They Re Coming For Your Cigarette Analysis

Federal Restrictions and Guidelines in Smoking and Politics by A. Lee Frischlet and James M. Hoelfer

The image of how many lives affected by smoking can be a difficult one to capture properly. The image of people who are living their lives slowly becoming the worthless smoke of just another cigarette can cause the viewer, perhaps for the first time, to see clearly that the effects of smoking can go further than they first thought. While lighting a cigarette, it is doubtful the average smoker thinks much about the damage done, not only to themselves, but to those around them as well. Your public service message implies that the second hand smoke the average smoker exhales so easily is just as damaging to those nearby as to the person smoking. This may be difficult to imagine, but the fact still stands that with every puff, with every breath out damage can be inadvertently done to a hapless bystander.

The complex question that was asked in the post was, “What are the consequences the city of New York will face by raising the smoking age to twenty-one?” This paper will discuss the multifaceted controversial subject facing the New York City residents; those ages eighteen through twenty-one and many merchants around the city. Multiple opinions show why this bill is a very good decision when looking at the health at these eighteen to twenty-one year olds in addition to the city’s youth. When another argument shows the financial hardships going to be felt because this bill passed legislation. Then, there are those making claims about someone that is adult enough to go to war for our country should be adult enough to smoke.

This plan is going to fail because if one business bans smoking in their building, they could loose that customer or customers to another business that allows smoking. Customers could become angry and upset and take out their frustrations on the business owner. The consequence and outcome could be that all businesses end up allowing smoking because if they ban smoking, it could hurt their income and customer satisfaction which could hurt their business reputation. In addition, this plan is going to fail Mock Town because it will continue to expose people to second hand smoke, which as we all know is more dangerous than smoking the cigarette itself. Continually being exposed to second hand smoke could cause life threatening medical issues. While at a place of business, visualize smoke clouds in front of you while inhaling 7,000 different harmful chemicals from the second hand smoke. Just visualizing this scene makes me cringe at the thought that anyone would allow this type of environment to be exposed to their family

With regard to smoking within apartments and about the surrounding entry areas to Highland Plaza Apartments in Toms River, NJ. Whereby numerous residents and visitors continue to violate current residential rules in defiance of anti-smoke laws thereby ignoring the safety and health of others with blatant indifference. As residents, we believe that regulations to eliminate the lethal effects, clear dangers, and the incalculable cost on society are never more urgent. Also, we support the efforts of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, ASH, the new HUD administration, and all organizations in favor of clean air. Our nation cannot be sustained by illusions of well-being, endless consumption, growing addictions, and environmental desecration.

Smoking is an activity that has been around for many years for people to use and adapt into their lifestyle. It is a tool that many people use to help reduce the stresses of life and put them in a comfortable position that enables them to cope with the hectic lifestyle they are living. However, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause many types of cancer, the most common being lung cancer resulting in numerous deaths across the United States. According to BBC, "Smoking is a greater cause of death and disability than any single disease" (BBC, 2). Evidently, the benefits and drawbacks of smoking have been debated for many years, and only recently have some countries have placed a ban in public places such as Britain and the United

Therefore, in a free society, whether smoking harms others or not is irrelevant. The relevant issue is who owns the air? It is clear that if you own the air, it is your right to decide how it is used. If you do not want tobacco smoke in your air, that is your right that government should protect. By the same token, if I own the air, I have rights just as you do to decide how it is used. If I want to have tobacco smoke in my air, I have every right to do so and the

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

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.

A spate of enactments denying cigarette smoking in encased open spaces, predominantly on grounds of general wellbeing security, as of late cleared crosswise over urban areas around the globe. This is in coupled with a pile of progressively prohibitive national laws that rose on the back of the endorsement of the WHO Framework for Tobacco Control by more than one 168 nations in 2005. The focal civil argument on the undeniably prohibitive tobacco laws rotates on the degree to which general wellbeing intrigues defense ought to ground political intercession in a private great as tobacco smoking, which curiously is frequently lumped in the nourishment and refreshment classification (Tremblay et al 35). The applicable lawful and moral inquiries consequently

Dr. David L. Katz, A clinical professor of public health, and director of the prevention research center at Yale University School of Medicine expresses his opinion on public smoking in the following passage.

I could not believe so many people would continue to put their lives at risk knowing the consequences and the death rate that could come along with smoking. But then again I thought maybe these people aren’t aware of the problems they’re implementing into their lives, that could explain why so many people are still continuing to put themselves at risk. Situations like this is exactly why communities should have leaders to help inform and educate citizens on ways to protect themselves and their communities.

Scientists agree that smoking is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker – it also harms people nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called “passive smoking”). Smokers choose to smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively. People should only be exposed to harm if they understand the risks and choose to accept them. A complete ban on smoking in public is needed to protect people from passive smoking.

Few issues over the use of public and commercial space ignite more impassioned disagreement than that over indoor smoking bans. With evidence of the dangers of second-hand smoking having achieved a state of being incontrovertible, lawmakers, lobby groups and public health advocacy groups have taken steps to diminish the exposure to second-hand smoke experienced by individuals on the whole. While the benefits of a smoking ban in bars, restaurants, clubs and other such establishments carries a number of readily apparent benefits most notably the reduction in presence and permeation of a hazard both to public health and the environment there are a number of economic effects that have drawn criticism for the policy orientation. Additionally, evidence suggests that with some key demographics such as college-aged consumers, these smoking bans have done little to slow the impact of tobacco addiction on college campuses. Thus, as the account hereafter will demonstrate, the continued adoption of public and commercial-space smoking bans is a positive step in the reduction of second-hand smoking dangers but has not been effective in reducing tobacco usage and addiction at large.

Although the harmful effects of smoking are thought to be well-known, there are a surprising number of people who are unaware of these risks. People enter public parks and walk down the street smoking without thinking about everyone they are affecting. Although the number of smokers in the United States is much lower than it used to be, it is still much higher than it should be. The majority of people begin smoking because they are influenced by people around them, which leads to an addiction. If the amount that people are seen smoking is limited, then the number of new smokers should drop drastically. Smoking in public places should be restricted to specific spots due to the health hazards occurring not only to the smoker, but also to others around them in the form of secondhand smoke and the influence on the younger generation.