Place an order for a custom essay, research paper on this or related subject.
The passing of the laws delves right into the epicenter of a wrong deal gone too far. Perhaps, it elicits the inherent tenets of the principles of utility. In deed, the central concerns that arise from the passing of the law is the extent of utility, if any, that one does derive from smoking in public joints (Frumkin F). Vividly, the partakers of the extraverted act have very short term utility derived, and perhaps the utility is non-prescribed. Medics don’t give any merits of smoking to this date. However, the demerits are abound and insurmountable.
Taking deontology as our key guiding principle, then the entire act of the government permitting even to the lowest level the practice of smoking is utterly wrong and protracted. Within the precepts of religion, whatever harms humanity is unsanctified and should be resisted ultimately. Fervently, the government should, in all ethical aspects, adopt this approach as the guiding principle (Morbidity and mortality weekly reports). Smoking, regardless of the place, the manner and the places beckons evil and should not be condoned.
In all aspects, the passing of the law was long overdue. If costs benefits analysis of smoking vis-à-vis the benefits is to inform our cardinal decisions, the cost of treating ailments resulting from the practice are three times more than the profits reaped from the sale of the products used in smoking. Research equally shows that the cost of the smoked substance is a sixteenth of the treatment costs of the complication emanating from smoking (Morbidity and mortality weekly reports).
The effects of smoking are multifaceted, cutting across both the smokers and non-smokers. Though it is appreciable that the ban on smoking in offices had gone a long way in leveraging the efforts towards the reducing tobacco-related ailments, this move was quite discriminative. Perhaps the rhetoric concern arising from the practice hitherto the passing of the law is whether the workers and non-smokers at the restaurant ever had a right towards this end.
The effective date of the implementation of the law eliminated the discriminatory nature of the current law. This course will be achieved through the law’s hardliner stance inherently designed to ensure that no exemptions are in the law. This orientation of the law makes the exempted parties practice the evils as though within their precincts, it is a lesser one (Hirusuna D, 2006). Perhaps, in adopting such lopsided policies one has to assume knowledge of any the diffusive nature of cigarette smoke.
The provision, inter alia, providing allowing the private restaurant and bar operators to provide a smoking room, only seeks to perpetrate an evil gone to far. The law demands that the government protects its citizens from any imminent harm (Frumkin F). If the government fails in acting tough on health risk practices, it equate to the abdication of responsibility by the government. Perhaps, once the legislation is effective, the government can introduce taxes that would be paid by those who wish to run such facilities; at best, it should ban tobacco production altogether.
Critics argue that banning the smoking in restaurants and bars affect the revenue of the firms, nonetheless, research does indicate that such legislation has the least effect on the revenue base of the firms (Morbidity and mortality weekly reports). This statistics notwithstanding, the number of pneumococcal diseases is clearly on the increase. This offers due base for the utter ban of smoking.
The views of the restaurant workers on the ban appears shocking particularly given that most of them were not smoking, yet they did not support the ban. Perhaps one would argue that the practice was already eating into them. Or perhaps, the workers feel the ban would lead to retrenchments arising from the low turnover (Hirusuna D, 2006). Whichever way, the government’s central role is protecting lives, through provision of alternative yet hygienic jobs.
The government’s move to pass this cardinal legislation was long over due and timely. Perhaps the impending challenge would be the implementation of the legislation to the letter. Nevertheless, the move marks the right start point.
