RE: Argumentative Essay
Public Smoking Bans in the US
In the United States, for every eight smokers that die from tobacco use, one non-smoker dies as well (Clarke 2010). In recent years, a growing awareness of the deadly effects of smoking has led to the enactment of tobacco control policies throughout the industrialized world. Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death worldwide (Jones 2009) estimating that one billion people are expected to die during the 21st century as a result of tobacco-related disease”(Cole 2012). Secondhand smoke (SHS) contains hundreds of toxic chemicals and is linked to cause cancer, coronary heart disease, and respiratory problems. Innocent individuals of all ages should not be impacted by the poor choices of smokers around them. After all, there is no risk-free level of exposure to someone else’s drifting smoke. The debate on smoking bans has rose significantly in the pass two decades. There are two types of bans, partial and full smoking bans. Full bans make it illegal to smoke in any public area. Although smoking is seen to be a personal right to many Americans, smoking should be banned in all public places. As a result the ban will overall reduce health risks, change smoking behavior in workplaces and improve the economy. Reducing SHS, Health Benefits:
First, enforcing a public smoking ban decreases exposure to second-hand smoke, reducing the many health risks associated with smoking. Levels of SHS are found to significantly drop in public smoking places following the implementation of public smoking bans. Maria Lopez conducted a before and after study on the health of workplaces and hospitality venues from eight regions of Spain. Repeated samples of vapor-phase nicotine concentration were taken in 398 premises including private offices (162), public administration offices (90), university premises (43), bars and restaurants (79), and pubs (24). Second-hand smoke levels were significantly reduced in indoor offices. The median nicotine concentration decreased by 60.0% in public premises and by 97.4% in private workplaces. A major reduction (96.7%) also occurred in bars and restaurants that became smoke-free (Lopez 2008). Second-hand smoke is associated with a 30% increase in risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Further research is shown by David Myers, who performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between public smoking bans and risk for hospital admission for acute myocardial infraction (AMI). This meta-analysis of eleven studies in ten locations suggests that that community smoking bans are associated with an overall 17% reduction in risk of AMI over a two-year post ban analysis (Myers 2009). “According to projections, a nationwide ban on public smoking could prevent as many as 152,000 heart attacks each year” (Jones 2009). In addition to Lopez and Myers, Giulia Cesaroni and Francesco Forastiere analyzed acute coronary events (out-of-hospital deaths and hospital admissions) between 2004 and 2009 from Rome city residents 35 to 74 years of age. They found a statistically significant reduction in acute coronary events in the adult population after the smoking ban. Results showed 11.2% fewer acute coronary events in the 35- to 64-year-old population and 7.9% fewer in 65- to 74-year-old) than in previous years (Cesaroni, Forastiere 2010). Smoking bans not only protect non-smokers from the dangers of passive smoking, they also encourage workers to quit or reduce their consumption. Behavior of Smokers:
Smoking behavior particularly in hospitality venues would change from public smoking bans. Public smoking bans discourage active smoking by employees, making it difficult for them to find a legal place to smoke other then their home. Public smoking bans will cause more hostility towards smoking of as time goes on, thus putting pressure on smokers. Because smokers are unable to smoke in public...
References: Clarke A. 2010, ‘Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.’ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD005992. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005992.pub2.
Fitchenberg, C. (2007). Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ. 9 (5), 86-93.
Fowkes, Stewart, (2008), Scottish smoke-free legislation and trends in smoking cessation. Addiction, 103: 1888–1895.
Lightwood, J. (2009). Declines in Acute Myocardial Infarction After Smoke-Free Laws and Individual Risk Attributable to Secondhand Smoke . Circulation. 120 (10), 1373-1379. viewed 17 April 2012.
Lopez, M, (2008)
Tsai, S. "Workplace smoking related absenteeism and productivity costs in Taiwan." Tobacco Control 14.1 (2008): 33-37.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document