Surname 1

Students Name

Professors Name

Course

Date

Banning Smoking in Public

Introduction

Smoking in public should be banned for various reasons. It is estimated that one billion

people will die from smoking tobacco in the 21st century (Naiman et al. 8). Its harmful to the

environment and secludes people from going to certain places while avoiding to inhale the

smoke as Second Hand Smokers. Smoking is a personal choice and a very unhealthy habit. Over

the past few years, the number of smokers has increased drastically (Dennis 282). Despite the

knowledge of the harmful effects of smoking people still smoke tobacco (Dennis 287). This is a

very addictive habit causing the smokers to subject themselves to health risks. The government

and any other third party cannot shield any one back from expressing and enjoying their rights to

consume anything so long as it is legal in the country (Humair et al. 1). Nevertheless, the

freedom to do so should not in any way affect the people within the environment.

By introducing bans, the government and other health organizations will help in

publicizing the health impact of both passive and active smoking. This will discourage smoking

by limiting the places in which one can smoke. Therefore, the smoking bans will be a valuable

tool used to encourage the individuals to stop smoking and a way of providing a legislative
 Surname 2

means of reducing the level of exposure to SHS in both public and private settings (Naiman et

al., 4).

Bystanders and people surrounded by smokers inhale the smoke, and this can be harmful

to their health. Given that passive smoking is characterized as involuntary smoking, it is

literally nothing short of an assault on nonsmokers, and a fatal one at that, in light of the well-

documented health hazards posed to nonsmokers by high levels of nicotine and cotinine in their

bloodstream( Oriola 230). Living creatures are also affected negatively by the exhaled smoke,

and therefore smoking should be banned in the public places. Currently, the world is in a crisis

due to excessive release of gases to the atmosphere. Even though the smoke exhaled by the

smoker is in small percentage compared to those released in the big industries, it still contributes

to the greenhouse effect. Legislation ban on smoking means there is a possibility that less people

will be smoking cigarettes and tobacco and as a result reduce the rate of air pollution. Apart from

the negative effects, it has on the environment and the health to the human body; the habit has

negative impacts on the social life of society. Young children learn by imitating what they see.

Their choice of what is right and wrong is based on what they see other people doing. This is a

habit that instills a feeling to children that smoking is acceptable and not harmful. With that kind

of a notion, the possibility of the younger generation joining smoking if very high, thereby

harming the society. Thus, adults who smoke in public, portray a bad show to the children and

the only way to counter this is by banning smoking in public institutions.

There is a powerful aesthetic appeal on cigarettes. As revealed by Bell & Simone (6),

there is a perception that smoking leaves pleasure to the user. Teenagers especially those in the

adolescent age find the habit very cool and take as a precedent to use tobacco as well. Seeing
 Surname 3

adults smoke in public encourages the teenagers to start indulging in the behavior. They have a

perception that this is a stepping stone to maturity which is wrong. If there were a way to

decrease the habit in the streets, it would discourage smokers from doing it in public, and as a

result, the teenagers will grow to imitate nonsmokers. Banning will, therefore, promote a very

healthy life style to everybody (Oriola 231). This is possible if the government endorses the idea

since it will send a message that one of the primary agenda of the government is public health

and discourage smoking in the public places. When the ban is effective, people will be more

focused on the importance of healthy than restriction to their freedom. This will encourage

people to live and start adapting alternatives to better healthy lifestyles. They will also join in

campaigning against public smoking. Prohibiting the behavior will also discourage the

nonsmokers from starting the unhealthy habit. The consequences of violating the law which

would include fines and punishments is not something most people would want to experience.

The desire to start smoking would, therefore, fade away and as a result, lead to a healthy

lifestyle, in particular among the youth. It also means that there will be a reduction in deaths

from lung cancer related to tobacco smoking.

Banning smoking safeguards the life of the passive smoker and the smoker as well.

Cigarettes have the highest cause of mortality and morbidity rate of all the other drugs combined

(Bell & Simone 5). Various researches indicate that a passive smoker has a possibility of having

one percent of continine levels from those in active smokers. Nevertheless, the continuity in

exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases the levels of continine in their body. For

instance, a wife exposed to prolonged periods of tobacco from a smoking husband exhibits high

chances of lung cancer than a wife married to a non-smoking husband. This is to say that passive

smokers are at greater risk of lung cancer from continued exposure to the smoke. Alspl the
 Surname 4

excess second-hand smoke in the air contains more than 50 chemicals and can lead to asthma

attacks in children, respiratory infections and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). These

diseases are preventable by discouraging smokers from smoking in environments where the

smoke will diffuse and meet people. To reduce the risk to the nonsmokers, it will require banning

of public smoking (Oriola 828).

By disallowing individuals from smoking in public, it will result in reduced smoke in the

atmosphere and the general population will not be exposed to the adverse effects of the excessive

smoke. To the users, the regulation of public smoking will have positive impacts on their health.

The fact that one can only smoke at home or within the environments where there are no people

will see the smokers reduce their rate of smoking. These will eventually decrease the risk of

diseases like cancer and other respiratory diseases related to tobacco smoking. For the addicts

trying to quit the addiction, this will be a favorable opportunity for them to reduce the smoking

rate and eventually stop. In this, banning will not be viewed as an effort to cut short peoples

enjoyment but as a way of helping the majority to concentrate more on health since the level of

nicotine and continine in the blood stream (Oriola 828).

A study done in United States of America reports show that there are 200,000 cases of

childhood asthma and more than 46, 000 deaths caused by SHS (Naiman et al., 1). As a result,

there have been campaigns and jurisdictions put in place to slow down the rate of deaths. A study

carried out to determine the effects of the ban on smoking in Ontario municipality indicated SHS

could be reduced through smoking ban legislation (Naiman et al., 4). Some of the cities which

reported lowest SHS exposure in public places by the end up 2005 were Sudbury, Thunder Bay

and Waterloo (Naiman et al., 4). The three cities had full smoking bans. This implies that, if the
 Surname 5

whole country were to adopt such measures, then the risk of SHS would be dealt with effectively

and the number of illnesses and deaths resulting from the exposures would reduce by big

numbers. The smoke-free workplaces recorded a similar change, where smoking employees

expressed a desire to stop tobacco use and had reduced the consumption rate (Naiman et al... 6).

In other studies, legislation ban on public smoking proved to have better outcomes since

there was a reduction in the rate of hospitalized individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease (Humair et al. 1). Since the ban on smoking in Geneva, the rate of hospital admissions

dropped. The data showed that the complex COPD exacerbation involves active smoking,

exposure to SHS viral or bacterial infections, constitutional factors, and other environmental

pollutants, which are synergistically responsible for inducing a flare of inflammation in the lower

airways of the respiratory system. After a complete ban on public smoking, the number of

admissions with COPD dropped drastically (Humair et al. 3). There was also a decrease in the

admission of patients with the acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, pneumonia and

acute asthma within the short time corresponding to the initial smoking ban (Humair et al. 5).

This is another indicator of how effective the ban can result in reduced exposure to SHS. The ban

has positive impacts on health.

Economically, the ban means that people will buy less. However, with reduced

consumption, the smokers will be saving more and use the money for other goods or in support

of healthy activities. The government will also have to spend less in the construction of smoking

shelters. The money can be used in the construction of other social amenities and accelerate

growth in the country. Large margins will cut the money that would have otherwise been used to

cater for diseases and other healthcare spending as a result of excessive exposure. Medicaid costs
 Surname 6

would also reduce, and social security would increase since most people would be retiring later.

Therefore, banning public smoking has financial advantages to the users, nonsmokers and the

government at large (Oriola 829).

The streets and all public institutions would be cleaner if people were regulated from

smoking in public places. Most smokers are not disciplined but driven by an urge to smoke. The

butts are scattered all over the streets since most smokers do not have the etiquette to find a liter

bin and throw in the remains. A ban would enhance the cleanliness in the streets and a hygienic

environment. With these butts all over the public places, children might pick them up and

unknowingly smoke them. In a storm event, the butts are washed away and drain in rivers. This

adds up to the contamination of the water and is harmful to the public health. The only way to

handle people with no regard for other individuals is by enforcing laws. Violation of these

statutes should be punishable as an attempt to reduce the behavior.

Conclusion

Generally, smoking has most harmful effects to the environment and adversely to the

human body. Banning the smoking of cigarettes and tobacco is not discrimination to the smokers,

rather, it is a way of showing regard to the non-smokers. SHS has severe effects on the

nonsmokers and results to major respiratory complications leading to lung cancer and eventually

death. Banning of public smoking is, therefore, a preventive measure to protect those that do not

smoke from unwanted SHS exposures while at the same time helping those with addictions to

reduce their rate of consumption. The resultant effect of this is that the general population will

lead a healthy life and rates of deaths from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases will
 Surname 7

reduce. Therefore, a complete ban will have positive impacts than negative impacts, and it should

be enforced in the country for the benefit of all.

 Surname 8

Works Cited

Dennis, Simone. "Researching Smoking in the New Smokefree: Good Anthropological Reasons

for Unsettling the Public Health Grip." Health Sociology Review, vol. 22, no. 3, Sept.

2013, pp. 282-290. EBSCOhost, doi:10.5172/hesr.2013.22.3.282.

Oriola, Taiwo A. "Ethical and Legal Analyses of Policy Prohibiting Tobacco Smoking in

Enclosed Public Spaces." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 37, no. 4, Winter2009,

pp. 828-840. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00454.x.

Naiman, Alisa B., et al. "Is There an Impact of Public Smoking Bans on Self-Reported Smoking

Status and Exposure to Secondhand Smoke?." BMC Public Health, vol. 11, no. 1, Jan.

2011, pp. 146-154. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-146.

Humair, Jean-Paul, et al. "Acute Respiratory and Cardiovascular Admissions After a Public

Smoking Ban in Geneva, Switzerland." Plos ONE, vol. 9, no. 3, Mar. 2014, pp. 1-6.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090417.

Bell, Kirsten And Simone Dennis. "Towards a Critical Anthropology of Smoking: Exploring the

Consequences of Tobacco Control." Contemporary Drug Problems, vol. 40, no. 1,

Spring2013, pp. 3-19. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=87290191&site=ehost-live.