Smoking Should Not Be Banned in Restaurants
In the perfect situation, smoking policy would be set by bar or restaurant owners, and customers would patronize the establishments with the policy they prefer. Customers would decide-without the government's help-if they want to avoid smoke-filled rooms or enter them. They might even choose to sit in an area sectioned off for smokers or non-smokers, but the ultimate issue is choice (Ruwart 1). When the government starts telling restaurant owners what their customers can and cannot do, the government is overstepping its boundaries.
Our government aims to protect us-to save us from society's evils. However, in an attempt to protect the public from the effects of passive smoking (second hand smoke)-of which, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in 1994, "the statistical evidence does not . . . support a conclusion that there are substantive health effects . . ." (Krauthammer)-the feds have failed to protect a vital part of the U.S. economic population: business owners. Many people who drink also tend to smoke; banning drinkers from smoking has hurt business in some bars and restaurants. "According to the California Licensed Beverage Association, business has dropped as much as 85 percent . . . since the prohibition took effect" (Bar Owners Vow 1). The decrease in customers and subsequent loss of revenue has far-reaching effects on employers. A study by the American Beverage Institute entitled "Effect of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns, and Night Clubs" asked 300 respondents about the effects of the ban on their businesses. When asked if the ban caused owners to lay off employees or cut working hours, 29.7 percent of respondents answered ...
... middle of paper ...
...th Disruption, Lost Revenues, and Customer Dissatisfaction." Forces.org. 24 Feb. 2001. National Smokers Alliance. 26 Feb. 2001 <http://www.forces.org/californ/calud/calud4.htm>.
Bork, Robert H. "Addicted to Health." National Review 28 July 1997:28-30.
Buckley, William F., Jr. "Tobacco Settlement Time?" National Review 20 April 1998:63.
"Effect of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns, and Night Clubs." abionline.org. American Beverage Institute. 8 March 2001 <http://abionline.org/ca_smoking6.html>.
Krauthammer, Charles. "The New Prohibitionism." Time 6 Oct. 1997:112.
Ruwart, Dr. "Ask Dr. Ruwart: Libertarians on Smoking Bans." self-gov.org. 19 Mar. 1998. Advocates for Self-Government. 8 Mar. 2001 <http://www.self-gov.org/ruwart/q0028.html>.
Samuelson, Robert J. "The Amazing Smoke Screen." Newsweek 30 Nov. 1998:47.
Renneboog, R. M. (2016). Cigarette Smoking Bans: An Overview. Canadian Points Of View: Cigarette Smoking Bans, 1.
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
There are many explicit premises in this article that I will examine. The first premise is that, Tobacco companies have been and continue to be involved in undermining scientific evidence that documents the health hazards of secondhand smoke. This is more than an hidden assumption, reference from the Los Angles Times reported in November 1999 that the major cigarette companies "are engaged in a far-reaching campaign to discredit evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health." This is my second premise. Here, there is an implied notion that the Los Angels Times conducted a study to find these findings true. The third premise states, Tobacco industry allies recycle old myths and propaganda - and continue to plant the seeds of confusion and doubt as to the economic effects of smoke free air policies - before legislatures and city councils. Here we see the strong initiative that the tobacco companies especially Philips and Morris take to attack policies that go against their business. The next premise is the fourth premise, As in the past, tobacco companies have continued to create and hide behind front groups to lobby against tobacco control and public health policies. This is another implied notion, which we can say that tobacco companies are trying to control the regulations on tobacco.
Smoking cigarettes is a detrimental practice not only to the smoker, but also to everyone around the smoker. According to an article from the American Lung Association, “Health Effects” (n.d.), “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 438,000 deaths per year”. The umbrella term for tobacco use includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs and chewing tobacco. While tobacco causes adverse health consequences, it also has been a unifying factor for change in public health. While the tobacco industries targets specific populations, public health specifically targets smokers, possible smokers, and the public to influence cessation, policies and education.
... “Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. It causes serious illness among an estimated 8.6 million persons, it costs $167 billion in annual health-related losses, and it kills approximately 438 000 people each year. (n1, n2) Worldwide, smoking kills nearly 5 million people annually. If current trends continue, this number will double by 2030, and smoking will kill more than 1 billion people during this century” (Frieden and DE). Therefore, banning smoking in public places can reduce at least some of these problems and would enable people to live in a healthier way.
One of the largest and most problematic health issues in our society is smoking. Smoking is currently the leading cause of death in our country, due to its harmful and addicting contents, such as nicotine and tobacco. Although millions die from it each year, smoking is the single most preventable cause of death as well. Without smoking, a tremendous amount of money and lives will be saved. I think that our country should ban smoking and the production of cigarettes in order to maintain a healthier nation, help save the environment, and prevent the almost 1000 deaths that they cause in fires each year.
Each year 440,000 people die, in the United States alone, from the effects of cigarette smoking (American Cancer Society, 2004). As discussed by Scheraga & Calfee (1996) as early as the 1950’s the U.S. government has utilized several methods to curb the incidence of smoking, from fear advertising to published health warnings. Kao & Tremblay (1988) and Tremblay & Tremblay (1995) agreed that these early interventions by the U.S. government were instrumental in the diminution of the national demand for cigarettes in the United States. In more recent years, state governments have joined in the battle against smoking by introducing antismoking regulations.
Every year, there are over 400,000 smoking-related deaths in the United States. A large percentage of these are due to lung cancer, whose leading cause is smoking. However, not all deaths are smokers themselves. Anyone in the vicinity can fall victim to second hand smoke. These people, through no action of their own, can have their lives threatened.
Many restaurant and bar owners think that the ban will decrease business, but a counter-argument to this is that only twenty percent of the city's population are smokers, and when the smoking ban is in place, the other eighty percent will go out to bars and restaurants, dramatically increasing business. There are many different opposing arguments to banning smoking, and the debate will probably never end. Smoking should be banned in public places because, although some may argue that it infringes on their freedom, smoking is replete with harmful substances. People should be able to frequent bars and restaurants without the fear of experiencing an asthma attack or developing lung disease. Everyone deserves the freedom to live and breathe without restriction.
“The unfortunate thing about this world is that good habits are so much easier to give up than bad ones” (Somerset Maugham). Almost everyone has good and bad habits but the bad ones can lead to addictions. When it comes to tobacco addiction, it is a habit that leads to different diseases and causes death. Tobacco should be illegal.
Did you know three cigarettes could get one addicted? Every time one takes a puff of a cigarette
Daynard.R., (2013). Regulatory Approaches to Ending Cigarette-Caused Death and Disease in the United States. Boston University School of Law; American Journal of Law and Medicine.
Smoking is a simple process of inhaling and exhaling the fumes of burning tobacco, but it has deadly consequences. According to the American Cancer Society, smoking is the most preventable cause of death in America today (Encarta, 2002). Until the 1940?s, smoking was considered harmless. It was at this time that epidemiologists noticed a dramatic increase in the cases of lung cancer. A study was then conducted between smokers and nonsmokers to determine if cigarettes were the cause of this increase. This study, conducted by the American Cancer Society, found increased mortality among smokers. Yet it was not until 1964 that the Surgeon General put out a report acknowledging the danger of cigarettes. The first action to curb smoking was the mandate of a warning on cigarette packages by the Federal Trade Commission (Encarta, 2002). In 1971, all cigarette advertising was banned from radio and television, and cities and states passed laws requiring nonsmoking sections in public places and workplaces (Encarta, 2002). Now in some cities smoking is being completely banned from public places and workplaces and various people are striving for more of these laws against smoking.
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.
Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as second-class citizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them.