I have to write a commentary essay and my topic that I chose was Ban on Smoking in Public Places. Can you please

read my essay and tell me what i can do to make it better. Below is my essay.                                      Ban on Smoking in Public PlacesIntroduction

            People face different kinds of problems in their life like financial, business, social and health problems. They try to face these problems and to control stress and mental strain they start using drugs and smoking as a prop. However, drugs and smoking are not the solution of any problem, but are the reason of upcoming health and psychological problems. Smoking has been declared as a more severe risk to human life than other addictions. A question has been raised, as a society, what can we do to prevent tobacco from raging death on so many people? If we know these products are bad for us why they are not regulated? They can lead to numerous types of cancers and eventually cause death. The dilemma of tobacco is mainly focused on minority groups, such as women and African Americans. Support and leadership is needed to shift the focus off of these groups. However, even though there have been actions to prevent people from smoking in public places, the people have learned to segregate themselves somewhere else. The government is not responding enough to the problems that need addressing relating to tobacco. The government and its citizens know the issues being raised with tobacco products, but they choose to ignore.

Effects of Smoking

            A study carried out by Radzeviciene and Ostrauskas gives an overview about the relation of smoking and type II diabetes. It gives significant evidence that smoking is directly related to the disease. Similarly other studies also show that smoking has a profound effect on the incidence of diabetes prevailing in this world. A research done by Wannamethee et al shows that cigarette smoking is directly related to diabetes even if the confounders are adjusted. On the other hand the author in the article also gives forward the fact that the exact underlying cause or relation of smoking with diabetes has yet not been confirmed. However he suggests that the nicotine in cigarette smoking is the main cause which causes insulin resistance and thus leads to diabetes mellitus in individuals. The author asserts that nicotine has a direct effect on the sympathetic nervous system because of which the heart rates, serum cholesterol is increased. Moreover glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity is impaired in the body by smoking. Eliasson et al in his research tells that smoking initially show the symptom of insulin resistance. And after some time the endothelial function is also impaired. Other toxic substances in cigarette smoke can also harm the individual’s normal physiological state of body and thus increase the stress on the body. This stress is a cause of diabetes mellitus in individuals (Radzeviciene & Ostrauskas 2009).
Arguments for and against ban on smoking
        With the development in the world, the human mind has broadened its perspectives. The spread of knowledge has enabled a person to know how human beings have evolved as well as to understand their position and rights in the society. Gone are the times when people used to be suppressed by their powerful counterparts. With this evolution the recognition of the self and civil liberties have been understood.  People have reached to levels where they believe that they possess complete control of their lives to an extent that they advocate euthanasia with an argument that they have the right to choose death over pain. In such a period the development of laws to ban personal activities can prove to be very offensive. This is the case with the proposal of ban on smoking in public places. The state has the right to create laws for the betterment of its people but when these laws intrude the personal issues of a person, it can be a reason for argument. The state is chosen by the people to take care of their needs but by imposing bans in private issues, the state is actually interfering with matters that are beyond its scope of work and the opponents of this ban have very convincing thoughts regarding this issue.
            The prohibition of smoking in public places by the State has been an issue of major debate.  The proponents of the ban argue that smoking has been declared as a more severe risk to human life than other addictions. Cigarettes alone are responsible for the waste of more human lives than collective danger of alcohol, accidents, suicidal crimes, AIDS and illegal drugs. Despite that, 21% of adults, 22% of high school students and 8% of middle school students smoke. One in five of all deaths every year in the United States have been credited to smoking, killing more than AIDS, suicide, alcohol, car accidents, homicide, and illegal drugs combined (Smith et al 2004). They argue that smoking is badly affecting the society. It is the most common addiction all around the world. In developing countries where literacy rate is low, people are more addicted to smoking and hence their behaviour towards their relatives, education, society and future changes. With the adverse effect on health they also face mental sickness. To decrease the rate of smoking many countries are taking necessary steps as Bishop and Yoo (1985) declared that a surgeon’s general report in 1964, regarding the knowledge of severe health effect of smoking, showed a diminution in cigarette sales. Before the provision of this report, taxes fixed on cigarettes were intended just to raise the revenue on the sale of cigarettes. However, after the provision of the Surgeon General’s report, the taxes fixed on cigarettes had an additional purpose of discouraging cigarette smoking (Meier & Licari, 1997).
         The opponents present with counter arguments against the claim of the proponents. It is argued that presentation of a bill which stops a person from smoking is actually an invasion into a person’s independence and choice of lifestyle.  The major reason for the ban is the exposure of the people who do not smoke to the carcinogens and harmful components of cigarette smoke which would affect their health. But with this comes the claim that there are other factors which harm human health. These include the risks posed by obesity and other dietary problems so if restriction is imposed on smoking other lifestyle choices are also being risked at. Hence the ban is actually not restricted to the smokers but it is a means of intrusion into personal lifestyle choices. Another prospect is that the ban on smoking is actually for the preservation of health. But it is clear that a person who would smoke would not completely stop smoking because of the ban but rather he would just not smoke in public places. Thus this rejects the claim that the number of smokers would reduce if smoking is banned (Daren Bakst 2009).
              The opponents of the ban in public places come up with interesting arguments to oppose the ban. According to them every individual in this world enjoys the right to do what so ever he wants to and to ban smoking in public places is like snatching his individual rights. According to the opponents the ban on smoking can deprive the individuals of something for which they are paying (Enstrom & Kabat, 2003). The taxes paid by the cigarette smokers are large enough to generate huge revenues for the governments. These taxes can then be used by the government to impose such policies which help to decrease the health hazards in the society. Moreover the health hazards caused by smoking can be curbed upon by the taxes paid by these smokers. Banning smoking in public issues can create legal issues for the state as people can challenge the government for snatching their individual rights.Conclusion

   In my view the arguments provided by the proponents of ban of smoking in public places are more convincing. Individuals who are paying huge taxes for cigarettes do not have the right to harm other people’s lives. Passive smoking is destroying the normal functions of the bodies of the non-smokers and this is unjust. Regarding individual rights about the human beings it can be said that individual rights should not be interfered with only and unless if they are not harming other forms of life (CARB 2003).Bibliography

Radzeviciene, L., & Ostrauskas, R. (January 01, 2009). Smoking habits and the risk of type 2 diabetes: A case-control study. Diabetes & Metabolism, 35, 3, 192

Meier, K J, and M J Licari. “The Effect of Cigarette Taxes on Cigarette Consumption, 1955 through 1994.” American Journal of Public Health: JPH. 87. 7 (1997): 1126.

Smith, R. A., V. Cokkinides, and H. J. Eyre. “American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer, 2004.” CA -ATLANTA-. 54 (2004): 41-52.

Bakst, Daren “The Smoking Ban Bill .Make no mistake; it’s an attack on property rights,” SPOTLIGHT no. 372, John Locke Foundation. (2009)

Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Tobacco-Related Mortality in a Prospective Study of Californians, 1960-98,” by James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat. British Journal of Medicine, Vol. 326 (2003).

CARB (2003) “Technical Support Document for the Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part A,” Technical Report. California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Chapter 5, pp. V6-V19; Repace JL. Banning outdoor smoking is scientifically justifiable. Tobacco Control 9:98 (2000).

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"