Banning Smoking in Restaurants in All States Essay
- Length: 6 pages
- Sources: 5
- Subject: Sports - Drugs
- Type: Essay
- Paper: #13155519
Excerpt from Essay :
Banning Smoking in Restaurants in All States
Through this study, the author aims to support a policy regarding ban on smoking in restaurants in all the 50 states of USA. The author is of the view that smoking should be banned in restaurants in all 50 states to lower the rate of second hand smoking related diseases in non-smokers
Due to bad impacts on secondhand smoke, it has been banned on public places and educational institutions in many states. For example, Utah fully banned smoking in restaurants in 1995 and California imposed a complete ban on smoking in restaurants and bars in 1998. No further complete smoking bans were passed by any state till 2002 when South Dakota totally banned smoking in workplaces, and Delaware totally banned smoking in workplaces, restaurants, and bars. As of 2002, the number of states where there is complete ban on smoke at workplace, restaurant and bar has augmented considerably. By January 1, 2009, 22 states totally banned smoking in private workplaces, 28 states imposed a complete ban on smoking in restaurants, and 22 states wholly banned smoking in bars.
Negative Impacts of secondhand smoke
Secondhand smoke is a cause of many diseases in non-smokers. In the United States, the exposure to secondhand smoke caused 150,000 to 300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in kids aging up to 17 months. Similarly, kids whose mothers are in contact with secondhand smoke have greater risk for a number of health issues like cough, breathlessness, and ear infections (http://www.quitlineiowa.org/health_effects.asp)
Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) has instant health effects. It has been found to decrease lung function, intensify respiratory diseases, activate asthma attacks, decrease coronary blood flow, and irritate eyes as well as causes headaches, sort throats, dizziness, and nausea (Dockrell, 2007).
In 2003, crosswise the UK passive smoking at work was cause of almost 617 people, 54 of there were long-term workers of the hospitability industry. "In the Unite States, the number of non-smokers annual deaths from SHS exposures is: in excess of 3,400 people die from lung cancer, 46,000 die from cardiac-related illness and 430 children die from sudden infant death syndrome which has been associated with SHS exposure (Whincup, 2004). Another 11,000 deaths were attributable to passive smoking exposure in the home in exposed adults aged 20-65 years" (Jamrozik, 2005).
Instinctive smoking in the course of SHS exposures is the third primary source of avoidable death in the United States. It has been found to cause 53,000 deaths annually: 37,000 of which are deaths from heart disease, 3,700 from lung cancer, and 12,000 from other cancers. Revelation to ecological tobacco smoke in restaurants is three to four times greater as compared to formal workplace exposure, as well as eight to twenty times elevated than domestic exposure. It has been found to cause more deaths then AIDS, motor vehicle accident, drugs, or homicide (Siegel, 1992).
Smoking at restaurants has found to cause higher salivary coniine levels in non-smoking bar workers as compared to those of non-smoking living with smoking partners (Jarvis, 2001). Nonsmoking hospitality employees in organizations that allow smoking have been found to hold salivary coniine levels between 3 and 4 times high then those of non-smoking employees working in smoke-free premises (Bates,2002).
Fagerstrom (2002) also described that smoking cause instant bad effect with some irreparable effects. As regards instant effects, smoking elevates an individual's blood rate, weakens the blood flow to edges, arouses the nervous system temporarily, deteriorates taste and smell, and in some instances is the reason of dizziness, nausea, watery eyes and/or acid in the stomach. Malone. (2003) pointed out that tendency to suicide attempt was found higher in smokers as compared to non-smoker patients.
The Impact and Benefits of Smoke-Free Bans on Public Health
The first expected benefits of smoking bans will come from fewer people breathing SHS, but evidence from areas instituting bans suggests that many smokers will quit and many of those who do not quit will smoke less (For example, in New York, following comprehensive legislation, seven million fewer cigarettes were smoked; Dockrell et al., 2007).
A 2005 research anticipated the overall price of secondhand smoke exposure in the United States at $10 billion yearly, out of which $5 billion in through medical costs, and $5 billion in indirect expenses for instance lost productivity. In addition to this employees were granted unemployment, disability, and worker's compensation reimbursement for sickness and loss of job because of exposure to secondhand smoke (American Lung Association,2006).
The health costs occurring due to smoking not just affect the smokers, but society too. The illness and health issues have in a straight line attributable to smoking relation for $22 billion annually in health care expenses and $43 billion per annum in lost efficiency (http://www.*****/viewpaper/1693239.html).
Worldwide, death or mortality rate related to smoking is get on with it rise from three million per annum (1995 estimate) to 10 million per annum by 2030, with 70% of these deaths taking place in developing countries. Most of the adverse health effects of smoking are reversible, and smoking termination management signify a number of the most cost effective of all healthcare intrusions (Fagerstrom, 2002)
Successful Examples of Smoking Bans
Republic of Ireland was the first country all through the world which implemented all-inclusive smoke-free legislation in all workplaces, together with restaurants and pubs, and there was no permission for nominated smoking rooms with few exceptions on March, 2004, the (Fong et al., 2006)
As described by Chapman (1999), smoke-free workplaces are at present dependable for a yearly decrease of almost 602 million cigarettes which comes to 1.8% of all cigarettes that might be consumed in Australia if smoking were not banned on workplace. Similarly, in United States a reduction of 9.7 billion cigarettes (2%) was recorded per annum due to bans. Almost 22.3% of the 2.7 billion reductions in cigarette utilization in Australia between 1988 and 1995 can be recognized to smoke-free workplace, as can 12.7% of the 76.5 billion decreases in the United States between 1988 and 1994.
A research performed by Education Development Center at three state universities, Montana State University, Ohio State University, and University of Rhode Island during July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004 confirmed that smoke-free legislations had an optimistic effect on residence halls subsequent policy execution. Positive reports incorporated abridged carpet burns from cigarettes, fewer recurrent harm to window screens, which previous to the ban were cut through as a way to get rid of cigarette butts; reduced burn spoil to the furnishings varnish; and reduced require to redecorated dorm rooms off-cycle (Gerspn, Allard, & Towwim, 2005).
Legislation having complete smoking bans inside enclosed restaurants and bars with additional forbidden smoking rooms has been taken on in seven countries (Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, Bhutan, Uruguay, Lithuania and Iceland), nine Canadian regions and provinces; seven Australian states and districts; in addition to Scotland, Bermuda, Guernsey, and Puerto Rico. Besides, a lot of municipalities in different countries have approved 100% smoke-free legislations for restaurants and bars (Cunningham, 2006).
Additionally smoking bans in the workplace and at home have been found to throw in to abridged utilization, aims to quit, and likelihood increased ending, in addition to distribution of the massage a that smoking is communally intolerable. Though the major objective of smoking bans in public venues is to lessen exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, it may also help to reduce tobacco utilization and help quit smoking (Borland, Mullins, Trotter & White., 1999).
Research confirmed that hold up for smoke-free policies rises following their execution in workplace and in restaurants. For instance, the Irish law caused a spectacular decrease in reported smoking in all locations which include "workplace 62% to 14%, restaurants 85% to 3%, and bars or pubs 98% to to5% Overall, 83% of Irish smokers reported that the smoke-free law is a good or very good thing" (Fong, 2005).
The nonattendance of smoking in public places, in particular those previously linked with indications for smoking, buoyant quitting and augments the possibility of winning quitting. These results recommend that bans on smoking in bars, restaurants, nightclubs, and gaming venues will help to reduce cigarette utilization and boost quitting among smoking who regularly support these settings. These advantageous effects are probable to be strongest among younger smokers (Trotter, Wakefield, & Borland, 2002).
Similarly Fong (2006) reported that almost half (46%) of smoking accounted that the smoke-free legislation help them more possible to end smoking. Among those who had quit, 80% confirmed that the ban was helpful for them to quite and 88% said it helped them stay smoke-free.
Seventy percent of smokers who usually be condescending social places state that they smoke extra in public and social locations and if smoking is banned in these setting it will help them consume less cigarettes. For instance, a quarter of smokers who regularly patronize social settings confirmed that it will be possible for them to quit smoking completely if smoking was restricted in hotels, licensed bars, gaming venues, and nightclubs (Trotter, 2002).