This paper explores the rise of smoking bans across the United States as a public health measure. It presents evidence of the dangers of secondhand smoke, including diseases like lung cancer and heart disease, while acknowledging counterarguments about individual rights and smoker freedoms. The paper argues that despite valid concerns about personal liberty, smoking bans remain necessary to protect non-smokers from involuntary smoke exposure and to discourage smoking behavior overall.
Smoking bans are becoming increasingly common throughout the world. These bans are helping people in many countries, particularly non-smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights reported at the end of 2005 that 39 percent of U.S. citizens live in areas covered by statewide or local laws limiting smoking. This expansion reflects a growing awareness of the real-life dangers of secondhand smoke exposure. Smoking bans have been in development since the early 1990s, when research demonstrated that secondhand smoke is not merely an annoyance to non-smokers but contributes significantly to serious health conditions, including lung cancer and heart disease.
On February 15, 2006, Calabasas, California, enacted a comprehensive secondhand smoke control ordinance that banned smoking virtually everywhere outdoors, including sidewalks, streets, restaurant patios, and parking lots (Kaufman, Stephen). This represented one of the first major steps cities took toward controlling or banning smoking in public spaces. Smoking bans also discourage individuals from continuing to smoke. It is a documented fact that smoking is a direct cause of cancer, heart attacks, and other serious medical conditions. With these bans in place, more people are stepping away from smoking because the inconvenience makes it less appealing. This inconvenience benefits not only the smoker's own health but also protects those around them from involuntary secondhand smoke exposure.
Forty-five million adults in the United States—approximately 21 percent of the population—choose to smoke (Bast, Joseph). Many argue that smokers should have the right to smoke whenever they wish, contending that smoking bans violate their personal freedoms. The belief underlying this position is that one person's disapproval of another's behavior does not justify controlling that behavior. This argument has merit: people do have a right to make decisions about what they put in their own bodies. Additionally, smokers pay substantial taxes on their habit. The 2004 average retail price of a pack of cigarettes was $3.82, with federal tax at $0.47 and state tax at $1.41—nearly half the retail price. In some states, smokers pay more in cigarette taxes than in state income taxes.
Furthermore, opponents of smoking bans point out that such restrictions may be unnecessary because many people have already reduced their smoking or refrain from smoking around non-smokers. This observation has validity. For example, some smokers voluntarily choose not to smoke indoors around others because they do not want to expose friends and family to secondhand smoke. If smokers are increasingly adopting this considerate behavior on their own, why are comprehensive bans needed?
"Non-smoker rights and involuntary exposure risks"
Smoking bans represent a necessary public health measure that balances the competing rights at stake in this debate. While smoker autonomy is important, the right of non-smokers to protect their health from involuntary chemical exposure is equally valid. Comprehensive smoking restrictions help protect vulnerable populations from the serious health consequences of secondhand smoke. They help those people fight for their right to not have any type of smoking chemicals in their bodies. The bans help those people who do not smoke but still face the risk of contracting cancer because of people who do.
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.