Why Ban on Smoking in Public?

By now, after much research is done to study effects of smoking in human health, perhaps

Courtesy: http://www.calvinshub.com/

there is no any debate on whether smoking is unhealthy. But the debate whether people should be allowed to smoke at public places is still a debate in national and international forums. In 2011 April, Nepal also introduced a law called Tobacco Product (Control and Regulation) Act that prohibits smoking in public areas. As expected, the law did not get accepted cleanly. Besides scattered public opinions against such a strict law, some industrialists also launched a campaign seeking cancellation of the law (The Himalayan Times "Anti-tobacco bid").  Arguments for and against allowing smoking in public seem valid on their own. But considering facts established by scientific researches about effects of smoking, national and international legal documents on the issue and sense of moral responsibility, public smoking should be legally banned in Nepal and other places of the world.

Science has not only established the fact that smoking is injurious to human health. It has also already proved that the smoke from a cigarette, pipe or cigar is also naturally inhaled by people around too besides the one who intentionally smokes. Also, "women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to lose their foetus through spontaneous abortion" (Government of Nepal 2).  That means wherever a smoker is present, no one can detach self from hazards of smoking even if s/he individually does not smoke. One who is sitting with a smoker at a public café gets affected by smoking, almost as equally as the smoker actually is. "If you smoke at home, in the car or at work, then whenever others are with you, they are breathing in your cigarette smoke" (Quit SA). This makes people victim for the crime that they have not committed, not even thought of committing. This situation remains so until smoking is legally banned in public places.

Being around people who are smoking makes people involve in what is techinically called "secondhand smoke" (SHS) or "passive/involuntary smoking." Once is involved in secondhand smoke in two cases: sidestream smoke – smoke from the lighted end of a cigarette, pipe, or cigar and mainstream smoke – the smoke exhaled by a smoker (American Cancer Society). That means, when one inhales smoke from an end of a cigarette or when one inhales smoke exhaled by a "firsthand" (actual) smoker, both cause harms in the same way. American Cancer Society further writes, "Non -smokers who breathe in secondhand smoke take in nicotine and toxic chemicals by the same route smokers do. The more secondhand smoke you breathe, the higher the level of these harmful chemicals in your body".   

According to the American Cancer Society, secondhand smoking causes lung cancer as well as lymphoma, leukemia, and brain tumors in children, and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), nasal sinuses, brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast in adults. In the United States, it is also responsible for "an estimated 42,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers, (and) about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults…" (American Cancer Society). According to the organisation, some studies have linked secondhand smoking to mental and emotional changes too. For instance, "a Chinese study has suggested that SHS exposure is linked to an increased risk of severe dementia syndromes. A UK study reported that women exposed to SHS during pregnancy were at greater risk for symptoms of depression during that pregnancy". 

Findings of these scientific studies are scary. The numbers are big: thousands of people die every year in a single nation just because they have been in some public places where smokers are. They meet with numerous deadly diseases not because they smoke, but only because other people smoke around them. People are losing lives just because they tolerate, but not revolt against – perhaps for courtesy and respect toward rights of others – people smoking around them.  In a way, this is a murder, for people are led to death for something they are not responsible for. Smoking in public, hence is a vicious crime as far as research findings are considered to speak truth. 

Without knowing that they are harming people around, smokers are pushing other non-smokers around them into various health hazards. Quit SA writes, "The people who are most likely to be affected by other's tobacco smoke are those who spend the most time with them". That means smokers while smoking for their pleasure are hurting people who they love most, including their children.  According to the organisation, children are likely to get bronchitis and other respiratory diseases, pneumonia, coughing and wheezing, middle ear infections and asthma if they are placed around smoker adults. There is also a research suggesting that in some children, passive smoking may play a part in learning and language difficulties, and behavioural problems.

Everyone has a right to enjoy the public life. Anyone can move at and use public places freely like roads and parks as well as s/he can get services, without any interruption, from places aimed at public like hospitals, schools, religious institutions, playgrounds as well as cafés, restaurants and means of public transportation. Also they have a right to health. They should get a healthy environment in all those public places. If they have to experience smoking at such places, that is the violations of their rights to health and freedom since it is already proved that smoking's effects are not limited to the individual smoker, but extended to people around. In most of the cases, non-smokers do not like the smell of smoke either.  

These rights have been constitutionally recognised in Nepal and many other countries of the world. The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, in its third chapter about fundamental rights, has enlisted Right to Freedom in Article 12 and Right regarding Environment and Health in Article 16. The Article 16 provisions "Every person shall have the right to live in clean environment". Environment that is filled with smokes from cigarettes cannot be considered clean and healthy in any way. For the case of Nepal, public smoking hence is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Following the constitutional provision, the Legislature Parliament has passed the Tobacco Product (Control and Regulation) Act on 11 April 2011 that bans public smoking. The law was certified by the President on 27 April of the same year (The Himalayan Times "Anti-tobacco bid"). That means it is in effect since then, although the implementation part is miserably poor.

The National Anti-Tobacco Communication Campaign Strategy for Nepal, prepared by National Health Education, Information and Communication Centre (NHEICC) under the Ministry of Health and Population of Government of Nepal has identified ban on public smoking as one of the most important means to reduce tobacco use in the nation. According to the document, the Government of Nepal already passed a resolution to ban smoking at government offices, health institutions, educational institutions, cinema halls, theatres, public buildings and vehicles of public transportation from June 1992 (Government of Nepal 9).  Thus, even before drafting of the Smoking (Prohibition and Control) Act in 2002, smoking was banned in some, though not all, public places. But, the state's ineffectiveness is also vivid here that it took years to get the act passed in 2011. It is still uncertain that when it will get implemented effectively.    

Similar laws can be found in many parts of the world. "In March 2004, Ireland became the first country in the world to impose an outright ban on smoking in workplaces. Irish legislation makes it an offence to smoke in workplaces, which has the effect of banning smoking in pubs and restaurants" (European Public Health Alliance). Following that, many European nations including Norway, Italy, Austria, Albania and Belgium introduced similar laws. Home to the greatest population of the world, China also launched a law that bans people to smoke in public places since 1 January 2014 (The Guardian "China considers"). According to the news story, China is the home to more than 300 million smokers – a third of the global total. It is the producer of nearly half of the world's cigarettes.  

Protecting people's rights as guaranteed by constitution and other state laws is one of the most significant duties of the government toward its subjects. State mechanisms have to formulate laws and implement them effectively to ensure that people are well equipped with their fundamental rights. They also have a duty to update laws and improve their implementation strategies whenever necessary. Since a law that imposes ban on smoking in public places has been already formulated and implemented in Nepal recently, the state does not need to think of making it anew. Just it has to implement the rules and regulations effectively. For other nations, which still do not have any such law, they have to make it considering rights of their people and implement them in appropriate ways. 

Smoking in public raises moral questions regarding the person's sense of responsibility toward others. As a sensible human being one needs to respect rights of others while enjoying their rights. As the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who is often regarded as one among few most important scholars of ethics, has said that morality has to include both duty to self and duty to others (273). By, duty to self Kant perhaps meant enjoyment of rights and by duty to others he meant responsibilities required to respect rights of others. Yes, smoking can be one's rights when cigarettes are not banned for production, trade and use by the government. But, as an understanding being with a sense of rights and responsibilities, s/he cannot make any other person inhale the smoke from his/her cigarette. Smoking in public places actually makes other persons inhale smoke involuntarily and unconsciously. As said, such acts make people victim for the crime that they are not responsible for, that too without any knowledge of them! Producing an adverse effect to someone without the affected one's knowledge is very dishonest from a moral perspective.

Smoking in public places is punishable also because it invokes and lures immature minds to begin smoking which is essentially injurious to their health. Most of the public places most of the times have children and teenagers there. If there are smokers smoking in such places like roads and public transportations, children seeing the act may grow more curious and consequently think of trying it once.  Their one-time try will most likely eventually develop as a habit which is often very difficult to get rid of. And, its consequences in their health: everyone knows of that. As a result, many people from the newer generation will get into health problems if smoking is not banned in public places.  

Yet, oppositions can raise questions citing their rights on the basis of constitutional articles and laws similar to what were used to argue against smoking in public. In Nepal, recently, a group of cigarette industrialists filed a case at the Supreme Court against the government asking nullification of a mandatory provision to publish anti-smoking graphic message on cigarette wrappers (The Himalayan Times "Tobacco companies"). Their argument was that they are entitled with a right to run any business after getting permission from the concerned government agencies. But the Court gave a verdict against them and upheld the legal requirement.   

Similar cases can be filed seeking annulment of a provision that bans smoking at public places including cafés and restaurants. Thus, it is not unimaginable that in a near future some association of restaurateurs and café owners move to the court and argue that ban on public smoking would hurt their business. But what they fail to understand is the fact that they, as dutiful citizens of the nation, also have an equal responsibility toward rights of others while enjoying their own rights to do their businesses. Rights and responsibilities cannot be interpreted independently. They have to be considered and interpreted together, in relation to the other.

Pro-smoking sides also argue that ban on public smoking and requirement of separate smoking zones also have adverse impacts on businesses. They say, if ban on public smoking is imposed, "smokers choose to stay home or visit with friends who allow smoking in their homes, or spend less time (and less money) in bars and nightclubs before leaving" (Heartland Institute). That means, ban on public smoking lessens financial transaction of any nation. Also, imposing ban on public smoking requires deployment of police force, and that ultimately deviates the state force's attention to minor issues like smoking from more serious crimes, according to them. Rather, they suggest that "better ventilation systems rather than smoking bans can solve any remaining concerns" about impacts of smoking on health of non-smoking visitors (Heartland Institute). Their argument seems okay. But for monetary profit of a handful of businesspersons, no one can keep public health at stake.

Ban on public smoking does not hinder anyone's rights. The laws can impose the restriction only on public places. Any smoker is free to smoke or whatever s/he likes in places and properties that s/he individually possesses. The laws only require smokers to have patience and wait for some minutes or hours and postpone their desire for smoking until they get to their personal properties, say residence, car or playground. The laws do not (and shall not) bar them from enjoying their freedom at their own cost at their own space. Hence, the opposition's argument that a ban on public smoking hurts individual human rights is also shaky.   

Also, since smokers are in larger number than non-smokers in general, the primary responsibility of the state (and also the private sector) should be providing right to clean air to majority of the people than to provide right to freedom to minority smokers. The businesspersons need to mind that laws that ban public smoking also have a provision for smoking zones at public spaces. For example, the Anti-Tobacco Act in Nepal also allows smoking in smoking zones at public places even if the places are declared smoking free zones. "While generally the smoking area in a hotel must be outside, the regulations allow the smoking area to be inside if outside space is not available" (Tobacco Control Laws). Thus, the restaurateurs, café owners and other businesspersons need not worry about such laws and their impacts on the businesses; rather they should initiate to manage smoking zones at their business places as required by the law.

It is interesting that there are many associations and groups which are actively arguing for people's smoking rights. They have also been staging many protest programmes against ban on public smoking. One of such is National Smokers Alliance in America. Centre for Media and Democracy writes about the organisation in its website, "The "National Smokers Alliance" (NSA) is a sophisticated, hi-tech campaign that organises tobacco's victims to protect tobacco's profits". The NSA has been doing many pro-smoking campaigns in the United States. In California, for example, a "group … gathered the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to place a pro-smoking referendum before California voters" in response to a campaign against smoking in the place (Centre for Media and Democracy). If passed, the referendum would do away with the hundreds of strong local anti-smoking ordinances in California. In this light, many other arguments against ban on public smoking may rise in future too.

Ban on public smoking is not easy since pro-smoking campaigners not only campaign against the ban, but also may go beyond that. In the United Kingdom in 2012, for example, "Academics and health campaigners (were) being subjected to threats of violence, harassment and personal abuse by pro-smoking activists as UK ministers consult(ed) over whether tobacco should be sold only in plain packets" (The Guardian "Pro-smoking activists"). According to the news story, "Leading advocates of tobacco control have been targeted in an apparent escalation of hate campaigns and intimidation by bloggers and groups who view moves to curb smoking as assaults on personal freedom".  Researchers studying impacts of smoking on health had also been threatened of physical attacks and harassments then through emails and phone calls. Yet, despite such difficulties, the governments should be able enough to enforce laws for the betterment of wider public.  

Another possible opposition that the ban on public smoking can face is an argument that there are more serious crimes than smoking which should be controlled before controlling smoking. People may argue that, let's say, corruption is graver crime than smoking in public; therefore the state should eliminate corruption before banning public smoking. Yes, corruption is more serious than public smoking. Yes, if the state can be completely free of corruption, it is more beneficial than getting rid of people smoking in public. Yet, people arguing for such points also need to understand that one cannot wait for something great to happen for changing something smaller. Prioritising the most important as the first is not always practically possible. It also should be understood that a change in something greater does not always guarantee that smaller issues get settled by themselves if something big happens. Hence, the state cannot overlook smaller changes while waiting for other bigger ones to get actualised. Change in fact begins in bits and pieces. And, a change that moves from smaller to bigger scale is the most sustainable.        

Arguments that oppose ban on public smoking are misleading, fallacious and weak. They, as explained in above paragraphs, misinterpret rights without considering responsibilities. They also divert people's attention from serious issues like health of larger public to trivial issues like benefits of some hundred restaurants in a city. Such arguments mislead people to conceive something bad as good and vice versa. It is, again, the state's responsibility to fight them and enforce appropriate legal provisions effectively.   In democracy, the government is responsible for the public which leads it to power. The democratic governments thus cannot escape from actions that benefit its people in any pretext of fallacious misinterpretation of laws or pressure from private sectors.

Given that smoking in public places is hazardous to health of innocent people, it can never be taken for granted. It cannot be considered a thing which should go unnoticed from law enforcement mechanisms. On the other hand is also people's sense of morality based on human conscience which inspires them to be responsible while enjoying rights. It is thus every single human being's duty not to smoke in public. At the government level, every state should implement laws banning smoking in public. Otherwise, there is neither any right, nor any responsibility; neither ethics nor human conscience; and neither democracy nor good governance.

Works Cited

American Cancer Society. "Secondhand Smoke". 11 Feb. 2014. American Cancer Society. 14 Feb. 2014. < http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke>

Centre for Media and Democracy. "National Smokers Alliance". 21 Aug. 2012. SourceWatch. 16 Feb. 2014. < http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/
National_Smokers_Alliance > 

European Public Health Alliance. "European Smoking Bans". 1 June 2012. European Public Health Alliance (EPHA). 14 Feb. 2014. < http://www.epha.org/a/1941>

Government of Nepal. National Health Education, Information and Communication Centre (NHEICC). The National Anti-Tobacco Communication Campaign Strategy for Nepal. Kathmandu: NHEICC.  2006.

The Guardian. "China considers nationwide ban on smoking in public". 11 Dec. 2013. The Guardian. 16 Feb. 2014. < http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/china-considers-nationwide-ban-smoking-public >

---. " Pro-smoking activists threaten and harass health campaigners". 1 June 2012. The Guardian. 16 Feb. 2014. < http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/china-considers-nationwide-ban-smoking-public>

Heartland Institute. "Smoker's Rights". Heartland Institute. 16 Feb. 2014. < http:// heartland.org/ideas/smokers-rights >

The Himalayan Times. "Anti-tobacco bid may go up in smoke." 21 May 2011. The Himalayan Times. 14 Feb. 2014. < http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/ fullNews.php?headline=Anti-tobacco+bid+may+go+up+in+smoke&NewsID=288796 >

---. "Tobacco companies urged to respect court order." 4 Jan. 2014. The Himalayan Times. 14 Feb. 2014. < http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/ fullNews.php?headline=Tobacco+firms+urged+to++respect+court+order+&NewsID=401897 >

Kant, Immanuel. "Lectures on Pedagogy."  Philosophy of Education: The Essential Texts. Ed. Steven M. Cahn. New York: Routledge. 2009. 253-280.

Quit SA. "Smoking Around Others." Quit SA. 14 Feb. 2014. < http://www.quitsa.org.au/ aspx/ smoking_around_others.aspx>

Tobacco Control Laws. "Country Details for Nepal". 29 May 2012. Tobacco Control Laws. 14 Feb. 2014. <http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/nepal/
summary>