Banning Cigarette Smoking: Navigating Health, Economic, and Environmental Perspectives - Free Paper

Cigarette smoking is one of the rampant acts carried out by various individuals as they claim that it is one of the stress relieving acts. In the world today most diseases are caused by the smoking of cigarettes such as lung diseases including emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Therefore banning cigarette smoking has appeared to cause a significant reduction of heart attacks among younger individuals. According to the American College of Cardiology journal banning cigarette smoking is said to be an efficient way of reducing such problems. This paper therefore provides the basic information on smoking bans including the pros and cons of the bans, the health consequences of smoking as reported by the surgeon General (HHS,2006), and the report made on the tobacco ending problem.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The number of people who smoke cigarettes has increased in the world. People smoke cigarettes for different reasons including decreasing tension, pleasure, and stimulation. Proponents of prohibiting cigarettes argue that it negatively affects health. Smoking is associated with various diseases like heart problems, asthma, coughs, cancer, and allergies, among others. On the contrary, opponents of banning cigarettes claim that it would impact the economy of the United States. This is because businesses such as cigarette manufacturers, bars, and pubs would financially lose from the prohibition. Also, supporters of banning cigarettes articulate that smoke from a cigarette harms the natural environment. They assert that smoke from cigarettes contains harmful chemicals that may affect insects and even plants. Critics respond to this argument by arguing that banning cigarettes interferes with the personal lifestyle of people. For example, Joe Jackson claimed that the prohibition of smoking interferes with the right to personal liberty. The paper discusses the benefits and disadvantages of banning cigarettes in the United States.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), roughly 16 million individuals in the United States have smoking-related diseases. CDC's data indicate that smoking cigarettes causes diabetes, stroke, tuberculosis, heart diseases, lung diseases, and chronic bronchitis, among others. Worldwide, smoking leads to the death of more than 7 million people annually. The United States is the primary victim of smoking since it results in about 480,000 deaths every year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). The increased health concerns from the smoking of cigarettes have also led to increased expenditure in the healthcare sector. The federal and state governments are spending billions of dollars to treat people with smoking-associated diseases and enact tobacco prevention programs. Therefore, the prohibition of smoking would help save the lives of many people and also reduce the cost incurred in the healthcare industry.

Additionally, the World Health Organization (WHO) asserts that cigarette smoke has detrimental environmental effects. The WHO enacted the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to address the environmental concerns linked to the use of tobacco. Who argues that the cultivation of tobacco causes environmental pollution after the application of fertilizers, pesticides, and other regulators? These pollutants can later pollute water around the tobacco-growing areas. Also, tobacco industries emit about 300,000 tons of waste containing nicotine every year. The increased consumption of tobacco means that the levels of waste are likely to continue rising in the coming years. Another cause of environmental pollution is cigarette filters WHO estimates that 175,200 tons of non-biodegradable filters are discarded into the environment every year. The cigarette smoke also leads to the emission of approximately 5,200,000 tons of methane and 2,600,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year (The World Health Organization, 2020). These environmental hazards can have a long-term negative impact because it result in climate change. Thus, the banning of cigarettes would help prevent such environmental hazards.

Furthermore, lung cancer as a product of smoking cigarettes is the deadliest disease in the world today causing millions of money to be lost. Since the manufacturers and the sellers have engineered the cigarettes to produce an inhalable smoke following the coming up of flue curing in which the tobacco leaf is heated during fermentation therefore preserving the sugars that were naturally present in the leaf. Upon the burning of the sugars, there is production of acids which in turn lowers the pH of the smoke making it less harsh and therefore inhalable down to the lungs causing lung cancer. In the world today it costs millions of money in the treatment of lung cancer which in turn stagnates the economic growth of the country since a lot of money would be spent in the treatment of the affected ted individuals. Banning cigarettes hence helps in the prevention of the diseases such as lung cancer reducing the number of deaths in the health sector and also improving the economic growth and the development of the country.

The other disadvantage is that the cigarette industry the human civilization through the sponsoring of the “decoy” which has corrupted science in the world and the interference of the research sector. As we look at the media, newspapers, and magazines their dependency factor towards tobacco for revenues shows a clear reason why they have been reluctant to publish critiques of tobacco and smoking cigarettes. Based on research where we find out the Philip Morris genuinely paid its insurance provider Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CIGNA) to inspect the health information sent to the corporate employees showing how much the health sector is restricted on the type of information sent to them. However many companies producing tobacco have interfered with and exploited various institutions including the American Medical Association, the American Law Institutes, sports organizations, the US Congress, and Hollywood among others. Again America’s US Navy made some efforts to have a smoking-free zone in the country in 1986 which was successfully opposed by the cigarette manufacturers. Banning of cigarettes thus prevents the violation of such human rights and reduces the number of threats in various sectors.

On the contrary, research shows that there has been an improved version of smoking cigarettes that is the use of e-cigarettes. This has been carried out for the past ten years by a substantial minority group of cigarette smokers. They argue that electronic (e-) cigarettes are a reduced version of smoke since these devices avoid burning tobacco and prevent the production of smoke. This will further help in the reduction of lung cancers in the world, and further help in the reduction of the number of deaths caused by lung cancer. Also, e-cigarettes produce much lower levels of toxins and carcinogens than normal cigarettes and are 95% less harmful than usual. The ban lifting of cigarettes is thus more appropriate than the ban itself since it creates a conducive environment for smokers and also lifts up the economic growth and the development of a country that has this advanced form of smoking. Therefore the government need not ban the sale of cigarettes but in turn, adopt the e-cigarette

Similarly, Saloojee & Dagli (2000) argue that the manufacture and sale of tobacco generate revenue. Saloojee & Dagli argue that cigarette manufacturers like British American Tobacco (BAT) and Philip Morris dominate the global market. They also note that cigarette exports from the United States have increased by 260% since 1986 (Saloojee & Dagli, 2000). The data confirms that countries are making huge profits from the sale of cigarettes. The export revenue is later used to finance social development programs like building roads and improving the healthcare sector. Furthermore, the government generates revenue from taxing businesses that manufacture and sell tobacco. As such, banning cigarettes would reduce the revenue earned. Also, it would lead to unemployment of the millions of people who are employed in these industries.

Moreover, probation for the use of tobacco would interfere with the rights of people. Musicians such as Joe Jackson articulate that people should be given the privilege of making choices as long as they are adults. This includes deciding whatever they want to consume. Jackson notes that people decide to smoke for specific reasons, and thus prohibition the use of tobacco violates their rights (Jackson, 2004). In this, persons who are passively affected by cigarette smoke should avoid visiting the smoking zones. The move would ensure that only cigarette smokers feel the effects of smoking cigarettes.

Based on the above literature review, the government should not consider banning cigarettes. Instead, the government needs to endeavor to increase the smoking zones to protect non-smokers. Besides, the government should create and enact stricter rules that regulate the manufacture, sale, and consumption of tobacco. Firmer laws would discourage smoking by underage persons. The regulations should govern the operations of the cigarette manufacturers, including how they dispose of the nicotine waste. Also, the government should increase cigarette taxation. An increase in taxation would raise the prices of cigarettes, thus reducing the number of smokers. The policy would also protect the economy of the United States since companies, bars, and pubs could continue selling cigarettes. The probation of the use of cigarettes would also infringe on the rights of people. The Constitution of the United States protects the rights and freedoms of every citizen, and therefore everyone should be permitted to make their choices.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Fast Facts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm.

Jackson, J. (2004). Take two: John Britton and Joe Jackson on smoking bans. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/03/publichealth.comment.

Saloojee, Y., & Dagli, E. (2000). Tobacco industry tactics for resisting public policy on health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78, 902-910.

The World Health Organization. (2020). The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacture, and consumption. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/93/12/15-152744/en/.