Smoking Bans Should Be Banned

In calculating the economic influence of smoke-free policies and laws, the Surgeon General considered their constructive effect in decreasing health care costs. Utilizing a simulation prototype, the Surgeon General concluded, if all U.S. workplaces implemented an all-inclusive smoke-free policy, it would result in 1.3 million smokers renouncing, 950 million less cigarette packs being smoked, 1,540 heart attacks and 360 strokes being prevented, and $49 million passive medical cost savings being attained within the first year.” The costs saved would increase over time. (American for nonsmoker’s rights,

I'm by no means suggesting that smokers are headed off to concentration camps and gas chambers, although they might have in Germany because Hitler was a rabid anti-cigarette zealot. Instead, I'm suggesting that the cigarette smoker vilification campaign is something about which we all should be concerned, whether we smoke cigarettes or not. These people who want to control our lives are almost finished with smokers; but never in history has a tyrant arisen one day and decided to tyrannize no more. The nation's tyrants have now turned their attention to the vilification of fast food chains such as McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and Kentucky Fried Chicken, charging them with having created an addiction to fatty foods. Thus, the tyrants claim, fast food chains have contributed to obesity-related problems and growing healthcare costs. Like the anti-tobacco zealots they call for regulation, compensation for injury and taxes on foods they deem to be non-nutritious. In

History has proven that government penalties, in the form of taxes, deter smoking. The 2000 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report, Reducing Tobacco Use, found that raising tobacco-product prices decreases the prevalence of tobacco use, and tobacco tax increases produce significant long-term improvements in health. From its review of existing research, the report concluded that raising tobacco taxes is one of the most effective tobacco prevention and control strategies (7). Along with price increases, mass-media campaigns and smoking bans have made cigarette smoking pretty much unacceptable in today’s society. “Today, approximately 22 percent of adults age twenty-two and older are smokers, compared with 33 percent in 1979” (Thorpe 1440). It is clear, from these examples, the use of penalties to deter the unhealthy behavior of smoking is a successful intervention.

Raising taxes on tobacco products and implementing smoking cessation legislations can minimize the prevalence of smoking up to 30 percent to 80 percent over a 50-year period (Ekpu & Brown 2015).In 2009, NBC news stated that Kansas, one of the states, considering banning smoking at enclosed areas showed that if they banned smoking in restaurants, the state was going to save 20 million dollars in healthcare costs (Associated Health, 2009). West Virginia state implemented smoke-free laws and had an increase of almost 1 percent in restaurant employment (“Smoke Free Laws do not Harm Business,” 2017). Restaurant workers were more comfortable coming in to work knowing they would be breathing in fresh air. Although in Tennessee, percentage of adults who smoked in 2011 increased from 23 percent to 24.3 percent in 2015 (Fletcher, 2016). This increment was not that significant considering the fact that it was over a period of just 4 years. The annual health care cost in Tennessee directly to smoking increased from $2.16 billion in 2004 to $2.67 billion in 2017(“The Toll of Tobacco in Tennessee”, n.d.).

Tobacco use is still very frequent, especially in low-income areas. Not only is it detrimental for the smokers themselves in terms of health, but also it harms those around them. Some health issues that occur are “lung cancer, heart disease, and colon cancer” (Haskins). For low income areas, smoking is one of the most leading causes of death, but it is a preventable cause. In order to help smokers to quit smoking, Haskin states that one suggestion is to raise the prices of tobacco and cigarettes, and another suggestion, especially for nonsmokers, is to have designated areas for smokers only and to have cities label certain public areas such as parks and common areas to be smoke-free zones. Because tobacco is addictive, receiving and seeking

Should cigarette smoking be banned for everyone in the United States? Why? Why not? Should those who chose their time smoking to relieve stress, personal enjoyment, or simply just because, have to lose their right to what makes them happy? Smoking tobacco products has been around for decades and in many different forms. Should personal rights be pushed aside to please those around us that disagree with the so called “disgusting habit”? In the paper The Washington Times an article caught my interest called”D.C. seeks bans on smoking in national parks” written by Steven Dinan. In this article he stated that “Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton wrote Park Service Regional Director Steve Whitesell saying she’s heard from constituents who fear

When government reduces tobacco use and post calories counts on restaurant menus, it will reduce consumer pleasure. When government limits quantity of tobacco use, consumers can only buy fewer quantity of tobacco. It will decrease consumer satisfaction. Regulation will lose consumer surplus which means pleasure lose by someone who curtails an enjoyable behaviour. If consumers quantify satisfaction as dollar value, consumer wills suffer lost enjoyment amounting billions of dollars. Furthermore, decrease in consumer surplus can be represented as decrease in quality of life. It would be hard for smokers to quit smoking right away. Moreover, a lot of consumers would get stress every time as they select food in restaurant. With lack

I’ve decided to analyze the negative externalities that come from cigarette smoking, particularly the negative externality of second hand smoking, in which a non-smoker, therefore a non-buyer and non-seller, is still inhaling smoke and suffering from it. "Worldwide, 40% of children, 33% of male non-smokers, and 35% of female non-smokers were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004. This exposure was estimated to have caused 379000 deaths from ischaemic heart disease, 165000 from lower respiratory infections, 36900 from asthma, and 21400 from lung cancer."(Öberg, 2010). Due to this negative externality, if there is no government intervention, then cigarettes will be overproduced from what is socially optimal.

A. Every wonder why people smoke? Is smoking really healthy for them? How much does it cost an individual to smoke? What are the costs to society when people smoke? These are all questions that can easily be taken care of by banning cigarette smoking. It is really a disgusting sight to see a woman with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth. It is equally bad to see children with smoking cigarettes.

While most people think if they exercise and make better food choices they will be healthy, that is not always true. Sometimes other people’s choices affect not only themselves but others. As a result of people choosing to smoke in public places, which ultimately affect everyone, the government has initiated certain laws to protect the people who choose not to smoke. Restricted access to smoking in government buildings has become limited due to these laws. The government controls smoking to their extent on different federal and state properties. In addition, they have regulated smoking in certain areas due to certain factors.

The most common disease caused by cigarettes is cancer and since the drug affects smokers and non-smokers as well, there has been a widespread call to illegalize cigarette advertising. The rationale behind banning cigarette advertising is to reduce the influence that adverts have on young and inexperienced smokers. In addition, the adverts believed to boost cigarette sales and lure unsuspecting victims do as to increase consumer demand. For this reason, cigarette-manufacturing companies have been using adverts to influence increased consumption without paying attention to the underlying dangers associated with the consumption of this harmful drug. Despite the effects associated with cigarette smoking and the dangers of influenced consumption of cigarettes, some researchers believe there is no need to ban cigarette smoking. Various reasons exist to support the legalization of cigarette advertising. The case for an outright ban on cigarette smoking seems to be very strong. However, there are those who argue to the contrary. Those who argue against a ban on cigarette smoking propose a range of arguments such as cigarette not being the only consumable that is lethal to human life. They say that junk food is also carcinogenic and that a ban on cigarette smoking should also mean a ban on fast-food restaurants that sell junk food. Equally, they argue that the right of smokers to choose what they consume will be compromised by a ban and that public warnings as to the dangers of

Smoking kills more people than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and all other illegal drugs combined, the nicotine inside is very addictive, and smoking also gives many illnesses like breathing problems, bad heart conditions, cancer, and high blood pressure. Tobacco use and its ensuing dependence is a major cause of human mortality and morbidity all over the world. Adverse effects of secondhand smokers’ health have become clear. In today’s world, more place have banned smoking. Smokers, however, have begun to fight back against the increasing number of local laws banning smoking from all public places, even in bars and restaurants. Smokers say that such sweeping bans infringe upon freedom of choice, while the bans’ supporters say that clean air is essential to preserve the health of nonsmokers. People that are around a smoker tend to suffer from secondhand smoking. As the adverse effects of secondhand smoke on nonsmokers’ health have become clear, more places have banned smoking.

The ban of smoking in public would reduce the amount of valuable money Americans squander on smoking related costs and liabilities. First, the proposed smoking ban would help reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare.. The ban would help reduce the medical care needed for illnesses, diseases, and cancers, (etc) caused by the smoking of tobacco and inhalation of secondhand smoke. This is money could have helped the, over, 43.6 million American citizens without medical insurance.

While looking at William J. Boyes, Michael L. Marlow, Stanton A. Glantz, Lydia Saad, Blake Yount, and Rong W. Zablocki we see that they all have great claims for why they believe smoking bans are a good thing or a bad thing. Glantz, and Zablocki both lean towards different reasons why they believe smoking bans are a positive thing. Their claims may be different but they both believe that smoking bans are helpful in improving the health of both smokers and non-smokers a like. They both uses strong logical appeal to argue their points and present their results in easy to understand tables and graphs for their audience to understand.

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and generates enormous individual and social costs. Indeed, estimated external costs of cigarette smoking are over \$300 billion per year.\footnote{This figure includes around \$170 billion in direct medical costs \citep{Xu2015}, the majority of which are payed for by public programs, and over \$156 billion in productivity lost to decreased health and premature death \citep{U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices2014}.}