Smoking is one of the main social problems affected all classes and both genders, different age groups and nationalities. Smoking has become increasingly common among the students and adults affected smokers and non-smokers. The main danger of smoking and importance of strict anti-smoking laws is explained by a negative impact of on health and air conditions. Bowser (2006) states that “Ohio’s stricter ban has qualified, but signatures are still being counted on the second measure” (p. 28). The examples of the states which passed smoking bans prove benefits and advantages of this policy for community. Thesis Smoking bans should be passed in Ohio because of increasing number of smokers per year and increasing number of deaths caused by smoking-related diseases.
Smoking bans should be passed in Ohio because smoking represents a real danger for health conditions of the majority of the population. Deaths from lung cancer in Ohio increased from around 10,000 a year in the early 1970s to more than 20,000, since when there has been a slow decline. Given the popularity of smoking- at its peak just after the Second World War, some 65 % of men in Ohio smoked- it is not surprising that the discovery of the link between cigarettes and lung cancer has had a major impact on public life and personal behavior. According to the doctors report smoking increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, lungs cancer and miscarriage. Studies have revealed that over 400,000 people die each year because of diseases caused by smoking. According to the statistical data, the rate of smoking has increased by 30 % during 1993-1997 amongst the college students. Studies show that the measures which can be taken by the colleges authorities in order to reduce the level of smoking amongst the young students. Hanson and Logue (1998) indicate that:
“According to a recent report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the “sidestream” or “passive” smoke from cigarettes–so-called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)–is responsible annually for approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths, between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory ailments in children, and approximately 37,000 heart disease deaths” (p. 1163).
Experts believe that taking preventive measures is better than abrupt prohibition from smoking which can cause the opposite effect on the students. The proportion of women smokers remains fairly steady just above 40 per cent as did the tendency of manual workers to smoke more than professionals.
Smoking bans should be passed in Ohio because smoking violates rights of those people who do not smoke and involuntary inhale smoke. The discovery of the dangers of ‘passive smoking’ in the 1980s marked the third phase of the tobacco wars and a decisive shift in the anti- smoking campaign. The first indication of this problem came in a paper from Japan in 1981; by 1986 the US Surgeon-General noted that some thirteen studies from five different countries had confirmed an increased risk. The resulting ban on smoking on US domestic air flights and the attendant controversy put the passive smoking issue decisively on the public agenda. The Froggat Committee, an independent scientific committee on smoking and health, estimated that passive smoking caused an increased risk of lung cancer of between 10 and 30 % and recommended restrictions on smoking in workplaces and in public. The case against passive smoking gathered momentum through the 1990s. In 1992 the US Environmental Protection Agency declared ‘environmental tobacco smoke’ (ETS) a carcinogen, or cancer-causing agent. In 1997 the California Environmental Protection Agency added low birth weight babies, cot death, childhood asthma and nasal sinus cancer to the list of conditions caused by ETS. “Studies suggest, for example, that prenatal or childhood passive exposure to parents’ smoking significantly increases the risk of childhood and adult cancers (12-15), and nonsmoking spouses of smokers have an increased risk of lung and nasal sinus cancers compared to spouses of nonsmokers” (Brinkman p. 689). Meta-analyses confirmed increased risks of lung cancer (24 %) and coronary heart disease (23 %). Public policy measures such as restrictions on smoking in various public places and stiff excise tax increases seem to be the favorite methods of a much more vocal antismoking movement. Smoking bans in Ohio will be an important step to protect rights of the nonsmoker. For instance, even though cigarette sales were declining in the early 1980s, this decline was far too little and was taking far too long to satisfy the antismoking forces. In this case, smoking bans is one of the most effective measures because historical examples how that nonsmoker rights can be protected only by strict state policies and relegations.
Smoking bans should be passed in Ohio because smoking increases medical costs (smoking –related diseases and medical insurance) and has a negative impact on organizational resources. Researches demonstrate that secondhand tobacco smoke harms computer hardware–requiring more frequent cleaning of the machines, a higher repair ratio, and so on. The evidence suggests persons in data processing may wish to ban smoking from computer rooms, as much for the “health” of the hardware and software as for that of employees: chips run hotter than normal, disc drives crash, machines require more service, and other problems occur. Around the United States are various businesses that have seen costs drop sharply when smoking is totally banned. Some hotels and motels, free standers and chains, are banning smoking entirely, or setting aside a block of nonsmoking rooms. For instance, Lyndon Sanders runs “Non-Smokers Inn” in Dallas, Texas. For some employers, it costs $2,400 per year to employ a smoker. Medical costs and low productivity level is another problem caused by smoking. Statistical results show that almost one-fifth of all U.S. deaths can be traced to cigarette smoke or 375,000 deaths. “CDC (2002) estimates that total expenditures of $861.9 million in 2002 were allocated to tobacco control from national and state sources in the United Sates, or $3.16 per capita” (cited Marlow 2006, p. 573) . This figure does not include the approximate $30 billion annual cost of the tobacco itself. Smoking wastes 7 % of a smoker’s time on the job. Each smoker, therefore, costs an employer $650 extra in insurance and cleanup costs. Whatever the actual figure, these deaths represent an annual loss of life greater than World War I, the Korean conflict, and the Vietnam conflict combined.
Researchers estimate that smoking is responsible for fully half of all mortality caused by fire (1,500 lives lost per year, 4,000 injuries), that is, deaths in apartment fires caused by smoking equal 38 %; hotel and motel fire deaths from smoking equal 32 %; mobile homes, 23 %; residential, 21 %; and private dwellings, 17 %. Researchers estimate every nonsmoker pays $100 annually for medical care for smoking -induced illness (paid largely through taxes and health insurance premiums) (Brinkman et al, p. 689). From a typical nonsmoker’s view the costs of passive smoking are high. To a typical smoker, the costs of heavy-handed regulation are unacceptable. To a majority of U.S. companies (and more than one-third of government agencies), restrictions or bans on smoking are based upon cost-benefit analysis that shows smoking costs the employer money in terms of employee health and productivity. Many other costs of smoking at work can be calculated–cleaning up offices (ash trays, desk burns, soiled drapes, dirty air filters, carpet damage). Down time for smokers (more frequent breaks and longer breaks) is discussed in later chapters. Just the “routine” of smoking is a time waster (tamping, lighting up, dropping the ashes). Perhaps the highest cost, other than loss of human life and health, of course, is that of confrontational and adversarial relationships that have become characteristic of the smoking /nonsmoking debate in recent years. These facts suggest that smoking bans will benefit both employees and employers, increase productivity and improve health of workers (Smoke-Free Businesses in Ohio 2006).
Smoking bans passed in Ohio will have a positive impact on young generations and reduce a negative impact of advertising and promotion campaigns. The high rate of smoking among college students can be explained by aggressive advertising and promotional activities aimed to increase the size of the market. According to Albaum et al (2002) “While levels of teenage smoking have recently shown a slight decrease, high-school smoking rates are more than one-fourth higher than in 1991, and the percentage of frequent high-school smokers has risen approximately 32% during the same time period” (p. 50). For many decades tobacco ads have displayed attractive people smoking-obviously to link good looks with smoking or the use of other tobacco products. There was a time when smoking was seen as sexy or glamorous. The glamorous ads casting handsome and beautiful models, actually tempts the youngsters to smoke. Tobacco industry focuses on sales promotion more than any other industry in the world. Companies spend a huge amount of investment to reach adolescents. Adolescents, of 18-24 years, become the main target market for the tobacco industry. The companies distribute free cigarettes outside the concerts and college clubs in order to attract more and more people towards their brands. The industry has also involved the youngster in the promotional activities. These kinds of aggressive promotion activities have drawn a huge number of younger lots to smoking.
Promotional activities in bars and night clubs were started during 1980s. The level of tobacco consumption among students was indistinct, but the some field researches show that nearly every college student was involved in those promotional activities during 1990s. It has been predicted that the college students will become main consumers of tobacco in the next few years. The tobacco companies launch their promotional campaign mostly in the urban localities, trying to trap the young consumers through various advertising medium and techniques. Following Ohio’s Senator Eric Fingerhut “it’s much easier to get things done on the state level, because there are fewer people and competing interests to navigate on any issue” (Kaufman, p. 66). In this case, even the students who don’t have enough exposure to the bars and night clubs can be influenced by the heavy advertising by different brands. A number of significant anti-tobacco laws have been enacted at the state level over the last eight years, which attempt to control teen access to cigarettes and to place restrictions on smoking in public places. Smoking is still perceived by many youth as “adult” behavior and a “rite of passage into manhood.” Long years of smoking mean the addiction is more severe and the habit more ingrained–thus more difficult to break. At the local level, a number of barriers to more effective implementation and enforcement of tobacco control laws were identified by the respondents. In contrast, a number of nonsmokers added strong commentary about banning or restricting smoking in the workplace and passive, secondhand smoke (House’s Own Smoke-Filled Room p. A01).
Smoking bans should be passed in Ohio because smoking has a negative impact on air quality and pollution. According to statistical results, the rural benzene concentration is around 0.5 ppb, while the normal range of urban concentrations is 2-10 ppb. This means that the range of daily benzene intake varies by at least a factor of ten, from a few tens to a few hundreds of ?g. At the low end of this range the atmospheric intake would be dominated by that from food, while at the high end it would exceed that due to food, and be similar to that due to smoking 20 cigarettes per day. A large number of gaseous and particulate air pollutants are produced by tobacco combustion. Of course, the exposure of a smoker is very high compared to a non-smoker, but a smoker’s exposure is voluntary, whereas a non-smoker’s is not. Of the more than 4500 compounds found in tobacco smoke, 50 are known or suspected to be carcinogenic. Conventionally, the emissions are classified into mainstream (MTS), sidestream (STS) and environmental (ETS) tobacco smoke (Brinkman et al, p. 689). Mainstream emissions, formed during active puffing, are sucked directly from the end of the cigarette into the mouth; burn temperatures are up to 1000 °C, so thermal NOx is formed, as well as HCN (hydrogen cyanide) and N-nitrosamines (carcinogenic). Most of the components are generated by a combination of pyrolysis and distillation in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere.
Brinkman et al (2002) indicate that “Indoor benzene concentrations are, respectively, about 50% and 69% higher in smokers’ homes than in the homes of nonsmokers” (p. 689). Very high concentrations (around 1010 per cm3 of evolved gas) of particles (mode diameter around 0.5 ?m) are produced. Although these are serious pollutants, they are only inhaled by the smoker. Inhalation of ETS is colloquially known as passive smoking induce effects ranging from eye watering (tearing), increased coughing and phlegm production, allergic reactions through lung cancer to death. There is also evidence for reduced lung function development in children, increased asthma incidence, increased rates of hospitalisation from bronchitis and pneumonia. One study showed that around 17% of lung cancers among non-smokers may be attributed to ETS exposure during childhood. Smoking naturally raises the exhaled concentrations of many substances. Smoking bans will reduce air pollution and improve quality of indoor and outdoor air.
The facts mentions above prove that smoking bans should be passed in Ohio in order to promote healthy working environment and reduce pollution. Smoking bans will reduce a threat of cancer and diseases caused by smoking. They will protect those people who do not smoke and try to avoid negative impact of smoking on their health. Smoking bans will have a positive impact on economic recourses reducing costs spent on medical insurance and improve productivity. As the most important, they will protect young citizens from negative impact of cigarettes advertising campaigns. Smoking bans will be a part of general policy against pollution and environmental degradation and will help to protect air from contamination.