Why Smoking Should Be Banned

If a product kills million of consumer would we keep it out in the market? If an industry is costing the federal government 955 billion dollars would we keep subsidizing it? If there is a group of the work force that could be using their skills to aid in the hundreds of other areaas that they could be helping why wouldn’t we take action already? In 1920 the United States Government decided that the consumption, production and transportation of alcohol had enough of a negative effect on the nation as a whole that they banned liquor all together. The same action should be taken with the consumption, faming, distribution and even the possession of tobacco and cigarettes. Cigarettes should be banned because they have a countless amount of health consequences, tobacco farmers cost the federal government billion to bail them out instead of reinvesting that money to aid in really any other are of farming that is struggling, and lastly because of the environmental impact and footprint that the growing of tobacco and manufacturing of cigarettes produces.

The issue about smoking in the workplace is important to organizations today because it has direct impact on both smokers and non-smokers. With this issue, it forces organizations to develop smoking policies. If I was the HR director at the castle, the policy

Smokers face many challenges in the modern world, and one of the biggest happens in the workplace. Many large – and small – employers have taken a strict zero-tolerance approach to smoking in the workplace, and that can literally leave smokers with no place to

Smoking should be banned in and out of the workplace, firstly because it is a recommended agreement by the management and all staff employed have signed an agreement, as this will impact on all workers and will be better for everyone's health and well being.

Specifically, implementation of rules is on the overall safety of each and every person within the workplace. Unfortunately, there will be people who feel triumphant and those who feel discriminated against and defeated. The manufacturers, distributors, and retailers who sell tobacco and now the e-cigarette that creates a vapor for the customer, feel defeated as they and the customers continue to receive push-back from those who do not smoke. Allowing the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace creates a double edge knife for the employer. In defense of the e-cigarette user production will not diminish, and the person will be more enjoyable to be around, since they are able to receive their nicotine addiction. On the other hand, for the worker who does not smoke, while there is still evidence Trtchounian, Williams & Talbot (2010) the vapors released from the e-cigarette and the smoke exhaled by the smoker, possess a health risk to others purely on the chemicals used within the e-cigarette. Moreover, further findings indicate the non-cancer exposure of nicotine and propylene glycol still exceed the minimum of 1.0 parts, which creates a health risk for anyone who inhales the smoke exhaled from another person (Offermann, Francis (Bud), 2014). Any time a person’s actions in the workplace can possibly bring pain and

The United States Surgeon General’s report stated that cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer death in the United States. This statement is so true today. Smoking a cigarette is an acquired behavior and that makes it the most preventable cause of death in our society. Cigarettes contain nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT. The main ingredient in cigarettes is tobacco. The nicotine in cigarettes is very addictive and when smoke containing nicotine is inhaled into the lungs, the nicotine reaches your brain in less than six seconds. Addiction to nicotine also poses very serious health risks. With all the toxic ingredients contained in cigarettes, cigarette smoking is not only harmful to smokers but to nonsmokers. When you are smoking a cigarette you are not the only one being harmed so cigarette smoking should be banned because it is harmful to those smoking and those who chose not to.

Should cigarette smoking be banned for everyone in the United States? Why? Why not? Should those who chose their time smoking to relieve stress, personal enjoyment, or simply just because, have to lose their right to what makes them happy? Smoking tobacco products has been around for decades and in many different forms. Should personal rights be pushed aside to please those around us that disagree with the so called “disgusting habit”? In the paper The Washington Times an article caught my interest called”D.C. seeks bans on smoking in national parks” written by Steven Dinan. In this article he stated that “Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton wrote Park Service Regional Director Steve Whitesell saying she’s heard from constituents who fear

The health issues associated with smoking include lung cancer and other terminal illnesses, and shortness of breath. Employers have a duty of care to their employees and should not promote smoking in the workplace. It is in the best interest of the company that staff members remain healthy so that there is a decrease in sick days and absenteeism and and increase in a productive workforce. Smoking is unacceptable inside premises as passive smoking has been clinically proven to be harmful. It has become law that smoking inside a workplace or restaurants is not allowed.

The sale of cigarettes should be made illegal in Australia. This statement is made because of the dangerous and repugnant consequences in which follow the investment of cigarettes. Consequences which after use, can vary from losing hundreds of dollars each month, to suffering from minor issues such as bad breath, to obtaining a majorly severe illness such as heart disease or even cancer. The importance of being able to prevent these possible outcomes needs to be recognised, as it does affect many individuals daily, and to a great extent. Every year, 15,000 Australians die due to illnesses from long term smoking. Is this really acceptable within our nation?

(Varnada Karriem-Norwood, 2012) Most of the smoke released from a lit cigarette does not enter the smoker’s lungs, instead the smoke is sent into the air allowing surrounding people to inhale. (Varnada Karriem-Norwood, 2012) Recent statistics show over 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke regularly at work or at home. (Varnada Karriem-Norwood, 2012) Of that, over 50,000 die from lung cancer despite not smoking a cigarette personally. (Varnada Karriem-Norwood, 2012) By simply working around people who smoke, nonsmokers increase their risk of developing heart related issues by 25-35% and increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20-30%. (Varnada Karriem-Norwood, 2012) These statistics alone show that smokers are not the only ones affected by inhalation of cigarette smoke. Innocent individuals who chose not to partake in this habit are put at risk just by going to work on a daily basis to be able to support themselves and/or their families. By banning smoking in public places and limiting it to certain areas outside, the exposure to secondhand smoke can be greatly decreased. Individuals who choose not to smoke should be able to go to work in public buildings and not worry about their health risks because of secondhand smoke.

Health is one of the main reasons for a ban on smoking. Exposure to tobacco smoke greatly increases ones risk of lung cancer and heart disease. Smoking not only effects the smoker but also all those who are around them. While at work one cannot help but

Why not? Why should drinking and cigarettes be legal they are both harmful to our body’s health. Do either one have any study showing that it could be potentially good for your body. No! Yet they are legal but, why not marijuana. It can harm your body but, there are studies showing there is some potential health benefits to smoking marijuana. The big question why not, why not legalize marijuana just like alcohol and cigarettes? Shouldn’t it be the users choice what they put in their bodies.

A number of states have passed some sort of law protecting employees from employer discrimination based on legal off-duty conduct, and many of these laws explicitly protect the use of tobacco products (Garcia, 2008). Some health systems have justified this ban under non-profit status, Garicia (2008) explains, smoking is often contrary to the mission of the health system and as non-profit entities, their mission is the key to their success. The opponents of banning smokers for the workforce claim that it provides undue hardship in obtaining or retaining employment (Sulzberger, 2011). While the legal aspect may still be gray in some areas, I find the social aspect already determined. If I were running an HCO, my recommendations would be to follow the plan of no longer hiring smokers, and not allowing smoking on the premises of the hospital, but perhaps grandfathering in the people who already work for the organization. If the HCO were to enact a ban on smoking for all employees, they would certainly need to offer cessation programs free to all current smokers. Not doing so could result in major pushback for the organization. My last recommendation would be to emphasize that the policy is about the effects of smoking and tobacco use, and not the user. Sulzberger (2011) says that this an important aspect of implementing a tobacco ban, this strategy helps employees understand that it’s the not action of smoking but the negative effects it has on both the user and those around

Smoking is an expensive habit. People who smoke cigarettes can spend as much as $2,500 a year on them. Smokers’ claim that it helps relax them and it releases stress but the negative aspects of smoking outweigh the positive. Smoking is a health hazard for smokers and non-smokers. Smokers should have the right to choose what to do with their own health but they should respect non-smokers. Many people believe that there are good and bad outcomes from smoking. I believe that smoking is bad and that it should be banned.

Rewarding people who make the effort to be smoke free and also rewarding other employees who help with this process would mean a better, healthier and more productive workplace for everyone. I would suggest giving every employee a day off on their birthday. In conclusion I am against smoking in the workplace but see a need for non smokers to help smokers kick provide any sort of assistance required to make a happy workplace. Smokers do need to be made aware of the effect the smoking has on others and and the enviroment, and that they are valued in the work place and society only then will any changes take