Smoking in Public Places
Smoking in Public Places
Introduction
When will the authority or the government realize that it is immoral, unethical, and toxic to smoke in public places? By allowing smokers to smoke in the public place, the government and relevant authorities are risking the lives of the individuals within the surrounding. Exposure to smoking fumes is unhealthy to smokers, non-smokers, and individuals within the vicinity. I think it would be ideal to ban smoking in public places. This would reduce exposure of various persons to hazardous smoke in most places. In addition, the ban would prevent and limit people to second hand smoke, which causes relevant illnesses and diseases. It is very dangerous to experience second hand smoke. Some of the public places where individuals suffer from second hand smoke include cars, work places, homes, and festival. The smoking ban in public places is a controversial issue. Individuals who do not smoke or never smoked feel like there is no substantive reason to employ a public smoking ban.
Conversely, smokers feel that it is a personal right to smoke in a public place. In addition, smoking ban issue is crucial and personal to such individuals in the society. Despite the fact that this issue might be new, the argument concerning the need to ban smoking has been a public contest for a while. It is essential to understand both points of view whether you are for or against smoking in public regions. In understanding this concept, it is vital to comprehend various aspects of smoking in public places. One of the essential issues is the risk of the individuals who might suffer from second hand smoke. Secondly, the government should consider health influences or effects of smoking to the smoker and the non-smokers within the environment. I would also focus on the rights of the individuals: smokers and non-smokers with the aim of making valuable decision on the ban of smoking in the public places.
The research will focus on the reasons for and against banning smoking in the public places. This is through evaluation of the influences or effects of smoking on the life of the smoker and the individuals around a smoke-filled place. This research will also address diverse perceptions in relation to ban of public places smoking with the aim of protecting the health of smokers and non-smokers within the society. The government should consider imposing a ban on smoking in the public places because it risks the of health of smokers and non-smokers in terms of dangers such as cance.
Reasons against Banning Smoking in Public Places
There are substantive reasons against implementation of a ban on the smoking in public places. One of the reasons for rejecting the ban on smoking in public places is the essence of autonomy in relation to decision-making. According to these individuals, society has to accept that smokers are adults capable of rational decision-making. In this case, an adult has the freedom of deciding to harm or not to harm oneself. Besides, the concept of harm is a subjective thing. This reason makes the proposition to argue that people should not be banned from smoking in public places. The proposing part argues that passive smokers or second hand smokers do choose to breathe in other individual’s smoke (Call closing time on smoking, 2005). In case a passive smoker does not want the exposure to second-hand smoke, he or she should not stay close to a given smoker. Therefore, there should be no reason to ban smoking in public places.
Secondly, the current trend does not show that there should be ban on public place smoking. If sufficient number of individuals want to go to non-smoking bars, companies, business entities, and government agencies would set-up non-smoking zones or places for such group of persons. The absence of such entities is an indication that very few people want to have such places. In addition, some of the society members are happy to operate and work in the smoky places. The basic element in this argument is the fact that workers should have the opportunity to choose to work in the dangerous conditions with reference to smoking areas. For instance, workers have the opportunity to choose to work in some of the dangerous working conditions such as fishing, armed forces, and mining. This indicates that individuals would have these dangerous jobs rather than having no employment at all. Complete ban on the smoking issue would not be the ideal solution to the problem anyway. In addition, ventilation fans are very effective and efficient in the removal of most of the smoke in such conditions. The workers and other individuals within the vicinity of smoking would be fine with the ventilation fans in place.
Another substantive argument against implementation of a ban to eradicate smoking in the public places is the fact that it is legal to smoke tobacco. From this perspective, the government has no legal right to attempt to limit the rights of individuals in smoking. While others argue that integration of the ban would reduce smoking hence making the smokers give up on the social problem, it would be illegal for the government to deny such individual their rights of smoking of tobacco (Call closing time on smoking, 2005). Moreover, smokers have the ability and capacity to fund their healthcare needs. This is evident through the heavy taxes they pay for the consumption of tobacco. In most cases, heavy smokers would not give up smoking simply because of a ban on smoking in public places.
Implementation of rules and regulations of banning smoking in the public places would be detrimental to the family members. The approach would likely increase smoking at home rather than in public places. This tendency will create critical harm to the individuals in households such as children and other relatives. It is essential to note that children have no substantive right and knowledge to make valid decisions on whether to smoke passively or not in these encounters. In addition, individuals smoking at home would experience high rate of alcohol consumption in comparison to their intake while at bars. This is because of the rapid decline in the cost of procuring alcohol at local stores and supermarkets rather than the high cost in bars (Call closing time on smoking, 2005). Consumption of more alcohol at home would be dangerous to the individual’s health illustrating the fact that imposition of the ban would not be effective in improving health conditions.
Imposition of the bans or rules and regulations limiting smoking in the public places would render bars and other pubs and clubs useless. This is because such places are considered public. Integration of such rules and regulation would reduce the amount of revenues and profits for the bars and pubs thus limiting their business operations (Sharma, 2001). These business entities would also experience massive decrease in their tobacco sales. Smokers would prefer to remain and smoke at their homes to be on the right side of the law rather than pay severe penalty of smoking in the public places. In most places, working men’ clubs as well as pubs are vital social areas for the relevant communities. Moreover, these public places provide massive employment opportunities to various persons because of the extensive business transactions. Imposition of the bans would lead to reduction of the revenues as well as decrease in the employment positions.
Finally, it would be difficult for the police agency to manage this ban of smoking in the public places. Small establishments, sometimes, are able to maneuver their route around the ban with minimal chances of being caught on the act. In addition, staff or employees who do not smoke will unlikely name or report the smokers who they work with to the relevant authorities. These uncertainties are critical in degrading chances rate of imposition of the ban on smoking in public places (Call closing time on smoking, 2005).
Reason for Banning Smoking in Public Places
On the other hand, there are those who argue that the ban is overdue towards limitation of smoking in the public place. I would support imposition of the ban or rules and regulations to limit smoking in public places for various reasons. One of the essential reasons for the implementation of the ban on limiting smoking in public places is improvement of health conditions of the members of the society (Carney et al, 1997). According to various experiments by scientists, smoking is dangerous to the health of the society members. This is because of the ability of tobacco to cause heart disease, strokes, and cancer. It is essential to note that smoking affects both smokers and non-smokers who breathe in the smoke. This is the concept of passive smoking or second hand smoking. The focus in imposition of the ban against smoking in the public places is the fact that smokers choose to smoke while people within the vicinity do not choose to smoke passively. It is ethical to expose individuals to harm in case they understand the relevant risks. In addition, such individuals must accept those risks. Since non-smokers are affected passively without their notion, it would be beneficial for the government to integrate bans against smoking in public places.
Secondly, it is wrong to proclaim that individuals choose to smoke passively. In most places, individuals have no opportunity to enjoy non-smoking bars and restaurants. Individuals cannot avoid smoking passively unless they refuse or decline to go to bars and restaurants with their friends. Moreover, persons who work in bars have limited options with reference to job choices hence the aspect of working in the smoky working conditions. In most nations, safety standards limit workers from the exposure to unnecessary danger even if they approve the working condition. It is vital to limit the exposure of workers to the individuals who smoke in the relevant working conditions. This is because of the limitation of free-decision making by such workers.
Integration of ban on smoking in public places would be beneficial towards reducing the rates at which individuals smoke within the society. Imposition of the ban against smoking in public places would be ideal in making smokers to smoke less as well as give up on the drug use. Banning of smoking in the public places indicates that smoking would no longer be a social activity. This strategy relies on the idea that smokers usually leave their friends while going out to smoke. The approach would be unattractive in cold or wet weather conditions. According to the survey in Scotland, about a third of the smokers noted that imposition of the ban was essential in reducing their involvement in the tobacco smoking. Since smoking would no longer be a social activity, very few people will engage in smoking. In most countries across the globe, governments as well as other relevant authorities finance all or some of the overall cost in relation to the treatment of smoking-related diseases such as cancer and heart diseases. From this perspective, the government should have substantive rights towards discouraging smoking (Room, 2005).
In addition, it is illogical to note that imposition of ban on smoking in public places would increase the number of smoking cases at home. This is because of the fact that smokers need to maintain a certain level of nicotine in their blood with the aim of remaining content. Imposition of the ban would indicate that smokers would have less time and opportunity to smoke on the job. This is valuable in the reduction of the nicotine level in the blood. The smoker will now require minimum tobacco to address his smoking thirst unlike in the normal situation, which allows individuals to have more time and opportunity for increasing nicotine content on their bloodstream. In addition, the approach will reduce the amount of times addicted individuals smoke to address. There will be a massive reduction in cases of smoking at home, places of work, and public places (Naiman et al, 2011).
Imposition of the ban on smoking in the public places is vital in protecting the health of the society members. It is vital to focus on individuals’ health rather than the growth and development of business. Implementation of heavy fines would deter many business entities from allowing their employees to smoke while executing their functions and duties. There are fewer problems in relation to implementation of heavy fines or bans against smoking in public places. In Scotland, about 99.5 percent of the business entities were adhering and complying with the regulations and rules limiting smoking in the public places. This is an indication that imposition of the ban would create or generate minimal tension among the society members and the policymakers. Clubs as well as pubs and restaurants should modify their structures and business activities to earn more money through engaging in food products. Imposition of the ban would aid this transformation towards productive engagement by the relevant business entity in the tobacco industry. It is expensive to treat outcome or smoking-related diseases rather than preventing the looming danger. Integration of bans on the smoking in public places would aid prevention of the effects of smoking prior to worse outcomes such as cancer and heart diseases.
Conclusion
Smoking in public places is one of the controversial issues affecting the society members: smokers and non-smokers. In the modern settings, there is an increasing urge to impose ban on smoking in the public places. In order to understand this debate, it is vital to examine both set of arguments regarding the imposition of the ban on smoking. Most smokers find it difficult to understand the essence of integrating rules and regulations in relation to smoking in the public places. On the other hand, most non-smokers note that it is highly necessary to implement such a rule because of the adverse effects of smoking within the society. Both groups tend to have substantive argument supporting their perspective on the issue of banning smoking in the public places such as restaurants, cars, work places, pubs, bars, and parties or parks.
I think that it would be beneficial to limit smoking in public places. The government should consider imposing a ban on smoking in public places because of the health risks cigarette smoking imposes on both smokers and non-smokers. This will be effective in reducing health risks on passive smokers as well as smokers in terms of conditions such as cancer, heart diseases, and other related diseases. In addition, the ban would be sufficient in the improvement of the health conditions of the society members. In case of difficulty in the implementation of such rules and regulations, the government should focus on setting smoking zones for smokers, which should be away from the public places. This will reduce the damage that smoking causes in terms of health and financial aspects.
References
Sharma, D. (2001). Indian court orders total ban on smoking in public places. Lancet, 358(9293), 1620.
Carney, J. K., Hamrell, M. C., & Wargo, W. E. (1997). No Butts About It: Public Smoking Ends in Vermont. American Journal Of Public Health, 87(5), 860.
Room, R. (2005). Banning smoking in taverns and restaurants—a research opportunity as well as a gain for public health. Addiction, 100(7), 888-890.
Naiman, A. B., Glazier, R. H., & Moineddin, R. (2011). Is there an impact of public smoking bans on self-reported smoking status and exposure to secondhand smoke?. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 146-154.
Call closing time on smoking. (2005). New Statesman, 134(4762), 6.
