Public Health and Economic Impact of Tobacco Consumption
Tobacco consumption is a major public health and economic concern in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cigarette smoking causes approximately 480,000 deaths in the US (“Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking”). In 2020, the US economy sustained a $891.8 billion cumulative loss of income and unpaid household production due to cigarette smoking (Nargis et al. e840).
Governments across the world develop various legal and economic policies to protect people from harm. Increased taxation, restrictions on advertising and distribution, educational programs, and bans on smoking in public places constitute the foundation of tobacco control efforts (Catalano and Gilleskie 1). However, these measures produce only a limited effect in the case of partial implementation. Partial bans do not have a statistically significant impact on smoking prevalence.
Moreover, limited restrictions increase smoking intensity among everyday smokers (Catalano and Gilleskie 18). In that regard, half measures are not an answer to the smoking-related public health and economic issues in the United States. Under the current public health and economic circumstances, a full ban on smoking in eating establishments across the country is warranted.
The Case for a Full Ban on Smoking in Eating Establishments
The argument for a full ban on smoking is based on two primary reasons. Firstly, total bans have a track record of successful smoking prevalence reduction and a positive impact on public health outcomes. In regard to smoking prevalence, Catalano and Gilleskie studied the effects of provincial ban status in Argentina and found a statistically significant 2% overall reduction in five years after a full ban implementation (13). In addition, complete bans have led to a 1.4% reduction in everyday smoking (Catalano and Gilleskie 13).
In contrast, partial bans have increased smoking intensity, with an extra 1.03 cigarettes smoked per day on average after the ban implementation (Catalano and Gilleskie 15). Ultimately, full provincial bans produced beneficial outcomes, whereas partial bans were detrimental to the original goal of smoking prevalence, regularity, and intensity reduction. Therefore, a ban on smoking in US eating establishments must be full in order to produce a change for the better.
Regarding public health impact, a total ban would improve the nationwide cardiovascular and cancer health situation by preventing direct and secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke. A comprehensive study of hospitalization history in Germany revealed that state-level smoking bans decreased the overall number of cardiovascular admissions by 2.1%, or 57,000 cases annually (Kvasnicka et al. 13). In 2019, nearly 123,000 cancer deaths in the United States were caused by cigarette smoking (Brooks).
As such, a full ban on smoking in eating establishments across the country will save hundreds of thousands of American lives. In particular, a complete ban would eliminate the chance of potential secondhand smoking exposure cases in scenarios where non-smoker customers visit an establishment with their smoker peers. Secondhand smoke kills approximately 600,000 people per year (Kvasnicka et al. 1). Consequently, one can claim that a full ban is the only solution feasible for mitigating that danger.
Secondly, smoking is highly detrimental to the US economy, which requires making decisive steps to combat its negative effects instead of settling for compromises. Health issues stemming from direct and secondhand smoking deliver a devastating blow to several economic indicators. For instance, in 2020, the total annual income loss attributed to smoking amounted to $362.6 billion across all US states and the District of Columbia. California alone sustained an income loss of $29.6 billion (Nargis et al. e839).
To put the situation in perspective, the annual value of the US cigarette market in 2020 reached only $94.2 billion (Nargis et al. e841). In that regard, one can see that the tobacco industry incurs losses several times bigger than the value it adds to the national economy. Smokers and people exposed to secondhand smoke suffer from various health issues and lose productivity due to smoking-related morbidity.
Therefore, one can argue that a full ban on smoking in US eating establishments would mitigate the economic damage by reducing the number of people at risk of tobacco smoke exposure. If an argument based on public health considerations is insufficient for someone, the hard numbers of financial losses should serve as a solid reason for a total ban. The US cigarette market does not generate the value that could justify the legality of smoking in public places for anyone other than tobacco companies. As such, smoking must be completely prohibited in all eating establishments across the United States in order to mitigate the health and economic issues it undeniably causes.
Legal Challenges and Justification for Smoke-Free Legislation
Opponents of smoke-free legislation commonly attempt to counter the evidence of harm inflicted by smoking with legal arguments. In particular, the opponents may claim that bans on smoking violate the First Amendment, restrict personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, or breach the Equal Protection Clause (“There Is No Constitutional Right”). However, a closer examination of these arguments renders each one of them invalid.
Firstly, the courts have deemed on multiple occasions that smoking cannot be equal to constitutionally significant rights, such as freedom of speech (“There Is No Constitutional Right”). Secondly, smoking does not fall under the protection of the Due Process Clause since the courts see a reasonable justification for bans on smoking. From the legal perspective, smoking can be compared to driving through a red light or snorting cocaine — none of these activities constitutes a fundamental right, so smoking cannot either. Finally, smoke-free legislation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it only protects groups sharing characteristics determined by the accident of birth (“There Is No Constitutional Right”). Since nobody is born a smoker, banning smoking cannot be considered an act of discrimination.
Given the strength of the factual evidence, a full ban on smoking in US eating establishments is entirely justified. The ban will have positive implications for overall population health and reduce financial losses associated with direct and secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke. In addition, the ban will not violate fundamental human rights since the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses do not protect smoking. Moreover, one can argue that outlawing smoking in all food-serving locations in the United States will contribute to human rights protection by shielding non-smokers from dangerous environmental hazards.
Finally, the international history of tobacco control efforts demonstrates that only a full ban will produce long-lasting benefits in terms of smoking prevalence and intensity reduction. Therefore, the new law cannot be based on compromises and half-measures. Smoking must be driven out of eating establishments and gradually become a relic of the past, a mistake that society will fix to achieve a better and healthier future.
Works Cited
Brooks, Megan. “Nearly 30% of U.S. Cancer Deaths Linked to Smoking.” WebMD. 2022. Web.
Catalano, Michael A., and Donna B. Gilleskie. “Impacts of local public smoking bans on smoking behaviors and tobacco smoke exposure.” Health Economics, vol. 30, no. 8, 2021, pp. 1-26.
“Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021. Web.
Kvasnicka, Michael, et al. “The health effects of smoking bans: Evidence from German hospitalization data.” Health Economics, vol. 27, no. 11, 2018, pp. 1-16.
Nargis, Nigar, et al. “Economic loss attributable to cigarette smoking in the USA: An economic modeling study.” The Lancet Public Health, vol. 7, no. 10, 2022, pp. e834-e843.
“There Is No Constitutional Right to Smoke or Toke.” Public Health Law Center. 2019. Web.