Smoking is a health hazard, but we can not say that people are not allowed to smoke. There are many health issues related to smoking but smokers make the choice to smoke and no one can change their choice except the government. Smokers have made the choice to smoke and believe they have the right to smoke in public venues like pubs and clubs. By smoking in public places though the smoke they exhale is passed onto other people and has effects on them as well. The aim of this essay is to provide an argument on both sides of the spectrum. Solutions also need to be found so that everyone has equal rights rather than taking away the rights from one group and giving them to another.
One of the major problems faced by non-smokers in a pub or club is passive smoking. Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Short-term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. The long-term effects of smoking are Cancer of Lungs, Emphysema, and Chronic bronchitis, shortness of breath, cough and respiratory infections and cancer of the larynx. These problems are very real and smokers must realise what problems they are getting themselves into when they start smoking.
Smokers are prevented from smoking in many public venues public venues. This is a discriminatory act against a habitual activity. This is unfair to smokers as they have to go outside to smoke and in cases of extreme weather that is just not possible. Smokers should not be disadvantaged just because they smoke, once they are addicted they have very little choice whether they smoke or not. Smokers have a right to smoke, the government being the only body that can take away this right, and it is only fair that they should have this right.
The government though will not do this, as it would mean a loss of revenue through the taxation of cigarettes. Cigarettes are heavily taxed and if the government introduced laws that smokers are not allowed to smoke in any public places they would lose millions in revenue. Mr Krelle argued, That tobacco excises, which currently deliver around $6 billion to the federal government each year. The government would not give up that kind of money considering they only had a two billion dollar surplus this year. Many business will also lose revenue because people are not allowed to smoke in their pub or club. This will lead to a decrease in profit made by these places and also less people coming to the business because they are not allowed to smoke.
An advantage of preventing smokers from smoking in public areas is that it would reduce the amount of passive smoking. This would lead to a decrease in heart and lung disease in non-smokers and be very beneficial to the government in reducing medical costs in the long-term. The government would not risk this though because the national prevalence of adult smoking has now fallen to 22% In an election year that 22% could be crucial for a government to stay in power. No government is going to give up winning an election to prevent smoking in public areas, its just not worth the risk to politicians.
Passive smoking is a problem for the people that work in pubs and clubs. They are exposed to second hand smoke that causes many diseases. Unfortunately for employees they have no choice but to work in these conditions and have no means of escaping the smoke from
A possible solution would be to have certain pubs and clubs that are for non-smokers. This would mean that smokers would be allowed in but would not be allowed to smoke inside. Alternatively have normal pubs and clubs but have warnings out the front for non-smokers that outline the health issues involved with passive smoking. This would mean that any non-smoker in one of these pubs and clubs would be there by choice and would have no one to blame for any effects of passive smoking.
Another solution would be to offer effective ventilation. In many pubs and clubs, they have only one source for heating and cooling. If they have a smokers and a non-smokers section the smoke would drift between the two because it goes through the same air-conditioning. So in effect having a non-smokers area in a restaurant is pointless unless separate ventilation for the two areas is available. This would mean that the smoke from the cigarettes did not reach the non-smoking patrons and thus cutting down any passive smoking that might be taking place.
I think all I have to do now is add a conclusion but you might say different.