Effects of Smoking Ban in America, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Around the world, the tobacco industry [which includes cigarette production and distribution operations] control at least 55% of the overall market shares in relation to sales. This rate is followed by the pharmaceutical industries at 32% share (Stortz Ripley, 2007). The irony between these two industries relies on the way health issues develop in relation to smoking practices among human individuals. Relatively, smoking increases the possibility of developing several respiratory-related health issues hence increasing the profit-making operations among pharmaceutical companies that are expected to develop medications for such health issues. In a way, smoking ban laws have been created by the US Congress to regulate the situation in healthcare and develop better-defined consideration on how smoking could be managed in the country. In the discussion that follows, understanding what smoking ban is and how it affects the current American society shall be given specific attention to.

Background of Situation

The industry of cigarette production and distribution stands to create massive profits in the United States every year. The rate of profit the industry gets from the market marks the fact that the people do appreciate the products it offers although they are seemingly accounted for and branded as ‘dangerous to human health’. Likely, it is the satisfaction that smoking provides that keep smokers ‘coming back for more’ even though they know of the hazards that such an act may impose upon their health status (Vazquez, 2007). On this aspect of private decisions that smokers take into account, the law is limited in imposing any control on the choice of individuals in relation to how they are to take care of themselves or how they are going to damage their health.

There is however a larger picture to consider. When it comes to smoking, it is not only the smokers who are affected by the act. Second hand smokers, those who inhale the smoke from the cigarette smoked by others in public, are at a higher risk of developing ailments. It has been noted through research that the smoke released by the smokers carry in it specific germs and bacteria that comes from the host. This then gets passed on to others in the public who are within at least a five feet radius from the smoker. The passing on of such smoke causes non smokers to develop particular ailments such as heart disease, lung weaknesses and others that identify well with second-hand smoking related illnesses.

Since the government does not have the power to control the personal decision of smokers to take on such a dangerous habit, the government focuses on the hope of protecting others who do not aim to smoke and who do not deserve to develop ailments that are not caused by their own actions. The concept of banning smoking activities in public areas in the United States aims to protect the rights to life and good health of those who are not smoking. Being the protector of the rights of the public, it is the responsibility of the government to pass on laws that would contend to limit the actions of people that would have a distinct impact on the lives of others. Given the gravity of the effect that public smoking sustains, the situation gives the government a sense of responsibility to control the situation for the sake of the greater number of individuals in the society who are not smoking. Hence, because of this concern, the development of laws that ban smoking in public spaces have been created to support the healthcare concerns of the greater rate of population.

Development of Smoke Ban Laws in the United States

The basis of the creation of smoke-ban laws in the United States is dependent on three considerations. First is that of the harm principle which identifies the manner by which the law should be an established core source of understanding as to how humans should recognize their responsibility of not harming others (Horsely, 2008). This comprises of all the activities they engage in. There are instances when personal activities [such as smoking] directly and indirectly affect others [as mentioned earlier]. In this case, the need for the government to intervene in the situation becomes necessary. The next basis is the morality law which  entails the need to control individuals from engaging in activities that may seem offensive to others (Horsely, 2008). In a way, these laws intend to control the manner by which people act around others in accordance with social norms and social values. Practically, it could be realized that with these laws, the concern for what others think and what others feel about particular activities that people engage within the society. The third consideration is dependent on the concept of paternalism which  directs the attention to the individuals’ decision that affects his personal status and personal being (Horsely, 2008). This intends to control the individual from harming himself.

As a result to these particular grounds of -aimed developments on the concept of determining social understanding about cigarette smoking, the creation of smoke-banning laws have been given way in congress. Basically, the overall context of the legal sanctions against public smoking gives direct concern to how people behave in public spaces. Restaurants, for instance, are directed to have specific areas that are dedicated to smokers who dine in their shops. Of course, the smokers have the right to be served as well; however, the need to contain the impact of their actions is necessary. Hence, creating a special place for the smokers, which is practically located away from the areas dedicated to general dining, is a practical way of serving their needs. Given that they themselves are smoking, it could be understood that it would be okay for them to dine with others who smoke as well. There are other sanctions and limitable conditions when it comes to determining areas that smokers are allowed to stay and smoke. All these considerations are directed towards protecting the rights of other individuals [who are non smokers] to be protected while not overriding the rights of the smokers to decide for themselves.

Current Impact of Smoking Ban Laws in the Country

According to the National Cancer Institute, the rigid campaign against public smoking has created a radical development on the decrease of the number of individuals who develop smoking-related ailments even when they are non smokers. According to the same institution, it is seen that the effectiveness of the application of the rule continues to increase in rate and is expected to improve further in the coming years. Nevertheless, although these laws are successful, completely banning cigarette smoking in the whole of the United States may not be a possible course. It should be noted that not all states in the country adhere to the smoking ban laws.  For instance, in Alabama, there are no specific statewide smoke-ban laws that establishments and the public are strictly required to follow. State administrators are given the capacity to decide whether or not they are going to take on considerations on implementing smoke-ban laws in their areas of responsibility. There are instances when such decisions are defined by political advocacies due to the fact that a large number of the population are smokers and banning such an activity within strict rules might  put the administrators [or the politicians’] position in jeopardy.

For this reason, the national government of the United States cannot fully impose the ban on every single state (Schlinkmann, 2008). Each body of administrators governing over a particular state is supposed to make the decision on whether or not to impose smoke ban laws in their areas of responsibility. The overall implication of the said law is then dependent on how the state administrators see the urgency of the said legal sanction to be implicated in their states.

Controlling Cigarette and Tobacco Commercials

Although the national government does not have much control on the state-defined decision in relation to either implementing or not implementing smoking laws in their areas of responsibility, it still has the capacity to control the situation through managing the influential impact of cigarette marketing in the country. True, the tobacco industry plays a great role on the boosting of the US economy. Major manufacturers situated in the country are among the best players in the market. Nevertheless, the government cannot simply make its economic operations be controlled by the industry. It should not neglect the role it has towards its people.

Hence, the result of such consideration is generated towards creating bylaws that would insist on the marketing patters that cigarette producers are to create and post through different media operations such as the television and the internet. Among the requirements is the placing of government warning messages that would impose a sense of thinking on the part of the viewers of whether or not they are going to smoke. While some critics might say this is rather useless, there are those who consider such campaign to be subliminally suggestive, practically talking to the conscience of the smokers.

Conclusion

Overall, the quest towards a smoke-free United States is an ambitious hope of development. Nonetheless, pursuing it to provide protection and improve the health status of the society pays a lot in making sure that the health cost directed towards curing smoking-related ailments to be controlled and managed accordingly. With the cause and effect discussion presented herein, it could be understood that the manner of operation that the government takes into account is largely effecting in lowering down the rate of people who become highly affected by the smoking conditions that have become prevalent in the country for many years.

Works Cited

Farrelly, Matthew; James M. Nonnemaker and Kimberly A. Watson (September 20, 2012), “The Consequences of High Cigarette Excise Taxes for Low-Income Smokers“, PLoS ONE. (April 9, 2014).

History of Debate on Smoking Ban. http://www.debate.org/tobacco-rights/. (Retrieved on April 9, 2014).

Horsely, Lynn. (2008). “KC smoking ban effective today for bars, restaurants, tobacco stores,” The Kansas City Star.

Schlinkmann, Mark. (2008). “St. Charles election on smoking appears unlikely“. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Stortz Ripley, Catherine (2007). “City Council passes smoking ban“, Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune.

Vasquez, Ashley. (2007).”Smoking ban talk ends”.  The Smithville Herald. What’s the State of Smoking in America. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health-jan-june14-lushniak_01-12/#the-rundown. (Retrieved on April 9, 2014).