Category: Smoking Ban

Abstract

With the development of global economy, citizens’ life condition has significant improvement in various countries. in case of this, these countries contribute to control the air pollution and improve the environment in order to offer a better surrounding for its people to live. Then, they try to limit the sales and production of cigarettes, even totally banning it; which some people disagree with this. Based on a journalist, Bill Wirtz’s article that five reasons why the government should stop banning smokes, I applied several thoughts about his opinions. Should we completely ban the production and sale of cigarettes or not?

Should we completely ban the production and sale of cigarettes?

Have you ever heart that someone who smokes more than fifty years but dead on the age of 100? I have heart this and even saw this by myself. He is my grandfather’s friend who smokes a least half a box of cigarettes a day even when he was 90 years old; his death just because of he is too old to continue living on. It’s easy to find that there will always be someone smoke in public areas in the past, and it seems that it has been a common behavior around people. This misbehavior was improved because of the federal laws that governments and people generally realize the huge damage of cigarettes. Although the situation has improved, the problem continues. Furthermore, a lot of research show that the smoking age is becoming earlier than before, which means plenty of people start smoking at the age of 15, even earlier. So that many political scientists believe that it’s time to stop producing and sales cigarettes instead of just limitations.

Background/Context: Problem Continues

After the 1800s, the produce and sale of cigarettes have a significant increase, which leads to a huge profit for the factories and countries. however, when more smoker occurs, more problem exists. It damages people’s health a lot, which causes cancer and kinds of diseases when people smoke much. In the middle of the 1900s, the western countries realize the severity if they still didn’t control the produce and sales of cigarettes. So, they adapted some laws to limit the Tabaco industries. Then, the tobacco industry has re-focused its promotional efforts onto the less developed countries. The often-weak regulatory environment in these countries has further encouraged the industry to target populations in these nations (Brandt, 2007). More and more Tabaco factories come into the local market to desire huge profits and costs, which leads to the problem spread over the worldwide. During earlier 2000s, some developing country realize the necessities of air pollution and health destroy due to cigarettes, they also adapted some laws to limit the sales and production of cigarettes. However, no one wants to give up such a huge profit, they try to make a profitable contract for both sides, the government, and the factories. Finally, the problem did not get any solutions, it continues.

Appeals

Ethos

A report made by Dr. Robert shows that smoking in the twentieth century killed only 100 million people, whereas a billion could perish in our century unless we reverse course, and even if present rates of consumption drop steadily to zero by 2100, there will still be about 300 million tobacco deaths this century (Robert, 2013). We could certainly sure that although less people smoke than previous years, as long as the issue retains, the problem will remain at all times. Because of this kind of problem, plenty of people’s death will lead to a huge number of families destroy. In the case stands, we could imagine that a man’s dead could hurt his family a lot, not only on their wealthy, but also on mental. In another word, if the governments do not take any control on the sales and production of cigarettes, the problem would be more seriously and might destroy people’s confidence toward to the society and country, they will try to escape this kind of country. Then, a confused and failure social system would happen. By the way, more and more people would die, not only because of smokes but also second-hand smokes. So, how can we do not take any measure to limit the cigarettes?

Logos

According to the National Medical Institution’s research, it attains a result that both active and passive smoking are damaging to human health and have associated economic costs (Ekpu, V. U., & Brown, A. K. (2015). It’s known that smoking is bad to our body, it might cause cancer and some unreasonable disease; it would also cause death somehow. Due to that a lot of people death, which would reduce the labor market and cost a lot of money to cure their disease. Also, the government would spend a lot on the health institution to establish a comparative healthy system. According to the top right graph, it’s easily to know that the deaths that caused by smoking has the most proportion over these six comparative causes and the number of deaths that smoking caused is more than the sum of rest five factors. How terrible it is! However, this graph just shows the causes by percentage in America, I believe that other countries must have the same data as the United States have, even much more than it. Under such a terrible situation, we could picture how much money that the government spent to control the cigarettes recent years. By the way, the data the graph shows were after the implementation of smoke bans, which would be horrible if we stop banning cigarettes. Figure 1. HIV-AIDS Survey Report: Suicide in America. (2014)

Pathos

Smoking is not just suicide, it is murder! As we know that people who smoke second-hand smoke tend to suffer more damage to the body than smokers, especially the families who always stay with smokers. In the United States, smoking is not allowed indoors, such as schools, homes or in some public places; and it is only allowed to smoke at specific locations. Some people who do not want to hurt their loves, then they try to stop smoking. This results that when there’s a total smoking ban in the home, smokers are more likely to reduce tobacco consumption and attempt to quit than when they’re allowed to smoke in some parts of the house (Ellis, 2013). Figure 2. Smoking is Murder! (2011)

In general, cigarettes not only cause great harm to the body of the smoker but also adversely affect people around the smoker. The common sense that smoking is a bad habit has been printed in the minds of many people. However, with the progress of the times, the physical and mental health of adolescents is more susceptible to the bad habits of society. This is reflected in the fact that the average age of smoking in the society is earlier than before. When I was in junior high school in China, I found that many middle school students had already started to learn to smoke. However, they are not ashamed of this, but very proud of this instead; their values are influenced by the people around them at a very young age. And those people who can influence the youngers at this age are obviously their parents, the people they are closest to. From this, we can see the importance of sales and production controls on cigarettes.

All of the previous content states that completely ban the production and sale of cigarettes is the best choice for our government and our citizens. However, there are also some people disagree with this and even think that the government should lift restrictions on smoking. A young Voices Advocate said in his article that “Most fundamentally, the debate about smoking bans should center on private property rights. Whether you should be allowed to smoke in a bar should be determined by the owner of that bar, not by busybody bureaucrats who think they know how to live everyone’s lives for them (Bill, 2017).” Besides this, he also lists another four reasons why government should end smoking bans. he believes that smoking is not only personal properties but also do not have so much damage on human body and a most people who read this agree with his opinions. It’s true that everyone has their own rights to do what they want, but this must base on the regulator and laws, also social responsibilities. We can never do something that just benefit ourselves but hurt others. Smoking itself is not a misbehavior or a bad thing, but when we use it and have a bad influence on others, it is.

Conclusion

With the development of global economy, people’s living standards in various countries have been greatly improved. In today’s society, it is not the food problem or other problem that poses a greater threat to human health, but personal living habits, especially smoking. The measures are taken by the government always do not meet the requirements of all, but it is a good policy as long as it meets the requirements of most people. For cigarettes, a completely ban is not realistic, but it is possible to minimize the demand and supply of cigarettes by increasing tobacco taxes, while also reducing the number of smokers to a considerable extent (Sharbaugh,2018). Every misbehavior disappears starts at the decline of its user; add a tax on cigarettes will help a lot to reduce smokers. Another effective measure is to let young parents know the profound impact of their behavior on their children while deeply admonishing the harmful effects of youth smoking. This can effectively prevent young students from being affected by bad behavior habits at an early stage, and at the same time, there is a corresponding reduction in the total number of smokers.

Reference

Artifact Link:

1. Wirtz, Bill. (2017). Five Reasons to End Government Smoking Bans. FEE. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/five-reasons-to-end-government-smoking-bans/#disqus_thread

Source:

1. Brandt AM. (2007). The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America. Basic Books. New York, 2007. Retrieved from https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/31899/uncategorized/a-brief-history-of-smoking/
2. Ekpu, V. U., & Brown, A. K. (2015). The Economic Impact of Smoking and of Reducing Smoking Prevalence: Review of Evidence. Tobacco use insights, 8, 1-35. doi:10.4137/TUI.S15628. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/
3. Ellis, Marie. (2013). Total smoking bans effectively help smokers quit, study shows. Medical News Today. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270463.php
4. Proctor, N. Robert. (2013). Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition. PMC, i27–i30. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3632991/
5. Sharbaugh, M. S., Althouse, A. D., Thoma, F. W., Lee, J. S., Figueredo, V. M., & Mulukutla, S. R. (2018). Impact of cigarette taxes on smoking prevalence from 2001-2015: A report using the Behavioral and Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS). PLoS ONE, 13(9), 1–10. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.uky.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0204416

Image:

1. Figure 1. Whalen, Mark. (2011). How to Quit Smoking. PassMark Publishing Co. Retrieved from http://www.presmark.com/htmlfile/Comparison.html
2. Figure 2. Caffarena, Paulino. (2011). Smoking is Murder! Armenian MedMedia. Retrieved from http://www.health.am/ab/more/smoking-is-murder/

1. Introduction

The tobacco use epidemic is one of the biggest public health threats across the world, killing around 6 million people a year (600.000 of them are among non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke). 22% of the world’s adults are smokers and nearly 80% of the world’s smokers live in low and middle-income countries. As it is well known, smoking is a leading global cause of preventable disease and death.[footnoteRef:2] [2: (The World Bank, 2017)]

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) is the first treaty negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization. It was adopted by the World Health Assembly on 21 May 2003 and entered into force on 27 February 2005. It has since become one of the most rapidly and widely embraced treaties in United Nations history. The WHO FCTC is an evidence-based treaty that reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standard of health. It represents a paradigm shift in developing a regulatory strategy to address addictive substances; in contrast to previous drug control treaties, the WHO FCTC asserts the importance of demand reduction strategies as well as supply issues.

However, FCTC standards are minimum requirements, and signatories are encouraged to be even more stringent in regulating tobacco than the treaty requires them to be.

In this paper, three different possible regulations of the smoking ban are analyzed in order to see which economic impact they have not only in society but also for the hospitality industry and the government, including the health care system.

The first of them, called ‘Status Quo’ reflects a very weak regulation since it allows smoking in almost all public spaces, such as bars restaurants, or even in some workplaces, public transport. This system is implemented most of all in the Balkans, that is, in countries such as Bosnia Herzegovina or Serbia. This policy is not working well as it does not protect the citizens as it should, not only the smokers but also those who are secondhand smokers.

As an alternative public policy, a partial anti-smoking law has been analyzed, that is, one that allows smoking only in certain indoor areas, such as bars, clubs, or similar spaces, or has two separate rooms: one of them for smokers and the other for non-smokers. This kind of policy is established in countries such as Austria and Germany.

Finally, the alternative public policy number two is a total smoking ban. Spain has implemented this system that prohibits smoking in all kinds of indoor public spaces and even in some outdoor areas, such as schools, or playground areas.

2. Main Part

a. General comparison between the public policies

As a starting point, the general profile of each policy will be analyzed, based on the WHO reports on the global tobacco epidemic.

The prevalence (%) of tobacco smoking is one the biggest differences between the three countries, which have diverse policies. In Spain, where there is a total smoking ban, the prevalence for current adult smoking is 25,4%, while in Austria it is 26,9% and in Bosnia, it is 33,6%.

There are several kinds of taxes on cigarettes. An excise tax is a tax on tobacco produced for sale within a country or imported and sold in that country. It can be either specific (a set amount per pack) or ad valorem (an amount proportional to the cost of the pack). VAT (value added tax) may be charged in addition and most countries that have VAT impose it on a base that includes an excise tax and customs duty.

Regarding the WHO reports, which analyze the taxes on the most sold brand of cigarettes, it allows to see the differences. In Austria, where there is a partial smoking ban, the price for a tobacco 20 cigarettes pack is 5 Euros. From this price, 75,7% are total taxes including 20% specific excise, 39% ad valorem excise, and 16,7% VAT.

On the other hand, the price for a pack of 20 cigarettes in Spain is 4,85 Euros. From this price, 78,3% are total taxes including 9,9% specific excise, 51% ad valorem excise, and 17,4% VAT.

At last, in Bosnia, the price is much lower, 2,3 Euros. The taxes in this third country are 84,3% in total: 26,7% specific excise, 42% ad valorem excise, and 14,5% VAT.

Once the general price overview is complete, an affordability comparison can be made. As a highlight, Bosnia is a middle-income country, so tobacco is less affordable than in other countries. Nevertheless, as there are almost no smoking restrictions, the percentage of smokers is higher. The percentage of GDP per capita required to purchase 100 packs of the most sold brand of cigarettes in Bosnia is 5,91%, whereas in Austria it is 1,24% and in Spain 2,02%.

Finally, in the context of the annual tax revenue from tobacco products on each country, a total excise can be found out adding the specific excise to the ad valorem. The highest total excise is the one from Spain (around 7.151.250.000 Euros), in second place is Austria (around 1.776.300.000 Euros) and at last Bosnia (415.562.485 Euros).

b. Status Quo

As it has been already mentioned, as a Status Quo, it has been taken as policy the one applied in the Balkan area, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

i. Exposure to tobacco smoke (ETS)

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the WHO Countrywide Integrated Noncommunicable Disease Intervention (CINDI) program, estimated in 2001 that 36% of employees were exposed to tobacco smoke in the workplace for more than 5 hours per day, 15% for between 1-5 hours, and 6% for less than an hour. This highlights the ineffective implementation of a law banning smoking in workplaces which was adopted by Parliament in 1998. 66% of interviewees were also exposed to passive smoking in their households. In comparison, a study done in Finland found that in 2000, 8% of non-smoking men and 4% of non-smoking women were exposed to tobacco smoke at work.

Global Youth Tobacco Survey carried out in the region indicates high exposure to tobacco smoke in public places as well as very high exposure of children to ETS at home, ranging from 69% in Bulgaria to 97% in Serbia.

ii. Health impact

Lung cancer incidence and mortality data also indicate the high toll that tobacco use extracts in South Eastern Europe. Estimates by the International Agency on Research on Cancer for the year 2000 indicate that this region has among the highest age-standardized male lung cancer incidence and mortality rates in Europe. The highest lung cancer incidence rates in Europe were seen in Hungary (95.5/100,000), followed by Croatia (82.5/100,000) and Bosnia (81.2/100,000), while the lowest were found in Sweden (21.4/100,000). Lung cancer mortality was highest in Hungary (86.2/100,000), followed by Poland (71.5/100,000) and Croatia (70.3/100,000).

For example, in Bosnia from 1842 cases found in the year 2000, 1238 were lead to death.

iii. Workplace

Restrictions on smoking in workplaces and public places protect non-smokers from involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke. They also help smokers quit and for those that continue to smoke help them reduce consumption. According to various studies, such restrictions have reduced tobacco consumption by 4 to 10 percent in the presence of high-level awareness of the health consequences of exposure to secondhand smoke. Complete bans are more effective than those that allow smoking in some parts of the workplace. Contrary to industry propaganda, ventilation offers little protection again secondhand smoke. Such restrictions also play a key role in denormalizing smoking.

Nevertheless, in such countries, like the Balkan area, even though smoking is prohibited in the workplace, there is always a place for them to smoke, what supposes a infringement of the regulation.

c. Public Policy 1: Partial Smoking Ban

i. Exposure to tobacco smoke

A smoke-free hospitality industry reduces the pollution in the air. In one study, the nicotine concentration of air in restaurants in different European cities was carried out. Especially in Vienna, the burden was particularly high with an average of 122 and 91 μg / m³ of nicotine. If a person dances for four hours in a Viennese nightclub, it is exposed to a similar level of passive smoking (2.2 μg / m³) that if it lived with a smoker for one month.

In bars and restaurants with mixed policies, concentrations in non-smoking areas were three times higher than in smoke-free restaurants, possibly through contamination from the smoking areas, supporting the conclusion that the barrier systems implemented were insufficient to eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke.

Some studies show that bars and discos are the places with the highest concentrations. Restaurants have the next highest concentrations. In cities like Vienna, it must be pointed out that the concentration in the part of the restaurant where smoking is not allowed is not dissimilar to concentrations in areas where it is allowed.

ii. Health impact

In 2002, direct costs in Germany amounted to 223.6 billion Euros. This corresponds to health expenditure for outpatient, inpatient, and day-patient care, health and administrative services, and household health expenditure.

The Austrian health expenditure – public and private – according to SHA (System of Health Accounts, OECD) amounted to 23,068.1 million Euros in 2003. Current health expenditure amounted to 22,112.7 million Euros.

The paid-out federal and state care funds amounting to 1,747.9 million euros in 2003 are deducted from the current health expenditure and thus receive the reference value for direct medical costs in Austria: 20,364.9 million Euros. [footnoteRef:10] [10: (Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), 2008)]

However, following the implementation of the German partial smoking ban, the all-cause hospital admission rate decreased significantly by about 10 admissions per 1 million population (or 1.6%). The cardiovascular admission rate also decreased by 1.9 per 1 million population (or by 2.1%). Applying the average health care costs of one hospital day of about 500 Euros, just these avoided cardiovascular admissions would yield a resource savings estimate worth 78 thousand Euros per day.

d. Public Policy 2: Total Smoking Ban

i. Exposure to tobacco smoke

The proportion of non-smokers that had undetectable cotinine concentrations increased from 7.3% before the 28/2005 law to 53.2% after the implementation of the 42/2010 law. The results confirmed the positive impact of smoke-free laws on SHS exposure at the population level. For example, after legislation, in New York, it was found an increase in the proportion of respondents with cotinine concentrations below the detection limit (from 32.5% to 52.4%); in Scotland, it was also observed an increase in individuals with undetectable cotinine (from 11.3% to 27.6%); and, in England, it was discovered that the odds of having undetectable nicotine were 1.5 times higher than before the legislation. In addition to this shift in the distribution of the non-smoking population towards lower levels of cotinine, the mean concentration declined from 0.93 ng/mL to 0.12 ng/mL (adjusted reduction of 87.6%).

ii. Health impact

It is estimated that there are about 29 health problems associated with smoking, although the bulk of spending is devoted to five, such as coronary heart disease, with an expenditure of 3,600 million Euros, chronic obstructive disease (3,000 million Euros), strokes (710 million Euros), asthma (267 million Euros) and lung cancer (163 million Euros). The direct health costs of these five diseases associated with tobacco consumption currently represent an estimated figure of 7695.29 million Euros per year in Spain.

iii. Working Productivity

The consumption of tobacco in the companies supposes annual costs of 8,780 million Euros. These costs can be divided into those produced by work absenteeism for diseases related to tobacco consumption, which amount to 292.57 million Euros, those related to the loss of productivity due to the consumption of tobacco in the workplace, amounting to 6720.80 million Euros, and the additional costs of cleaning and maintenance of facilities which would be 1768.50 million Euros.

3. Effects on the hospitality industry

One of the biggest fears of applying anti-smoking measures comes from the hospitality industry: in particular bars and pubs. In some countries, the propagation of smoke-free air policies has been slowed by fears that restrictions on smoking may have a negative impact for this sector. Debates centre on the claim that there will be a loss of revenue as a result of smokers visiting these establishments less frequently, cutting their visits shorter, and spending less money than they otherwise would if smoking were permitted. Against this, it is argued that the premise that smokers would change their habits is wrong or that even if some smokers reduce their visits, it could be balanced by non-smokers increasing their visits.

Due to this, numerous studies have been carried out once the law comes into force, analyzing the economic impact that it really entails.

One of them, carried out in Norway, demonstrates that, although having one of the most adverse climates in Europe, the bar revenues were practically not affected by the entry into force of this ban.

In 2005, the year after the law came into force in Norway, pub revenue was 1.2% higher than the year before (2003). Although revenue increased, it did not increase as much as personal consumption in general, so as a share of consumption, pub revenue went down from 0.077 to 0.071%. The results show that there was no significant result on revenue in restaurants. The results for pubs were more mixed. As a share of personal consumption revenues in pubs went down in the short run, but in the long run and in absolute terms revenues increased. The data on revenues show that there was little if any, immediate or long-term impact on restaurant revenue since this grew more in 2005 (3.3%) than in any of the three previous years. Pub revenue is more interesting since it declined by 1% in 2005 and increased by a record 7.8% in 2006.

On the other hand, even though the bar revenues do not seem to be affected as much as it was supposed to be, bars and pubs had to invest as a consequence of this law. For instance, the example of Spain is very interesting. In the year 2006, the first smoking ban came into force, which was a partial one. Because of this new regulation, bars, restaurants, and pubs that wanted to adequate their establishment had to invest in order to separate it into two new areas: one for smokers and another for non-smokers, as they were afraid their businesses had a negative economic impact. The investments ranged from 6.000 to 30.000 EURO depending on the size of the bar or restaurant. Howbeit, in the year 2011, a new law came into force, which supposed the actual total smoking ban. Even though the bar revenues did not sink as the owners and workers thought it would do, the investments they already made had no sense.

Regarding a study made in California, where a smoke-free air regulation is applied, it is suggested that bars are more appealing to the population as a whole when they are smoke-free. Nonetheless, it is quite possible that if an individual bar voluntarily banned smoking it would lose business. This would be the case, for instance, if the bar in question does not promote its new smoke-free status to the population of non-smoking potential customers. Far from smoke-free laws reducing bar revenues, they may actually increase them by simultaneously attracting more non-smokers while repelling few existing smokers, who have few alternative venues available.

In Austria, under a law passed in 2015, a total ban was to become effective starting in May 2018. But the new coalition government between the conservatives and the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) just canceled the measure. The change was prompted by the leader of the Freedom Party and current Austrian Deputy Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, who told Parliament last month that an absolute ban would infringe on “freedom of choice”. Dr. Manfred Neuberger, professor emeritus of the Medical University of Vienna, pointed that it was an irresponsible decision and a victory for the tobacco industry and that the new government had just made Austria the ashtray of Europe.

4. Conclusions

Through this paper it is able to appreciate the different consequences of regulating the smoking ban by diverse public policies.

In countries where the regulation is null or lax (Balkan area), the number of smokers is much higher and as a consequence, diseases and deaths occur more frequently due to tobacco consumption, moreover, it does not only affect those who decide smoking but to the rest of the population as passive or second-hand smokers.

As such, almost half of the adult population smokes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, accounting the Non-communicable diseases for 45% of deaths in the country. Smoking is rife in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the price of a pack of cigarettes is one of the lowest in Europe and Central Asia. The country ranks number 8 in the world in terms of smokers per capita and the percentage of adolescent smokers is steadily increasing.

On the other hand, in countries with a partial ban such as Germany or Austria, the number of smokers is also high, but not as high as in countries where there are not as many restrictions. Nevertheless, health issues are still a problem for these countries, because, as the studies mentioned before and many others state, the fact of separating establishments such as restaurants or bars in two areas, practically does not produce any benefit, since both rooms are finally contaminated. However, the number of diseases related to smoking is much lower than in places where the policy called in this paper ‘Status Quo’ is applied.

To conclude, a total ban on smoking in closed public settings is the best way to contribute to the fight against smoking. According to the data provided, countries that apply this regulation have a lower number of smokers, not only those who do not start smoking but those who, thanks to these measures also smoke less or have been of great help to quit.

All in all, smoking is one of the biggest causes of death, totally preventable and that generates in the state, companies, and healthcare system costs that cannot financed by the payment of taxes by smokers. Thanks to preventive measures and prohibitions, the number of smokers has declines and the population is clearly healthier.

My own recommendation to solve this endemic and worldwide problem would be to establish a total smoking ban in every country, and as an addition, an increase in taxes, this is, on the price of a cigarette pack.

Increasing the retail price of tobacco products through higher taxes is the single most effective way to decrease consumption and encourage tobacco users to quit. When tobacco prices increase fewer people use tobacco, people who continue to use tobacco tend to consume less, also those who have quit are less likely to start again and, of course, the young are less likely to start using tobacco.

Tobacco taxes are generally well accepted because most people understand that tobacco is harmful. In high-income countries, a 10% increase in tobacco prices will reduce consumption by about 4%. The effect of higher prices on reducing consumption is likely to be greater in low- and middle-income countries.

It has been found out that an average price increase of 10% throughout the EU would lead to an average increase in revenues by about 6.76%. Moreover, the results showed that the average tobacco taxation benefit of all EU countries significantly increased by 6644 million US$ as a result of rising cigarette prices. In the future, increased cigarette prices in all EU countries are likely to reduce further the demand for cigarettes, and the appreciable increase in tobacco taxation revenues could be spent on the prevention and control of cigarette-related diseases.

5. Bibliography

1. Bozicevic, I., Gilmore, A., & Oreskovic, S. (2004). The Tobacco Epidemic in South-East Europe: Consequences and Policy Responses (p. 11). Retrieved from http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/11606/ (Bozicevic, Gilmore & Oreskovic, 2004)
2. Institut für Höhere Studien (HIS(. (2008). Volkswirtschaftliche Effekte des Rauchen Eine ökonomische Analyse für Österreich (p.11). Wien. (Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), 2008)
3. Gorini, G., Moshammer, H., Sbrogi, L., Gasparrini, A., Nebot, M., & Neuberger, M. et al. (2008). Italy and Austria before and after study: second-hand smoke exposure in hospitality premises before and after 2 years from the introduction of the Italian smoking ban. Indoor Air, 18(4), 328-334. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2008.00534.x (Gorini et al., 2008)
4. Erazo, M., Iglesias, V., Droppelmann, A., Acuña, M., Peruga, A., & Navas-Ascien, A. (2010). Secondhand tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants in Santiago, Chile: evaluation of partial smoking ban legislation in public places (p. 11). (Erazo et al., 2010)
5. Kvasnicka, M., Siedler, T., & Ziebarth, N. (2018). The health effects of smoking bans: Evidence from German hospitalization data. Health Economics, 27(11), 1738-1753. DOI: 10.1002/hec.3798 (Kvasnicka, Siedler & Ziebarth, 2018)
6. Sureda, X., Martínez-Sánchez, J., Fu, M., Pérez-Ortuño, R., Martínez, C., & Carabasa, E. et al. (2014). Impact of the Spanish Smoke-Free Legislation on Adult, Non-Smoker Exposure to Secondhand Smoke: Cross-Sectional Surveys before (2004) and after (2012) Legislation. Plus ONE, 9(2), e89430. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089430 (Sureda et al., 2014)
7. Comité Nacional para la Prevención del Tabaquismo (CNPT). (2018). Evaluación del Control del Tabaquismo sobre los costes empresariales y sanitarios (p. 3). (Comité Nacional para la Prevención del Tabaquismo (CNPT), 2018)
8. Nebot, M. (2005). Environmental tobacco smoke exposure in public places of European cities. Tobacco Control, 14(1), 62. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2004.008581 (Nebot, 2005)
9. Melberg, H., & Lund, K. (2010). Do smoke-free laws affect revenues in pubs and restaurants?. The European Journal Of Health Economics, 13(1). DOI: 10.1007/s10198-010-0287-6 (Melberg & Lund, 2010)
10. Cowling, D., & Bond, P. (2005). Smoke-free laws and bar revenues in California – the last call. Health Economics, 14(12), 9. doi: 10.1002/hec.1016 (Cowling & Bond, 2005)
11. BBC. (2018). ‘El cenicero de Europa’: por qué Austria se resiste a prohibir fumar en bares y restaurantes (y qué tiene que ver con ello la extrema derecha). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-43104216 (BBC, 2018)
12. The World Bank. (2017). Stop Smoking: It’s Deadly and Bad for the Economy[Image]. (The World Bank, 2017)
13. World Health Organization. (2017). WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic. (Spain, Austria, and Bosnia and Herzegovina)
14. World Health Organization. Raise taxes on tobacco [Image]. (World Health Organization, n.d.)
15. Yeh, C., Schafferer, C., Lee, J., Ho, L., & Hsieh, C. (2017). The effects of a rise in cigarette price on cigarette consumption, tobacco taxation revenues, and of smoking-related deaths in 28 EU countries– applying threshold regression modelling. BMC Public Health, 17(1). doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4685-x (Yeh, Schafferer, Lee, Ho & Hsieh, 2017)

In the 18th year of Daoguang, the Daoguang Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangdong to bring the opium use to an end. After Lin Zexu had arrived, more than 20,000 boxes of opium were confiscated and destroyed in Humen, Haikou. This move completely annoyed the British merchants, considering it as an invasion against Britain which destroyed the Sino-British trade and threatened the safety of British merchants in China, leading to the First Opium War against the Qing government. This paper holds the view that the reason why the Qing government banned opium was not that opium seriously harmed people’s health, but the opium trade caused the Qing government to lose a large amount of silver and the economy to collapse. Furthermore, the Qing government issued a series of anti-smoking regulations and policies, which failed in the end mainly due to the corruption and inaction of officials in the Qing Dynasty.

From the beginning of the Ming Dynasty to the first year of Longqing, China had imposed a sea ban for nearly 200 years. But in the past two hundred years, the West had experienced the two industrial revolutions, when earth-shaking changes took place, while China was stagnated in the East. At the same time, after the completion of the industrial revolution, the United Kingdom urgently needed a large market as a commodity export destination, and China just met the standards.

Although the British tried to export British goods to China as much as possible, the Chinese did not do purchases, and most of the goods could be produced by the Qing Dynasty, which resulted in great losses for British merchants. On the contrary, tea, silk, porcelain, and other products produced in the Qing Dynasty were very popular in the European market, which enabled China to earn a large amount of silver. This market power had led to long-term trade deficits in European governments, who were forced to face the risk of silver shortages in the domestic economy at the cost to meet the requirements of Qing merchants.[footnoteRef:4] This trade model was intolerable to British merchants who had gone to great lengths to do business in China.

While the British were still troubled by the trade deficits and debts, the opium trade opened a door for them. British merchants found that opium exports to China could bring a huge amount of profits and opium contained a lot of narcotic toxins so the Chinese could hardly quit once they were addicted to opium.[footnoteRef:5] As a result, British merchants began to export large quantities of opium into China in order to gain profits. However, the long-term use of opium would make people listless, and skinny, and even cause death. At that time, opium was popular in the Qing Dynasty from top to bottom. Not only did the elites like to use opium, but some merchants, civilians, and even soldiers in the army were addicted to opium as well. Opium abuse led to the destruction of many families and no one willing to farm. Government officials and ministers smoked opium without considering affairs for the country. And the soldiers were too weak and listless to fight.

In fact, although the opium trade entered the Qing Dynasty, the number of people who smoked opium only accounted for 5% of the total population of the nation. According to Chinese Modern History written by Fan Wenlan, the number of people smoking opium was estimated to be more than two million in 1835. However, in 1833, before the First Opium War, the population of the Qing Dynasty reached 400 million. Compared with the population of 400 million people, over two million people smoking opium did not strike as a serious social problem. It was the economy of the Qing government that the opium trade actually destroyed, rather than the health of the civilians. The opium trade provided the British East India Company with a great fortune in China. They not only earned back the silver they had spent on tea and silk purchased from the Qing Dynasty but also took a large amount of silver from China by selling opium. The import of opium under the rule of Emperor Yongzheng amounted to 200 boxes per year, the number of which steadily rose to 1000 to the times of Emperor Qianlong, 4000 of Emperor Jiaqing, and reached 30,000 of Emperor Daoguang. Before 1767, Britain exported less than 200 boxes of opium to China every year (each weighed 50-60 kg), but in 1839, Britain exported more than 40,000 boxes of opium to China. The outflow of silver from China was at least five million kilograms, with an average annual outflow of 5 million silver, making up ten percent of the total annual income of the Qing government. The opium trade profits accounted for 15 to 20 percent of British income and caused the scarcity of silver in China.

China was not a silver producer, always counting on foreign trade to support the domestic silver circulation. It was the standard currency of the Qing dynasty, which means that all taxes and financial settlements relied on silver and that in the market merchants used silver as money to buy products, and people also paid taxes with silver. However, as a consequence of opium trade, a large amount of silver flow from the Qing government was lost overseas, and the social economy was greatly affected. The lack of silver was doomed to cause problems in the operation of the entire empire system. The price of silver became expensive, the people could not afford to pay taxes, and the burden of living was aggravated, which eventually resulted in inflation. Lin Zexu insisted on banning smoking because he discovered the economic impact of the opium trade. In his report to the Emperor Daoguang, he wrote, “If the traffic in opium were not stopped, a few decades from now we would not only be losing soldiers to resist the enemy but also in want of silver to form an army.”Therefore, what opium really destroyed was the government’s economy, rather than the health of the people.

In 1729, the seventh year of Emperor Yongzheng, the Qing government issued the first smoking ban, which stipulated that “if anyone is found to be selling opium, the illegal goods will be confiscated, and the traffickers will be detained for a month, and then sent to the border to join the army.” This was the earliest anti-smoking law in China. But this law only prohibited the sale of opium, not the import of opium. In addition, this law distinguished the medicinal opium from the smoking type, that is, it only prohibited the smoking opium but the use of opium as medicine. In the fifteenth year of Emperor Qianlong’s reign in 1750, the Qing court issued another smoking ban. The law prohibited the trafficking, sale, and consumption of opium in China, still not forbidding medicinal use.[footnoteRef:18] Therefore, the prohibition effect of this law on opium was weak. In the first year of Jiaqing in 1796, facing the useless decrees of the previous dynasty, Emperor Jiaqing issued a smoking ban. In this act, it was the first time that the regulation of opium had been established, and the prohibition of opium was extended to its use, where opium users were severely punished.

Despite the fact that Emperor Yongzheng had issued laws against opium since the beginning, but people did not really realize the harm of opium, the ban on smoking was not of any use. By the time of Qianlong, the official establishment of “Canton Cohong” aggravated the degree of corruption in the Qing Dynasty. In 1757, Emperor Qianlong limited all western trade to Canton and regulated it through Cohong merchants. As agents of the government and with full support, Cohong had legitimate monopoly rights in trade with foreigners, acting as intermediaries for foreign merchants in Chinese trade, responsible for their behaviors and goods.[footnoteRef:21] However, foreign merchants did not have any power in the Qing Dynasty, in that they were only allowed to do business with Cohong merchants and limited to live in the Thirteen Hongs of Canton. Under this rule, Cohong was responsible for all foreign merchants who came to trade in the Qing Dynasty. If Cohong failed to manage transactions with foreign merchants, it needed to pay off the loan owed by the foreign merchants. In this sense Cohong merchants were not only responsible for their own goods but also for the delinquent loans of foreign merchants. This unique feature had put Cohong in the position of a tool used by government officials to squeeze foreign trade. In terms of system, although Cohong were mainly under the control of the customs, whether it was the governor, general, Xunfu or any other government offices in Canton, they were able to impose orders on Cohong in varied ways. Faced with these officials with much more power, Cohong merchants naturally dared not offend anyone.

Although foreign trade was likely to generate high income, Cohong merchants had to establish good relations with government officials if they wanted to get through the inspection and supervision of the Qing customs without being targeted by local officials. The most direct way to satisfy officials’ greed and establish relationships with them was bribery. This forced extortion directly led to the creation of “Consoo funds”. According to John K. Fairbank’s description in Late Qing dynasty Cambridge History of China, in order to protect themselves, Cohong merchants established a secret fund in 1775. Every member of Cohong ought to contribute a tenth of their trade profits to the fund to cover officials’ extortion. It was not until in 1780 that the fund became public and officially imposed a 3 percent tax on imports to ensure that Cohong merchants could repay the debts of foreign merchants. This particular “Consoo fund” was aimed to insure the industry by dealing with the government extortion.

Finance was another manifestation of the “corrupt political system.” The expenditure of the local governments in the Qing Dynasty was not allocated by the central government but had to be spared by the chief executives in all levels form their own salaries, which became the most justifiable objective reason for their extortion. Moreover, the taxes and bribes collected from the officers and the local governors could not be taken entirely by themselves, and in order to preserve their status, they had to satisfy their superiors, who must satisfy more senior officials than them as well along the system the bureaucracy of the Qing Dynasty was like a bottomless pit devouring the country’s finance and taxation. In the face of such a corrupt system, it was difficult to avoid the corruption and degradation of the whole system and even the whole society.

With the development of the opium trade, the “Consoo fund” to solve the official extortion began to rely entirely on the support of opium. Moreover, as government extortion grew, the importance of the opium trade increased. The more officials extorted, the more foreign merchants needed to sell opium to satisfy the desires and meet the demands of Qing officials. Although the Qing government increased the ban on opium during the Daoguang period, it actually promoted the profit margin of the opium trade. The smoking bans only forced the opium trade to go underground. Not only did it fail to prohibit the opium trade but it also raised opium’s price. Only officials with senior positions were truly obeying and implementing smoking bans, but junior official positions would turn a blind eye to the smoking ban as long as they could profit from it. In the whole Qing Dynasty bureaucracy, such junior officials accounted for the most positions, whose inaction, non-cooperation, and corruption made it difficult for the smoking ban to take effect. Although Lin Zexu was determined to help the Qing government to get rid of the impact of opium smuggling on the social economy, faced with a bunch of incompetent and corrupt local officials, the only result waiting was a failure.

The reason why the Qing government banned opium was not that opium seriously harmed people’s health, but because the opium trade caused the Qing government to lose a large amount of silver and the economy to collapse. Although many emperors in the Qing Dynasty had issued smoking bans, all of them turned out nothing. The real reason behind was the corruption and incompetence of the Qing bureaucracy. The destruction of opium at Humen only brought the long smoking campaign to an end with its failure. At the same time, it also led to the First Opium War which led China to modern times.

Bibliography

1. Chen, Janet, et al. The Search for Modern China: A Documentary Collection, Third Edition, W.W. Norton and Co, New York, 2013.
2. David, Wright. Translating Science: The Transmission of Western Chemistry into Late Imperial China; 1840-1900. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
3. Glahn, Richard Von. Fountain of Fortune: Money and Monetary Policy in China, 1000-1700.
4. Taipei: SMC Pub., 1997.
5. Fay, Peter Ward. The Opium War 1840-1842: Barbarians in the Celestial Empire in the Early Part of the Nineteenth Century and the War by Which They Forced Her Gates Ajar.
6. Erscheinungsort Nicht Ermittelbar: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
7. Fan Wenlan. Chinese Modern History. People’s publishing house, 1995.
8. Liang Fangzhong, Statistics of Chinese Households, Fields, and Fields, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1980.
9. Wertz, Richard R. Exploring Chinese History: Database Catalog:: Biographical Database:: Qing Era- (1644- 1912). Accessed March 22, 2019.
10. http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistory/contents/06dat/bio.2qin.html.
11. James, Bradley. The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War. Boston, MA: Back Bay Books, 2010.
12. William, T. Rowe. China’s last empire: the great Qing. Cambridge. The Belk nap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.
13. Guo Tingyi. Outline of Modern Chinese History. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1979.
14. ]Wertz, Richard R. Qing Era (1644–1912). iBiblio, 1998.
15. http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistory/contents/06dat/bio.2qin.html
16. Newby, Laura. “Copper Plates for the Qianlong Emperor: From Paris to Peking via Canton.”
17. Journal of Early Modern History 16, 2012.
18. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1163/157006512×633254.
19. Farris, Johnathan. “Thirteen Factories of Canton: An Architecture of Sino-Western Collaboration and Confrontation.” Buildings & Landscapes: Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum 14, 2007.
20. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1353/bdl.2007.0000.
21. Hucker, Charles O. “Governmental Organization of The Ming Dynasty.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 21, 1958.
22. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.2307/2718619.
23. Phipps, John. A Practical Treatise on the China and Eastern Trade: Comprising the Commerce of Great Britain and India, with China and the Eastern Islands, with Directions and Numerous. Tables, Etc. London, 1836.
24. John King Fairbank. Late Qing dynasty Cambridge History of China. China social science press, 2006.
25. Fu Lo-shu. A documentary chronicle of Sino-Western relations, 1644-1820.
26. The Association for Asian Studies by the University of Arizona Press, 1966.

Smoking is known for its health risks and toxicity. Many people across the united states and further are being diagnosed with diseases caused by tobacco smoke even if they have never smoked a cigarette. The leading culprit is secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke (SHS) poses major health risks, especially the risk of lung cancer. A person could die from lung cancer caused by constant exposure to smokers, without ever smoking a cigarette. With the effects of secondhand smoke into account, more and more places have established bans on public smoking. Supporters of the bans claim that it will reduce the amount of harmful smoke inhalation. Critics of smoking bans claim that businesses that allow smoking will suffer in profits and that smokers have the right to smoke. With public smoking controversies on the rise, the right for smokers to smoke freely and the right for non-smokers to be smoke-free are clashing, which makes it one of the hottest debates today.

With the amount of people at risk, I firmly believe public smoking should be banned. Electric cigarettes have become a popular substitution for tobacco cigarettes, having consumers be attracted to the ability of smoking (vaping) indoors. Electric cigarettes have been able to eliminate the smoke smell like a normal tobacco cigarette, making them that much more attractive. This has allowed for owners of e-cigarettes like, ‘Juul’, ‘njoy’, and ‘blu.’ to bring them indoors to public places and smoke in the open. With public smoking, it doesn’t just hurt the rights and health of just an adult non-smokers but their children as well, who do not even have the choice to smoke yet. Smoking is one of the leading causes in many of the major health risks today, such as heart disease and most certainly lung cancer. The problem is, many of the people who are at risk have never even smoked but have inhaled secondhand smoke from people smoking around them. With public smoking, anyone’s rights are at stake, whether smoking is banned or not. The real question is whose rights are mostly at risk? Along with many other supporters of public smoking bans, I say the non-smoker. The reason being, smokers choose to smoke and take the health risks that come along with it and non-smokers have the risks thrust upon them when they’re out in a public place that allows smoking. There are also other issues that come with public smoking.

Secondhand smoke (SHS) is quickly becoming one of the most serious health risks today. The dangers of SHS contribute close to 50,000 deaths a year. (Harvard Heart Letter.) Many people consider public smoking bans to be a solution in reducing the effects brought on by SHS. Secondhand smoke increases the risk of asthma and respiratory infections in children and adults runs the risk of heart disease and lung cancer. A study testing the exposure of SHS was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene and showed how unsafe cigarette smoke is. (Hall et al. 698-703) The background of the article states that smoke from cigarettes contains many carcinogens and compounds such as carbon monoxide, ammonia, nicotine, and other toxic chemicals. It also says “SHS is considered the most significant contaminant of indoor air.” (Hall et al. 698) Their research concluded that there is no level of exposure from secondhand smoke that can be considered safe. (Hall et al. 703)

Knowing what we do now with secondhand smoke, there are no ways to completely protect yourself unless you choose to walk away from any situation with smokers around. A nonsmoker can become addicted to smoke and have the same addictive habits of needing the smell. Lato explains knowing a couple who were married more than 45 years, the husband being a smoker and the wife never a smoker. After all of the years, the wife became a widow and was so immune to being around the smell of cigarettes she would still prefer to sit in a smoking section when out to bars and restaurants. (Lato pp. 60). She has been consuming secondhand smoke for such a long time that it is an addiction to her, proving that secondhand smoke for others around is as bad as primary smoke. In order to get smoking bans passed, it is necessary to create an environment of hatred toward smoking and have people understand the threat it can make to their health. Making it harder for consumers to smoke and making it an inconvenience is how to decline the rise of tobacco cigarettes and electric cigarettes. Smokers today are driving further to where they can smoke in permitted outdoors or where enforcement is unlikely, as well as driving across borders to where smoking in bars is legal.

A study was conducted and included 120 counties, including 20 which banned smoking. It found that alcohol-related fatal car accidents increased 13%. About 6 deaths. Where the smoking bans had been in place longer than 18 months, the fatal accident rate increased to 19%. This was especially apparent where border-hopping to smoke-friendly bars. Living in a city like St. Louis where we do have certain bars and restaurants that allow smoking, I tend to forget that it isn’t always a normality for some cities and that people look at it like such a greater gift. Smoking inside bars and restaurants is not an attractive quality when and if I were to choose a place to spend my time and money at if the establishment allows open smoke around fresh food I would think about twice before eating there. The smoke scent lingers and never fully goes away, having this around your food can only hurt it and not be as fresh. I have worked in many bars and restaurants with allowed smoking for customers and employees, I have seen firsthand cooks choosing to smoke while preparing and cooking food. I find this completely repulsive and unfair to the people around. It is necessary for smoking bans to be made for incidents like that exactly, people need to have the right to know what type of environment their food is around.

Many critics feel that bars or restaurants might lose a lot of their customers who regularly come in and smoke, which will lead to a reduction in profits. Some smokers feel it is like advocates of public smoking bans are pushing for a prohibition of smoking, like the failed attempt to prohibit alcohol. There are arguments about how public smoking has risks associated with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), but critics say the risked-based arguments are not sufficient enough to justify the ban, because there are only “slight risks” from ETS. (Lambert 37-40) Another argument for smokers is the controversy over property rights. There are many businesses that choose to have a place that allows smoking, and non-smoking or it can accommodate for both by separating smokers from non-smokers. Ultimately, the critics of public smoking bans believe that allowing smoking in a public place to whoever owns it shouldn’t be a decision made by the government. (Lambert 40) In his article, “The Case Against Smoking Bans” Thomas A. Lambert states, “There is no need for government to force establishments to go nonsmoking; the market will provide an optimal number of nonsmoking choices.”(37)There is also the question of places that do not have a particular owner like parks, where the air is free to anyone. With a government-imposed ban on all forms of public smoking, the critics feel that it gives non-smokers “the right to the air.” (Lambert 40)

With the amount of support and arguments for both sides, it can be tough to decide which side proves the better point. The critics of the smoking ban did prove an interesting point about who has the rights over the air. However, I do not agree with their opinion. Nobody really has a right over the air; it belongs to nature. Everyone shares it, but there is a problem with pollutants of the air. I believe that smoking is an unnecessary pollutant of the air because it makes the air around others toxic without any purpose besides to feed an addiction. The argument against also says that public smoking only poses a “slight risk” to the people around it. The problem I have with that is that even though public smoking only has a slight risk to smokers, the health risks increase more and more when they’re frequently exposed to ETS. It can be harmful to people with asthma or people who need oxygen tanks to breathe. Public smoking is an unnecessary risk that many individuals are forced to take.

No matter what law is passed to ban public smoking or if people decide to keep it, someone will lose something, namely smokers or non-smokers. The question is which sacrifice is greater or who will lose more if a law is or is not passed? If smoking in public is allowed, there will be a constant risk of non-smoking individuals going to places and inhaling secondhand smoke. Many people who already have trouble breathing could be harmed by environmental tobacco smoke. If public smoking bans are allowed, smokers lose their right to smoke at restaurants, bars, and many other places. There is also still a chance that some businesses might see a reduction in profits from their smoking customers. Which sacrifice is greater? I believe that sacrificing the right to smoke in public is insignificant compared to the right to lead a healthy and smoke-free lifestyle. If smokers want to sacrifice their health to feed their smoking addiction, they should do it in the privacy of their own homes to keep the general public safe from the risks of secondhand smoke. The rights of one smoker do not outweigh the rights of many non-smokers. There are too many people already at risk from the hazards caused by second-hand smoke. I support banning public smoking in the United States to keep the non-smoking population, as well as their children, safe from environmental or second-hand smoke.

The magnitude of young adults and adults vaping has taken the world by storm with claiming to be safer and less addictive than regular tobacco cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered devices that deliver nicotine in an aerosol to the consumer. E-cigarettes heat and vaporize a solution containing nicotine, and many are designed to look outwardly like traditional tobacco cigarettes. There are over 400 different E-Cigarette on the market, but in recent, a newcomer in the market emerged called, ‘Juul.’ E-Cigs had been on the market for almost a decade before Juul, though none had really taken off as well. The craze with electronic cigarettes began with the main focus of suggest that e-cigarettes may help people quit smoking while acknowledging that nicotine addiction is still probably maintained. Claiming to be ‘better’ for you to internally and long term the device delivers heated nicotine aerosol with a few other chemicals, so compared with smoking cigarettes there is exposure to many fewer inhaled chemicals. Juul has adopted the tactic for itself by advertising the brand on the idea of “switching” from tobacco cigarettes to vapes. Juul has openly expressed that switching is not another word for cessation of safer, but they mean very different things. According to the company, switching involves continuing to consume nicotine but from a different device, while cessation is about getting users to eliminate their nicotine consumption altogether. (Time pp.45). E-Cigarette companies have claimed for many years to be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, the debate has led to extensive research to prove the theory. The nicotine content of the cartridge e-liquid from some brands revealed poor concordance of labeled and actual nicotine content. Vapors from e-cigarettes have been proved with toxic and carcinogenic compounds. (Hajek, Peter). Having e-cigarettes does eliminate the secondhand smoke issue with regular tobacco, in theory, the e-cigarettes are designed to approximate a smoky bar. A person inhaling a nicotine aerosol usually absorbs 80% of the nicotine, whereas the pump discharges all nicotine into the environment, so the nicotine exposure may be higher in this study than would be the case with actual secondhand aerosol exposure. (Journal of Thoracic pp. 440). There are no proven effects from secondhand infections from vaping, but this can still all be looked at as indoor pollution from people using e-cigarettes over a period of time in a public environment.

When it comes to electric cigarettes there is no such thing as secondhand smoke per say. This is a benefit for surrounding others, especially when in public. The biggest issue with electric cigarettes that I have picked up on and seen first-hand is the fact that they are so available to anyone and everyone, it may not be a secondhand smoke but since it is that much more accessible and easy what is going to stop someone who is trying to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes from grabbing a friends e-cigarette. This is still a huge issue because it enables a huge amount of people to continue to smoke, or to begin smoking by vaping first, this starts a trend in people and a never-ending cycle of putting chemicals in your body. Making sure you know exactly what you’re putting into your body, when it comes to cigarettes and vaping can be an overwhelming but making sure you do your research is key.

Works Cited:

1. Hall, J. C., J. T. Bernert, D. B. Hall, G. St.Helen, L. H. Kudon, and L. P. Naeher. ‘Assessment of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke at Outdoor Bars and Family Restaurants in Athens, Georgia, Using Salivary Cotinine.’ Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (2009): 698-704. 16 Oct. 2009. Web. 25 Nov. 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19757294
2. Ducharme, Jamie. “The New American Addiction: How Juul hooked kids and ignited a public health crisis.” Time, 30 September 2019, pp. 44-47.
3. Robert, Lato Frances. Tobacco and Smoking. “Secondhand Smoke Is Dangerous.” Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing, 2010, pp 51-57.
4. Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Tipping Point.” New York, NY: Little, Brown, and Company. Hachette Book Group, 2013, pp 251-253.
5. “E-Cigarettes and Cancer Patients.” Journal of Thoracic. Vol. 9. Issue 4. April 2014, Pages 438-441.
6. [bookmark: OLE_LINK1][bookmark: OLE_LINK2]Hajek, Peter. “Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit.” Addiction. Vol. 109. Issue 11. November 2014 Pages 1801-1810.
7. Lambert, A Thomas. “The Case Against Smoking Bans.” Risk. The University of Missouri- Columbia School of Law. PDF.
8. Editorial Staff. Another Gross Reason to Put Down the E-Cigarette. The American Lung Association. June 27, 2019 (Last Updated: July 3, 2019). https://www.lung.org/about-us/blog/2019/06/another-gross-reason.html. Accessed 25 November 2019.

This study focuses improving the establishment of a smoke-free environment in public and enclosed places.

In today’s generation, many temptations may arise, taking drugs, prostitution, gambling, drinking alcohol, and smoking, but smoking is considered as the first vice that you can try, it is natural to the community but its effects may be so harming. Smoking is a practice in which a substance is burned and the resulting smoke breathed in to be tasted and absorbed into the bloodstream.

The Philippines have previous law regarding tobacco products, the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 also known as RA 9211, this law prohibits smoking in public places, tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, and sales restriction, The inter-agency tobacco committee issued implementing rule and regulations of the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, committees implementing rules and regulations are comprehensive and cover a broad range of topics on tobacco control.

The other law regarding smoking in public places is RA, 8749 also known as Philippine Clean Air Act, it is a comprehensive air quality management policy which aims to achieve and maintain healthy air for all Filipinos, this law was assign to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for the implementation, some agencies help support this law such as Department of transportation and communication, department of science and technology, department of trade and industry, department of energy, department of education, commission on higher education, department of interior and local government and local government units, Philippines information agency, Philippine atmospheric geophysical and astronomical services administration and Philippine nuclear research institute.

Executive order 26, aims for a Smoke-Free environment, one person who is smoking is can be a threat to the person surrounding him, Cigarette smoking or the smoking coming from a cigarette causes non-smoking adults exposed from 25% to 30% increased risk of developing lung cancer, in women, babies of the non-smoking women can experience a reduction of birth weight, in children or infants, inhalation of second-hand smoke can cause sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, middle ear disease, more severe asthma, respiratory symptoms and slowed lung growth.

In 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order (EO) 26—the nationwide smoking ban—that prohibits smoking in all public places in the Philippines. These no-smoking locations include schools, hospitals, clinics, government offices, food preparation areas, elevators, jeepneys, buses, and more. The EO also bans the sale, distribution, and purchase of cigarettes to and from minors.

According to the new order, tobacco cannot be sold within 100 meters, or about 330 feet, of schools, playgrounds, or anywhere children might gather. Municipalities must also designate smoking areas that are far from these places, and away from elevators, stairwells, gas stations, health centers, and wherever food is prepared. “No smoking” signs are to be posted in all public places. The order also called on civilians to join a “Smoke-Free Task Force to help carry out the provisions of this order” and apprehend and charge violators.

Executive Order No. 26, entitled Providing for the Establishment of Smoke-Free Environments in Public and Enclosed Places, was issued by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on 16 May 2017. This executive order invoked the Clean Air Act of 1999 and the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 to impose a nationwide ban on smoking in all public places in the Philippines. The ban replicates on a national level an existing ordinance in Davao City that Duterte created as mayor in 2002. The order took effect on 23 July 2017, 60 days after its publication in a newspaper

According to the CDC data and statistics, smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. It causes almost 6 million deaths every year, as it is responsible for cancer, lung diseases, heart disease, and emphysema, and increases the risk of quite a lot of other dangerous health problems.

Each and every one of us is aware that cigarettes are bad for health. We all know that tobacco use leads to a number of dangerous diseases and severely damages not only the health of smokers but also the health of all the people around them.

Despite these facts and all the life-threatening effects of smoking, lots of people still continue to enjoy their puffs on a daily basis. They either don’t have the slightest intention to quit or they simply think that they cannot kick the habit. Although tobacco addiction is real, primarily because of nicotine, which is the main addictive chemical in tobacco, it is actually quite possible to quit smoking and start leading a healthy life.If you are a smoker, you should definitely kick the nasty habit and, even if you are not, you should completely ban cigarette smoke in your home. There are really lots of reasons why you should do that, but take a look at the most crucial ones that will, hopefully, shed some more light on the major threat that cigarette smoke, especially secondhand one, poses on your and everyone else’s health.

Smoking has altering effect in human body, some people say that smoking can calm and relax their bodies, but according to the studies, cigarette has short-term effects like addiction to nicotine and exposure to dangerous chemicals, more breathing problems, shortness of breath, phlegm, and a coarse cough, impaired lung growth and function, bad breath, yellow teeth, and stained fingers, foul-smelling clothes, and hair. Smoking can harm body function, but then users continuously smoking cigarettes at all, because cigarettes contain 4,000 chemicals, including known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins.

As a solution, a smoking ban is implemented in some countries. But not all complies to it, smoking ban could be a great solution for the abolishment of cigarettes not only in public places but also nationwide. The smoking ban has its main goal: To protect life, but they don’t think what smoking can do to their bodies. Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health. But due to the addictive effect, they cannot stop it that easy.

Smoking policies are highly implemented in offices, malls, and schools. Some provide Designated Smoking Area nearby those establishments. People nowadays are aware of what smoking can do to their body, but instead of stopping it, they’re keeps on smoking. All over the world, many countries have strict implementation of smoking ban, because of the effects in the environment in the health of the person smoking it or to the person around him/her.

Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and smoking behavior of those populations they affect.

To assess the extent to which legislation‐based smoking bans or restrictions reduce exposure to SHS, help people who smoke to reduce tobacco consumption or lower smoking prevalence, and affect the health of those in areas that have a ban or restriction in place.

There were 50 studies included in this review. Thirty‐one studies reported exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) with 19 studies measuring it using biomarkers. There was consistent evidence that smoking bans reduced exposure to SHS in workplaces, restaurants, pubs, and in public places. There was a greater reduction in exposure to SHS in hospitality workers compared to the general population. We failed to detect any difference in self‐reported exposure to SHS in cars. There was no change in either the prevalence or duration of reported exposure to SHS in the home as a result of implementing legislative bans. Twenty‐three studies reported measures of active smoking, often as a co‐variable rather than an end‐point in itself, with no consistent evidence of a reduction in smoking prevalence attributable to the ban. Total tobacco consumption was reduced in studies where prevalence declined. Twenty‐five studies reported health indicators as an outcome. Self‐reported respiratory and sensory symptoms were measured in 12 studies, with lung function measured in five of them. There was consistent evidence of a reduction in hospital admissions for cardiac events as well as an improvement in some health indicators after the ban.

A smoking ban does lead to a reduction in exposure to passive smoking. Hospitality workers experienced a greater reduction in exposure to SHS after implementing the ban compared to the general population. There is limited evidence about the impact on active smoking but the trend is downwards. There is some evidence of an improvement in health outcomes. The strongest evidence is the reduction seen in admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is an increase in support for and compliance with smoking bans after the legislation.

The WHO FCTC aims to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental, and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke. As of 2012, 79% of Parties reported strengthening their existing legislation or adopting new tobacco control legislation after ratifying the Convention. Additionally, over half of the Parties to the WHO FCTC reported having developed and implemented comprehensive tobacco control strategies, plans, and programs as required in Article 5.1 of the Convention. The WHO FCTC is described as an evidence-based treaty, implying that there is considerable research evidence that implementation of the measures contained in the Convention will result in such outcomes as a reduction in both tobacco use and exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS), ultimately reducing tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. The Treaty has a specific public health objective of reducing morbidity and mortality due to tobacco use. However, there are time lags throughout the process from ratification of the WHO FCTC, the promulgation of the Treaty-compliant tobacco control legislation, and actual implementation and enforcement of the law. There is also a time lag from when the policies are implemented until behavior changes in tobacco use (i.e. cessation or non-initiation by youth) are seen on a large scale within a country. There is also the time lag between behavior change and the accrual of health benefits. Among smokers who quit, a reduction in risk of cancer may take about a quarter of a century to manifest, with the most immediate health benefit being a reduction in the risk of heart disease. At the population level, reduction in overall mortality may begin to show up about quarter of a century after implementation of tobacco control

policies and reach full impact in about half a century (4). However, implementation of smoke-free policies has been shown to have more immediate health effects in populations, including significant reductions in acute myocardial infarctions (AMI).

Impact of smoke-free policies on exposure to second-hand smoke Article 8 of the WHO FCTC aims to provide protection from exposure to tobacco smoke. According to the Global Progress Report, 2012, Article 8 has been implemented in 83 countries (46.9%), the highest number of countries implementing any WHO FCTC article. By 2012, as many as 109 Parties reached their individual five-year time frame for implementation of public smoking bans. Eight-eight Parties also reported having mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of smoke-free measures. A comprehensive review on the impact of public smoking bans was undertaken by the Cochrane group and published in 2009. Fifty studies were reviewed, including a variety of methodologies and sizes, with all the studies having taken place in North America, Europe, or Australasia. No meta-analysis was performed due to the heterogeneity of the studies. This review looked at studies measuring the actual reduction in SHS exposure. Reduced exposure to SHS is the first outcome measure for a smoke-free policy.

In our information about the smoking ban, most of us have mentioned our source of source. There are some less than what the smoking ban has to do and what the smoking ban is. Almost everything is discussed and nothing is missing, but others are somewhat unfit for introducing the introduction and the less is how to enforce the implementation of the smoking ban in public places where many people use cigarettes or tobacco.

Although our exposure to the smoking ban is most read and most of us can understand and know more about the importance of implementing the smoking ban in public places. What should be added is how the law enforcement can be implemented and what it will be accomplished in a country or in a private area.

It does not say what areas are affected by the implementation of the smoking ban and where it is going on, perhaps the whole of the Philippines is spreading the use of cigarettes and drugs as well as forbidden drugs as necessary. Really enforcing the smoking ban in different places in the Philippines or across the country to improve the health of our country and no more pain in the use of cigarettes. We know that this is unavoidable because it should be used properly and do not abuse the use of cigarettes. Use these in the right place and in the safe to minimize accidents and illness that will go to the users and especially those who are not using cigarettes.