SCHOLAR

Dear Scholars,

In response to the ongoing discussion among the media and medical literature on  whether or not smoking tobacco products in public places  should be legally banned, it is evident that there is no doubt about the effects of smoking tobacco products. Much has been said about its adverse effect on lungs and important organs in the body, not to mention it being alluded to be the most common cause of various types of cancers. Such is the case that thoracic surgeons advise patients who are smokers to quit the habit (Dresler 700). Nevertheless, with much awareness being raised about the effects of smoking tobacco products and measures taken to regulate their consumption with an aim of improving the general public health, questions have risen as whether the medical facts presented necessitate the  coercive action taken to discourage the smoking habits.

 In Dr. Dresler’s article on ‘A clash of Rights’, he presented many arguments on why it is justified to smoke in public places. With a strong conviction, he argues that secondhand smoke does affect those who do not smoke at all. He asserts that, for those who live with or have a close proximity with a smoker, they are more exposed and prone to develop complications just as a regular smoker. He argues that, for those who smoke but work in smoking environments, they have high levels of tobacco metabolites than those who do not smoke (705).  Some of the resulting effects include premature death for an unborn baby and disease for children and adults such as cancer of the lungs, bladder and the general function of the lung and blood flow. In addition to this, for these children, there is an increased risk of them developing respiratory issues, ear problems sudden infant death syndrome and to become asthmatic.  His third argument brought forth is that for adults who are secondhand smokers, they are likely to develop problems with their cardiovascular system and will also result in coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Thus, he clearly demonstrates why the exposure has an effect on the involuntary smoker

However, Dr. Dresler makes these observations to highlight on the plight of these secondhand smokers. He claims that most children aged between 3 and 19 years live in households with a smoker. Secondly, he asserts that being an involuntary smoker leads to higher mortality rate (709). He further affirms that, everyone has a right to a healthy environment which is part of the human rights! The consequences of involuntary exposure to the tobacco smoke are a purported damage that does violate their right. Therefore, he argues that the smoking bans will reduce the involuntary exposure especially in workplaces, bars and restaurants and will also go a long way in encouraging the active smokers to quit.

Based on the claims and argument put forth that suggest that smoking in public should be banned, it is prudent that the claims being made about some public health measures being coercive political authority be disregarded. Though they may be construed to be coercive, this law has been enacted with an aim of benefiting the general public and to curtail some individual freedoms from being misused, at the expense of others. Everyone has a right to a healthy environment. Conversely, the society and state has an obligation to make sure that we are in a healthy environment.

In conclusion, the state has legitimate authority to ban tobacco smoking from public places. Nevertheless, as the article highlighted, public health has since become the willing agent of coercive political authority. It is prudent that such subjective opinion should not be affiliated with health matters and that the public interest should be prioritized.

Done by MF