The Impact of Smoking Bans

Statistics on cigarette smoker acutely appearance that over 500,000 humans die every year due to cigarette smoker complications and ailments. Approximately 50,000 humans die every year from accessory smoke effects. The statistics as well appearance that smokers are added acceptable to die 14 years beforehand as compared to non-smokers. This is the acumen why the altercation on the adjustment and accomplishing of a smoker ban has acrimonious up in the contempt days. It is agreeable to agenda that all smokers are acquainted with the dangers of smoking. It is an abnormality that is circuitous to explain. However, addiction can accomplish the smoker’s disciplinarian of the smoke habit. Smokers should apprehend that there are added austere things

This problem, which plagues all Americans, should have action taken on a local scale to help protect the health of the public. The Ames City Council is in the process of debating a city ordanince which whould ban smoking in all public places, with the exception of those designated as "smokng areas". A public place shall be defined by Subsection

Smoking at Ashland University is a problem. However, the problem of smoking has been raging for nearly 200 years. The reason this problem keeps raging is because there is not an easy solution. The problem of smoking and the arguments against it touch almost every aspect of life. There are not only scientific arguments, but ethical, legal, medical, social, and a host of others fronts that can be used for and against tobacco and smoking. At Ashland University it is no different. There are many factors that must be considered before making a decision to ban all smoking on all outdoor areas of Ashland’s campus.

In the past few years, the bans on smoking cigarettes in public areas has become a huge controversy in America as bans on smoking have become more strict nationwide. In an editorial featured in the New York Times by Sue Ogrocki titled They’re Coming For Your Cigarettes. But That’s O.K., Ogrocki argues why bans on smoking cigarettes in one’s own home is necessary and beneficial for everyone else. Her editorial is in support for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, whom is pushing to ban cigarette smoking in an estimated one million public housing units across America, including townhouses and apartments. Ogrocki’s argument contained many flaws, as she failed to provide facts and statistics to support her statements, and was too general

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.).

It was in 1964 that the Surgeon General of the United States first published a report on the ill-effects of smoking cigarettes, and within a year the first law requiring health warnings on cigarette packages was in effect. From that point, the government has slowly, but continually, imposed more and more restrictions on the use of tobacco products. Throughout the 1960s, 70's, 80's, and 90's, the both individual jurisdictions within the State of California, as well as the entire state, continued to impose tougher and tougher restrictions on smoking cigarettes until 1994, when California became the first state in the union to pass a law which completely prohibited smoking in most enclosed workplaces. ("Secondhand Smoke Exposure") This law, which took effect in 1998, restricted smoking in all enclosed places of employment including offices, factories, bars and restaurants. But by the early 21st century, the current restrictions were not enough for California's lawmakers and a push was started to ban smoking in all public places. Since the passage of these restrictions in the 1990's, there has been a great deal of change in the state with advocates of the smoking ban pointing to the increased health benefits for the citizens of the state, while opponents focus on the economic damaged in the business community caused by the restrictions. It is therefore necessary to examine the State of California and its ban on smoking and how it has

Did you know, smoking causes more than” 440,000 deaths” per year? (“Effects of Tobacco” 1). That is an overwhelming number of deaths that could be prevented if only the individuals did not use tobacco. As of 2008, East Tennessee State University has adopted a tobacco-free policy for not only the safety of students, but their overall mental and physical health as well. That policy has been increasing on college campuses at a nationwide level. As of 2009, the American College Health Association adopted a position statement on a no tobacco use policy that encourages colleges and universities to become 100% tobacco free. As you can assume this has caused major debates on whether these policies should be established or not. In our current society, because of the policy many schools have chosen to be a part of that movement. There are 1,713 smoke free campuses and 1,427 100% tobacco free campuses in the United States. These numbers are substantial. There are many reasons that campuses should adapt tobacco-free policies on their university school grounds. Tobacco should be banned from ETSU, and other college campuses because it is a health hazard to the smokers and bystanders, it encourages individuals to stop smoking or never to start, and it makes the transition from school to the career field much easier.

Although it was found that people at four year colleges smoked significantly less than those who went to two year colleges or didn’t go to college at all, almost a quarter of the participants at four year universities had smoked within the last thirty days, but only 20% considered themselves smokers. People who attend college seem to shy away from admitting that they are smokers, possibly because of their exposure to people who are more health-conscious that make admitting that they regularly smoke intimidating. Their denial not only causes the number of college students who are smokers that have been found in other studies may be lower than reality, but also contributes to the overall resistance to quitting. If people that smoke do not consider themselves smokers, they are not going to see smoking as something they need to quit. Adding to that, most of the student smokers surveyed f interest in wanting to quit within a year, but significantly less had attempted quitting in his or her lifetime (46%). This data shows that most smokers want to quit but have not actually taken the steps to do so. With cessation programs and other various forms of encouragement, some of these students might be able to quit smoking for good. If policies are to be implemented to encourage students to quit smoking, the policies must be

Banning of smoking in public places, such as restaurants and bars have been very positive outcomes for the recent years. Smoke-free policies do send strong and direct messages to

The advocates of the smoking bans point at the societal and individual damage caused by smoking. The justification in their eyes for such ban is that smoking harms individuals’ health and passive inhaling the smoke causes serious health issues. They also emphasize a vital role of a government to protect its citizens’ health and well-being. Apart from that, the supporters mention large public and private spending from tax-payers money related to health issues caused by secondhand smoke. Despite of possible benefits, the regulation remains controversial in the US with only 8 states having such bans. The opponents of smoking bans in private cars with minors refuse the governmental control over behavior in a private property. They are against the violation of property rights and also against control of autonomy. According to the opponents, citizens should be responsible for their own health and should have freedom to make their own heath decision for themselves and their children. They refuse the paternalistic role of the state, however do not fully deny the paternalistic roles

The research design is appropriate for answering the research question, which was determining the consequences and perspectives from patients and health care providers on the new policies mandating smoke-free hospital properties. The research design is appropriate because ethnographic research is based on studying patterns of behaviour within a culture. This study was based on studying patterns of behaviours on smoking-policies but the study mostly aimed to gain perspectives from a variety of individuals. Ethnographic method is great for the study in the fact that it can be used to include behavioural and cognitive perspectives, which in this case the study focused on observing behaviours of smoking and if the policies were being followed and also included the perspectives on the new smoke-free policies. Also ethnographic research usually focuses on studying one culture. This study did try to focus on one specific culture, but the population had “diversity” consisting of smokers and non-smokers. The culture that was viewed in the study was tobacco use and management.

Smoking cigarettes causes more deaths than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, and firearm- related incidents combined. Some people say that banning cigarettes would be bad because the government makes a lot of money from the tax revenues. Or that it would increase illegal trade. But based off of the fact that millions of people die each year, cigarettes should be banned because it causes many health issues, it affects a lot of people, and it costs the government a lot of money.

One major issue of the Smoking In Public Ban is how will the economy react. Some people avoid businesses that allow people to smoke there because they don’t want to endanger themselves, their family, or both. Another pro for the ban in sense of the economy would be the odor of the cigarettes would be gone (Rutherford np).The ban will make businesses more family friendly which will add more money to the economy and cause more jobs be added to the workforce, internal improvements, and many other things that will strengthen our nation. The cons of the smoking in public in terms of the economy would be that it would encourage smokers to smoke less, which is good for the smokers but not so much for the economy because the tobacco industry would

Furthermore, numerous states across America have banned smoking in major public places, such as in restaurants, bars, work places, banks, parks and just about any area where there are a lot of people congregating. This is an effort to preserve public health. Even some advocates of smoking bans agree that, “restricting cigarette smoking in public places has clear health benefits and no adverse economic consequences” ("Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry"). The world can function pretty well without smoking, in fact studies showed that since the inception of smoking bans, there is a higher likelihood that a smoker may quit and that there is significant reduction in exposure to secondhand smoke. It not only benefits, non-smokers but it also helps smokers to kick the habit. Providing a flurry of reasons why it is so important to strive for the illegality of that which has done so much harm. With it completely illegal, Americans from state to state would undergo a drastic change—but for the better, our life spans would subsequently increase and we would be one step closer to getting rid of the diseases which have plagued us, as humans so long.

The Senate recently joined the House of Representatives in backing the statewide ban. The two branches of legislature will meet in January to revise a draft of the bill for the statewide ban, which will most likely pass in early 2004 and take effect July 5, 2004, making Massachusetts the 6th state to ban smoking statewide. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and New York have already passed similar bans.