Public Smoking Bans on Cigarettes and Electric Cigarettes: Critical Analysis

Smoking is known for its health risks and toxicity. Many people across the united states and further are being diagnosed with diseases caused by tobacco smoke even if they have never smoked a cigarette. The leading culprit is secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke (SHS) poses major health risks, especially the risk of lung cancer. A person could die from lung cancer caused by constant exposure to smokers, without ever smoking a cigarette. With the effects of secondhand smoke into account, more and more places have established bans on public smoking. Supporters of the bans claim that it will reduce the amount of harmful smoke inhalation. Critics of smoking bans claim that businesses that allow smoking will suffer in profits and that smokers have the right to smoke. With public smoking controversies on the rise, the right for smokers to smoke freely and the right for non-smokers to be smoke-free are clashing, which makes it one of the hottest debates today.

With the amount of people at risk, I firmly believe public smoking should be banned. Electric cigarettes have become a popular substitution for tobacco cigarettes, having consumers be attracted to the ability of smoking (vaping) indoors. Electric cigarettes have been able to eliminate the smoke smell like a normal tobacco cigarette, making them that much more attractive. This has allowed for owners of e-cigarettes like, ‘Juul’, ‘njoy’, and ‘blu.’ to bring them indoors to public places and smoke in the open. With public smoking, it doesn’t just hurt the rights and health of just an adult non-smokers but their children as well, who do not even have the choice to smoke yet. Smoking is one of the leading causes in many of the major health risks today, such as heart disease and most certainly lung cancer. The problem is, many of the people who are at risk have never even smoked but have inhaled secondhand smoke from people smoking around them. With public smoking, anyone’s rights are at stake, whether smoking is banned or not. The real question is whose rights are mostly at risk? Along with many other supporters of public smoking bans, I say the non-smoker. The reason being, smokers choose to smoke and take the health risks that come along with it and non-smokers have the risks thrust upon them when they’re out in a public place that allows smoking. There are also other issues that come with public smoking.

Secondhand smoke (SHS) is quickly becoming one of the most serious health risks today. The dangers of SHS contribute close to 50,000 deaths a year. (Harvard Heart Letter.) Many people consider public smoking bans to be a solution in reducing the effects brought on by SHS. Secondhand smoke increases the risk of asthma and respiratory infections in children and adults runs the risk of heart disease and lung cancer. A study testing the exposure of SHS was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene and showed how unsafe cigarette smoke is. (Hall et al. 698-703) The background of the article states that smoke from cigarettes contains many carcinogens and compounds such as carbon monoxide, ammonia, nicotine, and other toxic chemicals. It also says “SHS is considered the most significant contaminant of indoor air.” (Hall et al. 698) Their research concluded that there is no level of exposure from secondhand smoke that can be considered safe. (Hall et al. 703)

Knowing what we do now with secondhand smoke, there are no ways to completely protect yourself unless you choose to walk away from any situation with smokers around. A nonsmoker can become addicted to smoke and have the same addictive habits of needing the smell. Lato explains knowing a couple who were married more than 45 years, the husband being a smoker and the wife never a smoker. After all of the years, the wife became a widow and was so immune to being around the smell of cigarettes she would still prefer to sit in a smoking section when out to bars and restaurants. (Lato pp. 60). She has been consuming secondhand smoke for such a long time that it is an addiction to her, proving that secondhand smoke for others around is as bad as primary smoke. In order to get smoking bans passed, it is necessary to create an environment of hatred toward smoking and have people understand the threat it can make to their health. Making it harder for consumers to smoke and making it an inconvenience is how to decline the rise of tobacco cigarettes and electric cigarettes. Smokers today are driving further to where they can smoke in permitted outdoors or where enforcement is unlikely, as well as driving across borders to where smoking in bars is legal.

A study was conducted and included 120 counties, including 20 which banned smoking. It found that alcohol-related fatal car accidents increased 13%. About 6 deaths. Where the smoking bans had been in place longer than 18 months, the fatal accident rate increased to 19%. This was especially apparent where border-hopping to smoke-friendly bars. Living in a city like St. Louis where we do have certain bars and restaurants that allow smoking, I tend to forget that it isn’t always a normality for some cities and that people look at it like such a greater gift. Smoking inside bars and restaurants is not an attractive quality when and if I were to choose a place to spend my time and money at if the establishment allows open smoke around fresh food I would think about twice before eating there. The smoke scent lingers and never fully goes away, having this around your food can only hurt it and not be as fresh. I have worked in many bars and restaurants with allowed smoking for customers and employees, I have seen firsthand cooks choosing to smoke while preparing and cooking food. I find this completely repulsive and unfair to the people around. It is necessary for smoking bans to be made for incidents like that exactly, people need to have the right to know what type of environment their food is around.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Many critics feel that bars or restaurants might lose a lot of their customers who regularly come in and smoke, which will lead to a reduction in profits. Some smokers feel it is like advocates of public smoking bans are pushing for a prohibition of smoking, like the failed attempt to prohibit alcohol. There are arguments about how public smoking has risks associated with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), but critics say the risked-based arguments are not sufficient enough to justify the ban, because there are only “slight risks” from ETS. (Lambert 37-40) Another argument for smokers is the controversy over property rights. There are many businesses that choose to have a place that allows smoking, and non-smoking or it can accommodate for both by separating smokers from non-smokers. Ultimately, the critics of public smoking bans believe that allowing smoking in a public place to whoever owns it shouldn’t be a decision made by the government. (Lambert 40) In his article, “The Case Against Smoking Bans” Thomas A. Lambert states, “There is no need for government to force establishments to go nonsmoking; the market will provide an optimal number of nonsmoking choices.”(37)There is also the question of places that do not have a particular owner like parks, where the air is free to anyone. With a government-imposed ban on all forms of public smoking, the critics feel that it gives non-smokers “the right to the air.” (Lambert 40)

With the amount of support and arguments for both sides, it can be tough to decide which side proves the better point. The critics of the smoking ban did prove an interesting point about who has the rights over the air. However, I do not agree with their opinion. Nobody really has a right over the air; it belongs to nature. Everyone shares it, but there is a problem with pollutants of the air. I believe that smoking is an unnecessary pollutant of the air because it makes the air around others toxic without any purpose besides to feed an addiction. The argument against also says that public smoking only poses a “slight risk” to the people around it. The problem I have with that is that even though public smoking only has a slight risk to smokers, the health risks increase more and more when they’re frequently exposed to ETS. It can be harmful to people with asthma or people who need oxygen tanks to breathe. Public smoking is an unnecessary risk that many individuals are forced to take.

No matter what law is passed to ban public smoking or if people decide to keep it, someone will lose something, namely smokers or non-smokers. The question is which sacrifice is greater or who will lose more if a law is or is not passed? If smoking in public is allowed, there will be a constant risk of non-smoking individuals going to places and inhaling secondhand smoke. Many people who already have trouble breathing could be harmed by environmental tobacco smoke. If public smoking bans are allowed, smokers lose their right to smoke at restaurants, bars, and many other places. There is also still a chance that some businesses might see a reduction in profits from their smoking customers. Which sacrifice is greater? I believe that sacrificing the right to smoke in public is insignificant compared to the right to lead a healthy and smoke-free lifestyle. If smokers want to sacrifice their health to feed their smoking addiction, they should do it in the privacy of their own homes to keep the general public safe from the risks of secondhand smoke. The rights of one smoker do not outweigh the rights of many non-smokers. There are too many people already at risk from the hazards caused by second-hand smoke. I support banning public smoking in the United States to keep the non-smoking population, as well as their children, safe from environmental or second-hand smoke.

The magnitude of young adults and adults vaping has taken the world by storm with claiming to be safer and less addictive than regular tobacco cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered devices that deliver nicotine in an aerosol to the consumer. E-cigarettes heat and vaporize a solution containing nicotine, and many are designed to look outwardly like traditional tobacco cigarettes. There are over 400 different E-Cigarette on the market, but in recent, a newcomer in the market emerged called, ‘Juul.’ E-Cigs had been on the market for almost a decade before Juul, though none had really taken off as well. The craze with electronic cigarettes began with the main focus of suggest that e-cigarettes may help people quit smoking while acknowledging that nicotine addiction is still probably maintained. Claiming to be ‘better’ for you to internally and long term the device delivers heated nicotine aerosol with a few other chemicals, so compared with smoking cigarettes there is exposure to many fewer inhaled chemicals. Juul has adopted the tactic for itself by advertising the brand on the idea of “switching” from tobacco cigarettes to vapes. Juul has openly expressed that switching is not another word for cessation of safer, but they mean very different things. According to the company, switching involves continuing to consume nicotine but from a different device, while cessation is about getting users to eliminate their nicotine consumption altogether. (Time pp.45). E-Cigarette companies have claimed for many years to be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, the debate has led to extensive research to prove the theory. The nicotine content of the cartridge e-liquid from some brands revealed poor concordance of labeled and actual nicotine content. Vapors from e-cigarettes have been proved with toxic and carcinogenic compounds. (Hajek, Peter). Having e-cigarettes does eliminate the secondhand smoke issue with regular tobacco, in theory, the e-cigarettes are designed to approximate a smoky bar. A person inhaling a nicotine aerosol usually absorbs 80% of the nicotine, whereas the pump discharges all nicotine into the environment, so the nicotine exposure may be higher in this study than would be the case with actual secondhand aerosol exposure. (Journal of Thoracic pp. 440). There are no proven effects from secondhand infections from vaping, but this can still all be looked at as indoor pollution from people using e-cigarettes over a period of time in a public environment.

When it comes to electric cigarettes there is no such thing as secondhand smoke per say. This is a benefit for surrounding others, especially when in public. The biggest issue with electric cigarettes that I have picked up on and seen first-hand is the fact that they are so available to anyone and everyone, it may not be a secondhand smoke but since it is that much more accessible and easy what is going to stop someone who is trying to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes from grabbing a friends e-cigarette. This is still a huge issue because it enables a huge amount of people to continue to smoke, or to begin smoking by vaping first, this starts a trend in people and a never-ending cycle of putting chemicals in your body. Making sure you know exactly what you’re putting into your body, when it comes to cigarettes and vaping can be an overwhelming but making sure you do your research is key.

Works Cited:

1. Hall, J. C., J. T. Bernert, D. B. Hall, G. St.Helen, L. H. Kudon, and L. P. Naeher. 'Assessment of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke at Outdoor Bars and Family Restaurants in Athens, Georgia, Using Salivary Cotinine.' Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (2009): 698-704. 16 Oct. 2009. Web. 25 Nov. 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19757294
2. Ducharme, Jamie. “The New American Addiction: How Juul hooked kids and ignited a public health crisis.” Time, 30 September 2019, pp. 44-47.
3. Robert, Lato Frances. Tobacco and Smoking. “Secondhand Smoke Is Dangerous.” Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing, 2010, pp 51-57.
4. Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Tipping Point.” New York, NY: Little, Brown, and Company. Hachette Book Group, 2013, pp 251-253.
5. “E-Cigarettes and Cancer Patients.” Journal of Thoracic. Vol. 9. Issue 4. April 2014, Pages 438-441.
6. [bookmark: OLE_LINK1][bookmark: OLE_LINK2]Hajek, Peter. “Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit.” Addiction. Vol. 109. Issue 11. November 2014 Pages 1801-1810.
7. Lambert, A Thomas. “The Case Against Smoking Bans.” Risk. The University of Missouri- Columbia School of Law. PDF.
8. Editorial Staff. Another Gross Reason to Put Down the E-Cigarette. The American Lung Association. June 27, 2019 (Last Updated: July 3, 2019). https://www.lung.org/about-us/blog/2019/06/another-gross-reason.html. Accessed 25 November 2019.