Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places, Both Indoor and Outdoor, Essay Example

Smoking is the single largest preventable cause of disease and premature death, being a primary factor in heart diseases, stroke, and chronic lung cancer (Martin). Smoking accounts for approximately 443,000 deaths each year in the United States and is responsible for more deaths than by all deaths from HIV, illegal drugs, alcohol, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). In addition to mortality costs, smoking also results in huge economic costs to the U.S and it is estimated that the annual cost of smoking-related diseases to the United States is over $150 billion a year (Martin). But smoking should not be banned in public places (both indoor and outdoor) only because it results in catastrophic economic and social costs to the society but also because doing so would be ethically the right thing to do.

When we think about the purpose of rules and regulations, we may argue that one purpose is to protect the citizen/s from the adverse consequences of actions performed by other citizen/s. In other words, no one should be made to pay the price of the negative consequences of actions in which they have no involvement. As an example, drinking alcohol is legal in the U.S. and there is no prohibition on getting drunk within your private premises but different rules apply to getting drunk and driving on the road. This is because drunken individuals put the safety of their fellow citizens at risk, too and ethically their fellow citizens should not have to suffer the consequences of actions in which they have no part. Similarly, smokers also expose non-smokers to health risks through second-hand smoking and it is now an established scientific fact that secondhand smoking has serious negative health consequences. A U.S Surgeon General report found almost half of all nonsmoking Americans are exposed to secondhand smoke. According to American Lung Association (ALA), more than 70,000 heart diseases deaths as well as 3,400 lung cancer deaths occur in the United States due to exposure to secondhand smoke. The Society of Actuaries estimates that the economic cost of secondhand smoke is nearly $10 billion per year in the U.S (Information Research Lab). The ethical issue here is that why should someone, who doesn’t smoke, be exposed to the health risks of smoking through secondhand smoke?

By banning smoking in all kinds of public places, we will also be doing a favor to our children. In addition to the obvious benefit of preventing children’s exposure to secondhand smoking, we may also succeed in lowering the smoking adoption rates among the teens. Ban on smoking in public places may help create an environment in the long run in which nonsmoking is the cultural norm. Such bans will also encourage adults including parents to quit smoking and parental tobacco use has been found to increase the probability of their children adopting smoking. Some econometric studies of teen and young adult smokers have concluded that clean indoor air laws may reduce teenage smoking because ban serves as an effective control measure against smoking. It is estimated that such bans could reduce cigarettes consumed by teenagers as much as 40 percent. Clean indoor laws will send the message to the children that smoking is socially unacceptable (Jacobson, Warner and Lantz). This will be a very effective measure given the fact that every day, 3,000 kids in the U.S pick up smoking habit (Martin, 20 Shocking Smoking Facts). An even better incentive to impose a ban is the fact that in the U.S., approximately 80% of adult smokers started smoking before the age of 18 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

We look to medical science to come up with revolutionary drugs to treat some of the most challenging diseases today but little changes in laws and lifestyle habits may do more towards reducing widely-prevalent terminal health conditions than any blockbuster drug. A meta-analysis of 11 peer-reviewed articles covering smoking bans at 10 sites including 5 in the U.S. revealed that bans will lower the instances of cardiovascular diseases from second-hand smoking and the positive impact of bans was on the average higher at sites in the U.S. as compared to some other countries. The impact was found to be greater the longer the observational periods after the imposition of bans (Schroeder). The health benefits do not stop here. In fact, Professor Alex Markham of Cancer Research UK claims that ban on smoking in public places will do more to save lives than the development of a single new anti-cancer drug (Medical News Today).

The opponents of the smoking ban in public places may claim that smoking is an individual right and a ban may infringe on personal liberty. Going by the same logic, a ban on marijuana and drugs also infringes on personal liberty. There is no such thing as absolute liberty and states have the right and a moral duty to do what may increase the overall welfare of the society. Even if a ban would infringe on liberty of some, the benefits to the society may outweigh the costs to the society, making ban the right thing to do.

The opponents may also argue that outright ban on smoking is unjustified and designated places for smoking may be a better solution. The problem with this argument is that cigarette smoke travels like any other air particle. The smoke can travel about 20 feet in every direction and it may stay around for hours (Breathe California). This means that smoke doesn’t remain only in designated areas but also travel outside the designated areas. The only possible solution to protecting the non-smokers is an outright ban.

The positive news is that the public perception is now changing and a 2011 Gallup survey found that for the first time since the survey began in 2001, majority of Americans (59%) support ban on smoking in all public places. 20 percent even called for totally banning smoking in the country. As of today, New York City stands as the only place in the country that bans smoking in virtually all public places including parks and beaches (Newport).

It can be argued that the values of society usually improve over time or at least that has been the case in the U.S. We have a responsibility towards future generation and by banning smoking in public places, we have a valuable opportunity to turn smoking from a cultural norm to a cultural stigma. The government has a responsibility to do what may bring greater benefits to the society than the costs it may impose and ban on smoking may be one such thing. What makes the government’s job easier is the fact that public opinions have also changed which would make it easier for the government to institute nationwide bans. It will be a good day when the whole country will follow the suit of New York.

References

Breathe California. Secondhand Smoke. 8 January 2012 <http://www.breathecalifornia.org/healthinfo/secondhandsmoke.html>.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking. 8 January 2012 <http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/>

—. Youth and Tobacco Use. 8 January 2012 <http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm>.

Information Research Lab. Secondhand Smoke Kills. 8 January 2012 <Secondhand Smoke Kills>.

Jacobson, Peter D., et al. Combating Teen Smoking: Research and Policy Strategies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

Martin, Terry. 20 Shocking Smoking Facts. 3 March 2011. 8 January 2012 <http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccostatistics/a/tobaccofacts.htm>.

—. Global Smoking Statistics. 28 January 2007. 8 January 2012 <http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/antismoking/a/statistics_2.htm>.

Medical News Today. Ban smoking in public places and save lives, says top cancer charity. 15 September 2004. 8 January 2012 <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/13454.php>.

Newport, Frank. For First Time, Majority in U.S. Supports Public Smoking Ban. 15 July 2011. 8 January 2012 <http://www.gallup.com/poll/148514/first-time-majority-supports-public-smoking-ban.aspx>.

Schroeder, Steven A. “Public Smoking Bans Are Good for the Heart.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2009: 1256-1257.