With the current awareness on the dangerous effects posed by various tobacco products, the global challenge is whether to illegalize smoking or not. In either case, consequences are more experienced than realized. Taking the side of prohibiting smoking would imply denying smokers their rights as citizens, while legalizing the habit would deny the non-smokers their rights to live in a cigarette free zone. However, this is a simple decision to make. Simple because one should just weigh both the demerits and merits of cigarette smoking. Arguably, no one is able to give a credible advantage of smoking, but what about the disadvantages? The story is completely opposite. There are numerous problems associated with smoking; ranging from individual effects, psychological effects, social effects and economic effects. This draws a general believe that smoking should be banned at least in all the public zones.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to avoid living or meeting with smokers; in families, market places, working areas, learning institutions, public gathering areas, along the way or even in mothers’ wombs, as in the case of the unborn. This kind of interaction gives rise to two types of smokers; the active and the passive smokers. Active smokers are those who deliberately get the cigarette smoke in their lungs, while passive smokers accidentally inhale the smoke from the active smokers. In any case, both active and passive smokers face great health issues such as lung cancer, ectopic pregnancy, and rheumatoid arthritis. Cigarette has been found to harbor over 4000 various chemical substances, including nicotine, tar, carbon (II) oxide, toluene, styrene, and resorcinol (“Chemicals in Cigarette”, 2015). Of these substances, about 50 of them have been found to contain carcinogens, most of which are highly poisonous. Unluckily, these harmful substances once they get their entry into the people’s respiratory system, they don’t select who to cause health problem to; they affect both the active and passive smokers with equal measures. Public cigarette smoking should be abolished.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Those who smoke too have their reasons. Some argue that smoking helps them feel relaxed with little stress, improved concentration, and fostered confidence (Smith & Malone, 2006). Some smoke to alleviate boredom. With such, they gain a feeling of satisfaction and motivated state in such a way that they hardly give up. Yet some are introduced to smoking by their peers in order to improve their socialization (Jones, Schroeder & Moolchan, 2004). Some smoke alongside drinks like liquor and beers at the bonding sessions. Notably, in all these cases, cigarette smoking gives the users a false sense of feeling and once stopped, the user regains a worse state than before. There is no valid reason for smoking (Martin, 2018).
Despite these seemingly positive sensational feelings associated with cigarette smoking, the negative effects of smoking are overwhelming (Quit, 2010). For instance, cigarette smoking increases the chances of stroke and brain damage. It leads to increased risk of lung, stomach and bladder cancers. Cigarette smoking leads to stomach ulcers high blood pressure. It also causes eye cataracts, muscular degeneration, yellowing of eyes, tooth decay and foul mouth smell. It increases the risk of leukemia and asthma. Children born of smoking mothers are usually slow learners and have retarded growth. Besides, cigarette smoking is addictive and the users easily get hooked to the habit. They spend most of their money in purchasing the drug. This money could be used in other developmental purposes such as paying school fees. The government also spends a lot of money in purchasing medicine to treat diseases caused by cigarette smoking; thus hindering economic development. Cigarette smoking also has various social effects. The smokers are usually hot-tempered and prone to violent to both the family members and the society. It leads to truancy and school drop-outs. The carbon (IV) oxide released leads to the greenhouse effect, destroys the ozone layer hence contributing to global warming. Research has shown that at least 480,000 death cases related to smoking are recorded every year in the United States (Kenneth et al., 1989). Other problems related to cigarette smoking are: preterm delivery, low birth rate, still birth, low birth weight, and decreased immune system. Therefore, the demerits of cigarette smoking outweigh its merits by far.
Due to the cigarette smoking addictive power, it would be a mistake to completely ban cigarette smoking, because some citizens are already addicts and may not easily stop the habit (Ehrman, 2002). Smokers have their rights of smoking. The non-smokers too have their rights to free smoking environment. To harmonize these two conflicting incidents, various states have put regulatory rules governing smoking. In his article titled, ‘The Right to Smoke in Public’, Joel Spitzer outlines clearly the various smoking regulatory rules. He notes, “Smokers feel they have the right to smoke any time and any place they choose. They feel that they are only hurting themselves.” He further argues, “But the increasing evidence that side-stream smoke is posing a health threat to the people surrounding the smoker has opened up a whole new controversy.” Spitzer compares cigarette smoking to spitting of saliva publicly. A time is coming when disdain for smoking will be taken as illegal as public spitting (Spitzer, 1984). The government should therefore enact laws prohibiting public smoking in order to protect the lives of the innocent non-smokers from the dangers posed by the smoke from the smokers. Much as everyone has the right to smoke, public smoking ought to be abolished.
There has been this common say, Prevention is better than cure.” The government has already created public smoking zones; therefore, the passive smokers should utilize those smoking zones and if anyone is caught smoking in public, the law should take its course (Kenneth et al., 1989). Individuals found smoking in public should face heavy penalties in order to prevent them from repeating the uncouth behavior. The non-smokers on the other hand should be educated on their rights and the necessary actions they should take in the case where their rights are abused. Parents who are smokers should avoid smoking in the presence of their children. This will not only prevent them from making their children passive smokers, but also avoid passing the smoking habit to their children. Rehabilitation centers should be established to assist individuals who wish to stop the habit. Any cigarette manufacturing company found violating the rule of labeling cigarette as a harmful substance to health, should receive heavy penalty. To discourage the production and cigarette smoking, the product should be highly taxed. The tax also helps to compensate for the money used by the government in equipping health facilities to take care of the smoking sickened patients.
Now, the turn of events becomes difficult to interpret especially when the debate on whether, if there was free healthcare, should smokers have limitations on the services available for them? First, suppose people put into consideration of what is the best for the society, it is difficult to keep people in a healthy condition despite their efforts to evade the monstrous action of smoking. Think of a child who is innocently developing in a smoker mother’s womb. Think of a small child seated next to smoking father or mother. Think of a wife or husband who sleeps next to a cigarette smoking partner. Not forgetting passengers who lose their lives on road accidents due to the side effects of smoking on the smoking drivers. These particular thoughts greatly make one question the freedom of choice of smoking. Surely, as long as smokers have the right to smoking, there is the need to limit such freedoms, especially where their freedom has adverse effects on the rights of the other innocent people. That innocent child in the mother’s womb has the right to grow in a health environment. The innocent child who does not understand the dangers of being a passive smoker has the right to be protected from the deadly smoke. Passengers have the right to life, the right to be safely driven to their intended destinations, without much fear. There is the need to revisit the freedom of smoking and redefine it in a manner that ensures maximum safety for all.
The nation has always incurred a lot of expenses in installing the health care facilities to take care of the terminally ill patients as a result of smoking. Moreover, such patients end up occupying beds and use most of the health care facilities. Yes, it is their rights just like the other tax payers (Wilkinson, 1999). What such patients fail to consider is that they willingly acquired their ill health, as opposed to the other patients. Suppose the health care attendants deliberately choose to attend the other patients first, should the latter complain? Much as they consider their complains valid, the smokers should also understand that they deliberately bought their sickness. Again, as much as the smokers adhere to their public smoking zones, the smoking zones have no ability to restrict the toxic substances from polluting the air. The pollutants still get their entry into the circulatory systems of the non-smokers and may have adverse long-term effects. Furthermore, accumulation of the gases such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide greatly contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer, and consequently result in global warming.
Needless to say, no single problem caused by smoking affects the smoker only. At long last, either the society or the close friends and family members are affected; either directly or indirectly. To begin with, when a family member gets sick due to smoking, the family wastes a lot of resources and time taking care of the sick family member. The drug addict also uses a lot of money and resources in purchasing the drug. This money could be saved for other family uses. The deaths caused by smoking not only affect the family members of the diseased, but also the whole nation. A productive member of the society is lost leading to economic degradation. If for example a person runs insane due to factors aided by smoking, this not only raises liability to the society, but also threatens security, as the person may turn hostile to the society. Therefore, holding the slogan, “My smoking my choice” would mean a tremendous problem to the whole community.
In conclusion, smoking should be discouraged by all means. Smoking causes many grave and fatal health conditions to both the smokers and non-smokers. Much as the smokers feel that they have their right to smoking, they should consider the medical issues they cause to both themselves and the community as at large. It is very unjust for irresponsible smokers to make innocent, hardworking, and poor people bear the harsh repercussions of their smoking habits. The government should therefore, device ways of protecting all non-smokers from unacceptable behaviors of the careless smokers, who endanger the lives of other citizens. Since all bad effects end up affecting the non-smokers, either directly or indirectly, the government should consider revisiting the smoking rules and possibly illegalize smoking. Since there is no smoking right that has no negative reputation to the innocent non-smokers, then it can be concluded that smokers have no valid reason to uphold their smoking rights; smokers have no constitutional smoking rights (Samantha, 2005).
References
Ehrman, N. (2002). Drug and alcohol dependence. 67: 185-191. (Online). Downloaded on https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871602000650
Jones , N., Schroeder, R. & Moolchan, T. (2004). Addictive behaviors: Time spent with friends who smoke and quit attempts among teen smokers. 29: 723-729. (Online). Downloaded on https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460304000073# !
Kenneth, E., Ronald, M., Thomas, E., John, H., Judith, K. & Nancy, A. (1989). U.S Department of health and human service: Reducing the consequences of smoking. Downloaded on https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/B/X/S/
Martin, T. (2018). The Truth about Smoking Pleasure and Nicotine Addiction. (Online). Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/the-truth-about-smoking-pleasure-2824757
Samantha, K. (2005). Centre For Tobacco Control Research And Education: There Is No Constitutional Right To Smoke. (Online). Downloaded on https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2h8644m0
Smith, A. & Malone, E. (2006). European Journal of Public Health: ‘We will speak as the smoker’: the tobacco industry's smokers' rights groups. (Online). Downloaded on https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/17/3/306/722281
Spitzer, J. (1984). Joel’s Quit Smoking Library: The Right to Smoke in Public. (Online). Downloaded on https://whyquit.com/joel/Joel_05_03_spitoons_right_smoke.html
What Chemicals Are In Cigarette Smoke? (2015). (Online). Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/215420.php
Wilkinson, S. (1999). Journal of Applied Philosophy: Smokers’ Rights to Health Care. (Online). Downloaded on https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-5930.00128
