The Debate Over Banning Smoking in Public Places
In my opinion I think smoking should banned from public places. My
reasons for this are;
People who smoke should be considerate of that fact that not only are
they damaging their own existing health but also they are harming the
others around them who are only breathing in the tobacco smoke.
During the past ten years of tests, experiments etc. on the effect of
smoking both directly and passive, there is now enough scientific
evidence to prove that exposure to second-hand smoke both harms
health, and worsens existing health problems and at least one thousand
people are estimated to die each year in the UK as the result of
exposure to other people's tobacco smoke.
This means that not only are the smokers making their health even
worse and increasing their chances of getting diseases such as cancer
or bronchitis but also they are killing those around them knowingly.
Smokers need to accept that if they feel the need to have to smoke
then fair enough, but not if it's costing the lives of those around
them having to breathe in the many toxic chemicals that are contained
in a cigarette. If smoking is banned in public places then this will
please not only the smokers but also the others dying from passive
smoking. The Smokers can still smoke, and the non - smokers can still
carry out their daily lives without being affected as much as they
were when smoking was allowed in public places.
In a normal cigarette, there is in total 4,000 chemicals found in the
cigarette smoke, this is one of the many reasons to why one in three
people who smoke die before their 65th birthday.
The t...
... middle of paper ...
...from passive smoking. But not only is it that adults are
smoking, but more recently teenagers or children from a very early age
are actually smoking, some probably knowing the few short - term
affects of it but not realising what the long term affects of smoking
are.
In conclusion, not only will the ban of smoking in public places
benefit the non - smokers or those suffering from passive smoking, the
smokers can also be satisfied with doing it in another enclosed
environment away from others. I think this is a good idea because;
currently we are nowhere near banning smoking completely. So for a
temporary solution to reduce health problems for passive smoking, the
ban will help to isolate the smokers and then possibly leading up to
smokers having to give up when maybe the day that cigarettes are
banned completely.
Before D.A.R.E., I was not mindful of the extensive damage cigarettes and other tobacco products cause. Cigarette smoke contains over 200 harmful chemicals, including rat poison. Because of nicotine, cigarettes are highly addictive. As a result, smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. It causes over 400,000 deaths annually.
Walking down Boston’s Boylston Street at the late hours of the evening, the sidewalks are crowded with smokers taking their last hauls before entering the bars for a night of drinking.
Another very important thing to consider is while these smoking bans may appear to have a good intent, they present to society a difficult scenario if imposed and maintained; they threaten to set a precedent for the restriction of other freedoms that humanity may take for granted. Smoking bans may be justifiable but, like many other prominent moral dilemmas, it may take centuries if not millennia to satisfactorily answer the questions brought forth by the issue. Tobacco use first appeared as early as the days of Christopher Columbus.... ... middle of paper ... ...
There needs to be a policy to ban cigarettes, it kills the smoker, in addition, could kill the person exposed to the smoke from cigarettes. “The cigarette is also a defective product, meaning not just dangerous but unreasonably dangerous, killing half its long-term users” (Proctor), cigarettes are not healthy in any way making it a defective product, it mainly kills the smoker rather than helping them. It was produced to be inhalable smoke harming anyone who smokes them making it a defect because in the past the tobacco was too harsh to be inhaled. The policy would help cigarette smokers, especially since they don’t even like the habit of smoking cigarettes, knowing it harms them.
... “Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. It causes serious illness among an estimated 8.6 million persons, it costs $167 billion in annual health-related losses, and it kills approximately 438 000 people each year. (n1, n2) Worldwide, smoking kills nearly 5 million people annually. If current trends continue, this number will double by 2030, and smoking will kill more than 1 billion people during this century” (Frieden and DE). Therefore, banning smoking in public places can reduce at least some of these problems and would enable people to live in a healthier way.
One of the largest and most problematic health issues in our society is smoking. Smoking is currently the leading cause of death in our country, due to its harmful and addicting contents, such as nicotine and tobacco. Although millions die from it each year, smoking is the single most preventable cause of death as well. Without smoking, a tremendous amount of money and lives will be saved. I think that our country should ban smoking and the production of cigarettes in order to maintain a healthier nation, help save the environment, and prevent the almost 1000 deaths that they cause in fires each year.
We should want to live healthier and find ways to prevent smoking and secondhand smoke. Banning smoking in public already been established in my states and areas throughout the United States. “It’s been a very effective strategy” (McKenna). If you inquire an area where there is secondhand smoke, limit yourself as much as possible. Make sure that if infants and elderly are with you to also limit them to secondhand smoke as well. Encourage and try to talk to your friends and loved ones to stop smoking. Explain the affects to them and explain how you live a healthy
Several other methods for solving the problem of second-hand smoke have been suggested in the past. One method is to use air purifiers to clean the air. While this can remove some smoke particles from the air, even the most expensive air filtration system cannot remove all of the poisons and toxins put into the air by second hand smoke. Another solution would be to have separate rooms in which smoking is allowed, such as a lounge or parlor. This idea is also flawed, because for this to work, the rooms in which smoking is allowed would require entirely separate ventilation systems to accomplish the objective of protecting others (from the New York Times, 1/12/99, Public Smoking Ban: Alternatives?)
This year alone cigarettes will kill over 420,000 Americans, and many more will suffer from cancers, and circulatory and respiratory system diseases. These horrible illnesses were known to come from cigarettes for years. Recently the Food and Drug Administration declared nicotine, the main chemical in cigarettes, addictive. This explains why smokers continue to use cigarettes even though smokers are aware of the constantly warned about health dangers in cigarettes. Some researchers have also found out that smoking by pregnant women causes the deaths of over 5,000 babies and 115,000 miscarriages. The only way to get rid of the suffering and loss of life by cigarettes is to ban them. . For years cigarettes have been known to cause cancer, emphysema, and other horrible illnesses. The deaths of over 420,000 of Americans this year will be do to cigarettes. With all the other causes of deaths, alcohol, illegal drugs, AIDS, suicide, transportation accidents, fires, and guns, cigarettes still count for more deaths than those do combined. We can’t stand and watch people die because they smoke cigarettes. Thousands of smokers try to rid themselves of cigarettes but can't because of additive nicotine. Nicotine was recently declared addictive by the Food and Drug Administration, which explains why many smokers continue to smoke despite the health warnings on cigarette smoking. Nicotine makes it almost impossible for cigarette smokers to quit smoking because of its addictive nature, and with the cigarette manufacturers putting just enough nicotine in the so they cant be outlawed. The benefits of outlawing cigarettes greatly outnumber the disadvantages, for example, many scientists believe a link between smoking and a shortened life span exists between the two, a ban on cigarettes could increase life spans. Many studies suggest that billions of dollars now spent on smoking related. Smoking related illnesses could be reduced by outlawing cigarettes, families could save money by not purchasing cigarettes, and accidental fires costing millions of dollars caused by cigarettes would stop. Although a complete ban on cigarettes currently remains almost impossible, several organizations recently helped create a bill that could control cigarettes much in the same way the government now controls drugs. One such organization, the Food and Drug Administration, headed by David Kesslar drafted a major part, which would require manufacturers to disclose the 700 chemical additives in cigarettes, reduce the level of harmful chemicals, require cigarette companies to warn of the addictive nicotine, restrict tobacco advertising and promotion, and control the level of nicotine cigarettes contain.
In my opinion, I think smoking in public isn’t good for non-smokers because if they breathe the smoke of smokers their health will be unhealthy a...
Many restaurant and bar owners think that the ban will decrease business, but a counter-argument to this is that only twenty percent of the city's population are smokers, and when the smoking ban is in place, the other eighty percent will go out to bars and restaurants, dramatically increasing business. There are many different opposing arguments to banning smoking, and the debate will probably never end. Smoking should be banned in public places because, although some may argue that it infringes on their freedom, smoking is replete with harmful substances. People should be able to frequent bars and restaurants without the fear of experiencing an asthma attack or developing lung disease. Everyone deserves the freedom to live and breathe without restriction.
Should cigarette smoking be banned for everyone in the United States? Why? Why not? Should those who chose their time smoking to relieve stress, personal enjoyment, or simply just because, have to lose their right to what makes them happy? Smoking tobacco products has been around for decades and in many different forms. Should personal rights be pushed aside to please those around us that disagree with the so called “disgusting habit”? In the paper The Washington Times an article caught my interest called”D.C. seeks bans on smoking in national parks” written by Steven Dinan. In this article he stated that “Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton wrote Park Service Regional Director Steve Whitesell saying she’s heard from constituents who fear breathing second-hand smoke while using national parks.”(Dinan, 2013) I don’t think they should. All throughout the world people do things that is not always agreed with in different cultures in communities but even religions. Some people believe eating red meat is a sin but should you take it away from those who enjoy it. We are living in the land of the free. Aren’t we? I am against the banning of tobacco products because not only is it a right as an American citizen to be able to smoke, it is a job for American citizens, and as long as smokers are knowledgeable about the product causes it should be a personal right to choose.
Have you ever been in your favorite restaurant and just as you are about to take a bite of your favorite dish, your lungs are filled with a cloud of smoke which has drifted to your table from the smoking section just a few feet away? This is a common complaint of many patrons who enjoy dining at restaurants. While it is true that the smoke from cigarettes causes many health problems, is it fair to take away the freedom of Americans who wish to smoke? Even as compromises can be made on this subject, the majority of people stand by their strong opinions on whether smoking should be allowed in restaurants.
The smoker also helps 500-1000 non smokers die each year from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease . Moreover, the person to the children developing asthma and allergies.
Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as second-class citizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them.