Most people say 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. There are now studies that reveal the adverse effects of cigarette smoke.
Experts claim and confirm that cigarette and tobacco cause slow and costly death of smokers around the world, especially when it is compounded by other unhealthy habits.Reports on Smoking in Public PlacesRecently, concerns about the negative effects of smoking are no longer limited to the individual smoker because. Experts claim that the person next to the smoker is equally at risk, and surprisingly are even more exposed to harmful chemicals from the smoke. Both sides, that is, the smoking and non-smoking people say that they have their rights in the debate on smoking ban.
For instance, smokers say that it is their right to do whatever they want to their physical bodies and that they do not need anyone saying that they behave in a particular manner. On the other hand, those opposed assert that they have the right to live long and to enjoy their surroundings, a right that is taken away from them when there are smokers around thus, exposing them to second hand smoke (SHS) of the mainstream smokers. Other than the questions of health and rights, smoking ban also affects enterprises and economies (Sullivan, 1992).Governments tried to intervene in the issue. However, most of the time, these governments usually side with whoever gives in more profits. But policies that ban smoking in public places have already taken effect in most locations.
The smoking ban policy is controversial because it has different implications for different individuals. The important thing is that it must be for the greater good, such that the gains exceed the costs and sacrifices. It is the writer’s position that smoking must be banned in public places, including both restaurants and work locations. The writer has considered scholastic studies for this and the compilation has revealed that almost every literature implies that SHS ought to be controlled. There is a need for a comprehensive intervention plan by both government and private agencies to protect passive smokers.The Need to Implement Smoking Ban in Public and Work PlacesIt was revealed that smoking produces two kinds of smoke: first, the mainstream smoke which the smokers inhales and exhales. The second one is from the sidestream smoke which comes from the glowing end of the cigarette. These smokes emit 4,000 kinds of chemicals, over 50 of which are known carcinogens.
A single puff of cigarette smoke contains carcinogens as benzo[a]pyrenes, aromatic amines, nitrosamines. It also has nicotine, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and acrolein. Second hand smoke (SHS) also has two phases called gas phase and particulate phase. Gas phase contains carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethyl nitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein while the particulate phase is composed of a complex compound commonly known as tar, in addition to benzene and benzo[a]oyrenes (Great Britain Health Committee, 2005). Particulate matters possess the size of less than 2.5 microns in diameter and are easily inhaled deep as the so-called respirable suspended particles (RSPs) (Travers, Cummings & Hyland, 2004).The particulates that come from one tiny stick of cigarette must be plain such that cigarette smoking is deadly over the long haul even to those who only inhale sidestream smokes.
Great Britain’s House of Commons Health Committee posits that the sidestream smoke, compared to the one inhaled by the smokers themselves, contains higher amount of the chemical constituents mentioned above. Thus, SHS is popularly attributed to preventable diseases and worse, death related to smoking. According to Travers and colleagues (2004), exposure to SHS should be blamed for the 3,000 lung cancer deaths and more than 35, 000 coronary heart disease death in the United States every year.
Sadly, these persons are mere victims because they were non-smokers in the first place. Meanwhile, passive smoking is known to kill 79,000 Europeans every year (EU-wide Public Smoking Ban Urged, 2007). In Britain alone, 12,000 deaths is just a conservative estimate (Great Britain House of Commons Health Committee, 2005).There is a need for a comprehensive policy that will protect non-smokers from SHS, especially in public places and workplaces.
Governments must take a firm stance in protecting the public so that the government needs to come up with a “sensible way to afford protection from SHS exposure is to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places and work places.” The British government’s report on Smoking in Public Place, demonstrates that the life of men and women lost due to passive smoking is “too high a price for the right to smoke.” It concludes that each one has the supreme right to be protected from harmful environment, and to live a long and healthy life which supersedes all other rights.