Legislation Reform of Public Smoking

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Benefits of the Bill
Limitations of the Bill
Current Event Articles Covering the Issue
Conclusion
References

The current public health issue in New Jersey selected for this assignment is smoking in public places. The presently spending bill that will be discussed in the paper is Bill No. 1235 sponsored by Senator Shirley K. Turner that was introduced on January 25, 2018 (Turner, 2018). The bill is focused on the prohibition of smoking at public parks and beaches. The significance of this legislative reform is great since smoking is one of the major causes of preventable deaths. Therefore, it is crucial to approve this proposal to provide better healthcare opportunities for New Jersey citizens. The paper will consider the pros and cons of the bill the analysis of which will be supported by the evidence from research articles about the subject of discussion.

Benefits of the Bill

The major advantage of the bill is that it is aimed at eliminating the exposure of New Jersey citizens to dangerous secondhand cigarette smoke (Turner, 2018). It is mentioned in the bill that tobacco is the main reason for preventable disease not only in the state but in the whole nation. Also, it is noted that tobacco smoke makes up a significant health risk to nonsmoking individuals (Turner, 2018).

Therefore, the benefit of the bill is that the health hazard will be decreased using banning smoking in public parks and beaches. The problem of secondhand smoke exposure is widely discussed in scholarly literature. In their article, Homa et al. (2015) analyze the prevalence of such exposure in the US. The authors conclude that the risk of being subjected to secondhand smoke decreased from 52.5% in 1999-2000 to 25.3% in 2011-2012 (Homa et al., 2015).

However, scholars note that the level of exposure to secondhand smoking is still very high, putting at-risk children, individuals living below the level of poverty, non-Hispanic blacks, and citizens living in rented apartments (Homa et al., 2015). Taking into consideration the results of this research, it becomes obvious that the bill will be a beneficial opportunity to eliminate the risk of secondhand smoking posed to nonsmokers.

Another benefit of the bill is that it recognizes the problem of littering and the increased fire hazard as a result of smoking in public places (Turner, 2018). The issue of cigarette butts polluting the environment is extensively discussed in scholarly research articles. A pilot study performed by Wilson, Oliver, and Thomson (2014) analyzes such aspects of smoking as fire risks, litter, and cigarette butt disposal in public places. In particular, Wilson et al. (2014) observe smokers’ approaches to the disposal of butts at bus stops. The authors remark on the following aspects of smoking in public places:

smokers frequently put nonsmokers at risk due to smoking within a very close distance of other people;
smokers produce much litter because of throwing out cigarette butts;
there is a fire hazard posed by smokers because some of them throw butts into vegetation (Wilson et al., 2014).

The problem of cigarette butt disposal is also analyzed in research by Metcalfe, Murray, and Schousboe (2017). Scholars note that not only is tobacco consumption a crucial health issue but also the waste generated by smokers poses a serious environmental risk (Metcalfe et al., 2017). In their analysis of tobacco waste in New Zealand, Metcalfe et al. (2017) mention that such litter pollutes beaches, parks, and other public places. Moreover, tobacco waste contains “a myriad of noxious chemicals” many of which pose direct health risks and environmental hazards (Metcalfe et al., 2017, p. 65). Scholars delineate several ways of reducing the amount of tobacco litter:

taxation of tobacco waste;
littering fines;
cigarette butt deposit programs;
cigarette butt recycling and collection;
using pouches or bags to collect tobacco product waste (Metcalfe et al., 2017).

Metcalfe et al. (2017) also remarked that a large part of the responsibility for secondhand smoking and littering belongs to tobacco-producing companies, although they are trying to deny the blame. The authors note that not only consumers of tobacco products are accountable for environmental hazards but also the producers and sellers of cigarettes and similar goods.

Therefore, the major benefits of the bill are the intention to eliminate secondhand smoke exposure and the purpose to decrease the amount of litter produced by smokers. The bill aims at managing these issues by banning smoking in public places such as beaches and parks. The initiative is highly relevant and necessary since statistics of environmental pollution and secondhand smoke exposure are rather high.

Limitations of the Bill

The major disadvantage of the bill on the part of the nonsmoking society is that while it restricts smoking in parks and beaches, it does not ban smoking in adjacent parking lots (Turner, 2018). This issue may be regarded as a drawback since many nonsmokers may be exposed to secondhand smoking in these places. Moreover, since the bill restricts smoking in public places but allows it in the parking lots, there is a risk of the increased amount of smoke released in these places. As a result, nonsmoking citizens may find themselves in the situation of the intensified danger when they park their cars next to beaches and public parks.

Another limitation of the bill concerns smokers. This group of citizens may view the ban as a restriction on their rights and freedoms. Smoking individuals may argue that their freedom is violated, and they may think that banning smoking leads to prejudiced treatment of their lifestyle preferences. Although one of the major purposes of prohibiting smoking in public places is reducing the consumption of tobacco products, there is no firm evidence of the positive outcomes of such measures. In their research, Jones, Laporte, Rice, and Zucchelli (2015) remark that no significant data are indicating that bans on smoking have a considerable impact on smokers’ behavior.

Therefore, the limitations of the bill are twofold. On the one hand, the bill does not limit the consumption of tobacco products in parking lots, which increases the possibility of exposure to secondhand smoking. On the other hand, the bill may meet the opposition from smokers who may find it a limitation of their rights.

Current Event Articles Covering the Issue

Recent events related to smoking bans that are covered in local newspapers focus on such problems as smoking while walking and e-cigarettes. The article published in “Jersey Evening Post” in March discusses the risk of smoking e-cigarettes by non-smokers. In particular, it is mentioned that healthcare organizations and professionals in the second biggest city in the state acknowledge the hazards posed by e-cigarettes. Specialists suggest that e-cigarettes should only be used as a method of smoking cessation and must not be used by children or non-smokers due to containing nicotine and other dangerous substances (“E-cigarettes,” 2018). Professionals admit that there is not enough evidence of health problems caused by e-cigarettes’ yet, but society should be cautious concerning this type of cigarette.

Another current aspect of smoking is discussed in the article by Atmonavage (2018). The author reviews the possibility of introducing a bill banning smoking while walking in New Jersey, following the example of New York City. It is noted that smokers lack self-awareness and do not understand that smoking while walking down the street puts many people at risk of secondhand smoke exposure. Thus, to eliminate the danger for nonsmokers, the bill prohibits smoking while walking. At the same time, the proposal does not concern those standing and smoking (Atmonavage, 2018). The interest of current articles in the problem of smoking signifies the need to treat this question with sufficient attention.

Conclusion

Bill No. 1235 sponsored by Senator Turner is an attempt to eliminate the exposure of the citizens of New Jersey state to secondhand smoking and decrease the amount of tobacco product waste in the environment. The bill has several advantages as well as disadvantages. The main benefits include the reduction of litter, the minimization of fire hazards, and the establishment of healthy lifestyle opportunities for nonsmokers.

The major limitations of the bill are concerned with the rights of smokers as well as nonsmokers. Smokers may find the bill a restriction of their freedom whereas nonsmokers may feel not enough protected due to the permission to smoke in parking lots. The problem of smoking and its adverse outcomes is represented in scholarly research and discussed in recent articles. Such aspects as e-cigarette smoking and the ban on smoking while walking constitute the most relevant issues related to the problem. Bill No. 1235 is likely to create positive changes in the statistics of secondhand smoking exposure in New Jersey.

References

Atmonavage, J. (2018). NYC might ban smoking while walking. Should N.J. follow? New Jersey On-Line. Web.

E-cigarettes ‘should not be used by non-smokers.‘ (2018). Jersey Evening Post. Web.

Homa, D. M., Neff, L. J., King, B. A., Caraballo. R. S., Bunnell, R. E., Babb, S. D., … Wang, L. (2015). Vital signs: Disparities in nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke – United States, 1999-2012. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64(4), 103-108.

Jones, A. M., Laporte, A., Rice, N., & Zucchelli, E. (2015). Do public smoking bans have an impact on active smoking? Evidence from the UK. Health Economics, 24(2), 175-192.

Metcalfe, S., Murray, S., & Schousboe, C. (2017). A kick in the butt: Time to address tobacco waste in New Zealand. New Zealand Medical Journal, 130(1456), 65-69.

Turner, S. K. (2018). Senate, No. 1235. Web.

Wilson, N., Oliver, J., & Thomson, G. (2014). Smoking close to others and butt littering at bus stops: Pilot observational study. PeerJ, 2, e272.

Click Here To Order Now!