Everybody knows that smoking is bad for the health. Smokers are expectedly more at risk to preventable but highly lethal diseases such as cardiovascular disease, lung ailments and cancers. Research in this area is an established field. Studies on the adverse effects of cigarette smoke for the last 30 years are prevalent enough to support the claims of health hazards, and enough to confirm cigarette and tobacco as the cause of slow and costly death of many individuals around the world, especially when smoking is compounded by other unhealthy habits. Recently, however, concerns about the effects of smoking are no longer just limited to the individual smoker because it apparently, smoking has externalities. It causes pollution that makes the person next to the smoker equally at risk, even more exposed to higher levels of harmful chemicals.Both proponents of smoking and non-smoking vehemently cite their rights in the debate on smoking ban. For the smokers, it is their right to do whatever they want to their bodies with nobody dictating how they should behave. On the other hand, those opposed to public smoking assert that they have the right to live long and to enjoy their surroundings, a right that is being taken away from them when second hand smoke of the mainstream smokers affects them. Other than the questions of health and rights, smoking ban is alleged to also inadvertently affect enterprises and economies.Because of the magnitude and importance of the issue, governments came to intervene. Yet, in addressing the problem, they usually side with the latter. Policies that ban smoking in public places have already taken effect in most locations. The smoking ban policy is controversial. It has varying implications for different individuals. What matters, however, is that the policy must be for the greater good, such that the gains exceed the costs and sacrifices. This paper supports the position that smoking must be banned in public places, including both hospitality and work locations. This stance is formed out of the personal observations of the writer. Almost every literature implies that second hand smoke ought to be controlled and that there is a need for a comprehensive intervention to protect passive smokers.The Need to Implement Smoking Ban in Public and Work PlacesAccording to the limited information which I have come upon during my observations of people in public places, I have realized that a lot of people, mostly women, hate the smell of cigarette. I am not sure if that is because of the smell that the smoke leaves on their hair or clothes, but it seems when a person lights a cigarette near them, the people close to them move away, as if they have a bad body odor that is so repugnant. Thus, even for this reason alone, smoking must be banned in public places. It seems that a place can be transformed into one big chimney if people start smoking there.Moreover, from my limited knowledge about what I hear doctors say, smoking produces two kinds of smoke: first, the mainstream smoke which the smokers inhales and exhales, and second, the sidestream smoke which comes from the glowing end of the cigarette. From these smokes come different kinds of chemicals, which are known as carcinogens. A single puff or a single wisp of cigarette smoke contains carcinogens and nicotine that has a harmful effect on one’s health.After learning about these gases and particulates coming from one tiny stick of cigarette, it must be quite plain that cigarette smoking is indeed deadly even to those who only inhale sidestream smokes. I have heard of people who have died because of cancer of the lungs but who never even smoked a single cigarette in their life and I guess that’s because of they may have a loved one who smoked cigarettes near them. It is no surprise that second hand smoke is popularly attributed to preventable diseases and worse, death related to smoking. Therefore, the right of a person to preserve one’s health, to be protected from harmful environment, and ultimately, to live a long and healthy life supersedes all other so-called rights.The fortunate part is that many states already realized the adverse effects of second hand smoke. Smoking ban, apart from common knowledge was already existent long before. The church probably saw how the act of consuming tobacco spoils the dignity of the church grounds, thus making it an ungodly offense worthy of excommunication. The smoking ban today is considerably lenient when compared to the two early extremist approaches, such that current policies may take the form of a simple courtesy awareness or a legislative agenda focused on tolerance and courtesy. More and more countries are now becoming aware of the importance of clean air outside one’s home and I support this.The idea behind the prohibition of smoking in public places and work environments is to mitigate second hand smoke-related ailments among individuals and workers. The payoff of a simple policy is immense and extremely noticeable. There will be reduced exposure to airborne pollutants and nicotine.Despite all these positive reports regarding smoking bans in public and work areas and despite the apparently pure intention of the policy, which is to protect the individuals and workers from the ill-effects of second hand smoke, some localities have not yet considered a total smoking ban in public and work areas due to the negative connotation attached to total bans. I know there are resistances among members of the business group, especially those who operate establishments such as restaurants, clubs and casinos where smokers used to flock. The ban will force this group of clients to search for other venues where they could smoke. In such case, the smoking ban is feared to lead to a loss of clientele.Nevertheless, the health of the public must serve as the topmost motivation for concerned agencies to implement a smoking ban in public places. Nonsmokers are hapless victims of cigarette smoke, since they absorb more chemical constituents against their wish. I guess the only way to effectively protect nonsmokers from second hand smoke is to implement a comprehensive smoking ban in public places and workplaces. The health and well-being of the majority is enough justification to inhibit the right of some to smoke whenever and wherever they like. In fact, the concerns of the nonsmokers take precedence over the needs of the smokers because they constitute the society distressed by the “victimless crime” of smoking. Claims that smoking bans in public places result to business losses have been refuted also. Business owners generally report optimism, the ban having no effect on their businesses. In other places too, the smoking ban provides more incentive for health and environment-conscious persons to patronize an establishment where they can enjoy smoke-free engagements. Therefore, almost all facts point that legislative action on smoking in public provides more benefits and incentives to more people. Despite a number of criticisms, the smoking ban is for the overall welfare of public that recognizes every people’s right to a clean, healthy, and fair environment.
Smoking is bad for the health Paper
Words: 1170, Paragraphs: 1, Pages: 4
Paper type: Essay , Subject: Addiction
How to cite this page
Smoking is bad for the health. (2019, Jun 20). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-essay-smoking-2/
Leave your email and we will send you an example after 24 hours 23:59:59
Let us edit for you at only $13.9/page to make it 100% originalORDER CREATIVE SAMPLE NOW
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden
on this website.
If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email.Topic: Smoking is bad for the health
Sorry, but downloading
is forbidden on this website
Make It Original?
How about make it original at only $13.9/page?Let us edit for you at only $13.9 to make it 100% original Proceed