Why people shouldn't (should )be allowed to smoke in public - Essay Example

?Why people shouldn't (should) be allowed to smoke in public? Smoking in public places has been a significant issue that has led to many debates and controversies recently. While smoking in public was neither restricted nor regarded as a public nuisance in the past there are sound legislations today to prevent public smoking in many nations. While people who smoke do not find anything unusual in smoking in public it causes a lot of discomfort, allergy, nuisance, and uneasiness to the non-smokers. Similarly, one can never undermine the adverse side effects of public smoking on the innocent second hand passive smokers. I am a non-smoker and in my opinion smoking in public should never be allowed as it ruins not only the health of the public smokers but also poses serious health-related problems to the non-smokers as well. There are many who argue that prevention of smoking in public is against one’s freedom of choice and individual rights. Even though individuals have the right to decide what is good for them they do not have the right to encroach on the rights of others. Non-smokers who remain in public places have the right to breathe fresh and unpolluted air. It is quite unjust that non-smokers are subjected to serious health-related issues by becoming victims of passive or second hand smoking. It is therefore imperative that smoking in public is strictly prohibited by law. The first question that should be reviewed here is why people take to tobacco use (especially smoking). Even if they argue that it is their freedom to use smoking, either through cigarettes, cigars, or other forms of tobacco use that emits smoke, should they be banned from doing so in public. The issue of public smoking: Children, teenagers, and even adults, in my opinion do not start smoking on their own initiative. In other words, they are influenced to use tobacco on some form of external influences. It could be due peer pressure and influence. For example, a pressure by friends can start this bad habit. Many of the people who smoke (that I personally know) have told me that the first the first few experiences have been appalling. A person who first takes smokes into their lungs experiences fits of coughing. Even the taste in the mouth is dreadful. Even if there is no peer pressure, a person who has a company or group of friends that smoke, will naturally be tempted to try out a few attempts at smoking another aspect according my (smoking friends) is the influence of advertising . “Advertising companies prey on our ideas of freedom of choice. You appear to be choosing to smoke, but in fact you are really being coerced via nicotine addiction and advertising. We are being suggestible, no matter how free thinking we think we are” (Beckett 50). The author goes on to state two instances the harmful effects of smoking. One is that that it is addictive, and once hooked on to the product, a person is difficult to quit smoking. The ideal example of the product that promotes smoking (according to the author) is two famous (or infamous) advertisements, namely the Marlborough Man and Alpine Fresh. According to me, the idea planted by these companies and peer influence is that it is macho for a man or teenager to take up smoking to impress girls or women. Impressionable minds will fall prey to such suggestion, and ultimately become addictive to tobacco. Once this happens, the need or urges toss smoke whether in private or public becomes the issue for such cigarettes addicts.. So, next question relates with those who are already addicted to tobacco and cigarettes (or smoking in public). This paper does not attempt (at this instance to urge people to quit smoking altogether. It is true that there are campaigns and advices not to use tobacco in any form. But once addicted, it is difficult to quit the habit. There is an anecdotal saying regarding addiction. It is easy to quit smoking, I have tried in ten times. But should smoking be banned in public? What are the harmful effects of the concept called passive smoking? An article in the New York Times by Edward L. Glaeser makes interesting reading. The writer is a professor at Harvard University. He states that people are highly interested in such factors like presidential elections, but not bothered with the lesser issues (unfortunately) like public safety, quality of education and the likes. Public safety does not just mean criminalization, road accidents, and robbery. I strongly argue that passive smoking is a prime priority with regard to public safety. Unfortunately, policy makers and lobbyists apparently do not take any interest in this issue. One issue raised by the writer is the issue of personal liberty. These activists agree that use of tobacco is definitely harmful for the user. But it is again the choice of the user to smoke even though he or she knows that it is harmful for their health. But Glaeser goes on to argue the effects that this liberty does affect the health of the non-smoker, especially when that person is exposed to smoke that is produced by a smoker. This naturally happens in public spaces. The loss of life of a loved one whether the person is a smoker or passive smoker exposed to tobacco in a public place causes great suffering. But the active smoker knows the risk involved, especially when the cigarette packet itself give warnings of the negative effects. But according to me, it is a criminal act, just like slow murder, to expose others to passive smoking. Glaeser states that a few states in America do have a ban on smoking in public places likes bars and restaurants. This is indeed a welcome development, but what about smoking on the street or parks? While these are not enclosed spaces, people standing near will still be at risk. There are several disadvantages regarding local or specially restricted places. One is that it is not a total ban on smoking. The second is that this is not done nationally. Hence people are at liberty to go to a town or city that does not have a ban. The risk is diverted to such places, but not eliminated. Passive smoking can affect the health of a non-smoker in many ways. It can cause asthma, which is not too health threatening. What is more serious is that it can cause life threatening heart attacks. Even if a person survives such attacks, he or she will have to take medication probably for the rest of their lives. It is children, especially under five years. The question is how to execute a ban. Cities, states and nations can pass a law regarding this. But the problem is execution of the ban. How can city authorities effectively monitor whether a person smokes in public even when they cannot prevent theft and robberies. It is impossible for the police or authorities to monitor this. There may be side alleys that can be used by a smoker to have a puff undetected. Persons passing by in such places face the same risks of passive smoking. What most laws do, as mentioned above, is to prevent smoking in certain areas or enclosed spaces. But according to me, this is not a solution to the issue at hand. There are several factors that the general non-smoking public and city authorities can do in this regard. Taking into consideration that certain persons are unable to quit this habit, it is my opinion that te following steps can be taken. One is that a particular and secure enclosure be allowed, designated as a smoking area. Secondly, there should be a strong support from the general public regarding this aspect. Lobbying is one of the options. But tobacco companies spend millions of dollars on advertising their products directly or indirectly. According to an article published in a web article titled, Campaign for tobacco free kids, the industry spends around ten million dollars towards lobbying for their cause and one million towards political campaigns to political parties. So, how serious can be governments and politics be concerned with tobacco and cigarette smoking bans. Another strong step is by the general public itself. They should strongly object or protest to resist smokers to go to a private area. This will be especially be useful where there is a law regarding smoking in public. Another concern is sponsorship of sporting events as an indirect form of advertising. “The India-New Zealand cricket series, which was televised live in India during October-November 1995, was sponsored by the tobacco company Wills (a subsidiary of British America Tobacco Company) and the logo was prominently displayed on the outfits of the players and at the ground” (Vaidya, Naik, and Vaidya). In other words, sports companies, apart from lobbying and funding are finding other ways such as the example given above to promote their products. Hence, the concept of smoking in public is a delicate, financial, and political issue. To add to this, lack of disinterest from even the non-smokers make the concept of a total ban difficult. Unless there is a concerted effort from all affected stakeholders concerned, an effective ban on public smoking will be ineffective. The first thing is that such indirect sponsorship advertisements will only induce people to try out the product. According to my smoking friends or colleagues, they try out to project a macho image by smoking in front of (especially) their female counterparts. According to me, this is a wrong impression on the part of the first smoker that being macho or male should involve smoking. According to what I can see from my friends and colleagues, there is a welcoming trend emerging. It is that amongst the new generation they view using tobacco as addictive and health-threatening. Hopefully, in the near (or long future), this trend may develop and the use of addictive substances like tobacco, drugs, and alcohol may be eliminated from the society all across the world. Conclusion: This paper has been my personal opinion on the issue of banning people from smoking in public. I strongly object to the concept of freedom for smokers to benefit from this aspect of freedom. But my findings have several concerns on the effectiveness even if a law is imposed on this regard. The first thing is that the general public does not voice a strong opinion for banning this habit. The second thing is that tobacco is addictive. The third aspect is that tobacco companies have a strong lobbying base and they fund political parties. This by itself prevents governments from going against such companies. The fourth aspect is that government agencies cannot effectively monitor a whole city to prevent and apprehend offenders. It can be assumed, according to my belief, many non-smokers do not accost those using tobacco for whatever reasons. The next point is that banning exists in most cities in such enclosed places like restaurants, bars, and planes. So, a road, park, or any open spaces can be considered legal for smoking. The detriments of passive smoking have been reviewed in this paper. So, it should be considered to be a criminal act when a smoker drifts the smoke towards a person standing close by. Only a concerted act by all those can be potentially affected by cigarette smoke can have an effect on form of legislation regarding this. Even in spite of these obstacles or difficulties, I stand firm in my opinion. It is hoped that I do not fall prey to this dreadful and dangerous addiction. References Beckett, Wendy. Quit smoking for life. Pascal Press, 2004. 50. Print Vaidya, Sharad, UD Naik, and Jayant Vaidya. "Effect of sports sponsorship by tobacco companies on children's experimentation with tobacco." British Medical Journal. British Medical Journal, 1996. Web. 17 Jul 2011. Read More