Jason Shipe October 21, 2013 Professor Micah Martin Argument: Should smoking be banned?

Should there be a ban on cigarette smoking in the United States of America? Since cigarettes were introduced to America, questions have been raised concerning the legality of smoking and if it should be allowed for everyone, in public places, or not at all. In recent times, with the increase knowledge in cost of healthcare, the controversy with cigarette smoking is on the rise. Throughout the country, states have banned people from smoking in public areas and inside public buildings unless designated as a location for smoking. Some of the citizens agree with the new laws, while others feel it is a violation of their freedom and rights. Some of the current bans are on cigarettes in public places and buildings. Allowing smoking in some areas but not others, such as personal vehicles and homes, but not in town or restaurants is a compromise towards finding the correct resolution of this current issue. From the smokers perspective, the two reasons cigarette smoking should not be completely banned from society are the addictive qualities being experienced by long term users and the positive effect that it has currently on the economy. Many early studies have shown that banning smoking all together does not necessarily effect the government on significant levels. It instead shows that businesses, such as hotels, bars and restaurants, suffer more from these bans. (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, 2006) In the states where cigarette

smoking has been banned, businesses have noticed a 20-35% decrease in profits. This also leads to a decrease in employment. (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, 2006) Some more recent studies disprove this negative effect by allowing smoking outside of restaurants and bars to make up for it. (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, 2006) Because smokers are allowed to partake in designated areas outside public buildings, they still economically support these businesses. This compromise not only benefits the businesses but also the citizens, smoker or not. The nonsmokers can avoid the smoking areas, and the smokers can still smoke. As for the addictive effects on smokers after the smoking bans, several studies have been performed as many people are concerned with the consequences of them. The studies which concern experts the most are individuals with mental health illnesses or substance addictions. (Nady el-Guebaly, Janice Cathcart, Shawn Currie, Diane Brown, & Susan Gloster, 2002) An analysis on public health and smoking bans performed tests in mental health institutions by completely and partially banning smoking in and outside facilities. (Nady elGuebaly, Janice Cathcart, Shawn Currie, Diane Brown, & Susan Gloster, 2002) Behavioral responses were the most significant worry and outcome with the nicotine withdrawal in patients. (Nady el-Guebaly, Janice Cathcart, Shawn Currie, Diane Brown, & Susan Gloster, 2002) Some patients became aggressive towards staff and fellow residents while others spiraled back into depressive mindsets. (Nady el-Guebaly, Janice Cathcart, Shawn Currie, Diane Brown, & Susan Gloster, 2002) However, if residents were only permitted to smoke in designated areas, they did not go through nicotine withdrawal and other nonsmoking staff and residents were not exposed to the dangers or temptations of second-hand smoke. (Nady el-Guebaly, Janice Cathcart, Shawn Currie, Diane Brown, & Susan Gloster, 2002) Therefore, by allowing smoking in

designated areas in society, current smokers still have their rights and privileges while nonsmoker do as well. The other side of the compromise plays a key role in the controversy of banning smoking, the nonsmokers. Commercials and antismoking advertisements show the consequences to the smokers themselves, but nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke are affected and in danger as well. Those affected most by secondhand smoke are family members, co-workers, and employees of non-restricted bars and restaurants. (Varnada Karriem-Norwood, 2012) Most of the smoke released from a lit cigarette does not enter the smoker s lungs, instead the smoke is sent into the air allowing surrounding people to inhale. (Varnada KarriemNorwood, 2012) Recent statistics show over 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke regularly at work or at home. (Varnada Karriem-Norwood, 2012) Of that, over 50,000 die from lung cancer despite not smoking a cigarette personally. (Varnada KarriemNorwood, 2012) By simply working around people who smoke, nonsmokers increase their risk of developing heart related issues by 25-35% and increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20-30%. (Varnada Karriem-Norwood, 2012) These statistics alone show that smokers are not the only ones affected by inhalation of cigarette smoke. Innocent individuals who chose not to partake in this habit are put at risk just by going to work on a daily basis to be able to support themselves and/or their families. By banning smoking in public places and limiting it to certain areas outside, the exposure to secondhand smoke can be greatly decreased. Individuals who choose not to smoke should be able to go to work in public buildings and not worry about their health risks because of secondhand smoke.

Opponents of cigarette banning claim that it is their civil right to choose to smoke and that society does not have the right to dictate what people do to their bodies, regardless of whether it is unhealthy for them or not. They claim that if the government bans cigarettes on the basis that it is harmful to ones health, then they may as well ban other things that pose a health risk, like junk food. The problem with this argument is that while eating junk food does pose a health risk to the person eating it, there is no immediate health risk to the people around them. Even governments have started to recognize the dangers of cigarettes by allocating smoke free zones where smoking is not allowed. (Centers for Disease Control) Even though this is a step in the right direction, it still does not keep everyone safe from the dangers of cigarette smoking. This ban is especially beneficial to children. If smoking were limited to specific outside locations, children, specifically children with asthma, could avoid potential risks of the carcinogens released by cigarettes. Children are still developing and are more vulnerable to the side effects of secondhand smoke. (Health Effects of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke, 2011) The most common illness in kids is the development or worsening of asthma. (Health Effects of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke, 2011) Children are also more susceptible to developing bronchitis, pneumonia, and middle ear infections. (Health Effects of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke, 2011) If any action is taken to limit smoking and secondhand smoke exposure, children should be the first to benefit; they are younger and more helpless and deserve to be protected by everyone. In conclusion, banning smoking from public buildings and areas while allowing smoking in designated sections can be a reasonable compromise between those who smoke and those

who choose not to smoke. Individuals who smoke may have to exit a building in order to smoke, but the distance to the designated area is not unbearable. As for the non-smokers, they do not have to face health care risks unless they choose to enter designated smoking areas. This compromise meets both sides in the middle, unlike many other possible scenarios. Whether or not this compromise will please a majority is debatable, as is all situations in this controversial situation. Banning smokers from public buildings is a beginning to a resolution.

Bibliography

Americans for Nonsmokers Rights. (2006, January 1). Economic Impact of Smoke free Ordinances: Overview. Retrieved from Americans for Nonsmokers Rights: http://no-smoke.org/pdf/Economic_Impact.pdf

This pdf file is a short yet informative resource that I have found. It is pertaining to economic impact on everything from restaurants and bars to tourism and conventions. This article also provides valuable information on the actual study done. It explains the difference between studies funded by an independent source compared to a tobacco related source. There are very obvious differences in the outcomes of studies when the funds come from different places. It also explains how these recent bans on smoking in public areas will affect smokers overall. It states that smoking will decrease as a whole.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013, February 5). Vital Signs: Adult Smoking retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/vital_signs/index.htm

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has provided me with solid factual information. This website is a government site which has statistics and the history of many illnesses. One of the main points that this site touches on is smoking and how it affects humans in general. Not only does it inform me of the many dangers of smoking but also how it can be different with people that have mental illness. It also goes on to explain how we can take action against tobacco use in general to prevent disease.

Health Effects of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke. (2011, November 30). Retrieved from EPA: http://www.epa.gov/smokefre/healtheffects.html

This resource not only explains the repercussions of smoking but also hits on an important factor which is second hand smoke. It goes on to explain the serious health risks that are involved with second hand smoke regarding children. This is especially important in children with asthma. The article isnt just stating random facts but is backing it up with the science behind it all. I find that this is a good source for some general information regarding second hand smoke.

Nady el-Guebaly, M., Janice Cathcart, B. M., Shawn Currie, P., Diane Brown, R., & Susan Gloster, R. B. (2002, December 1). Public Health and Therapeutic Aspects of Smoking Bans in Mental Health

and Addiction Settings. Psychiatric Services, 53(12). Retrieved from http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=87507

This article directly refers to the aspects of smoking bans and how they can help. Some people use smoking as self-medication to deal with stress or anxiety. The bans on smoking could have a major effect on people who use smoking for this. Even if smoking has deteriorating effects on the body it will also possibly hurt smokers who use it as a sort of medication. The study is slightly limited but gives a good view of this side of the analysis of smoking bans.

Varnada Karriem-Norwood, M. (2012, May 12). Smoking Cessation Health Center. Retrieved from WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke?page=2

Web MD is yet another strong informational site that gives medical advice and tips. The specific page that I have referred to is cessation of smoking. This page gives me some more information on the effects of second hand smoke regarding cancer, heart disease, and effects on children. This resource is a strong reputable source which is reviewed and updated frequently with new information on medical issues.