Smokers’ vs Nonsmokers’ Rights
We have all heard the warnings of the negative effects on health and on the environment caused by tobacco smoke from nonsmokers and their anti-smoking campaigns. These campaigns give nonsmokers a way to voice their right to breathe clean air and to protect their health and the environment. We have seen how society, businesses, and government have taken action to promote a smoke free society and to accommodate the nonsmokers’ rights. On the other hand, we hear from smokers that claim that their personal rights are being infringed upon by society, businesses and government while they cater to nonsmokers. Should a concept of smokers’ rights be recognized? And whose rights are more important? Another question being raised in this issue is, “do smoking bans have a negative effect on the economy/business owners?” Since choosing not to smoke has no effect on personal health, the environment or others, and smoking will always negatively affect all of those things, any rights that smokers have should not be placed before the rights of nonsmokers, it seems. The basis of this controversy is the use of Mill’s Harm Principle and Utilitarianism by society and government.
We’ll first examine what the concepts of smokers’ and nonsmokers’ rights are considered to be. We will begin with the nonsmokers’ rights, which began with the first groups in the 1970’s and made up of volunteer activists. The movement began at the grassroots level, arguing for the right to smoke-free air and used antiwar, civil rights, and environmental movements as inspirations (Padwa, Cunningham 274). Organizations such as Group Against Smoking and Pollution (GASP) and Americans for Non-Smokers’ Rights were formed and fought for the ...
... middle of paper ...
... smokers and the rights of nonsmokers is quite complicated and will more than likely always be an issue in our society. It will always be an issue because the tobacco industry, an industry full of hedonistic executives, generates too much profit to be going anywhere anytime soon. A lot of smokers will continue to smoke, despite the warnings of health risks, while nonsmokers continue to express their right to clean air, and businesses will continue to face and make decisions to accommodate smokers and nonsmokers in an effort to not lose revenue. As for me and my opinion, I think that the rights of nonsmokers should come first, hands down. I think that having a smoke free environment that eliminates the potential, devastating consequences of tobacco smoke would be for the greater good of society and surpasses any temporary, fleshly effect that nicotine gives.
It’s widely known that it isn’t recommended to start smoking because it’s addictive, harmful for the human body and is very costly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is the leading cause of death in the United States, impacting those who smoke personally and as well as those who receive it second hand, and costs the country “$300 billion a year, including nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults and $156 billion in lost productivity (2015).” Also, according to Samantha Graff, an author representing the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, smoking isn’t a constitutional right and is prohibited many public, work and government establishments (2008). That being the case, the comparison strongly insinuates that using free speech is a poor choice and shouldn’t be protected in the bill of rights, which gives further bias to the negative side of his
By saying smokers have the “right to die,” but non-smokers have the right to “not die” puts non-smokers in the dangers of smoking as well. This says that non-smokers can also be harmed by smoke and can cause death either way. A letter to Jeremiah O’Leary said, “Smoke yourself to death, but please not me.” By the writer adding this in her article, she inserts brutality from the non-smokers. It makes the readers believe that non-smokers will use violence and harsh words to stop smokers from smoking.
Do you smoke? Such a question has been asked to most people at one time or another. The topic of smoking certainly requires a thorough analysis, whether you smoke or not. It’s also an issue which seems to polarize people. In this reading we’ll compare contrasting viewpoints by two different individuals. As I present the arguments, I’ll dissect them to truly understand their inner-workings. Both Dr. Haviland and King touch on many subjects yet seem to ignore others. I think a balance must be struck when it comes to smoking, both through individual rights and a social responsibility.
Renneboog, R. M. (2016). Cigarette Smoking Bans: An Overview. Canadian Points Of View: Cigarette Smoking Bans, 1.
With the looming statewide ban, many smokers feel that they have had their rights taken away, and are left with very little options.
Smoking cigarettes is a detrimental practice not only to the smoker, but also to everyone around the smoker. According to an article from the American Lung Association, “Health Effects” (n.d.), “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 438,000 deaths per year”. The umbrella term for tobacco use includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs and chewing tobacco. While tobacco causes adverse health consequences, it also has been a unifying factor for change in public health. While the tobacco industries targets specific populations, public health specifically targets smokers, possible smokers, and the public to influence cessation, policies and education.
They argue that it is their body and they are have the right to choose what they want to do. Since smoking cigarette don’t cause people to get high or drunk that they can hurt other people, smokers believe that smoking is safe and risk free. For those smokers who knows the risk in smoking, they argue that smoking reduce the chances of being obese. I understand that people have the right of their free will but getting lung cancer is not the best way to avoid obesity. By banning cigarettes, the government is not taking away smoker’s free will but they are making necessary action to their population. Most of the smokers will quit if they could and most of the smokers start at a young age without knowing the effects of smoking. Banning cigarettes reduce the death rate of lung cancer and heart disease since they are mostly caused by smoking. The government will save over 100 billion in the next 10 years that used from the smokers medical bills. This money can be put to education, transportation and other expenses. There is many ways that smokers can benefit from the government banning smoking cigarettes. A pack of cigarette cost $20 dollars and regular smoker’s smokes at least a pack a day. That amount of money can be saved and be used for more
Some disagree with these motives by claiming that smoking bans have not actually saved any lives or prevented people from taking up the habit. Contrarily, global research now actually shows that smoking tobacco kills people both directly and indirectly; indirectly, of course, referring to second-hand smoke. Another argument against these smoking bans is that a number of people feel as though they infringe upon their individual rights. These people believe they have a right to smoke tobacco anywhere they choose, not unlike many people who also believe they have a right to avoid forced exposure to deadly second-hand smoke. One might wonder which of the two takes precedence.
Smoking has become a big epidemic in the United States. As a tobacco free person, I want to be able to breathe clean air anywhere I go. As we know, smoking can harm every organ in the body (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). I believe that smoking should be banned in public places such as drinking establishments, hospitals, buses, train stations, and restaurants. Not only does smoking affect the individual smoker, it also causes a number of health problems, increases death rate, and it affects not only the lives, but the health of other people around them. On the contrary, smoking should be banned in public areas for these reasons.
... “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 addictive contents, such as nicotine and tobacco. Although millions die from it each year, smoking is the single most preventable cause of death. 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.
Every year, there are over 400,000 smoking-related deaths in the United States. A large percentage of these are due to lung cancer, whose leading cause is smoking. However, not all deaths are smokers themselves. Anyone in the vicinity can fall victim to second hand smoke. These people, through no action of their own, can have their lives threatened.
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.
Cardador, M.T., Hazon,A. PHD, Stanton. G. PHD., (September 1995).Tobacco Industry Smokers’ Rights Publications: A Content Analysis. American Journal of Public Health
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.