Should Smoking Be Banned In Public Place

? Essay, Research Paper SHOULD SMOKING BE BANNED IN PUBLIC PLACE? Should tobacco smoking be banned in public places? As we know that cigarette smoke is potentially hazardous to all those who inhale it, whether voluntarily or passively. The death rate of smoke-related diseases, the toxic components in tobaccos, and the diseases that are related to cigarettes are all obvious evidences to support the fact that cigarettes are harmful.

? Essay, Research Paper

SHOULD SMOKING BE BANNED IN PUBLIC PLACE? Should tobacco smoking be banned in public places? As we know that cigarette smoke is potentially hazardous to all those who inhale it, whether voluntarily or passively. The death rate of smoke-related diseases, the toxic components in tobaccos, and the diseases that are related to cigarettes are all obvious evidences to support the fact that cigarettes are harmful. Individuals are entitled to the right to public smoking; however, this right should only be exercisable if the well of the surrounding individuals are not at threat. Second-hand smoke has been found to be harmful to the health of the non-smokers who are helplessly exposed to the destructive smoke.There are other countries such as China and Austria who have realized the severity of the effect of tobacco and passed national wide smoking prohibition. Canada, one of the leading nations of the world, has over looked the tobacco issue and is still a smoking permitted country. Tobacco smoking should be banned nationwide with little or no compromise. Researches on the negative effects of cigarettes have been completed by many agencies and health institution in the past. For instances, according to Snowball, a July 1995 study by federal health authorities estimated that the annual deaths attributable to smoking in Canada at more than 45,000 (3). In fact, It has been estimated that smoking is a major contributing factor Wu2in 10 to 25 percent of deaths in Europe and the United States, and about 20 percent of deaths among Canadian aged 35 to 84. Smoking was responsible for one out of 5 death in Canada (Snowball 3). Even with the scientific fact that twenty percent of Canadian deaths are caused by cigarettes, smoking is still permitted. How many Canadian lives will it take before the government takes action? Thus, until the government decides to restrict smoking, the citizens can only continue to pay mass fund to medical bill of smoke caused illnesses.In Canada, the direct health-care costs of dealing with smoking-related illnesses vary between 3 to 9 percent of all health care costs. Which can be interpreted as a 3 to 9 percent robbery of funding in other medical areas that suffer from causes that are unavoidable. It has been estimated that smokers lessened productivity through absenteeism costs the Canadian economy about $ 1.2 to 1.5 billions (Snowball 5). Billions of dollars are used unproductively towards a preventable cause. It is suggested that smoking is the most preventable cause of ill health (Andrews 11). The above statistics are disturbing and has left many logical individuals to desire the need to curb smoking by teenagers and ban smoking from public places because second-hand smoke is deadly. In addition to the above alarming figures, during the 1960s, Andrews learned that the components of tobacco smoke s 4,000 chemicals include at least forty three of these chemicals are know to cause cancer in human or animals, and more than 200 poisons, such as aromatic hydrocarbons and nitrosamines (11). This was in tobacco s smoke! Some may still argue that smoking is still not as harmful as other drugs. Smoking is definitely not at the caliber of the drugs that have already been forbidden, but tobacco contains just the sufficient amount to kill a full grown male in the period of fifteen years. Some people may still argue that smokers are WU 3aware and prepared to deal with the consequences. In Belgium, the scientists have found that there are adult levels of nicotine in the new born of mothers that smoked during their pregnancy (Andrew 11). Surely with such harmful components, smoking should be banned in public places. Let those who wish to smoke to do, but the others should not be forced to breathe the second-hand smoke. Smoking leads to cancer, bronchitis, emphysema, and increase the rate of heart attack (Snowball 3). Although some people argue that cigarette smoke does not make enough contact with their lungs if they don t breathed into their lungs, but they are forgetting about lip, mouth, and tongue cancer. Cigarette smoking causes these kinds of cancers too! Since smoking is harmful to both the smokers and the second-hand smokers. The personal freedom of the smoker is not worth the health of the non-smoker. It is the right of the non-smoker to demand a smoke-free environment. Lung cancer has killed too many people in this country. The chance of getting lung cancer or another smoking-related disease is not worth the personal freedom of the smoker. The rates of death in women due to lung cancer have exceeded the breast cancer, resulting in lung cancer is becoming the leading cause of cancer death in women. It had already been the leading cause of death in men too. Andrews stated, The American Cancer Society predicts that, over the next year, 192,000 Americans 110,000 men and 82,000 women will be newly diagnosed with and 164,000 will die from lung and throat cancers, both strongly related to smoking. While another two million people worldwide will die from smoking related diseases (11). In cooperation with other countries, Canada should attend to this warning and banned smoking from public places. Which would be a major breakthrough in the fight against lung Wu 4cancer and other heath problems related to second hand smoke will be eliminated, or at least reduce. According to Hales, passive cigarette smoke may rank behind cigarette smoking and alcohol as the third-leading preventable cause of death (399). Second-hand smoke contains higher levels of cancer-causing chemicals than smoke inhaled by a smoker. On the average, a smoker inhales what is known as mainstream smoke 8 or 9 times with each cigarette, for a total of about 24 seconds. However, the cigarette burns for about 24 minutes, and everyone in the room breaths in what is known as side stream smoke (399). It has been proven that side-stream and mainstream smoke contains different amounts of toxic substances. Side-stream smoke is

actually the more dangerous of the two. It has twice as much tar and nicotine, 5 times as much carbon monoxide, and 5imes as much ammonia. The smokers, but also affected those beside him or her do not inhale these harmful chemicals. The particles in side stream smoke are small, the mixture of gases and corcinogenic tar reaches deeper into the lungs. The greatest risk of exposure to second-hand smoke is presented at voluntary social activities. An American Demographics report indicated that 80% of adults are exposed while drinking/socializing at bars, 55 % during working breaks, and 39% at parties (Women 11-12). Women are two times as likely to be exposed to this type of smoke than men are. Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco said, People in the hospitality industry have the highest rate of exposure [to secondhand smoke] (Shenk 56). According to a study by the University of California, waitresses are 3.68 times more likely to die from lung cancer than are other women, and they have an overall annual death rate 2.47 times higher (Shenk 56). Since smokers are the minority, they should be the ones that are inconvenienced. Wu 5Non-smokers should be protected from second-hand smoke. Smoking has been banned in public vehicles, cinemas, and shopping malls in China, because a new set of laws were designed in order to curb smoking in that country. The reason for the ban on smoking in public is to safeguard the health of passive smokers (Lili9). Canada is not the only country consider with secondhand smoke. Passive smokers have a great risk at development of disease from smoke.Austria set up legislation to insure that non-smokers are protected few years ago. The ban of smoking occurs in such areas as teaching rooms, meeting rooms, multi-purpose rooms, and school sports halls, schools, official buildings, establishments of higher education, theatres and other places. This was due to the danger of passive smoking. Many companies have instigated programs in order to protect the non-smoker. In some companies, the employers will most likely to hire non-smokers instead of smokers, or they might decrease the health insurance value on those who smokes for a long time of period. Passive smoke is dangerous. Non-smokers should be protected from this harmful environment.The State of California has banned smoking in casinos, bars, lodges, and private clubs. This ban supports the ability to see that employees are protected from secondhand smoke. Although some suggest that having smoke-free bars will drive away the customers, other see the opposite happening. When people are not forced to smoke passively, they will want to gather at bars and other locals. In fact, one survey suggested that 22 percent of adults were more likely to go to the bars that were smoke-free (Shenk 56). Some Colleges and Universities, such as University of Northern British Columbia, have banned smoking in campus buildings and facilities. In some areas, the smoking ban has gone really far. For example: In Davis, California, smoking within 20 feet of the entrance to a public building is prohibited (Shenk 56). Wu 6 Smoking should be banned from public places. It is becoming one of the foremost killers in the country, and even the world. Other countries have made regulations prohibiting smoking in public places. More and more people are seeing secondhand smoke for what it is. Passive smoke is just as dangerous as actually smoking. There is always an argument about the smokers right to smoke. Cigarette smoking is addictive, and hard to quit. Most of the smokers want to stop smoking and their mind knows it is wrong, but their bodies cannot fight the urge to smoke. Banning smoking in public areas is positioning veteran smokers in an uncomfortable situation. In fact, there should be areas dedicated for their use. The majority of people do not smoke. They should not be forced to be in an environment that is full of toxins and that is exactly what cigarette smoke is, a toxin!Bars, clubs, and casinos have been associated with smoking. New laws that prohibit smoking in those areas are actually saving the lives of people. Banning smoking is not just a social issue. It is a heath issue. One should not be forced to passively smoke cigarettes. The health risks are too high. Numerous studies have shown the dangers of secondhand or passive smoke. It is time that smoking be banned in public areas. If a person should decide to smoke, he or she should be able to do so, but in an area that is segregated just for the used of the smoker. There are too many diseases causing agents in cigarette smoke. People have enough health problems and diseases to concern themselves with, without worry over getting cancer from another persons Cigarette smokes. Wu 7Banning smoking in public places only makes sense. It is not a moral issue or a social issue. It is a health issue. Now is the time for all the non-smokers to stand up and be counted by for by getting the laws to ban smoking be written and enforced. Their lives depend on it. Wu 8 WORKED CITED Andrews Jr. Joseph L. How to kick a national habit, The Humanist May (1997): 11Dianne Hales. An Invitation to Health. 6thed. Benjarmin: Cummings Publishing Company. Inc, 1995.Laura C. Snowball. Tobacco Smoking. Revised 22: January 1996.Lili Cui. Smoking Control: Tough but necessary. Beijing Review, 16 February, (1998): 9Shenk, Joshua Wolf. California puts an end to the smoke-filled bar: snuffing out the freedom To ingest toxins, U.S. News & World Report, 22 December (1997): v123, 56. Women take strong against smoking in public Contemporary Women s Issue Database (1995): vol 8, 11.