Smoking causes some of the deadliest diseases in America. The cigarettes themselves contain a number of toxic chemicals that are also extremely addictive. The ingredients in a cigarette contribute to lung cancer, heart disease, and other harmful consequences. As a result, banning smoking would be very beneficial to the overall health of the nation. Banning smoking would reduce the risk of all of those deadly diseases, and it would keep people healthier overall. However, the idea behind banning smoking isn’t that people would be unable to smoke at all: it is simply the hope that people would not be allowed to smoke in public places. (Galup.com). This offers the best of both worlds; those that are addicted to smoking would be able to continue the habit, but they would be encouraged to do it less, and they would not be able to hurt as many people with their smoking. There are three points to consider when discussing a ban of public smoking: the health benefits for the smokers, the health benefits for the public, and decreased expenses for smokers as well. All three of these effects show how positive a ban on public smoking would be. (Livestrong.com).
Firstly, banning smoking in public places would help to improve the health of smokers to a great degree. According to an article by Kristeen Cherney on livestrong.com: “Medline Plus estimates that the United States would see 18,000 fewer heart attacks within a year if each state passes a complete ban on smoking in public places.” (Livestrong.com). It is well known that smoking causes problems with the lungs, heart, and mouth. Smoking can lead to cancer of all of those areas, and can make one have to loose several teeth, or even end up breathing through a tube. In addition, smoking causes hair and nails to grow more slowly, yellows teeth, causing coughing, lethargy, constant thirst, and unhealthy skin. Introducing the ban helps to control the habit and reduce it. (Quitsmoking.about.com) In fact, the site gallup has found a link between smoking bans and lower smoking rates, according to the article “Americans Favor Ban on Smoking in Public, but Not Total Ban”. Furthermore, public opinion about the smoking ban in public places is on the rise, and has been for a while. (Gallup.com). With all of these factors in place, it is clear that smoking bans will help smokers to be healthier. However, it can also benefit the health of non-smokers, or those who are at risk of second-hand smoke.
Second-hand smoke can cause a lot of the same problems that smokers face, but to non-smokers. Simply inhaling the smoke can be very dangerous. One isn’t directly smoking, but they are still being exposed to a lot of the same dangerous chemicals and poisons. For more detail, livestrong.com adds: The Mayo Clinic explains that when you inhale secondhand smoke, its chemicals irritate and inflame your arteries. Frequent arterial inflammation can cause constriction, causing a decrease in blood-flow to the heart. These symptoms are what lead to a heart attack.” (Livestrong.com). The dangers non-smokers face is one of the biggest motivations behind trying to ban smoking in public places. Those forced to inhale second-hand smoke are not actively choosing to smoke, the way smokers themselves are. They suffer and get sick due to something that is not their fault, so adding a public ban on smoking would help those people. Introducing the public ban would decrease the number of people who suffer from second hand smoke, and that can only be a good thing. However, it is important to note that creating these bans will also help to save money.
Implementing public smoking bans would save money in a number of ways. Not only would it save taxpayer money according to livestrong.com, but it would also save money for the smokers themselves. Less smoking means less danger to health, which in turn means that there will be less health problems that require a hospital visit. Livestrong.com points out: “The Association also asserts that smoking bans decrease the amount of such emergency room visits.” Therefore, decreasing the amount of hospital and emergency room visits would save money. Livestrong.com further goes on: “In fact, Medline Plus reports that the United States would save $92 million in one year’s worth of emergency room costs if each state implemented a public smoking ban.” (Livestrong.com). So, making smoking in public banned helps not only to improve health, but also to save money. All of these are very worthy endeavors, and they will succeed better with the ban in place.
Smoking is a deadly and addictive habit. Not only can it cause a multitude of diseases, but it is harmful to the body in other ways as well. It can also be very expensive, particularly over a long period of time. With the above evidence, it is clear that applying a ban on smoking in public is better overall for everyone. It will improve the health of smokers as well as non-smokers, and it would save money as well. It would be difficult for smokers to undertake the task, but it would ultimately be wroth it.
- Kristeen Cherney. February 19th, 2014. “Pros of Smoking Bans”. http://www.livestrong.com/article/209138-pros-of-smoking-bans/ Web. Accessed on 12/4/2014.
- Terry Martin. 12/1/2014. “The Pros and Cons of Smoking”. http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotinelozenges/a/zoeslist.htm Web. Accessed on 12/4/2014.
- Rebecca Rifkin. “Americans Favor Ban on Smoking in Public, but Not Total Ban”. 7/30/2014. http://www.gallup.com/poll/174203/americans-favor-ban-smoking-public-not-total-ban.aspx Web. Accessed on 12/4/2014.
