Banning Tobacco Smoking in Public Places

Introduction

Across the world continue to effect the ban on smoking in public places on the back of information that underscore the associated negative consequences it has on persons exposed to active and passive smoke. Tobacco smoking is thus widely prohibited given that is a presentable cause of disease and death in the US. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it contributes to approximately 480,000 fatalities where 41,000deaths result from the exposure to passive smoke (para.1). Healthcare costs stand at over 300 billion dollars annually which the different administrative levels seek to categorically avoid. 170 billion dollars translates to direct medication costs for adults while 154 billion dollars appertains to losses in productivity of affected persons (CDC para.1). Unfortunately, regardless of the adverse outcomes associated with tobacco smoking, there are major stakeholders to the bans strongly opposing it. This paper is argumentative in nature with the antagonists supporting own position while supporters of the ban underscore the need to critically ensure it is fully implemented.

Debate between Proponents and Opponents on the Ban on Smoking in Public Places

The strongest opponents of the longstanding ban on smoking in public places within the U.S. are firms associated with the tobacco industry. The massive billion dollar industry has survived the ban by decreasing manufacturing costs while at the same time increasing pricing on its products. One would expect increased pricing to limit revenue but this has had an opposite impact given the addictive nature of cigarettes. Firms in the industry have introduced e-cigarettes which were independent of FDA regulation (Bhatnagar et al. 420 (first page kwa pdf)). These resulted in many persons especially the young persons to take up smoking and do so publicly. The tobacco industry has innovatively employed tactics that undermine the bans effectiveness and by so doing encouraged many youth to take up the difficult to quit habit.

Banning smoking in public spaces was envisaged to reduce the spiraling costs in healthcare associated with tobacco smoking but more importantly, encouraging healthier lifestyle among the American populace. Though public health institutions and agencies have employed significant resources towards informing the general public of the adverse outcomes associated with smoking, many continue to engage in the unhealthy habit (Bhatnagar et al. 419 (first paragraph)). A ban on smoking in public spaces has offered communities with the opportunity to experience environments without the invasive attributes of second hand smoke. Another beneficial result is that people considered as children role models but are smokers are forced to abide by the ban therefore curtailing the possibility vulnerable demographics taking up the highly addictive trend that significantly diminishes quality of life.

Opponents of the ban on smoking point out that it is an infringement on individual rights. As provided by the U.S. Constitution each American citizen bear inalienable rights that no legislation or institution whether public or private should infringe on. On the same breadth, the Tobacco industry continues to cite the First Amendment which enables them to offer packaging that prominently displays the harmful attributes of smoking (Maloney and Chaudhuri para 9). Given that they also have a right to do what the feel is okay therein, there is the attempt to allow people to smoke in public places.

Proponents of the ban categorically provide that they are also privy to the same rights opponents attempt to misrepresent. For non-smokers, it is there right to have public spaces that are not polluted with second hand smoke emitted by active smokers (Bhatnagar et al. 425). Non-smokers have the right to enjoy fresh air in parks, commuter transport, workplaces as well as other social amenities. Indeed, purporting to quote the constitutions as the source of ones rights relative to smoking in public places is grossly erroneous. This is founded on the knowledge that secondhand fumes are primarily unhealthy and therefore tantamount to poisoning non-smokers. Though it is a personal choice, a smoker should do so in an environment where they do not expose others to obnoxious fumes that pollute breathable air.

Opponents of the ban on smoking provide that the tobacco industry is a major wealth creator in the U.S. as well as a leading tax payer. The country has large areas of land under tobacco leave cultivation. This implies that it is also a significant employer of American people right from the farming stage to the supply chain that transcends to foreign mass markets(Maloney and Chaudhuri para 7). The huge resources available for tobacco companies to use in attempting to bypass the ban through the introduction of new forms of smoking like vaping target the youthful populations (Maloney and Chaudhuri para 22). The FDA is yet to succinctly categorize e-cigarettes as privy to the ban (Bhatnagar et al. 426). By undermining the effectiveness of present legislation, tobacco manufacturers are ensuring that smoking in public places becomes a debatable issue whereby the existing lack of clarity relative to new innovation continues to allow smoking in public places to continue unchallenged.

The most dominant proponent of the smoking ban is the healthcare industry which attributes low quality of health to many persons affected by smoking to easily preventable causes. However, environmental agencies have also availed data that significantly adds weight to the matter thus strongly supporting for greater implementation of the prohibition (Kamal et al. 1). Smokers can be considered as reckless people given the manner with which they dispose cigarette remnants. Cigarette buds are synthesized from an artificial material referred to as polymer cellulose acetate (Kamal et al. 1). These are physical non-biodegradable byproducts associated with smoking. They break down after approximately 12 years making them a significant polluter of natural environments (Kamal et al. hii haiku hata kidogo). The recklessness with which cigarette smokers often discard cigarette buds indicates the great need to have the ban strongly implemented. This is to not only protect nonsmokers from poisonous habits from smokers but also towards protecting the fragile ecosystems of which human beings are very dependent on.

Conclusion

The implementation of the nationwide ban on cigarette smoking is indicative of the fact that the government is truly committed towards encouraging people embrace healthy lifestyles. It is unfortunate that the tobacco industry still bears the capacity to counter such a progressive endeavor by the government and legislators. The economic benefits associated with a strong tobacco industry should not be reason enough to subject youth, children as well as non-smokers to the poison laced fumes of burning tobacco. It is imperative for federal institutions like the FDA and CDC to take necessary steps to counter any developments spearheaded by tobacco manufacturers to dilute the ban’s effectiveness.

Works Cited

Kamal, Tahseen, et al. “Synthesis and catalytic properties of silver nanoparticles supported on porous cellulose acetate sheets and wet-spun fibers.” Carbohydrate polymers 157 (2017): 294-302.

Bhatnagar, Aruni, et al. “Electronic cigarettes: a policy statement from the American Heart Association.” Circulation130.16 (2014): 1418-1436.

Maloney,Jennifer andSaabira ChaudhuriAgainst All Odds, the U.S. Tobacco Industry Is Rolling in Money. The Wall Street Journal. 2017, Accessed from <https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tobacco-industry-rebounds-from-its-near-death-experience-1492968698>. 8 April 2018.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Burden of Tobacco Use in the U.S. 2018, Accessed on 8 April 2018 from <https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-states.html>.