Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of the ban on smoking in public places
Effects of the ban on smoking in public places
Negative impacts on banned public smoking
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of the ban on smoking in public places
Studies on the Economic Effects of Bans
Anti-smoker activists claim smoking bans are good for business. They claim their studies prove it. This page examines how they concoct their numbers. We won't be dissecting any one study, instead we'll give you the tools to pick apart any study funded by anti-smokers.
Fact: All Bans are Not Created Equal.
Nannies often point to California's ban to "prove" bans are good for business. According to state tax revenues, California's hospitably industry experienced a 5% increase in revenue the year after the ban was passed. Nannies ignore the fact the ban was imposed at the peak of the most successful economic period in our country's history, when most other states were reporting 10-15% increases in the same venues.
California's ban was quite different from most recently passed restrictions. The CA ban exempted owner-operated bars. (Some places made all their employees part owners to take advantage of this exemption. Some small taverns fired all their employees so they could qualify for the exemption) But the biggest difference between CA and other places where bans have killed business is the climate. The near perpetual summer of CA, combined with few restrictions on outdoor smoking, made it fairly easy for most taverns to provide an outdoor smoking area. In contrast, NY state winters feature subzero wind-chills, and the NY law limits outdoor smoking to 25% of outdoor seating. It even makes it illegal to provide any kind of awning, umbrella, or cover for smokers. (How mean-spirited is that?)
In areas where the bans are not strictly enforced, compliance with the law may be as low as 50%. Obviously, establishments that are not complying are not suffering because of the ban. They may even increase their business, as smokers will patronize their business instead of places that enforce the ban. The issue of compliance is ignored in these studies.
Fact: Bans affect some business much more than others.
Obviously, a business that already prohibits smoking isn't going to be affected at all by a ban. These include delicatessens, bakeries, fast food chains, and take out places. Take out places usually benefit from ban, because they are patronized by smokers who decide to stay home. Anti-smokers usually include these unaffected businesses in their studies.
Smoking is less common among the wealthy, so bars and restaurants catering to an upscale crowd aren't nearly as affected as places with a working-class clientele.
Renneboog, R. M. (2016). Cigarette Smoking Bans: An Overview. Canadian Points Of View: Cigarette Smoking Bans, 1.
In this essay I will explore the positive and negative effects of legalizing Cannabis in California. I support the legalization of Cannabis, these are my reasons why; If California does legalize Cannabis then it would decrease the money spent on drug enforcement and criminal persecution. Legalizing Cannabis would also reduce the value of the black market product. It would also generate revenue for the California economy because it would be a taxable item that is in high demand.
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
in only a few years time we will notice a drastic decline in the total
...fected as secondary smokers. Universities, public places, and stores have laws to control smoking in their locations, but since there are thousands of people, customers and the public in general who smoke, it is a very controversial topic and it is difficult to have a final decision about it. Many people argue that why it is possible to drink beers in some activities the university organizes, as a result we can see there are no laws that is focus one single aspect and many people believe that the administrative of the university want to have that market of students who do smoke instead of sending them to other location so they loss people, so loss money. The most important aspect is to take into account that health disorders can take place and smoking is not a specifically and advantage. Smoking is actually a negative variable for any heath problem we can have.
The ban has benefited the non-smoking customers of the Boston area, but many heated debates have ensued over the rights of smokers and of the bar owners of the city.
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.
Another very important thing to consider is while these smoking bans may appear to have a good intent, they present to society a difficult scenario if imposed and maintained; they threaten to set a precedent for the restriction of other freedoms that humanity may take for granted. Smoking bans may be justifiable but, like many other prominent moral dilemmas, it may take centuries if not millennia to satisfactorily answer the questions brought forth by the issue. Tobacco use first appeared as early as the days of Christopher Columbus.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Banning vaping products from public would cause many questions on why cigarettes aren’t banned in public. In addition, vapers would think cigarette companies paid the government to ban vaping outdoors, or banning products made after 2007 because they are losing money and business from vape products. This would cause people to start smoking cigarettes again, which would cause more people to die annually, more people will be at the risk of having cancer, and kids would still be exposed to
It is clear that smoking hurts people’s health and poisons the people around them. A ban on smoking in public would provide the environment nonsmoker, decrease cancer or others health problem, and it also will reduce a number of young people influence in society.
The results of this study are consistent with the overall literature’s findings (Gallet, 2004; Meirer & Licari, 1997) that states with smoking bans have a decrease in cigarette sales. However, caution is warranted in the true reliability of the data presented in this study, because of the nature of the data.
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.
This year alone cigarettes will kill over 420,000 Americans, and many more will suffer from cancers, and circulatory and respiratory system diseases. These horrible illnesses were known to come from cigarettes for years. Recently the Food and Drug Administration declared nicotine, the main chemical in cigarettes, addictive. This explains why smokers continue to use cigarettes even though smokers are aware of the constantly warned about health dangers in cigarettes. Some researchers have also found out that smoking by pregnant women causes the deaths of over 5,000 babies and 115,000 miscarriages. The only way to get rid of the suffering and loss of life by cigarettes is to ban them. . For years cigarettes have been known to cause cancer, emphysema, and other horrible illnesses. The deaths of over 420,000 of Americans this year will be do to cigarettes. With all the other causes of deaths, alcohol, illegal drugs, AIDS, suicide, transportation accidents, fires, and guns, cigarettes still count for more deaths than those do combined. We can’t stand and watch people die because they smoke cigarettes. Thousands of smokers try to rid themselves of cigarettes but can't because of additive nicotine. Nicotine was recently declared addictive by the Food and Drug Administration, which explains why many smokers continue to smoke despite the health warnings on cigarette smoking. Nicotine makes it almost impossible for cigarette smokers to quit smoking because of its addictive nature, and with the cigarette manufacturers putting just enough nicotine in the so they cant be outlawed. The benefits of outlawing cigarettes greatly outnumber the disadvantages, for example, many scientists believe a link between smoking and a shortened life span exists between the two, a ban on cigarettes could increase life spans. Many studies suggest that billions of dollars now spent on smoking related. Smoking related illnesses could be reduced by outlawing cigarettes, families could save money by not purchasing cigarettes, and accidental fires costing millions of dollars caused by cigarettes would stop. Although a complete ban on cigarettes currently remains almost impossible, several organizations recently helped create a bill that could control cigarettes much in the same way the government now controls drugs. One such organization, the Food and Drug Administration, headed by David Kesslar drafted a major part, which would require manufacturers to disclose the 700 chemical additives in cigarettes, reduce the level of harmful chemicals, require cigarette companies to warn of the addictive nicotine, restrict tobacco advertising and promotion, and control the level of nicotine cigarettes contain.
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.
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.