Smoking should be banned in public places
This essay investigates the question of whether or not smoking should be banned in public places. The essay will cover the advantages and disadvantages of banning smoking in public places and how people react to this controversial issue. It should be pointed out that this question has been badly debated all over the country and there are many different views.
Let us first of all consider the point of view that over 40,000 careful studies have proven that smoking causes disease and death (http://www.ash.org.uk/). Every medical and health agency agrees to the fact that smoking is a problem and an estimated 1,000 people in Britain die every year from smoking-related diseases such as lung cancer and heart diseases. (http://www.guardian.co.ukl)
Smoking affects not only smokers themselves, but also non-smokers. Environmental tobacco smoke is known to be a major source of indoor air pollution and the inhalation of it is known as passive smoking.
Majority of the ASH (http://www.ash.org.uk) scientific studies have concluded that passive smoking increase the risk of contracting fatal illnesses such as lung cancer and heart problems, and is associated with a variety of health problems in children including cot death and chronic middle ear infections.
Based on the findings of the SCOTH (Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health) report and California EPA review (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk);AS… estimates that about 600 lung cancer deaths and up to 12,000 cases of heart diseases in non-smokers can be attributed to passive smoking each year in the U.K. Non-smokers exposed to passive smoke have around a 25% increased chance of contracting heart disease even though on average they inhale the equivalent of 1% of the smoke that a smoker does. Also, the cancer risk for non-smokers exposed to tobacco smoke is approximately in proportion to exposure when compared to the risks faced by smokers.
Likewise, in a 1992 report, the Royal College of Physicians estimated that 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital every year in the U.K. as a result of illnesses resulting from passive smoking (http://www.guardian.co.uk). Also, the impact of smoking on health inequalities is carried from generation to generation. Children whose parents smoke are three times, as likely to smoke themselves and are also more heavily exposed to the harmful effects of smoke pollution. In consequence, children exposed to smoking environments are more likely to go on to become smokers themselves and suffer the ill effect of it.
Smoking does not only bring health problems, but also environmental problems. The 1999 office for National Statistics survey (http://www.ash.org.uk/) into attitude to smoking found that 62% of non-smokers would mind if people smoked near them because it causes unpleasant smell, and 38% said that it makes clothes stink. Furthermore, the careless disposal of smokers’ materials is one of the main causes of fire and smoking related litter at home and outside. This evidence supports the point of view that banning smoking would be a good idea as it would reduce all these problems.
In addition, according to a 1995 survey (http://www.ash.org.uk/), smoking related litter was found in over 88% of all U.K. surveyed streets and further research showed that only 53% of smokers had ever used a bin to dispose of butts, whilst 75% admitted to dropping them on the ground. Also, the GLA (Greater London Authority) itself recognizes that cigarette butts accounted for 40% of all the street litter in London. This further supports the opinion of those who believe smoking in public places should be banned.
Having considered the health and environmental problems posed by smoking, successive expert panels and government committees have emphasized the need for protection of non-smokers from second hand smoke, including the restriction of smoking in public places.
The 2004 U.K. Government’s Public Health White Paper (http://www.ash.org.uk/) has already introduced a smoking ban in Scotland in March 2006 which will come into effect this year in the rest of the U.K. According to health campaigners, the Scottish smoking ban has improved trade and lured new customers to pubs three months after the stub-out. Furthermore, the ASH (http://www.ash.org.uk/) Scotland survey found that 24% of customers said they are more likely to visit pubs now they are smoke-free and just 10% would go less often. Moreover, levels of air pollution in Scotland%26#039;s public places have dropped by 86% since the smoking ban was introduced in March, according to new research. Professor Jon Ayres (http://www.forestonline.org.uk), who is carrying out the study, points out the fact that the smoking ban was always going to benefit workers more. This suggests that the introduction of a smoking ban in public places will be an advantage for workers especially those who are working in pubs and restaurants, yet another argument to support a ban in public places.
Soon after the evaluation of the gradual improvements in Scotland, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, announced a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places which will come into force in England on July 1, 2007, Northern Ireland on April 30, 2007, and Wales on April 2, 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk). The smoking ban will cover all enclosed public places such as pubs, clubs, restaurants and cafes. However, exemptions include private homes, residential care homes, theatre stages etc. In Ireland like Scotland, the ban has so far proved successful which suggests that in England it may have a similar effect
Most people, especially non-smokers agree to a smoking ban in public places. An editorial in the Lancet argued that 80% of people in the U.K. are non-smokers, saying they have the right to freedom from exposure to proven carcinogens. It also highlighted a study by the Royal College of physicians, which said that a smoking ban would help 300,000 people quit smoking (http://www.guardian.co.uk). The results of this study along with the editorial, add even more weight to the argument for banning smoking in public places.
Dr. Astrid James, deputy editor of the Lancet believed that banning smoking in public places would prevent cancer deaths as well as heart and chronic lung cancer deaths in the U.K. Not only would this have obvious positive effects on individuals affected by cancer, there would be long term benefits for the NHS i.e. less cancer would mean less money would need to be spent on treatments.
John Britton, a professor at Nottingham University (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk), said that smoking ban in public places will be an effective means of reducing the numbers of people who take up smoking especially young children. In addition, a report from the BMA says that children, pregnant women, people with lung and heart disorders are vulnerable to passive smoking, and that smoking restrictions would protect the population. While there are those who agree with this, there are also those who argue that if people are not allowed to smoke in public, they will be forced into their homes where passive smoking will still affect their families.
Although many workplaces already have a non-smoking policy, many people want a total ban on smoking in workplaces. Based on ASH and Cancer Research UK survey, people said that the new law should apply without exemption. The poll showed 85% of people would visit bars and pubs as often or even more often if they were smoke-free by law. Ruth Basworth of Boots Health Club told the BBC, “Everyone has the right to be protected from harm and enjoy smoke-free air”. She added that, “For any smoker trying to quit, smoke-free environments will increase their chances of success as social pressures to smoke will be reduced (http://www.vitabeat.com). So it seems that there is a lot of evidence to support the ban on smoking in public places. However, not everyone agrees that the ban would be effective.
In a report by ASH, 20% smokers were revealed as planning to give up the habit, but it also pointed out that more than 80% of smokers who are willing to give up smoking are not influenced by Britain’s proposed public smoking ban (http://www.vitabeat.com). Does this suggest that a ban would be a waste of time?
According to a report by the office for National Statistics, the majority of people are still opposed to a ban on smoking in all public places. The report found that 65% of people favored restrictions in pubs but only 33% wanted a total ban; 48% wanted pubs to be mainly non-smoking with smoking areas. It is argued that smokers who freely choose to smoke and are harming themselves, have the right to, in the same way that they are free to choose to take their own lives. Simon Clark, director of FOREST, said that by banning smoking in every public places, the government is ignoring public opinion. (http://www.forestonline.org)
A more serious concern is that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home, as claimed by former British Secretary of State for Health John Reid. However, the Royal College of Physicians opposed to Reid saying that after investigating Scotland, it has found out that smoke-free households have increased from 22% to 37% within last year (http://en.wikipedia.org). Here we have the point of view that a ban could actually increase smoking at home and may not be beneficial at all.
Likewise, an article on smoking on the internet argues that a smoking ban will affect the business of those hospitality companies especially those that allow smoking (http://www.savethegoldfish.co.uk). Furthermore, a report from the Restaurant Association reveals that £346 million could be lost in income and 45,000 jobs if restaurants were forced to ban smokers (http://www.ash.org.uk). The result of this could be a negative impact on the catering industry as it would lessen the number of customers using restaurants which in turn would result in decrease in jobs.
Having considered both the arguments for and against a smoking ban in public places, opinion seems to be divided. On one hand, by banning smoking in public places, smokers’ civil liberties are taken away, and on the other hand, non-smokers are being protected from the health effects of passive smoking.
At the end of the day, whether smokers like it or not, the smoking ban will be enacted in July of this year, and time will tell it was a good decision by the government or not.|||would be better if you injected your opinions to the facts you state and give your wordly view instead of jsut regergatating what you have found on the web.|||Your teacher wants you to put it into your own words. Not steal facts, by copying from other sources, To do that, is plagiarizing.|||See Tutors point. If you were telling me this information as a speech you would word it differently. If you were trying to convince your friend to stop smoking how would you word that. Write the same way.|||Your teacher is right. There will come a time when you will have to write an essay and no resources will be avaailable to you other than what you have in your head. If you do not get used to writing essays, most of which is from your own thinking, you won%26#039;t be able to do it when the time comes.
The particular subject you have shown here is Smoking, but that is not material. It is highly unlikely that you will encounter a topic in an examination question that you have written on before.
The important points are method and style and this cannot be demonstrated by %26quot;a collection of statements%26quot;. There is no objection to drawing on points that you have previously read about on a topic, but you must demonstrate that you have some technical skills in writing and the way to show this is to write about, and mention them as such, (in addition to the facts that you are aware of) your opinion, personal experiences, and the experiences of others.
I would guess that your teacher has formed the opinion from your essay that it is not YOU, yet it is you that she is trying to assess.
Keep trying and good luck.
