Sociology

Smoking is a human habit that has been in existence for many years. It has been used for various reasons including status symbol and show of power. In movies, protagonists were presented as smoking when thinking about very important strategies. In real life, smokers claim that smoking usually calms their minds, a claim dismissed by the non-smokers. A ban on smoking is a controversial undertaking that has elicited a heated debate between the smokers and the non-smokers. To the non-smokers, a ban on smoking in public places is a welcome move whereas to the smokers, implementing the ban is viewed as infringing on their personal rights. A ban on smoking in public places is not a new concept even though it has emerged with a rejuvenated force in the recent past. Following a recent ban on smoking in St. Louis, this paper seeks to identify and elaborate on the issues that surround banning of smoking in public places.

Smoking Ban History
Smoking ban can be traced way back in1590 during the reign of Pope Urban VII in which case smoking and chewing of tobacco was prohibited near the church premise. Anyone who violated the prohibition was faced with excommunication from the church. Following the revelation of the health hazards associated with smoking in the 20th century, businesses and organizations responded by setting up a separate location for smokers. This was an effort to address the problem of exposing the other clients to the dangers associated with smoking.

In the year 1990, California State was the pioneer state in the US to implement a smoking ban in restaurants. Since then, many cities have followed suit placing a ban on smoking in public places. Estimates show that more than thirty-four states across the US have enacted regulations that impose a ban on smoking in public places (Notosmoke.com, Para 2).

There have been numerous attempts to find a solution to the smoking problem. This is in response to the much highlighted reports that shows the increasing risks that are associated with smoking. There are claims that smoking related diseases leads to over three million deaths worldwide. Some countries in an effort to bring down the menace have resorted to placing a ban on smoking in public locations. Norway in particular has gone further to ban advertisements that are related to tobacco for more than thirty years now. In this country, a pack of cigarettes goes for  6 and it is reported that one in every three people is a smoker leading to an increase in tobacco related deaths. On the other hand, Canada has rooted for the negative publicity of cigarettes where the graphic images that depicts the effects of smoking on the internal organs are published on the cigarette packs. This seems to have been effective as Canada records some of the lowest smoking levels in the world. In Ireland, despite a strict anti-smoking legislation having been introduced, smokers have remained relatively silent. This gives us a view of varied reactions as has been produced by different individuals in different countries regarding a ban on smoking (Clayson, Para 1).

For many years different governments across the world have been taxing tobacco with the aim of reducing the impacts of smoking. This has been coupled by negative advertisements and warnings being placed on the cigarette packs but the results have been wanting. In recent times, there has been a controversy involving the ban of smoking in places that are considered public. Smokers have remained isolated in designated locations where they can smoke as part of the ban on public place smoking. Most bans however have been placed on enclosed places which include inside buildings such as shops, restaurants, bars, offices, theatres, trains, and buses among other areas (Molyneaux, Para 1). Some of the countries that have implemented a ban on smoking in enclosed public places include South Africa, New Zealand, Italy, and the Republic of Ireland. Smoking bans in open public places are less common. In Japan, Tokyo has implemented a ban on smoking in the streets. Smoking ban near entrances to public buildings is being implemented in the US, Canada, and Australia (Molyneaux, Para 2).

It is however common to see individuals smoking at the side ways, restaurants, and even at the community centers. Such places characteristically have many people including innocent children. Those people standing next to a smoker will inhale the smoke and become what can be referred to as secondary or passive smokers. People who chose not to smoke clearly understand the dangers of smoking. This group of individuals is faced with the risk of involuntarily being exposed to the dangers of smoking despite their efforts to evade such dangers. The effects of the second hand smoke are detrimental to non-smokers due to the related health impacts that it poses. Of great concern are the impacts that this smoke may be having to the children. It has been established that the effects of cigarette smoke are far reaching to children of five years and below as it may disturb the childs physical and cognitive development. Protecting non-smoking individuals from the negative impacts of cigarette smoke therefore remains to be implementing a ban on smoking in public places (Nayie4hope, Para 3).

Smoking ban in St. Louis
Voters overwhelmingly voted to approve a ban on smoking in closed public places including restaurants, and other indoor businesses. This follows the approval of the smoke-free legislation by the Aldermen and having been approved by the public, the legislation would become a law. The county and city prohibitions will however have to wait until January of 2011 for implementation. Exemptions to this law will include drinking establishments described as pubs that makes less than a quarter of their sales from foodstuffs. Also exempted are the small bars in the city defined as those with less than two thousand square feet of service space who have been granted a grace period of up to five years  before they can comply. The exemption list also includes the casino floors (Wagman, Para 1).

Those in proposition to the ban claimed that the ban was vital because smoking had been a major health concern and that endorsement of the ban was a tremendous leap forward in achieving a healthy community (McGuire, Para 8). The American Cancer Society has also praised the ban but has advocated for the removal of the exemptions in order for the protection of those suffering from second hand smoke to be fully guaranteed (McGuire, Para 13). On the other hand, Bill Hannegan was vehemently opposed to the legislation and vowed to challenge its implementation. Hannegan is an activist and the leader of Keep St. Louis Free organization which fights for the protection of individual freedoms and property rights of the residents of St. Louis (McGuire, Para 12). Looking at the turn of events, Rep. Joseph Fallert, D-Ste. Genevieve argued that it was time that smoking bans were to be locally initiated. Rep. Fallert had tried initiating a proposal banning smoking in public places in the state but his attempts had failed. He said that he had thought making the ban a state law would allay fears of loosing business revenue as patrons could easily cross over to other counties or municipalities. He observes that with the success of the bans at the local levels, there is no need for the statewide ban (McGuire, Para 3).

The pros of the Smoking ban
It has been scientifically established that smoking is detrimental to human health. Smoking is said to lead to various complications including various forms of cancer, strokes, and heart diseases. Smoking in public places will therefore not only hurt the smoker but also those in close proximity. A complete ban on smoking in public places is therefore necessary to protect the passive smoking that may harm innocent individuals. Passive smokers are not so by choice but are forced by circumstances. They may be in company of their friends or workmates and therefore a ban on public place smoking would be a welcome move for these individuals. A ban can lead to reduction in the smoking rates or even individuals may give up the habit altogether. This would in turn go along way in cutting down health expenses that are used to treat the tobacco related diseases thereby saving the taxpayers money to be used in other developmental matters. There will be a general reduction in cigarette smoking as the ban would lead to a minimum consumption of nicotine at the workplace (Molyneaux, Para 4). With time, the body would adapt to the reduced nicotine levels and this will eventually lead to smoking less at both the workplace and at home. In regard to business protection, peoples health is more important than the businesses. Businesses have to be inventive to adapt to the new requirements in order to minimize on losses. In New South Wales Australia, upon implementing the ban on public smoking, there was only 9 reduction in trade as reported by restaurants (Molyneaux, Para 7). By implementing the ban, it will be sending good signals to the youth and children that smoking is both socially and legally wrong. This would be helpful in discouraging the youth from engaging in smoking which would otherwise be detrimental to their health. Smoking in public can easily be emulated by our young generation (Khilawala, Para 3).

The Cons of the Smoking ban
Opponents to the ban have argued that the smoking ban infringes on their personal rights of choice since they are left with little option in deciding on where to smoke. Implementation of the bans has seen a decline in businesses and the resultant job losses. A study done in Illinois following the smoking ban indicated that the state lost more than 200 million in the year 2008 whereas the local communities lost well over 12 million in tax revenue. The ban to be implemented in St. Louis is estimated to result in 20 job losses in the bar industry (McGuire, Para 12). The government has been collecting a lot of revenue in form of taxes from the cigarette sales and therefore a ban on smoking will definitely reduce the amount of tax being collected. The ban is hurting businesses as clients have shunned these premises leading to business closure as well as increased job losses which eventually hurt the economic growth. Smoking ban may result in withdrawal symptoms causing hassles both at home and the workplace.

Smokers usually loose concentration due to addiction and may easily be irritated as an effect of withdrawal (Khilawala, Para 4). There is also this argument that since it is legal to smoke tobacco, the government has no right whatsoever to stop people from smoking in any way. Smokers claim that they fund their own health-care program through the high taxes imposed on the cigarettes. The effort to make these people quit smoking is doomed to be fruitless since they are already addicted to nicotine. A ban on smoking in public places will only encourage smoking at home which is even more dangerous considering the risk it may pose to the little children (Molyneaux, Para 6).

Conclusion
There is a guaranteed means to find out if a ban on smoking in public places can provide the much needed solution to the problems associated with smoking in US. Looking at other countries across the world gives mixed results and opposition will always be there whatever the decision. It is therefore important for the government to carefully weigh and make a sound decision regarding which among the two issues shall be prioritized there is the health, safety, and the general well-being of the public on one hand and the freedom of choice on the other hand. The success of the bans will depend on how effective they are implemented and this will require cooperation from all the stakeholders.