Smoking Bans: Preventive Measures

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

Introduction
Banning smoking at Florida Campus
Lambert’s thought on smoke banning
Preventive measures
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

In depth, this paper illustrates the issue that is based on banning smoking and this is possible since smoking bans is not as new as some people may think. Going back to 1941, the Nazi president passed a law that bans smoking in buildings that belong to the government such as hospitals and schools. Moreover, it is showed that the United States finally followed all those countries by banning smoking officially in the federal buildings in 1997 through the influence of President Bill Clinton (Blanpain 58). As a result, the essay analyzes the measures which have been taken on the issue of banning smoke in Florida international university.

Banning smoking at Florida Campus

The document indicates that in 2010, Florida International University issued a law that prohibited any smoking activity in the campus. Smoking, in fact, was not only prohibited in the campus, but also in the cars. At first, when I read the news about banning smoking in all Florida universities, I was almost sure that no one would disagree with that law. However, it appears that some people disagree with the law not because they are smokers, but because they think it is their right to do whatever they wanted to do (Warner 96). Actually, I have never read an official article that disagrees with smoking bans.

Lambert’s thought on smoke banning

I did my research on Google and on Florida International University’s online library; I was trying to find a subject that is related to smoking bans. After I did my personal research on that particular subject, I found several articles and newspaper reports that were actually against smoking bans. But, what caught my attention from the news reports and the articles was the topic on “The Case against Smoking Bans” written by Author Thomas A. Lambert.

The author actually presents some statistics against smoking law (Warner 57). He argued that by banning smoking, people would lose their freedom when it comes to choosing what to do and what not to do. In addition to the freedom of people’s rights, Lambert said that there are people who believe that smokers will lessen government expenses in the health system compared to the non-smokers (Blanpain 75).

Lastly, Lambert claims that banning smoking will encourage young people to smoke because they will think it is great. Even though Lambert’s article contains detailed information concerning dangers of smoking, he still has reservations that students will still smoke despite the ban. Additional information is yet to be analyzed so as to enable people understand what he wants them to focus on when it comes to banning smoking in the public.

In his article, Lambert has not only missed some facts, but also he does not have the logic to clearly analyze his claim. Although I agree with some of the points that the author states about the rights of the people concerning “what they want to do and when to do it,” I disagree with the author on giving the people the right to hurt people. Anything that hurts other people is not a right, and most people should be against it. Smoking in public places can affect not only adult’s health, but also children’s health (Warner 106). In fact, I have always believed that smoking should be considered as dangerous as guns or other weapons that harm people.

Preventive measures

The document indicates that there ought to be a-range-of preventive measures that include government enforcing smoking bans in public places like campuses. In event of this, the paper proposes that people wishing to smoke can be referred to special areas; these non-smoking policies support health education campaigns. Moreover, according to Lambert’s article, the most effective means of achieving smoking bans in public buildings is by issuing absolute decision on the matter.

This may be accompanied by education programs and provision to assist workers to achieve smoking cessation. Therefore, this shows that, it is important that the organizations management take the responsibility and talk with those affected by the bans hence provide education and information (Blanpain 123). In the event of this, the document signifies that only comprehensive measures are successful in Florida international campus.

There have been several public smoking bans that have proved to be promising since the issue of smoking prohibits smoking in all public places. Moreover, the document indicates that non-smokers support on total bans regarding smoking has grown drastically and the poll result clarifies on what is taking place in Florida. It shows that non-smokers are more prepared to ban smoking instead of just reserving segregated areas for smokers and non-smokers. This shows that despite the increased acceptance of smoking bans in public places, more than 8 in 10 Americans oppose smoking (Klingemann 56). In addition, only 16% are in favor of making smoking in public places illegitimate and the rest of the percentage go to the extent of disagreeing with this notion.

This has brought to our senses that the stated objectives for smoking bans in public places are primarily defined from a public health perspective. This means it is a way of reducing the exposure to second-hand smoke and discouraging smoking in the public. Thus, the document examines the impacts of banning smoke in Florida International University where a large portion of the revenue is generated by taxes on students.

Hence, any policy that changes the patterns of education may have significant budgetary impact (Slottje 49). Therefore, the contributing factors to this shift in education are the potential flight of local gamblers to an adjacent state. This is where smoking bans have not been enacted and the socio-economic characteristics of communities in which they are located.

In recent study, results show that many people showed support for a wide range of policies like evidence based measures and less effective strategies. In some cases, support for effective policies was moderate. Hence, this shows that the attitude towards policy measures which improve structural conditions for self-change is not viewed by the public as unhelpful and so, this ought to be taken into account.

Finally, the most recent and impressive example of environmental changes potentially relevant to self-change is the complete ban on smoking (Klingemann 74). This has been possible where preliminary steps have been taken to curb smoking consumption. Moreover, the paper indicates that the impact of smoking bans on smoking behavior and self-change process is scarce. In the event of this, indirect measures like reductions in cigarette sales and smoking related health problems have been employed as a measure (Slottje 79). This has led to employing direct measure that focus on the effects of reduced access to smoking at the university grounds of Florida. Although the causality is unclear, it’s assumed that these reactions will support self-change processes.

Experiences from many countries suggest that a legislative framework is very important in many ways. Banning is one of the many measures that can normalize non-smoking behavior in a work-place since it sets obligations on workers to change their smoking behavior. Thus, the forced change of behavior eventually changes the attitude towards smoking and it becomes normal to go elsewhere when smoking. Moreover, the ban institutionalizes the rule of non smoking and facilitates enforcement hence it may be the only effective means that can achieve change in the sectors such as education sector (Haustein 56). The intention of the law is to primarily protect the general public but since this sector is also a workplace of many, they serve to protect workers from being exposed to smoking behaviors in their workplace.

Conclusion

The laws that regulate smoking in the public emphasize that the most difficult place to ban smoking is at the university grounds. The document also shows that it is not unusual that larger companies set aside trends of smoking policies even before covering a law private enterprise. However, it shows that for this gradual evolution to be successful, it is important to support the implementation of rules with awareness campaigns (Haber 97).

Thus, by creating an enforcement mechanism in place, and in respect, the role of labor inspectors can be understood. It also implicates that if smoking is not banned, then risks need to be evaluated, protected and preventive measures implemented. The paper indicates that a strong government is needed and this can lead to positive signals that give workers their right. Moreover, national campaigns for smoking free workplaces benefit from a more structured and far-sighted non-smoking effort (Haustein 123). Hence this implies that reducing exposure of banning smoke in the public ought to be restricted since smoking restrictions may affect smoking behavior by reducing opportunities to smoke.

Works Cited

Blanpain, Roger. Smoking and the Workplace, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2009. Print.

Haber, David. Health promotion and aging: practical applications for health professionals, USA: Springer Publishing Company, 2010. Print.

Haustein, Knut. Tobacco or Health? Physiological and Social Damages Caused by Tobacco Smoking, USA: Springer, 2009. Print.

Klingemann, Harald. Promoting self-change from addictive behaviors: practical implications for policy, prevention, and treatment, USA: Springer, 2007. Print.

Slottje, Daniel. Current Issues in Health Economics, London: Emerald Group Publishing, 2010. Print.

Warner, Kenneth. Tobacco control policy, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!