Anti-Smoking Laws
May 31st 2006 03:58
Category: No Category
From next Monday, Kenya joins Australia in a tough new stance on public smoking. According to a Kenyan Broadcasting Corperation report;
“…anyone smoking in offices, bus stations, airports and sports venue faces a fine of 50,000 Kenya shillings ($700; £375) or six months in prison. Bars and restaurants without separate smoking areas are also affected.”
Since awareness of the health risks associated with smoking have developed, the anti-smoking movement has managed to polarize the smoking and non-smoking population. It can’t be denied that significant amounts of medical funding and research are tapped by the smoking community. Arguably, this is an unnecessary waste of precious medical resources. The health effects of smoking are well documented and are totally avoidable by simply abstaining from tobacco consumption. It does seem unfair that a portion of medical funding must go towards the support of smokers who continue their past time with full knowledge of the associated health risks of this activity.
It is an undeniable fact that smokers cost the taxpayer. An exact figure is hard to pin down and is subject to many variables. An anti-smoking lobby group, Taking Action reports that the social cost of Australian smokers tallies to $21 billion per year. As a quote from a lobby group, I can only assume that this cost estimate is a worst case scenario and probably includes any dubious costing innuendo (sick leave, smoke breaks etc). {Whenever I think I lobby groups, I always think of Dr Evil-esque methods of statistical and financial estimates.} However, if $21 billion is a gross estimate, a conservative estimate is still going to be in a significant financial bracket. Enough haggling over the total cost, whatever it is, it’s a huge value.
On the other hand, the government raised a lot of revenue from the tobacco industry in terms of taxes and charges. Leaving all moral obligations behind, the key question is whether the revenue raised from tobacco sales covers the financial burden of smokers. If this is the case, smokers can argue that they’ve funded the financial burden the habit has on society. Using financial analysis is unjustified if tobacco taxes meet or exceed the $21 billion cost lobbyists claim.
Of course this is just the financial side, ethics, social responsibility and civil liberties is what really makes tough tobacco laws a source for heated debate. Smokers feel anti-public smoking laws are a breach of civil rights and a form of discrimination. But, is it socially responsible for society to let individuals engage in self-harming activities which can potentially harm others innocent victims? Passive smoking and the effects of smoking on unborn babies and children means that smoking is not a victimless habit. What effect tough public tobacco laws will have on rate of passive smoking is not known. Chilhood passive smoking is associated with the home environment and public smoking laws do little to prevent home based passive smoking.
More to follow tomorrow.
“…anyone smoking in offices, bus stations, airports and sports venue faces a fine of 50,000 Kenya shillings ($700; £375) or six months in prison. Bars and restaurants without separate smoking areas are also affected.”
Since awareness of the health risks associated with smoking have developed, the anti-smoking movement has managed to polarize the smoking and non-smoking population. It can’t be denied that significant amounts of medical funding and research are tapped by the smoking community. Arguably, this is an unnecessary waste of precious medical resources. The health effects of smoking are well documented and are totally avoidable by simply abstaining from tobacco consumption. It does seem unfair that a portion of medical funding must go towards the support of smokers who continue their past time with full knowledge of the associated health risks of this activity.
It is an undeniable fact that smokers cost the taxpayer. An exact figure is hard to pin down and is subject to many variables. An anti-smoking lobby group, Taking Action reports that the social cost of Australian smokers tallies to $21 billion per year. As a quote from a lobby group, I can only assume that this cost estimate is a worst case scenario and probably includes any dubious costing innuendo (sick leave, smoke breaks etc). {Whenever I think I lobby groups, I always think of Dr Evil-esque methods of statistical and financial estimates.} However, if $21 billion is a gross estimate, a conservative estimate is still going to be in a significant financial bracket. Enough haggling over the total cost, whatever it is, it’s a huge value.
On the other hand, the government raised a lot of revenue from the tobacco industry in terms of taxes and charges. Leaving all moral obligations behind, the key question is whether the revenue raised from tobacco sales covers the financial burden of smokers. If this is the case, smokers can argue that they’ve funded the financial burden the habit has on society. Using financial analysis is unjustified if tobacco taxes meet or exceed the $21 billion cost lobbyists claim.
Of course this is just the financial side, ethics, social responsibility and civil liberties is what really makes tough tobacco laws a source for heated debate. Smokers feel anti-public smoking laws are a breach of civil rights and a form of discrimination. But, is it socially responsible for society to let individuals engage in self-harming activities which can potentially harm others innocent victims? Passive smoking and the effects of smoking on unborn babies and children means that smoking is not a victimless habit. What effect tough public tobacco laws will have on rate of passive smoking is not known. Chilhood passive smoking is associated with the home environment and public smoking laws do little to prevent home based passive smoking.
More to follow tomorrow.
| 46 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
