Introduction
Although the U.S. has not (yet) introduced a nationwide ban on smoking in public places, more states are introducing their own legislation, though the scope and extent of the locations where the ban applies is not uniform The bans began in California in1995, and by 2012 existed in probably half of the American states. Those bans are of course beneficial to the health of the nation and not just to the smokers themselves. For many years now, the medical experts have been telling us that smoking is hazardous to health (often falling on deaf ears as far as confirmed smokers are concerned). However, in more recent times, the hazards of “secondhand” or “passive” smoking have been highlighted, i.e. breathing in the smoke generated by people smoking close by. This essay explains some of the main reasons why that is so, and why these smoking bans should not only be continued, but should be expanded in scope and in territory; i.e. they should be introduced across the nation.
The Arguments In Support
Crosswell (Jun 2011) cited reasons why smoking in public should be banned, the first being that secondhand smoke can cause serious problems such as bronchial problems and asthma attacks. Smoking outdoors is also a major cause of litter in the form of cigarette packages and cigarette butts (the latter also being a fire hazard if not carefully extinguished by the user). Crosswell also cited the fact that smoking in public witnessed by youngsters increases the likelihood that they too will eventually take up the habit themselves.
Sherman (Feb 2009) also pointed out that a prime reason for such bans is that the secondhand smoke is not only unpleasant for many non-smokers, but according to studies undertaken is almost as deadly as smoking themselves, especially to vulnerable children, the chronically ill and the elderly. He also noted that because smoking is after all an addiction, every effort should be made to discourage youngsters from becoming addicted to nicotine, which – in view of its consequences – should be termed a “deadly drug.” Sherman also referred to smokers as being “inconsiderate” by imposing their smoking habit on others, suggesting that if they must smoke , they should only do so where others will not be annoyed or inconvenienced or put at risk, i.e. in specially designated areas – whether indoors or outdoors.
A paper published by ash.org (2006) reported that breathing secondhand smoke outdoors for just 30 minutes can – according to the Centers for Disease Controls (CDC) – increase a non-smoker’s risk of a major heart attack to the same level as that of a smoker. It also states that the risk is even higher if the passive smoker is already in a high risk category, including obese people, those with coronary disease, those with elevated blood pressure people with diabetes, etc, etc.
The paper also noted that although society today takes elaborate and extensive precautions to avoid demolition workers and others nearby ingesting even the tiniest amounts of asbestos, the same precautions are not yet taken with regard to secondhand smoke, which is also officially categorized as a “known human carcinogen” just the same as asbestos.
Conclusions
Not just the views repeated above in support of smoking bans but many, many scientific studies have confirmed that secondhand smoke is a serious health risk, especially to the most vulnerable groups in our society.
It is time that the various statewide bans were unified and expanded by federal legislation to include every state in the USA, not only saving many lives but saving millions of dollars in future health care costs, too.
References
Crosswell, J. “Reasons Why Public Smoking Should Be Banned.” (Jun 2011). Livestrong.com. Retrieved from
“For / Against Smoking in Public Places.” (n.d.). headsup.org. Retrieved from
“Reasons for Banning Smoking in Certain Public Outdoor Areas.” (Jan 2006). ash.org. Retrieved from
Sherman, T. “Why smoking should be banned in all public places.” (Feb 2009). Helium.com. Retrieved from
