Smoking Ban Essay

Smoking Ban

Introduction and Thesis: The smoking ban is to prevent health risks, and ensure a better economy and cleaner environment. The first ban was in 1575 to ensure no smoking in all the churches in Mexico by the ecclesial council. Even though there is so much evidence to easily ban smoking it is still a huge debate.

Point 1: Health protected

Although this may go against freedom of choice, it may reduce people having health risks. The ban will reduce nonsmoker's chances of getting second hand smoke. Not only diseases are contracted by smoke but there is a high chance of premature deaths to occur even if you do not smoke. CDC (Central Disease Control) has found that with the Smoking ban enforced the number of hospital...show more content... The plant is very toxic and contains DDT, (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Aldrin and Methyl Bromide which are powerful enough to destroy the ozone. According to Giovanni Invernizzi there are more than 4,000 chemicals in each cigarette and they are nonbiodegradable. In his studies, found that cigarette smoke causes air pollution and is said to be more lethal than diesel gas. The pollutants in the cigarettes may also contaminate the water source and make it an unreliable water source. When the consumer is finished using the cigarette they will often just toss it without putting it out, then it will cause a wild fire.

Rebuttal 1 Negatively effecting the economy.Althoughsmoking is bad it is good revenue for the government to use towards public services. This may also will have the smokers to pay more if they choose to smoke (Owyang). The people who are against the ban claim it also may take away jobs. There is about 136,000 workers and 114 factories across the world if the ban is in place there will be a high rate of unemployment.

Rebuttal 2 Freedom of Choice Though the ban may save lives, the ban may not be great because it goes against the Americas freedom. Peoples freedom and their right to choose would be abolished. The cigarettes are legal an easy to buy so it should be legal to smoke anywhere outside if it is not harming anyone. The smoke may just evaporate in to the air but it could

United States Surgeon General Richard Carmona stated the nearly 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke (Report: Ban smoking in public places). The risk of inferior health caused by smoking in public establishments is truly intolerable. The banning of smoking in public places everywhere should be imposed because it would reduce the risk of health problems of non–smokers, it could reduce the number of smokers all together, and, therefore, reduce the amount of valuable money taxpayers spend on smoking related costs. Smoking in public places should be banned because it could reduce the number of smokers at present and future times. First, it would discourage smoking because the ban would force smokers to choose between daily...show more content...

In an article written about how New Yorkers find the law, Cynthia Candiotti, a pub and restaurant patron, commented on how it will affect her social life, "Smoking and parties have sort of always gone together. Smoking, I'll probably quit. Going out with friends, that's a whole other matter" (Blau, Justine). This ban has proven to be extremely successful. An article from WebMD, "Smoking Ban Helps NYC Stop Smoking," states that within four years of the law being passed there was nearly a quarter million less smokers in the city alone, possibly saving nearly eighty thousand lives in the long term. These results are from only one city; one could only imagine the effect if a ban on smoking in public places was imposed across the nation. This great success is one of the reasons that smoking should be banned in public places. There are many unnecessary costs associated with smoking, of which, most would be reduced with the effects of a smoking ban. The ban of smoking in public would reduce the amount of valuable money Americans squander on smoking related costs and liabilities. First, the proposed smoking ban would help reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare.. The ban would help reduce the medical care needed for illnesses, diseases, and cancers, (etc) caused by the smoking of tobacco and inhalation of secondhand smoke. This is money could have helped the, over, 43.6 million American citizens without medical insurance.

Get more content

Tobacco is one of the most widely–used recreational drugs in the world; mainly in the form of cigarettes, but also in cigars and pipes, and in combination with cannabis and marijuana in 'joints'. Although most countries put age restrictions on its use, over a billion adults smoke tobacco legally every day, and supplying this demand is big business. As well as having serious health consequences for smokers themselves, the pollution of other people's atmospheres with cigarette smoke also makes this an environmental issue. Attitudes have changed rapidly over the past twenty years. In the developed world, public opinion has shifted against smoking. By the 1990s, the sheer weight of evidence had forced...show more content...

The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves – for example, dangerous sports such as rock–climbing, parachuting or motor–racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health–threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.

2) Cigarettes are very different from dangerous cars or poisonous foods. As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. But people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them. A better comparison is to unhealthy foods. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allow to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods – both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks.

3) A comparison to hard drugs is inaccurate– tobacco is not debilitating in the same way that many

The Impact of Smoking Bans

The Impact of Smoking Bans

Few issues over the use of public and commercial space ignite more impassioned disagreement than that over indoor smoking bans. With evidence of the dangers of second–hand smoking having achieved a state of being incontrovertible, lawmakers, lobby groups and public health advocacy groups have taken steps to diminish the exposure to second–hand smoke experienced by individuals on the whole. While the benefits of a smoking ban in bars, restaurants, clubs and other such establishments carries a number of readily apparent benefits most notably the reduction in presence and permeation of a hazard both to public health and the environment there are a number of economic effects that have drawn criticism for the policy orientation. Additionally, evidence suggests that with some key demographics such as college–aged consumers, these smoking bans have done little to slow the impact of tobacco addiction on college campuses. Thus, as the account hereafter will demonstrate, the continued adoption of public and commercial–space smoking bans is a positive step in the reduction of second–hand smoking dangers but has not been effective in reducing tobacco usage and addiction at large. Indeed, as it spreads from metropolitan areas such as Manhattan and Los Angeles to southern states where tobacco is an important cash crop, the smoking ban has been increasingly met with resistance from interested parties. Significant among them are the owners of bars and Get

Thesis Statement Of Smoking

TOPIC OUTLINE

Topic/Title:The Impact to the Human Body, the Environment, and the Society of the Poor Implementation of the Smoking Ban in Business Establishments within Dumaguete City

Thesis Statement: Business establishments within Dumaguete City should strictly implement the smoking ban in order to prevent lung cancer, to lessen environmental pollution and to avoid nuisance to the society

I.Introduction

1.1Background on cigarette smoking

1.2Thesis statement

II.Body

2.1Causes lung cancer

2.1.1. Toxic chemicals intobacco products

2.1.2. Secondhand smoke

2.2Adds to environmental pollution

2.2.1. Land pollution

2.2.2. Air pollution

2.2.3. Water pollution

2.3Creates nuisance to the society

2.3.1. Smell of tobacco smoke

2.3.2. Ambience and comfort of the business establishment

2.4Contradiction

SENTENCE OUTLINE

Topic/Title:The Impact to the Human Body, the Environment, and the Society of the Poor Implementation of the Smoking Ban in Business Establishments within Dumaguete City

Thesis Statement: Business establishments within Dumaguete City should strictly implement the smoking ban in order to prevent lung cancer, to lessen environmental pollution and to avoid nuisance to the society

I.Introduction

1.1Cigarette smoking is one of...show more content... Most commonly, the substance are the dried leaves of the tobacco plant which are rolled into a small square of rice paper to be created into a small cylindrical form called "cigarette". Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer–causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins which is why business establishments within Dumaguete City should strictly implement the smoking ban in order for to prevent lung cancer, lessen environmental pollution, and avoid nuisance to the

Get more content

Smoking

I am writing an essay about smoking and whether or not you smoke I would like to share my views with you. As well as my views I will also explain the views of others who support smoking. I chose this subject because it is something that really annoys me. My opinion is against it, especially in public places. My reasons are that it harms the smoker and others. Other people feel that smoking is not a bad thing and support it. My opinion of those people is that they are probably all smokers.

My first argument against smoking is health. The health problems caused by smoking are serious and numerous. There is clear evidence here! Heart attacks, strokes, emphysema, abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute myeloid leukaemia, cataracts,...show more content... can kill babies, they have small lungs and are very vulnerable so if you are smoking in a room with your baby, it could die because of you.

Thirdly, smoking in public places should be illegal in the whole of the UK. At the moment it is banned in Scotland, as many people suffer from passive smoking. It is still not yet banned in England but will be soon, however, many people are still suffering due to this. 12% of house fires are caused by smoking. If someone is smoking in bed and they fall asleep, if they drop their cigarette they could set their bed, their room, their house on fire and when they woke up they would be stuck. Smoking kills, in more ways than one. It is really annoying and makes you feel ill when someone comes in smelling of smoke.

There are arguments for smoking, one of them being that lots of people who work in places that make cigarettes would be made redundant and poor. They would also be sad and it can be hard to find a new job. People who smoke would not be able to buy cigarettes so they would be depressed as cigarettes help them relax.

Furthermore, many people rely on smoking to get them through the day. Many people are addicted to the nicotine after only four cigarettes. Therefore giving up would be very difficult.

Smokers smoke because they enjoy the feeling and believe that it is their choice and nobody should take that away from them.

?Nicotine is a powerfully addictive drug. The smoker is in a Get

Smoking Bans: Good or Bad? Essay

Smoking Bans: Good or Bad? I grew up with a mother and father who did not smoke, but when we would go visit my Grandma and Aunt every weekend I would not be able to stand the smell and always felt like I was suffocating. The only thing I really knew about the smoke in their houses was that it smelled horrible, I didn't understand that it would affect me later on in life. One day during my seventh grade Physical Education (PE) class I started having a hard time breathing, I thought it was because I was running around playing with my friends. After about thirty minutes I was finally able to catch my breath after relaxing for a little bit, but when I got home I was out of breath again. I would raise my arms above my head and it would...show more content...

I have also wondered how smoking bans have effected smokers and non–smokers in all possible ways, be it the health risks of how they feel emotionally. This paper will be about how both smokers and non–smokers feel about these smoking bans. For instance, I know that some smokers are not very happy with the bans and feel as if it is a form of harassment by the government, when some smokers are very happy with smoking bans due to the fact that they have helped them to reduce the number of cigarette's they smoke a day.

While looking at William J. Boyes, Michael L. Marlow, Stanton A. Glantz, Lydia Saad, Blake Yount, and Rong W. Zablocki we see that they all have great claims for why they believe smoking bans are a good thing or a bad thing. Glantz, and Zablocki both lean towards different reasons why they believe smoking bans are a positive thing. Their claims may be different but they both believe that smoking bans are helpful in improving the health of both smokers and non–smokers a like. They both uses strong logical appeal to argue their points and present their results in easy to understand tables and graphs for their audience to understand. In "Effect of Smoke–Free Workplaces on Smoking Behavior: Systematic Review", Stanton A. Glantz uses strong logical appeal to argue her points on why she believes that smokers and

In current events, a huge issue among state and city lawmakers all over the country is the debate over whether or not smoking should be banned in public places. Many argue that allowing people to smoke in public places proposes serious health risks for innocent bystanders. Though the health risks are high, many still oppose the proposal of such laws. Business owners presiding over such establishments as bars and restaurants worry that the smoking bans will severely hurt their revenues if passed. While this is an understandable concern, the health of our communities citizens is much more important than the loss of a handful of customers for businesses. Recently, the House ofRepresentatives approved a bill...show more content...

Brian Dunsmore, opposed to the bill said, "What are we going to say to our veterans? Those veterans fought, were injured, and died to secure the very liberties this bill is taking away." Is the smoking ban really an infringement on the citizens liberties and individual rights? Isn't allowing people to smoke in public places is a step toward protecting their liberties and individual rights? Shouldn't a non–smoker, who is just as constitutionally protected as the smoker beside him, be allowed the individual right to protect his personal health? The bill, in reality, is a bill proposed to help protect the patrons of businesses that currently allow smoking inside of their establishments. Rep. Francis Brooks stated, "My smoke from my cigarette should not be going into your lungs. It is not a case of taking rights away from someone who fought for this country." It was suggested at the hearing that the clubs and bars might actually profit by offering a more welcoming and health conscious environment for customers.

This assertion has been found to be true in Boston, Massachusetts. A recent report from Harvard researchers says that the cities bars and restaurants have gained customers and added jobs since a statewide smoking ban took effect. According to this

Get more content

Scientists agree that smoking is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker–it also harms people nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called "passive smoking"). Smokers choose to smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively. People should only be exposed to harm if they understand the risks and choose to accept them. A complete ban on smoking in public is needed to protect people from passive smoking. Society accepts that adults can decide to harm themselves to some extent, so long as they do not harm others. This is why the proposition is not arguing that people should be banned from smoking in private. Passive smokers do choose to breathe in other people's smoke. If they do not want to smoke passively, they do not need to go to places where smoking is allowed. There is therefore no reason to ban smoking in public. The opposition is wrong to say that people choose to smoke passively. In many places, there are no non–smoking bars or restaurants. Unless people refuse to go out with friends, they cannot avoid passive smoking. People who work in smoky workplaces (e.g. bars) often do not freely choose this sometimes no other jobs are available. In most countries, safety standards do not allow workers to be exposed to unnecessary danger, even if they agree. Workers should not be exposed to other people's smoke, since they may not have made a free choice to do so. If enough people want to go to non–smoking bars, companies will set up non–smoking bars. If there are no non–smoking bars, this suggests that very few people want them. Some people are quite happy to work in smoky places. In any case, workers should be allowed to choose to work in dangerous conditions. This is accepted for jobs like mining, fishing and the armed forces. Individuals decide that they are better doing this work than not having a job at all. A complete ban is not necessary to protect workers anyway– ventilation fans can remove most smoke. A ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up. If smoking was banned in public places, it would no longer be a social activity. Instead, smokers would have to leave their friends inside and go outside to smoke. This Get

According the Virginia Department of Health, one in every five deaths may be attributed to smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke (Smoking –Attributable Deaths in Virginia). The risk of inferior health caused by smoking in public establishments is truly intolerable. The banning of smoking in public places would benefit everybody and should be imposed everywhere because it would reduce the risk of health problems to non–smokers, reduce the number of smokers all together, and reduce the amount of valuable money tax payers spend on smoking related expenses.

Tobaccohas been labeled a carcinogen by the CDC, WHO, and the IARC. The hazardous byproducts from one smoked cigarette can elevate the toxin levels in a room for hours (National...show more content...

Every time he wanted to smoke he would have to repeat the process. If he were to go out to a restaurant for dinner or the bar for the ball game, he could, but he'd have to leave the given establishment each time he wanted to smoke. This would cause such a disturbance in his daily functioning that he would inevitably decrease how often he smoked and possibly quit completely. Just the inconvenience of the ban alone could be the extra push needed for these people to extinguish the habit indefinitely. The ban in New York City is a prime example of how successful the bans can be. An article from WebMD, "Helps Smoking Ban NYC Stop Smoking", states that within four years of the law being passed there was nearly quarter million less smokers in the city alone, possibly saving nearly eighty thousand lives in the long term. It seems as though many New Yorkers have quit their tobacco burdened lives. The great success of motivating smokers to quit smoking is just one of many reasons the ban of smoking in public places should be implemented. Many opponents of the ban argue that the ban infringes upon property rights. They say as a property owner they have the right to decide what legal products and actions are allowed at their establishment. The ban states that all enclosed public places must be smoke–free. The law does not prohibit smoking on the property but bans smoking inside of Get more content

Smoking Should be Banned in All Public Places

Every year thousands of people die because of having cancer or other tobacco related illnesses due to smoking. Smoking is seen everywhere from our own television screens to even the world wide web; the internet. Tobacco is the substance that is in these cigarettes. Thesetobacco products are promoted through tobacco ads that are found almost everywhere you turn. They are in magazines, television screens, on the internet and even on cigarette boxes themselves. Alas, their tobacco ads do not tell the whole truth. Thus, many people fall prey to these tobacco cigarettes and once they try one cigarette, they are hooked on it. The reason this is so is...show more content... Thus, I strongly feel that smoking should be banned.

Secondly, smoking does not harm the environment and pollute it. In addition, it is a fact that our planet has air pollution and it can help to continue to harm the planet. Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) contains more than forty substances that are known to cause cancer in human beings or even animals. Sometimes people think that its just a few smokers emitting smoke into the air but they do not realize that it is not only happening where they live. They have got to apprehend that this happens from people all over the world and when it is taken step by step, it does impinge on our planet. In 1995, about 18 million children under 10 years of age lived in areas with air quality that did not meet federal standards. Just think about all these innocent people that these smokers are hurting. This shows that smokers do not even know or bother about the consequences that their smoking brings. I think the only way that they would become conscious of this is if smoking is banned in all public areas.

Another thing is that if smoking was to be banned in all public places, it would force these smokers to smoke lesser and to eventually quit smoking. Smokers would then grasp that they can only smoke in a particular area that is private and personal; like their own rooms. However,

Smoking Should Be Banned Essay

Ban Smoking in Public Places Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in the United States, and doing it in public is even worse because smokers not only harm themselves, but also those around them. I remember how my great uncle would always smoke in his house regardless of his surroundings. When his daughter visited him for a vacation, she brought her three year old daughter with her. The baby was healthy before coming to her grandpa's house, but in less than two weeks, she had developed ear infections and started to cough. When they went to the doctors' office to find out how she had gotten it, the doctor linked it back to the second hand smoke that she was breathing in. When my great uncle found out about it, he...show more content...

According to Tree Hugger, cigarette butts have been found inside the stomachs of birds and fishes (McLaren). It is horrible to know that some of the fishes that we have eaten may have been contaminated by cigarette butts. Though many smokers already know of the health risks that come with smoking cigarettes, but what most of them do not, is how secondhand smoking can affect other people. "Breathing in low doses of secondhand smoke can increase a person's risk of heart attack" according to a study by Dr. Meyers, a professor of Cardiology and Preventive Medicine at University of Kansas (Sciencedaily.com). Smokers should not risk non–smokers for something that they do. In continuation of Dr. Meyers' study is that, "secondhand smoking increases the likelihood of a heart attack by making the blood "sticky", making it more prone to clotting, and reducing the amount of good cholesterol in the body" (Sciencedaily.com). Non–smokers should not be worrying about paying more medical bills, especially in today's economic situation. Many businesses provide health insurance to their employees. According to a statistical data collected by Live Strong, employers spend an extra $49 million in medical costs for employees who are exposed to secondhand smoking in their jobs (Nelson). Employers would be able to hire more people with the money that is being used to pay for medical bills that could be prevented. Smoking banned in Get more content

The effects of second–hand smoke have been well–known for decades; in fact, the Surgeon General warned the public about its dangers in 1972 (Schick & Glantz, 2005). Do people knowingly have the right to put others' health at risk? No, they do not. Exposure to cigarette smoke is a public health risk. Therefore, smoking should be banned in all public places, nationwide. There has been no attempt to impose a national smoking ban by the U.S. government. All current bans are in place because of state and local legislation. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights lists the various state and local smoking laws that have emerged since the 1980s, and the regulations vary greatly (2010). This is extremely confusing. Some states have strict smoking bans...show more content... A parent wanting to take a child bowling or an asthmatic wishing to attend a professional hockey game would be out of luck in Missouri since those areas are not subject to public smoking bans. Lenient states like Missouri may be impeding national legislation for a federal smoking ban. These states may be scared of smoking bans because of the fears of local business owners. What they may not realize, though, is that a national smoking ban would eliminate many of these fears.

Currently, the lack of a federal law means that states or regions wishing to impose bans have to worry about the impact on businesses. In 2007, Minnesota imposed a very strict state–wide smoking ban (Zdechlik, 2007).This is good, right? The problem is that the neighboring states did not have smoking bans at the time. Some bar owners feared that the bans would hurt their businesses (Erickson, n.d.). While any ban is better than none, a nation–wide ban is most effective for everyone. Another concern of local business owners is that patrons will simply stop going out in inclement or snowy weather if they have to smoke outside (Erickson, n.d.). Like most problems, however, it can be overcome with a little creativity and innovation. One bar manager stated that they planned on "building a patio and erecting a shelter to protect smokers from wind and rain" (Erickson,

Smoking is an expensive habit. People who smoke cigarettes can spend as much as $2,500 a year on them. Smokers' claim that it helps relax them and it releases stress but the negative aspects of smoking outweigh the positive. Smoking is a health hazard for smokers and non–smokers. Smokers should have the right to choose what to do with their own health but they should respect non–smokers. Many people believe that there are good and bad outcomes from smoking. I believe that smoking is bad and that it should be banned. Many people think that smoking is a sign of coolness but in fact it damages the body. Cigarettes containnicotine which is an addictive substance and that is why it is hard for smokers to stop smoking. Smoking can damage the...show more content...

Spending money on smoking is too much and leads to nothing, and there are no benefits that people can get from smoking. Smoking can hit personal finances and smokers are burning their money for no reason. Instead of using money to get cigarettes, people can donate to non–government organizations to wipe out poverty and change people's lives. Smoking is a major factor that is destroying the environment. Smoking cigarettes is bad for the air. People who do not smoke have to breathe the bad air around the smokers. Smoking needs to be banned in public to let other people breathe the fresh air. Most Americans are exposed to outdoor and indoor air that can cause cancer and other serious health problems. Smoking is a serious problem that needs to be taken care of. If we want a strong environment, clean environment, and a good public health, we need to ban smoking once and for all. Many people believe that smoking is good in many ways. They also think that smoking carries more benefits than not smoking. Smoking will help you make friends. Smokers congregate in very small areas and by doing this brings on a friendship. They exchange stories, exchange news, and enrich knowledge. Smokers all have something in common. They are discriminated against, and thus they quickly bond together. Smoking will reduce stress and anxiety. The calming effects of a constant nicotine supply in the bloodstream will reduce the

Get more content

Smoking should be prohibited in public places because it causes pollution, is disrespectful to others, and is dangerous to others due to secondhand smoke. Smoking in a public place should be prohibited. Public smoking is a large epidemic in the United States that needs to be stopped. Smoking is not just dangerous to the person who smokes, but to those who are around them as well. The children, the adults, everyone can be affected by it.

First, smoking causes different kinds of pollution, like ground and air pollution. The air can become polluted causing it to become hard to breathe. As well as making . it hard to breathe, it causes the air to stink and brings secondhand smoke. Smokers also tend to leave their butts on the ground, just flicking them out of their hand onto the ground. The pollution let off bycigarette smoke is 10 times more polluted than the exhaust given off by a car. The smoke given off by the cigarette has finer particulates, which is more dangerous. Second, people chose not to smoke, they personally do not want to deal with it or to be exposed to it. It is not fair for them to walk outside after shopping, or even outside of a hospital, and walk into a cloud of smoke. Many times non–smoking hotels smell like smoke. This is disrespectful to the owners of the places. Not smoking in public shows respect for people's thoughts and beliefs. If people chose not to smoke or not to have it in their buildings, then we need to respect that and not challenge their Get

Smoking

Introduction

Some governments have banned smoking in all public places. Smoking has been proven to be very dangerous to health. Nonetheless 40 % of the population smokes. Actually I am a non smoker, although I used to be a smoker.

Most people try out smoking when they are young ; many youths think smoking is a good grown–up habit. Furthermore many young people begin smoking as an act of rebellion and independence. Youngsmokers start smoking at their age of 12 or 13 just to get a taste of , what it is like. Some of them find it disgusting and unhealthy and some of them find it cool.

Fact's and Figures

Tobacco use kills about 420, 000 smokers each year. According to recent studies 53.000 nonsmokers die each year from...show more content... In my opinion they should introduce them at the earliest possible moment. I totally agree with the decision, that somebody wants to smoke the company must set up a smoking areas in the workplace. I don't think it takes away some of their freedom, because they take my freedom in that i must breathe the cigarette smoke every day. Many people will agree that smoking is easy to start and hard to quit. By the way they don't even think about whether they disturb non–smokers with their smoke. Personally this is the major problem with some smokers.

Disadvantages of smoking

As far as I am concerned, the main problem with smoking is that it causes lung and mouth cancer, and not just in smokers. I dislike yellow teeth or bad breath. From my point of view there are a large number of impressionable people who are easily influenced and might try to pick up their peers habits. As they want to be similar to them. In my opinion this is a foolish thing. I don't want to be somebody else, and I don't want

to be suitable for somebody either. Hopefully in the future people are going to give smoking careful thought.

Concluison

I give the government's enactment my full support, because I am a nonsmoker. In addition we non–smokers restricted by smokers, in that I had to suffer smoke where I didn't want to. If I were in their shoes, I would put up with the Get more content

Smoking Bans

In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that 16.8% of the population were smokers in the United States down from 42.4% in 1965, the first year the CDC started tracking that figure ("Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking Among High School Students and Adults, United States, 1965–2014" cdc.gov). Smoking bans are partially to thank in addition to education efforts for the plummeting number of smokers in this country, however, smoking bans in public parks should have no part in the effort to end tobacco dependency. Smoking bans in US public parks should be illegal because it would be extremely difficult to enforce, it limits individual liberties and ostracizes people, and the negative health impact to others outdoors is...show more content... Sampson tampabay.com). In Raytown, Missouri, officials are considering labeling Wal–Mart a "public nuisance" due to the high crime rate it poses while the city receives no money from Wal–Mart in the form of tax dollars (Ian Cummings kansascity.com). Departments are increasingly trying to come up with ways to bridge the gap between budgetary concerns and high–quality service. One way they are doing this is predictive policing or Data–Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS). DDACTS allow departments to use geomapping to assist officers in identifying "hotspots" in the cities where they work to identify times and areas where enforcement would be most beneficial ("Data–Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety nij.gov). Similarly, DDACTS can assist with staffing and scheduling weeks in advance to deploy the most officers during certain shifts (Holcomb and Sharpe 51). With the issues of budgetary concerns, officer retention, and the example of existing resources being diverted to one business in a community, who will be responsible for effectively enforcing an outdoor smoking ban in our public parks? The next issue with these bans is the lack of autonomy that Americans have in their own lives. Does the government really need to be making choices in people's personal lives about personal

Get more content

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

For several decades, smoking remains one of the most common and most unhealthy of human habits. Smoking, specifically in public, had generally been regarded as a personal choice that bystanders had little control over. Now for the first time, the act of public smoking is becoming regulated, even restricted in many cities worldwide. The city of Columbia has recently implemented a ban on smoking in efforts to reduce the negative effects of smoking on employees and customers of restaurants and bars. The issue is that smoke directly affects everyone in the vicinity of a public place, restaurant or bar. Based on the evidence that a ban on smoking prevents secondhand smoke, deters the unhealthy habit of smoking, does...show more content...

A study in El Paso, Texas, proved that a smoking ban did not affect business. By comparing revenues from restaurants, bars, and retail establishments twelve years before and one year after the smoking ban was passed, the results of the study showed that there was no statistical difference in revenue (Huang). Another similar study conducted in New York City, New York, showed that businesses were not only unaffected by the smoking ban but eventually thrived, as tax receipts increased eight point seven percent. In addition, employment in restaurants and bars increased by 10,600 jobs in New York since the smoking ban began ("The State"). Thus, the claim of business in Columbia negatively affected from the smoking ban is inaccurate. Many critics claim that a smoking ban harms business in Columbia, because a few restaurants and bars have closed since the ban was in enacted. However they have failed to supply viable evidence that a smoking ban negatively affects business, forgetting to count for others factors such as bad food, location, and poor business decisions by owners. Besides not affecting business, a smoking ban deters smoking in general. With the ban in place it allows those who want to quit smoking the incentive to quit. A contributing factor to this is inhaling tobacco actually increases the number of receptors in the brain that crave nicotine. So, if there is no smoke being inhaled people

Get more content

Argumentative Essay: Should Tobacco Be Banned?

Argumentative Essay: Should Tobacco Be Banned?

Abdullah Al–Bannai ENGL 110–52

Mr. Rafe Zaabalawi

Summer II

August 2015

Should Tobacco Be Banned by the Government?

According to the existing statistics, the greatest proportion of the world's population does not smoke tobacco. As noted in the United States of America, only one out of four adults smoke. Tobacco product use can be grouped as one of the social problems that has brought detrimental health concerns on the long time. It has also been established that that most people start smoking at the age between 12 and 14 years old (Eaton, 2003). Despite being of great economic importance, tobacco has brought about much more harm than good. In fact, those who smoke have their life span shortened...show more content... Use of tobacco has been associated with the cause of diseases that ultimately cause deaths. About 1,200 tobacco smokers die every month from smoking. This translates to about 1,4389,00 suffering patinas every year (Harper, 2006). This is a great number of preventable deaths every year. Those who survive the tobacco–induced deaths live with lifelong problems that include pulmonary diseases, cancers and the discoloration of the teeth. In addition, smokers have high risks of getting heart attacks and many other conditions that tend to make life quite uncomfortable. Burning tobacco leads to the production of a wide variety of chemicals. So far, it has been noted that tobacco has over 700 chemical compounds. The chemicals in tobacco belong to different groups which include humectants, pesticides, heavy metals, casting agents and many more. The most common chemical compounds in tobacco include tar,nicotine, and carbon. All these chemicals have negative effects on human health. Tar, for example, brings about many detrimental effects to human being (Szilagyi, 2002). First, there is the main cause of the respiratory

A Ban on Tobacco Every day, millions of people walk through the line at the gas station, drop ten dollars off in exchange for cigarettes, get outside and light one up. Without any conscious thought of what that one cigarette is doing to their body, they smoke many more throughout the course of the day. People often times think and want to quit, but they can't. They are so addicted tonicotine, and feel like it is an impossible habit to kick. Cigarettes create major health problems for most of the people that smoke them. The costs involved with them are tremendous in various ways, and they are detrimental to the environment as a whole. There needs to be a ban on Cigarettes completely, so many of these issues come to a halt. The first, most...show more content...

Aside from nicotine sucking a person in for a lifetime habit, cigarettes affect the lungs also producing outrageous amounts of lung cancer throughout the world. Lungs turn black on the inside of the body, and over time people have a hard time breathing, or doing other physical activities that they once loved to do. The endurance of a person is shortened massively, and they find themselves stopping activities to light one up. Now, with all these cancer sticks being inhaled throughout the world, one would have to wonder how much money is funding the deaths of many people.

The costs of cigarettes are tremendous, roughly eight dollars a pack. With many people smoking between one to two packs a day, that sums up to roughly one hundred and twelve dollars a week. People are just throwing their money to the big corporations that produce the cigarettes, in return for negative results. Tobaccodoesn't have a single target for who it wants to kill. It targets the rich or poor, healthy or sick. It's the people that know better, than to buy cigarettes, who live long and healthy lives. But, the cost of cigarettes isn't the only expenditure accumulated from smoking. Over the years the medical bills will pile up for vast reasons. Emphysema, COPD and many other conditions occur inside the body.

Get more content