98 (12): 2140-2145. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636518/>
McCarthy, Justin. Ban on Smoking in Public Retains Majority Support in U.S. Gallup Research. 2015. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. < http://www.gallup.com/poll/184397/ban- smoking-public-retains-majority- support.aspx?g_source=smoking%20ban&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles>
World Health Organization. Tobacco. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. < http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/>
World Health Organization. Which are the Most Effective and Cost-Effective Interventions for Tobacco Control? 2003. Web. 15 Mar. 2016. <http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/74722/E82993.pdf>