Free Public Ban on Smoking Essay Sample
Buy Cheap Public Ban on Smoking Essay
The rapid spread and use of tobacco product all over the world has caused a major health care concern that has become a national challenge. Different leaders, health care professionals and lawmakers should have a leading role in combating smoking in our community. Burke asserts that studies done in Scotland indicate a public ban initiated in March, 2006, had reduced asthma prevalence. Banning public smoking will also help not only the smokers but second-hand smokers including pregnant women. The study also suggests that a public ban on smoking will reduce asthma admissions in hospitals. The report by Burke suggests that asthma incidences could greatly be reduced if a smoking ban was imposed in public places. The author argues and supports a smoking ban in public places and asserts that asthma admissions reduced by 18.2% after implementation of the ban was effected.
An example is the Scotland study; the study used routine hospital administrative data admissions for young children before and after the ban. The study began in 2009 to 2006 for the first part (before the ban) and 2006 to 2009 (after the ban). Before implementation of the legislation, asthma admissions in that hospital were increasing at 5.2% per year. After implantation of the law, asthma admission rates fell by a mean of 18.2% per year. The reduction was credited to the ban.
W. builds a strong argument for the ban of tobacco use in public places, it will aid not only the smokers but also the passive smokers. Use of tobacco is known to cause respiratory complications including asthma and a ban on tobacco smoking will reduce the number of people affected by its effects.
This article will give explanations as to why many countries in the world are banning smoking especially in public places. Among the first countries to ban public smoking was Ireland and later many other countries followed suit. The main reason for banning public smoking is has been to protect people from the hazardous effects of second-hand smoking. Thoughts on why public smoking should be effected are given by Greg Connolly who is a professor of public health at the Harvard University.
W. talks about the march, 2004, ripple effect in Ireland when it became the first country in the world to ban public smoking including bars, hotels and restaurants. He talks that the ripple effect is in fact taking shape and sooner more countries will follow suit. Since then, countries like Malta, Sweden, Lithuania, Bhutan, Scotland, New Zealand and Norway have become free smoking zones. Some nations like the U.S. have smoke free cities. He talks like the ban is a tipping point for health. There is anxiety to a global ban as the world begins to reclaim clean air as a social norm. Encouraging news is that the WHO’S 2004 FCTC (framework convention on tobacco control) is taking shape and playing a big role in ensuring that tobacco smoking in public places is banned totally.
There is a growing awareness across the world and Schmidt notes that this has shifted to the developing countries. He even asserts that in the U.S., decreased smoking is a major factor that has seen cancer drop by 40% mortality rates.
W.t has solid arguments for the public ban on smoking. He goes further to say that the decreased cancer rates in the U.S. are as a result of reduction in tobacco use that is as a result of the ban. In his words, the war against tobacco use has made key strides that in many countries and as a result protecting second hand smokers. Smoking kills millions of people and the ban will definitely reduce these high mortality rates.
W. is on why the world health organization is involved in the banning smoking in public places. The article discusses on how developing countries are also embracing the ban of smoking in public places. Paton further delves on the poised government legislation designed to ban smoking in public places. Official from the UK had confirmed that the ban was under consideration. This was in response to study by the British medical journal that asserted that exposure to second-hand smoke has a likelihood of 50-60% of increasing the risk of contracting heart diseases . This is double the risk that was previously thought. Research on the link between blood cotinine levels and the risk of coronary heart disease was conducted at St. George’s medical school which indicated that second-hand smoke was responsible for high levels of coronary heart diseases.
According to W., an estimated 3 million workers in the UK are regularly exposed to second smoke. Further shocking results indicate that 1.3 million people are exposed to second hand smoke about 75% of all the time. The report indicates further that staff in lower socio-economic groups is at a higher risk of exposure. The argument therefore is to protect the second hand smokers who are exposed to tobacco. And to effectively resolve this, Paton suggests that a public ban should be imposed on all smokers. He also writes that 4,500 letters were received by the British Medical Association urging the government to impose the ban.
W. favors the idea that public smoking should be banned to more so protect millions of endangered second hand smokers who are at a higher risk of increasing the risk of heart diseases associated with tobacco. The article is very informative.
Our country is a country based on freedom of every sort. Citizens in our country enjoy certain rights but the rights are limited especially if they are found to harm others. There have been recent talks of banning smoking in public places especially because it affects passive smokers more than the real smokers. Proponents of the ban argue that Smoking is associated with many side effects including delayed healing and wound infection. Zucker et al. (2009) has also documented that smoking can cause neurocognitive deficits in men. Our young people also may get fascinated by seeing adults smoking and thus want to emulate them (Hrubá). Pamela (2000) also cautions against pregnant women smoking as it can affect both the mother and unborn child and even will be affected when they want to quit.
Opponents of the ban argue that banning public smoking is like curtailing a person’s freedom which is guaranteed by the constitution. Although this practice seems to curb the individual’s freedom but I feel that it goes a long way to achieving a healthy lifestyle for the smoker and non-smoker. It is surprising that despite the fact that many people are aware effects of smoking, they still cannot get rid of the habit. In my opinion, public smoking should be banned.
Some countries such as Ireland have implemented a ban on public smoking and there are designated smoking zones. Public smoking has harmful effects on smokers and non-smokers (second-hand smokers) and is known to cause allergy to some people. I support the idea of banning public smoking. . If a public ban is imposed on smokers, then the number of smokers will reduce reducing effects associated with smoking.
Thesis: The paper will focus on the reasons why it could be wise to impose a public ban on smoking than granting smokers the freedom of smoking in public.
1). There is widespread evidence that smoking causes cancer
2). Braun argues that is a known fact that smoking reduces the intellectual abilities of children born of smoking mothers.
3). Passive smokers are more affected than the active smoker especially when they are in close vicinity.
4). Smoking is known to cause pulmonary diseases like asthma, bronchitis and carcinoma.