Why should smoking be banned in the restaurants?
Recently we had a big discussion at school about smoking in the restaurants. Therefore, I decided to express my opinion.
Smoking is known in the world from the time immemorial. Tobacco was discovered in America 6 000 b. C, originally used in religious ceremonies and as medicament, nevertheless after 5 000 years people found the effects of tobacco when it is inhaled. And then the smoking was discovered. Maybe also because of this long lasting history, ban on smoking is one of the most discussed and controversial topics all over the world. The mankind is divided into several groups, such as staunch non-smokers, addicted smokers, persons who do not care and others. All these people together create an environment full of debates, arguments and opinions, where everybody is defending their right and trying to enforce their requirements.
The aim of our essay is to provide important facts, why should be smoking banned in the restaurants. We mainly concentrate on problems related with health, which means not only active smoking, but also passive smoking that is more important for our topic. Then we provide other disadvantages of smoking in public places, particularly in restaurants, such as harming air pollution and rising global warming, harming and annoying other people and also problems with non-smoking restaurants. In the next part we are going to have a look at electronic cigarettes, discuss if these are less harmful and if this can be some way of solution. We will also approximate not only the current situation related with ban on smoking in the Czech Republic, but also in some other countries in Europe, compare and contrast the laws and regulations. And finally, in the last part, we are going to focus on the economic view of this problem, discuss the possible outcomes and consequences arising from the ban on smoking.
Why should smoking be banned?
There are three the most important facts about smoking for us: Second-hand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease and lung and bronchial infections. Smoke-free laws protect employees and customers from harms of second-hand smoke at workplace. Smoke-free laws help reduce number of smoking people by providing them public environments free from temptation to smoke.
There is no doubt that smoking is unhealthy and harmful for our bodies. But what are the biggest threats for the smokers? Cancer Nicotine from the cigarette causes two immediate effects: an increase in our heartbeat rate and rise in blood pressure. This continues to strain put on the heart. It is difficult for our heart because it has to pump harder to have enough oxygen. In the long run smoking shows as increasing in the blood cholesterol. As consequence, risk of having a heart attack is higher. Smoker can increase the risk of getting lung cancer by 900 percent (10 times).
Less known effect of smoking is connected with fertility. Studies found that 38 percent of non-smokers conceived a child in their first cycle compared with 28 percent of smokers. In addition, smoking causes also male impotence. Spontaneous abortion is also increased in smoking women. There is no evidence that passive smoking is more harmful than active smoking. It is clear that both types of smoking are dangerous, but now let’s have a look at the passive smoking, as non-smokers suffer innocently and unwillingly, whereas smokers chooses themselves if they will smoke and therefore suffer or not. Now we are going to concentrate on the passive smoking, because this problem is one of the most important that causes all the discussions about the ban on smoking in the restaurants and other public places.
„Don´t smoke. Smoking causes cancer. ” These statements appear everywhere but we should focus on passive smoking because, as we said in the previous part, it is the main key for accepting ban smoking laws. Passive smoking, also called second-hand smoking, is divided into 2 forms of smoke. There is side-stream smoke and mainstream smoke.
The first one is smoke from the end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar. The second one is the smoke which is exhaled by a smoker. We often think they do not differ but side-stream smoke contains more carcinogens. Even if it can seem to be impossible
People who do not smoke and only breathe smoke from cigarette take same amount of nicotine and toxic chemicals as people who smoke their cigarette!
Involuntary smoking is called human carcinogen because it causes cancer! It was proved by the US Environmental Protection Agency and by other organizations. Tobacco contains more than 250 harmful chemicals and 69 of them cause lung cancer. There is also connection between passive smoking and lymphoma, leukemia, brain tumors and other types of cancers especially breast cancer. This issue is still being studied although research has shown breast cancer do not appear so often in active smokers as in passive smokers. As far as the United States are concerned there are facts which show harm caused by second-hand smoking. There are increasing amount of deaths from heart disease and lung cancer deaths in non-smokers. Asthma-related problems are getting worse every year. Children who are exposed second-hand smoke often need breathing tubes and they have to stay in hospital longer. Unfortunately extra medical care for these problems is over $10 billion per year. In other countries there are similar research showing negative effects caused by passive smoking. There was much news related to serious health problems caused by passive smoking. Making reports public is really important to prevent these health issues. Some of them are mentioned here: Smoke from cigarette causes diseases and kill people who do not smoke. Breathing smoke can cause serious delivery problems in pregnancy or it can cause spontaneous abortion. Babies and children exposed this smoke are more likely to have death syndrome, upper respiratory, lung and ear infections. Smoke affects the heart and blood circulation which is over time dangerous because of heart attacks.
We can see, that smoking is really harmful not only for the smoker, but for everybody around. Nevertheless, there are also other aspects which support the fact, that the smoking should be banned in the restaurants.
One of the biggest problems with smoking in public places apart from health problem is that this “hobby” annoys other innocent people. “Your freedom ends where my freedom starts”. Smoking is not different from any other limitation of freedom. As well as we do not walk the streets with music loud, do not smell in the public transport, wear clothes in public, so we should not smell the cigarettes. It is really annoying when you are with your family on a special occasion in a restaurant, looking forward to eat the deliciously looking meal you have ordered and Secondhand smoke. You immediately lose flavor and want to go home. Why the man has to sit here in the restaurant and smoke? Is he so much addicted that he cannot manage to not smoke for an hour? Or if it is really hard for him, why he cannot go out and smoke outside, where is nobody who eats? It is not fair, these people are not obliged to breathe the smoke from the cigarette and suffer because of somebody else. Not only health, smoking also kills our climate. According the World Health Organization, about 1. 1 billion people worldwide smoke, and this number is expected to triple over the next 25 years. All that smoke and tobacco farming will surely have an impact on the climate. Smoking alone spews 2. 6 million tons of CO2 and 5. 2 million tons of methane into the atmosphere every year. Nevertheless, the tobacco smoke has also impact on the environment. It is said, that more than one hundred kilos of wood are needed for drying one kilo of tobacco. Moreover approximately 600 million trees are cut down every year in order to make room for tobacco plants. What is more, all those cigarette filters end up on the ground and contaminate the groundwater with nicotine and other toxic substances. We think we do not have to mention, how the litters look disgusting on the ground. Not so much interesting fact is, that the pollutant standard index (PSI) of smoke from cigarettes is 600, the PSI in a developed city is about 40, at most 100. Even in China, where pollution is relatively high, the PSI is only about 200 that is still only one third of the PSI of smoke from cigarettes.
The Pollutant Standards Index, or PSI, is a type of air quality index, which is a number used to provide the public with an easily understandable indicator of how polluted the air is. 5 Restaurants for smokers, who do not support the ban on smoking in the restaurants, say that if non-smokers don’t want to breathe the smoke, they should go to the restaurant for non – smokers. It is easy to say, but harder to find a restaurant especially for non – smokers. In bigger cities it is not such a problem, but in smaller cities and towns it is. When you have a break for lunch and you want to find a restaurant for non – smokers, sometimes it is really impossible. It is true, that nowadays some of the restaurants claim that they have “separated spaces for smokers and non – smokers”, but sometimes in reality it looks so, that there is one big room in the restaurant, one half for smokers and the second one for non – smokers. Only some of the restaurants try harder and have structurally separated rooms, which is a little bit better. Could be helpful… At last, but not least, it is said that ban on smoking in the restaurants could help smokers to smoke less. If people were allowed to smoke in public places they may not be as motivated to stop smoking as they would be with not being allowed to smoke in public areas. Why smoking shouldn’t be banned? The opposite side, who thinks, that smoking should not be banned in the restaurants, argues, that we live in a democratic state and every owner of a restaurant, or whatever has a right to decide, whether he wants to aim for non – smoking group of people, smokers or both. It is up to him; he can make up his mind, if opening a non – smoking restaurant would attract so many non – smokers that it would compensate the loss from smokers. Or would the profit be higher with separated rooms? This argument is definitely true; nevertheless we think we should prefer our health to economic interest.
Electronic cigarettes became famous during last three years. It is also called personal vaporizer. Smokers inhale nicotine vapor as they would do with normal cigarette. There are many flavors and you can also choose nicotine or nicotine free cigarette. When these cigarettes came to the market it was claimed that smoking electronic cigarettes is less dangerous. As we know nicotine causes the formation of carcinogens when it reacts with nitrous acid and most e-cigarettes is with nicotine which is inhaled also by nonsmokers. It is not required manufacturers to reveal the ingredients in e-cigarettes so we cannot surely say if e-cigarettes are health risk or not. The first research of this relatively new product was in July 2009 released by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration. This brings us many questions. Were we deceived? What happened? Do e-cigarettes have cessation effect or it is a lie? The real fact is that electronic cigarettes have not been submitted to the FDA (Food and Drug administration) for evaluation. Many manufacturers promote their product with false advertisement! There is no proof these new cigarettes are harmless. Moreover, it was revealed that e-cigarettes release carcinogens and toxic chemicals in the air. In addition they are not cessation devices. A producer try to offer a lot of flavour and for the first time it seems as really great option and adequate compensation for normal cigarettes. Unfortunately, the truth is different. 10 Next issue is regulation of this product. Should we treat them as normal tobacco products? There are many opinions in favor of regulating because it really has not been proved that e-cigarettes are safe and harmless. According to the survey from 2010 it is necessary to test e-cigarettes much more. Lack of research does not allow us to evaluate this case and summarize it. In the meantime specialists do not recommend using e-cigarettes until evidences are clear. In the Czech Republic there is a valid ban on smoking on public places, such as all institutions or hospitals. Restaurants, bars and clubs (if want to be also for smokers) must have separated spaces for smokers and non-smokers. Complete or partial ban on smoking in the restaurant is valid according to The European Commission in 26 countries of The European Union. The Czech Republic is still postponing this law. The Czech Republic is the only one country in the European Union which does not exercise any form of protection against the tobacco smoke in the restaurants. Altogether eighteen countries of the EU has a complete or almost complete ban on Electronic cigarettes. Only in the Czech Republic there does not exist any statutory regulation – not even in the time of lunch. Therefore, the Czech Republic is the only one country of the EU, where is allowed to carry on a purely smoking restaurants. 7 In 2013, there was a bill, which supposed that ban on smoking in the restaurants should have been valid from the January 2014. This should have included not only common cigarettes, but also electronic cigarettes and water pipes with a tobacco filling. Smoking could have been allowed only in the open front gardens. Even though a third of adults in the Czech Republic is smoking and almost a half of the youngsters has tried smoking, 78% of population wish to ban on smoking in the restaurants. One of the news in the protection of children and youth is no entry for people under the age of 18 into the structurally separated public places, e. g. amusement parks or airport halls, where smoking will be still allowed. Ban on smoking is valid in schools, offices, medical facilities, including outdoor spaces, freshly would be valid for example in the playgrounds. Nowadays, in 2014, there is a finally real chance that the law which would ban smoking in the restaurants and bars could be approved by the lower chamber of the Parliament. In a survey from this year 135 of Members of Parliament have responded and the majority approves this law. Specifically: with the introduction of this ban do not agree 53 Members of Parliament, 5 of them have still not decided and 77 of them – which mean 57% - would vote for this law. One part of the Members of the Parliament arguments with the protection of public health, and the other part does not want this interest to limit the owners of restaurants and bars. In their opinion, the complete ban is a significant intervention into the right of ownership of the owner of the restaurant and dividing restaurant into two parts – for smokers and non-smokers – would be sufficient. The law would be applied only on the restaurants, not bars. But neither a success in The Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic means that the Czech Republic will belong to the states, where the smokers must be contented with a reserved place in front of the restaurant. The law must be approved also by the senators, where is a lot of smokers. There is also a question, whether the president Miloš Zeman would join his signature to the law, as he is a passionate smoker. There were involved 8 488 adults and 2 576 of them where smokers. Ban on smoking in Europe.
Every country has a special rules, regulations or laws for smoking, it differs from country to country and the legislation changes every day, so we chose only some of the countries, whose regulations are interesting and the Czech Republic could be inspired by them. Belgium – ban on smoking in workplaces, schools, restaurant, including bars and casinos 14 Ban on smoking in the Belgium has an interesting development:
- January 2006: Smoking banned in the workplaces
- January 2007: Ban on smoking in the restaurants and bars, except these, which serve “light” meals, such as a pizza. Also small bars were not included in the regulations
- September 2008: Smoking is not allowed in the schools
- January 2010: general ban on smoking, which included all types of bars was debatable, finally was mitigated on a set of regulations, which relate to bars only when they serve food
- July 2011: There was a thought, that the discrimination between the bars could disrupt economic competition, and therefore in the July the partial exception must have ended. Nowadays, in the Belgium, there is a ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos without any exceptions. Complete ban on smoking also in all the trains (wagons for smokers already do not exist) and train stations. Buses and trams are also non-smoking
Ireland was the first country in the world, where the ban on smoking was introduced in all closed public places such as bars, restaurants, hospitals, public transport. Furthermore, some of the public buildings have “Smoking Gazebo” in front of the exits of shops for smokers. The ban was introduced ten years ago, on 29th Mars 2004.
There is a ban on smoking in schools, hospitals and public transport, including trains or buses and also bus stops and train stations. From 1st January 2011 there is a ban in all public interiors. There are covered also bars, cafes, restaurants and discos. Nevertheless closed spaces for smokers are allowed.
Since from 1st January 2009 there is a ban on smoking in all public places including bars and restaurants. But it is not a complete ban – restaurants and cafes which are smaller than 50m2 have to decide, whether they will be for smokers or only nonsmokers and have to get it know visibly. Larger ones have to be for non-smokers or have divided the restaurant for smokers. In other case, there are high fines – 1 000 Euros for customer and 10 000 Euros for the owner.
Our closest neighbor has similar regulations as we in the Czech Republic. There is ban on smoking in all public places – hospitals, cultural and sport places, schools, bus stops, airports and railway stations. In the restaurants, where people can order a meal, the space must be divided into two parts – one for smokers and the second one for non-smokers.
Economic effect of smoking ban
Smoking ban can prevent people from exposure of second-hand smoke but owners of restaurant have worries that such laws will harm their business. There are argues that such laws will result in decreasing number of customers who go to restaurants and bars. Therefore, revenue will decline and it can also increase unemployment. In fact, numerous scientific and economic analyses show that smoking bans do not hurt owners, employment or profit of restaurant. Moreover, some analyses have shown there is no affect at all and sometimes we can see positive results. One problem of studying smoking bans is that it is really difficult to measure the ultimate impact of such ban. If we want to measure smoking ban accurately the data must be collected longer than one year after a ban takes effect. For example research in the USA (Centre for disease control and prevention) has shown that smoke-free laws do not have adverse effect on economic situation restaurant or bars during past two decades. The states that were chosen never had a state-wide law prohibiting smoking; on contrary they had many communities in which laws prohibited smoking in restaurant and bars. Results were clear. In all states there was no important association between smoke laws and employment. This study was done on 216 cities and 9 states during 11 years. Therefore, we would expect no impact from smoke-free law on revenues in restaurants and bars. There were numerous researches in this area. We can mention International Agency for Research on Cancer that came to the same results. This analysis finally has shown small positive effect of smoke-free laws exist. Another study was published in the journal Tobacco Control in 2003 and it concluded: „All of the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in second-hand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be and adverse economic impact. “
Next evidence is that in the USA there are states where these policies work. For instance Washington, New York, California, Masachusetts or Florida are in favour of smoke-free laws. CDC Foundation also offers a lot of interesting videos where owners of restaurants and bar talk about their business in connection with smoke-free laws. CDC Foundation help the Centre for Disease Control and prevention do more and faster.
In the workplace Second-hand smoke is widespread more than we think. In our workplace we can often be exposed with second-hand smoke. We should pay attention to workplace due to many hours spent at work. Smoking in the workplace causes destruction not only to employers but also to employees. With smoke-free laws at workplace it can be attained healthier environment and higher productivity. Therefore it can result in decreasing labor costs, lower insurance premiums and lower maintenance expenses such as cloths and carpets.
There is a lot of research and we should also listen to people´s mind. Should smoking be banned in public places? 85 % respondents answered.
YES and 14 % said NO! YES Smoking in bad places only makes people who don't smoke angry. And I'm sorry that I don't want tar in my lungs, but it should be banned. If they ban smoking, smokers will smoke less often making them resist the temptation easier which will help them quit. All in all, it should be banned for everybody's good. Smoking should be banned in all public places. If people wish to smoke, they should be required to do so in the privacy of their own homes. This may sound mean, but the fact is that secondhand smoke has been proven to be dangerous, and the people who are inhaling it have no control over the air around them. When what you do infringes on the rights and safety of others, it should be illegal.
NO: Smokers aren’t going to quit because of a ban. Dining establishments, theme parks, stores, and other businesses should all have designated smoking sections to accommodate people who like to smoke. Passing laws to outlaw smoking in public places is not going to convince people who want to smoke to stop smoking. Private property open to public should be left to owners to decide. Bars, eating establishments, etc. (The debate is from debate.org)
Decisive fact is that public smoking is not just detrimental to the person who smokes but it is also harmful to people nearby. Smoking is negative externality for society. Therefore, it is necessary government to intervene. Government is regulator and if costs exceed benefits the situation must be changed. People should understand that this regulation is step forward. There are many parks and streets covered by cigarettes on the floor. Normally we can see children playing in the playground and everywhere there are cigarette butts. Many restaurants are smoke-filled that our eyes burn and clothes smell.
Do we really want this? With smoke free laws our country can become a better place and our lifestyle can be improved.
We have clearly defined the effects of smoking. Smoking is harmful in every way. We believe that smoke-free law can fundamentally decrease amount of smoking people. Even though people know facts about health and financial expenses, it can seem they do not care. Every day we are surrounded by warnings how smoking kills. We often read a lot of articles how dangerous smoking can be. We can watch many people die of cancer but the addiction still persists. So, how can we rid of this awful habit?
Smoking ban is solution.
Content avaiable in other languages
Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay
This is a ban smoking in public places essay. It is an example of an essay where you have to give your opinion as to whether you agree or disagree.
The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.
It is always a good idea to present a balanced essay which presents both sides of the argument, but you must always make it very clear what your opinion is and which side of the argument you support.
Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay
Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.
Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke where they wish.
However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sites in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas .
In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.
This essay is well organized and presented.
The introduction is clear - note how it follows the ban smoking in public places essay question - it paraphrases the information in order to introduce the topic and the argument.
The argument against a ban on smoking in public places is presented first. It is made clear that it is not the authors opinion by the topic sentence:
"Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons".
And also by the use of the word 'they' to refer to the opponents.
The writer then clearly shows they are moving on to the other argument which is their own (and it has clearly been stated in the thesis that this is their argument):
"However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban".
In this paragraph, 'they' is dropped because it is now the writers opinion.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.
Write at least 250 words.