Smoking Ban

When you’re in public places people smoke there cigarettes and innocent bystanders has contact to that smoke which can be harmful to their health. In 1 972, the Surgeon general released a report The Consequence of Smoking which discussed the potential effects of second hand smoke.

The first kind of smoking bans came around in the asses. Restrictions were implemented on smoking in public places like government buildings and some airlines. The full ban of smoking on all airline went into effect in June 1996. (Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events) According to the “American Nonsmokers Right Foundation’s U.S. Tobacco Control Laws Database, as January 4, 2009, “a total of 30 states, along with Puerco Rice and the District of Columbia, have laws in effect that require 100% smokers workplace and or restaurants and/or bars. ” (Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events) Researchers have raised a reliable and valid argument not to ban smoking in public places.

Thomas A. Lambert from the university of Missouri-Columbia School of Law says “Does a smoker have the right to fill the air with his or her smoke, or do non-smokers have the right to smoke-free air?In other words, who “onset’s air? A smoking ban effectively gives nonsmoking patrons the right to the air. By contrast, the laissez-fairer approach effectively permits the owner of the establishment to determine the proper allocation of air rights within his or her space. However owners allocate the right to air among smokers and nonsmokers, there will be some “winners” whose preferred logic is adopted and whose happiness is therefore increased, and some “losers” whose preferred policy is rejected and whose happiness is therefore diminished.Adoption of a smoking-permitted policy harms nonsmokers, but adoption of a no-smoking policy harms smokers. In light of this unavoidable, reciprocal harm, social welfare would be maximized if smoking policies were set to favor the group whose total happiness would be most enhanced by implementation Of its favored policy. So, if smoking customers value the right to smoke in a particular place more than nonsmoking customers value the eight to be free from such smoke, that place should allow smoking.

Conversely, if nonsmoking patrons value an establishment’s clean air more than smoking patrons value the right to light up, the establishment should ban smoking. It should thus be clear why a laissez-fairer approach of permitting establishment owners to set their own smoking policies will create more welfare than a ban on smoking in public places. Under the laissez-fairer approach, a business owner, seeking to maximize his or her profits, will set the establishments smoking policy to accommodate the patrons who most alee their preferred policy (and thus are most willing to pay a premium to be in the proprietor’s space).This will result in a variety of smoking policies at different establishments, as business owners respond to the preferences of their customers. Under a smoking ban, by contrast, business owners are not permitted to cater to smoking patrons’ demands even when those patrons value the right to smoke more than non-smoking patrons (and employees) value the right to be free from smoke. A smoking ban, then, is less likely to maximize social welfare than a laissez-fairer approach, which ensures that the eight to any particular public place’s air is allocated to the group that values it most. (Lambert, 7) Illustrating that a smoking ban is a violation of the laissez fairer is a valid point.

Enforcing a smoking ban is an example of government interfering with commercial affairs. Giving business owners the right to make a decision rather there establishment should have a smoke ban or not is a very valid point. This will prevent the establishment from losing any kind of profit and will allow that business owner to cater towards whatever consumer they are targeting.This will maximize the business owners profit and possibly prevent the customers from smoking outside where others do not want to smell the second-hand smoke. Even though Mr.. Lambert makes a valid point with the laissez fairer it failed to mention the safety and the health risk Of the employees in the establishment.

CLAIM- Smoking should be banned in public places. Second hand smoke is just as harmful as smoking the cigarette yourself. You can also be exposures to cancer and heart disease from second hand smoke and there are many harmful components of tobacco smoke are odorless.

Related Post