Introduction and topic
background
Smoking is one of the habits that have been at the centre of
controversy in recent times. Many studies have been conducted to establish the
safety of the habit with most results indicating that there is a connection
between smoking and certain ailments such as lung cancer (McNabb and Hearns,
2005). Further studies indicate that smoking as a habit not only affects the
smokers themselves but also those around them- or the passive smokers. Passive
smokers tend to be affected by the habit despite the fact that they may have
chosen to be non smokers. This therefore forms the rationale for the control of
the habit with most governments around the world restricting smoking in public.
Some governments in the developed world have even gone as far as imposing a
total ban on smoking as a whole (Singer-Vine, 2012). This paper covers findings
of a survey conducted to establish the extent to which the public supports the
total ban on smoking. It focuses on the dangers of the habit to both smokers
and non smokers as well as the challenges of imposing a partial ban.
Methodology
Information for this study was collected through primary research.
Semi structured questionnaires were used to collect views from the public on
the debate on the smoking ban. This design of questionnaire was settled on in
order to make it easier for respondents to provide answers while also allowing
them to provide additional explanations to their answers. A total of 60
questionnaires were distributed. 55 duly completed questionnaires were
collected out of which 50 were found to be useful for use in the paper. The
questionnaires were administered personally with respondents pick through
random sampling out of a population comprised of students, faculty and support
staff in the institution.
Results
The distribution on the basis of whether the respondents were
smokers is as shown below:
90% of the respondents were non smokers.
The distribution of gender is as illustrated below:
Statistics on the age of the respondents is as shown below:
80% of the respondents asserted that smoking does have an adverse
effect on people’s health with most of those who answered to the affirmative
quoting respiratory conditions and lung cancer as among the most common
conditions caused by exposure to smoke.
With the general consensus that smoking does affect people’s health,
the questionnaire then sought to gravitate towards the core of the study by
seeking to establish whether non smokers get affected through exposure to
smoke. The findings were as illustrated below:
|
Strongly Agree
|
25
|
50%
|
|
Agree
|
15
|
30%
|
|
Neutral
|
2
|
4%
|
|
Disagree
|
7
|
14%
|
|
Strongly Disagree
|
1
|
2%
|
80% of the respondents agreed that smoking does affect members of
the public, especially the non smokers, negatively. Many of them maintained
that the smoke released into the atmosphere can then be inhaled by passive
smokers who may even be at a higher risk due to the fact that they have no
filters to protect them. This forms the rationale for regulatory frameworks for
restriction of smoking in public places and total ban on smoking.
60% of the respondents agreed that total ban on smoking was a
satisfactory measure in mitigating the effects of smoking. 25% contended that
these measures were inadequate while another 15% took the view that the smoking
ban was inadequate. The 15% took the view that tobacco manufacturers should be
forced to take greater responsibility over the adverse health effects of
smoking in addition to the smoking ban. Some also expressed reservations that a
total ban on smoking fails to consider the needs of those who take smoking as a
lifestyle issue. They held the opinion the ban could potentially lead to the
sprouting of an underground economy where cigarettes are made available to
smokers.
The restriction of smoking in public places was proposed as the most
effective way of protecting the public apart from using total smoking bans.
Such restrictions would see some special zones separated as smoking zones to
allow smokers to smoke without being a cause of concern for the public.
However, many respondents expressed reservations that such measures would be
difficult to enforce with non compliance likely to be prevalent where
enforcement agencies fail to play their role effectively.
The smoking ban is likely to affect cigarette manufacturers, tobacco
farmers, hotels and restaurants, and specialized retailers among others.
Players in the supply chain of cigarette production would be affected
negatively while the impact on hotel and restaurants would be mixed with some
respondents holding that the hotels would be seen as safer for the average user
and therefore good for them. On the whole, the smoking ban enjoyed high levels
of support with respondents asserting that a smoke free world was safer, better
and fresher.
Discussion
of results
The road to the total ban on smoking has been long and arduous
pitting private interest against the advocates of public interest. Concerns
over the negative effects of smoking on health are not new to the existing body
of knowledge. In fact, numerous studies have been conducted that have been able
to prove that persistent smoking raises the chances of people contracting
cancer significantly (Bojanic, 1996). Early concerns over the impact of smoking
on health were raised when it became apparent that cases of lung cancer and
respiratory ailments were prevalent among heavy smokers (Jochelson, 2006).
These concerns transformed public opinion about smoking from adoration,
suspicion and finally to rejection. The efforts of public health officers and
lobbyists have proved to be effective with governments around the world either
restricting smoking in public or putting a total ban on the habit (Jochelson,
2006). There has however had been the tradeoffs between respect for people’s
freedom to act as they please and the need to ensure that their actions do not
affect third parties. Smoking bans may in many occasions be interpreted as an
affront to the individual rights of smokers who may not have access to their
treasured products (McNabb and Hearns, 2005). On the other hand, the need to
protect the public from the adverse effect of passive smoking is undeniable.
The role played by the major players in the industry has also been
significant with wealthy multinationals often lobbying for the legislation to
impose such bans to be set aside. Such industry actions have also been
accompanied by the offering of separate solutions such as the designation of
special smoking zones in every public facility in order to ensure the total ban
is not imposed (Dearlove, Bialous and Glantz, 2002). However, the
implementation of partial bans has been found to be largely ineffective and
this has prompted governments in most of the developed world to impose a total
ban on smoking.
The economic impact of the ban can be assessed both at the industry
level and the economy level. The ban is likely to drive players in the supply
chain of cigarette production out of business with the product being declared
harmful to the public (Tomlin, 2012). Manufacturers and tobacco farmers among
others are likely to feel the brunt of it. The economy is likely to lose
revenues coming from the taxes collected from the sale of cigarettes. However,
it is expected that with the ban on smoking, the government is likely to spend
less in public health expenditures in a saving that is likely to offset the
lost revenues (Tomlin, 2012). Moreover, it is expected that the investors whose
operations will have been made unfeasible by the ban will invest in other areas
and continue their positive contribution to the economy.
There are however concerns that since smoking is a habit, persistent
smokers are likely to demand for the product despite the ban (Singer-Vine,
2012). This could lead to the sprouting of an underground economy dealing in
illegal cigarettes. This has indeed been the case where there is demand for
products that have been outlawed as is the case with narcotics. The successful
creation of a smoke free environment should therefore ensure that the emergence
of such an underground economy is frustrated in addition to keeping cigarettes
off the shelves.
Conclusion
The paper finds that there is overwhelming support for the
imposition of a smoking ban with only a small section of the public viewing the
measure as excessive. It is generally accepted that smoking harms both the
smokers and the non smokers and this forms the rationale for restriction on
smoking habits. The support for the smoking ban is also enhanced by analyses
that indicate that the economic impact of the same is likely to be positive in
the long run. A smoke free economy would see governments spending less money in
public health in a saving that offsets any revenue collections from the
cigarette production supply chains. The overwhelming support indicated in
various publications has been reinforced by the findings of this report. The
danger of an emergence of an underground economy is a concern and this report
recommends research on the operations of such economies with an aim to create
systems that would prevent such an economy from emerging and rendering the
gains of the smoking ban useless.
References
Dearlove, J.V., Bialous, S.A. , Glantz ,
S.A.
Jochelson, K., 2006. Smoke-free legislation
and mental health units: the challenges ahead. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 189, pp. 479-480
McNabb, J., Hearns, N., 2005. The smoking
ban in hospitality: a cross border perspective from Ireland
Singer-Vine, J., 2012. Study supports health benefits of smoking ban. (Online) Available
at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745760276798609.html (Accessed 30 April
2012)
Tomlin, J., 2012. The economic impact of smoking bans. (Online) Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/economic-impact-bars-restaurants-opinions-contributors-smoking-ban.html
(Accessed 30 April 2012)
Appendix: Questionnaire
1.
Do you smoke?
Yes…………………………….. No…………………………..
2.
Does smoking have any adverse
health effects?
Yes…………………………….. No…………………………..
Explanatory comment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3.
Do you agree with the
assertions that smoking affects both the smokers and non smokers?
Strongly agree………............
Agree………………………..
Neutral………………………
Disagree……………………..
Strongly disagree……………
4.
In your opinion, how would you
rate the government approach to pursue a total ban on smoking?
Inadequate……………...
Satisfactory……………..
Excessive……………….
Explanatory
comment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5.
What other options can the
government take (apart from total ban) to ensure that members of the public,
especially the non smokers are shielded from the adverse effects of smoking?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6.
What sectors in the economy do
you think stand to be affected the most by the smoking ban? Name the first 3.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
7.
In your opinion, would you say
the smoking ban has helped in making the world a safer and healthier place?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Personal Details:
Gender: Male ………….. Female………………….
Age Bracket:
18-25………… 26-30…………. 31-35…………. 36 and above…..
No comments:
Post a Comment