the prospectus

Research Paper Proposal

Thesis

With the social ethics in the different societies being different, the effects of some vices are common like smoking in public; this paper analyses the need to ban public smoking both as a social responsibility and also for health concerns.

Explanation

The effects of public smoking are categorized into two; the ethics in smoking and the effects of secondary smoking. Thus, the reasons as to why public smoking should be condemned and illegalized by all forms of legislation and laws must deal with the two aspects (Health Committee, 2005). The objectives and purpose of banning public smoking includes

· This will ensure that there will be no involuntary smoking (David, 2008)

· Banning of public smoking ensures that the passage of the vicious culture to lower generations is reduced

· That secondary smoking is slowly diminished, and,

· As a way of fighting lung cancer (Health Committee, 2005)

Over fifty percent of lung cancer cases are brought about by smoking. Thus any effort to reduce smoking would change the prevalence rate for lung cancer (David, 2008). It is paramount to note that once public smoking is condemned and illegalized, there shall be both reduced smoking and also, some smokers would quit smoking as they would not do in private either. Also, banning of public smoking will ensure that there shall not be involuntary smoking, also called secondary smoking (Health Committee, 2005).

Cultures are mostly cross-changed from one generation to another through sight. Thus, once public smoking is banned, it shall be easy to control rate of smoking to the younger generations. This will also happed to the effects of secondary smoking which are closely related to smoking itself.

Sub points

Some of the supporting points to the banning of public smoking include

· Creation of a virtuous society

· Denying of religious rights to citizens

· A way of cutting government expenditure and

· To ease congestion in hospitals (David, 2008)

· Control of environmental degradation

While the government does not have a right on choosing what the citizens should do privately, it is also mandated to ensure that the citizenship is portrayed in the best light in the international community (Health Committee, 2005). Also, there are many religious circles that hold smoking as a sin and an abomination. To ensure that this right to withhold from smoking is protected, public smoking should be abolished.

There are both direct ways and indirect ways of cutting government spending and congestion in hospitals. One of the indirect ways that the government would use to cut the spending shall be banning of public smoking (David, 2008). By ensuring that the amounts that are government would use in curing victims of smoking and also this would ensure that there will be fewer patients in hospitals. The space n hospitals could easily be used for more complicated cases and also for any emergencies that may arise. One of environmental degradation factors includes air pollution. Thus, a ban on smoking which leads to air pollution would come in handy in controlling environmental pollution (Health Committee, 2005).

Possible Objections

It is expected that the smokers would never go down without fighting. Some of the grounds that they would try to raise include;

· That smoking is a right just like other human rights

· That it is not possible to control lung cancer through ban on public smoking since smoking will still continue (David, 2008)

· That the government supports vegetation of tobacco and thus it would be imprudent to discourage its consumption, and,

· That smoking in itself contributes very little to air pollution.

The opponents of a ban on public smoking would mostly be the persons that are indeed smokers. One, the human rights do not expressly add some rights to it. This makes it hard to make legislation that ban public smoking. Secondly, smoking cannot be claimed to be the worst contributor to air pollution. Thus to come up with legislation banning smoking to control air pollution would be misplaced (Health Committee, 2005).

A ban on public smoking is not a ban on smoking. Thus, this would do little towards control of lung cancer. Also, as noted smoking is not the only contributor towards lung cancer. Thus, it is not prudent to assume that by making legislation banning public smoking would reduce cases of lung cancer (David, 2008).

Reply to Objections

The above objections are weak and thus the following reply is made.

· The fact that some of the public smoking contributes very little to lung cancer is a reason in itself to make its ban in public smoking a mode of control towards the deadly disease. Thus, while it would not stop all the population from smoking at least the prevalence rate for lung cancer would be reduced (Health Committee, 2005).

· Secondly, while most governments’ support the cultivation of tobacco, legislation can also be made to control the cultivation if at all that would reduce the prevalence rate for lung cancer and other objectives of the ban (David, 2008).

· Every effort to control air pollution should not be undermined. Thus, control through a ban on public smoking is a valuable percentage in control of air pollution.

References

David, H., (2008). Smoking Bans . New York: SAGE

Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Health Committee , (2005). Smoking HYPERLINK "http://books.google.com/books?id=m94ij_m4kiUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=why+ban+public+smoking&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mcrZUYXyBueT0QWQ14CQCg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA" in HYPERLINK "http://books.google.com/books?id=m94ij_m4kiUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=why+ban+public+smoking&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mcrZUYXyBueT0QWQ14CQCg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA"Public HYPERLINK "http://books.google.com/books?id=m94ij_m4kiUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=why+ban+public+smoking&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mcrZUYXyBueT0QWQ14CQCg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA" Places: Report, Together with Formal Minutes . London: Author