The Smoking Ban: An Environmental Analysis

In the recent years, there has been a significant political and social debate on the issue of whether smoking cigarettes should be banned in public places such as parks, restaurants, and schools, to name a few. Furthermore, there is debate that cigarettes should be banned altogether. There is even a lingering discussion and rumors that cigarette smoking will be banned at the University of Michigan – Dearborn by 2011. Aside from health concerns, supporters of the smoking ban argue that the smoke from cigarettes significantly impacts the atmosphere, that the non biodegradable nature of cigarette butt debris releases toxins into the earth’s soil, and that cigarette littering eventually leads to cigarette butts entering the Earth’s aquatic system, killing a considerable amount of marine life. Although these arguments are indeed accurate and well documented, they will eventually lead to an unsettled dispute. The reality of the situation is that cigarettes are highly addictive and people will continue to smoke cigarettes and litter their cigarette butts regardless of prohibitions. Therefore, cigarettes should be tackled on a fundamental level instead of current attempts at reform. Tobacco companies should be forced to produce cigarettes with less toxins (instead of using the cheapest material available), and there needs to be more regulations on cigarette littering, in addition to providing more public ashtrays as more cities are beginning to do. Nevertheless, and more importantly, however, cigarette smoking should not be banned because most public places currently have a public smoking area, cigarettes offer relief to employees which consequently maintains productivity, and a ban on smoking would impede on the rights of smokers.

Most public places that smokers do engage in smoking cigarettes have set aside a portion of the area where smokers are allowed to smoke. Here at the University, practically every entrance and exit has an area for smokers to smoke their cigarettes. At parks, restaurants, etc., there are usually areas where smoking is allowed. In addition to these regulations, there are ashtrays outside of the designated smoking areas so that cigarette butts may be disposed of. As stated, opposition of cigarette smoking state that the cigarette littering releases toxins in the soil and environment and kills the future of soil, plants, trees, etc. Perhaps this is an argument that is ill-informed, or biased to garner support for banning smoking. Nevertheless, they did leave out the fact that many public places indeed have designated smoking areas where a smoker will smoke and put out their cigarettes. You can not walk into a smoking section of a restaurant and throw the cigarette on the floor. Yet there is a more abstract reasoning behind the justification that smoking should not be banned.

The purpose of smoking cigarettes, in addition to satisfying an addiction, is for the purposes of stress relief. Undoubtedly, when a smoker experiences the sensation of stress, he/she will immediately go and have a cigarette to relieve that stress. There is much evidence to suggest (and I shall leave the details for another argument) that the chemicals inherent inside cigarettes bond to the respective brain receptors, effectively reducing the sensation of stress. For many smokers, this is a significant factor that streamlines their day and aids with many obstacles that may come about. For example, a smoker who had just realized his overwhelming schedule for the week, instead of experiencing an increase in stress levels and a decrease in productivity in the work place, will take five minutes away from work to have a cigarette, return to work and continue to be a productive asset to the company. Although opponents do argue that the benefits of cigarettes do not outweigh the vast amount of cigarette butts that are littered and eventually end up in our acquatic system, this is an argument that is not proactive and considerably ill informed. Most workplaces, along with public places that recognize cigarette smoking, have ashtrays and designated smoking areas. Nevertheless, cognizant of the fact that smokers will not ALWAYS use an ashtray, it is therefore necessary that rules and regulations for the littering of the cigarettes, and NOT the cigarette smoking itself, be increased and more strictly enforced. Yet opposers of smoking continue to impede on the rights of smokers.

Although an argument that is looked over, smokers have the same rights as anyone else that do not smoke. They have the right to buy the pack of cigarettes, smoke in designated areas, and dispose of their cigarette the proper way. It is unethical to group a class of smoker that do follow the rules of littering and company/restaurant/public place procedure with a group of smokers that do NOT have any concern over the environment. Yet opposition still argue that littering is one thing, and that the smoke from cigarettes has a profound effect on the atmosphere, considering the billions of cigarettes that are burned every year. Again, this argument from the opposition is not well thought out, as it will unarguably be very difficult to have people simply stop from smoking cigarettes, and as a result it is a very impracticable argument in terms of what the argument is implying (to ban smoking). With this argument in mind and the impracticability of banning smoking altogether, smokers and non smokers alike should align together and attack the tobacco companies to force them to create a cleaner product. The government should also give subsidies to these tobacco companies for those that create a cleaner product, as part of an environmental overhaul. Eventually, those companies that do not create a better burning product will eventually die out due to the financial disabilities they would have.

All in all, it is simple to see why the opposition chooses to run a campaign to stop smoking in general, with environmental concerns alone. Yet the ultimate solution the opposition provide of banning smoking simply deals with the symptoms and not the sources of the problems. Indeed, these problems of littering, toxins, marine life, and the atmosphere are present, however the reality is that it would be an extremely difficult campaign to ban cigarette smoking, let alone being effective afterwards. When alcohol was banned, similarly, there was a great smuggling campaign throughout the country, and the government eventually repealed their decision. The same will happen with cigarettes, and perhaps worse because of their addicting nature. As such, smokers and non smokers along with the government need to put pressure on the tobacco companies to create a cleaner burning product. The more important issues, however, and justifications for allowing cigarettes, is that smokers do indeed participate in smoking in designated areas, where there are ashtrays and environmentally friendly ways of disposing of a cigarette. Furthermore, smokers find a purpose out of cigarettes which assists them in their day to day stress filled life and helps them get through the day. Finally, it is impeding on a smokers' inherent rights to ban cigarettes. It is unethical to ban smoking for these reasons. Instead, a more fundamental approach ought to be taken. It is evident that we are only focusing on an environmental aspect of cigarettes here, and not the actual health concerns that cigarettes pose to people. Indeed, if we were analyzing an environmental AND health concern, this may be a different argumentative essay.