Everyone knows that smoking is evil, however, smoking still survive all over the world. Hong Kong implements the smoking ordinance that some areas or establishments will become designated no smoking areas. However, somebody argue that it’s not enough; they still suffer from the second-hand smoke. Therefore, they suggest the further legislation—Smoking Ban Entirely in Hong Kong! Is it work? In the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2009, findings shown that there already have 17 countries implemented comprehensive smoke-free law such as Turkey, Colombia, and Mauritius[1]. So, it seems work. Today our topic is whether comprehensive smoke-free should be adopted in Hong Kong. And based on our moral stance, it shouldn’t. Let’s have a deeply look on the issue.
Culture and Conflict
Culture-the norms and values of one’s environment, is the lens through which we judge behaviors and characterize people as victims, heroes or villains.
By Gary Harper, Culture and Conflict
How will this change affect Hong Kong culture? Hong Kong highly developed has been ranked the freest in the world by the Index of Economic Freedom for 15 consecutive years. Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of freedom, for example, religious, media, and speech freedom. “FREEDOM” represents “HK”. That’s the attractive point of HK. But if it enforces the smoking-free legislation, it, to some extent, is to deprive people of the smoking freedom. Cultural identity of Hong Kong will become confuse. Although smoking is not good and smoking-free is implemented in some places, we can’t use one norm in all over the world. Just as what Louis C. Williams said “The standards are different in different places”(Business ethics)
“Cultural variances are diminishing as a consequence of the internet society; ethical standards in one place now are likely to be similar in other geographic locales.” (By Louis C. Williams)
Businesses (such as bars, restaurants) were severely affected by smoking bans since most of their customers are smokers. They will not patronize and the business value of the establishments will be dropped. Some businesses which affected have filed lawsuits claiming that bans are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
Bans may move smoking elsewhere
Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. The former British Cabinet Member John Reid even claimed that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home.
Therefore, some alternatives to bans can reach same goals without such huge controversies and grounds. Government, Organization and Individuals can have a reference on them.
Culture and Conflict
Culture-the norms and values of one’s environment, is the lens through which we judge behaviors and characterize people as victims, heroes or villains.
By Gary Harper, Culture and Conflict
How will this change affect Hong Kong culture? Hong Kong highly developed has been ranked the freest in the world by the Index of Economic Freedom for 15 consecutive years. Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of freedom, for example, religious, media, and speech freedom. “FREEDOM” represents “HK”. That’s the attractive point of HK. But if it enforces the smoking-free legislation, it, to some extent, is to deprive people of the smoking freedom. Cultural identity of Hong Kong will become confuse. Although smoking is not good and smoking-free is implemented in some places, we can’t use one norm in all over the world. Just as what Louis C. Williams said “The standards are different in different places”(Business ethics)What thing different people’s concern?
The impact of banning smoking in all public places has both its advantages and its disadvantages on smokers, non-smoking people, community, government and the tobacco industry. Whether to execute the policy or not is a difficult decision as different people have different perspectives and invested interests in the issue.
People have significant differences of opinion regarding what constitutes ethical behavior and how ethical decisions should be made. (Business Ethics: Approaches to Ethical Decision Making)
Smokers
The smokers may feel that they are unjustly discriminated against by the society. According to Gallup's latest survey, one-third of smokers felt unjustly discriminated. (More Smokers Feeling Harassed by Smoking Bans, 2007[2]). On the other hand, according to the research done by American Heart Association in Italy after a smoking ban in public places (Heart Attacks Decreased After Public Smoking Ban In Italy, 2008[3]), the research result shows that it will reduce the proportion of the population who smoke, the frequency of smoking decreased from 34.9 percent to 30.5 percent in men and from 20.6 percent to 20.4 percent in women. Some of the smokers may even quit smoking in response to a smoking ban in public places.
The community & non-smoking people
As we all know, there are many people incur smoking related diseases due to passive smoking. By adopting the policy of banning smoking in public places, it’s going to reduce the risk of incurring smoking related diseases and it also means allowing non-smokers the freedom to exercise their right to clean air and healthy lungs, as it will substantially improve the air quality which gets stepped on every time they inhale involuntary smoke. Smoking ban will significantly reduce heart attacks in the city, and attributed most of the reduction to decreased secondhand-smoke exposure. Recently, the smoking ban came into affect in England. However, in Scotland the ban on smoking in public places has been in force since March 2006. Statistics recently released suggest that this is the primary reason for the dramatic 17% fall in heart attacks.
Government
This will help governmental agencies to deal effectively with air pollution and health. The process will help to reduce smoking related diseases and deaths which are a threat to those who smoke. It will also promote clean air and good health among people. It’s going to earn money in countries where fines for individuals and premises where smoking is caught is imposed. However, Hong Kong is a city that promotes freedom; everyone has the rights to do anything (smoking) that do not break the law. Furthermore, Hong Kong is also one of the famous city that attracts lots of tourists every year. With a large tourism trade, the ban may have had a significant negative impact on tourism. Lastly, tax on tobacco products is also a great source of income of Hong Kong government.
The tobacco industry
Tobacco industry will be the one which suffer the most of this policy. It will create an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult as it shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. As a result, it will reduce the demand for tobacco and the sales will fall.
It seems that there are different and conflicting interests between them. How will it affect the final compromise? Let’s make the assumption first.
Assumption on human nature
According to our group analyzing, we assume that different parties such as organization, government, smokers and non-smokers and so on, are basically amoral and do not consider the existence of morality plausible. They do not care what they do is right or wrong, completely absence of moral beliefs. They only analysis the cost and benefit of doing one thing and concerns their own interest.
‘There is no clear moral compass to guide through complex dilemmas about what is right and wrong.’ by Carter McNamara (Complete Guide to Ethics Management: An Ethics Toolkit for Managers)
In this situation, we cannot judge the parties doing right and wrong. In fact, people mostly concern about their main interest (i.e. money and profits) rather than the public health because they weigh the pros and cons in this situation.
For example, many researches prove that tobacco deeply affects not only smokers’ health, but also for non-smokers, however, the organization still produce and encourage people to purchase tobacco so that they can increase their profits. Thus, if smoking bans scheme establishes in Hong Kong and cover all areas, tobacco manufacturing industries must reject this scheme because it will affect the revenue greatly.
When one new policy promotes in the community, it will make many noise. Different people have different opinions and suggestions, and their decisions mostly are based on protecting their own benefits. Indeed, Freedom is the one of culture in Hong Kong, Hong Kong people can express their opinions freely, but they just concern about themselves and ignore the others. As a result, people usually are amoral and further affect their decision making. From our group, we do not suggest smoking bans in all areas and the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of this policy. Instead, we support smoking bans scheme in assigning areas, so it can satisfy different parties.
Wild Imagination --- Smoking Free Utopia
We can go deeper in this controversial issue by making an assumption that is: Should we ban smoking in Hong Kong? That is smoking is not allowed in Hong Kong, even the imported tobacco is prohibited. This policy is currently adopted in Bhutan, so can Hong Kong do this?
No people can smoking here, no passive smoking, all of us will be healthy, no further negative consequences will be caused….. We can think of many good points generated from smoking ban. Is this a better solution, compared to recent policy in Hong Kong? That is smoking is banned in the public area only? The answer is NO.
Back to reality --- Trade-off
The recent policy can be viewed as a kind of trade-off among them since they have different vested interests from this issue. So there will be no such a policy that can satisfy all parties’ wants. Then, some parties need to forgo some interests in order to make comprise to deal with this issue. Thus, each party needs to choose the most important interest to them with the respective decision approaches.
In this issue, it can be said the government has the greatest power in deciding the policy of the degree in smoking since it has the power to make law to control the behaviors of the people. So we will go deeper in the decision approach of government to see the whole picture. To sum up again, the vested interests of government: 1. health issue, 2. tobacco tax, 3. promote trade.
Does government adopt the utilitarian approach?
If so, the government will ban smoking in Hong Kong since it will benefit and protect all the non-smokers, which is the majority in the society, from passive smoking. The affected parties, such as the smokers, tobacco companies, entertainment industry, in sum, they are just minority in this case, compared to the non smoker in Hong Kong.
But what we can see from the recent situation is that smoking is “partly” banned only, and then we can say that HK government is not adopting the utilitarian approach which will benefit the greatest number of people.
So, how about the cost-benefit approach?
Yes, we agree to this point of view. Let’s assume the government balances the cost and the benefit in this issue. The other parties are also adopting this approach. (Maybe we are in Hong Kong, everything is about the efficiency, so the beneficial one should be chosen) we will prove this assumption with the followings.
Under the recent policy, it is all about “Give and Take”. The tobacco companies can still sell the cigarettes in Hong Kong, which is their priority and the only concern, since it is not banned at all, although the policy will affect the sales of their products since the policy will decrease the chance for and also the desire to smoke. The companies have to forgo part of their sales volume to continue to import cigarettes to HK, which is more beneficial than total ban for smoking.
How about the smokers and the non smokers?
The major concern for the smokers is that they can continue smoking while the non smokers can be away form passive smoking. Under the recent policy, smoking is banned in all the public area. It satisfies the major needs of them. The smokers can still continue to smoke in the private area, such as home and open area. The non-smokers can stay away from the passive smoking because there will not be passive smoking in the above smoking area. It satisfies the major concern of them, it shows that the benefit is greater than the cost for them, although smokers cannot smoke everywhere; they forgo some of the rights. At least, it is better than total smoke ban in Hong Kong.
To summarize, the tobacco companies can still sell the cigarettes, the smokers can still smoke, and the non-smokers can stay away from passive smoking. It is a compromise between them.
How about the government?
In view of this, the government will see if the policy fits all the major concern of the different parties, meanwhile, the interests of the government also. The government, in response of this, will make the policy according to the situation. The government can still tax the tobacco product, which is an important income, and also maintain the free trade principle of Hong Kong.
However….can the government still does better than the recent policy?
People have significant differences of opinion regarding what constitutes ethical behavior and how ethical decisions should be made. (Business Ethics: Approaches to Ethical Decision Making)
Smokers
The smokers may feel that they are unjustly discriminated against by the society. According to Gallup's latest survey, one-third of smokers felt unjustly discriminated. (More Smokers Feeling Harassed by Smoking Bans, 2007[2]). On the other hand, according to the research done by American Heart Association in Italy after a smoking ban in public places (Heart Attacks Decreased After Public Smoking Ban In Italy, 2008[3]), the research result shows that it will reduce the proportion of the population who smoke, the frequency of smoking decreased from 34.9 percent to 30.5 percent in men and from 20.6 percent to 20.4 percent in women. Some of the smokers may even quit smoking in response to a smoking ban in public places.
The community & non-smoking people
As we all know, there are many people incur smoking related diseases due to passive smoking. By adopting the policy of banning smoking in public places, it’s going to reduce the risk of incurring smoking related diseases and it also means allowing non-smokers the freedom to exercise their right to clean air and healthy lungs, as it will substantially improve the air quality which gets stepped on every time they inhale involuntary smoke. Smoking ban will significantly reduce heart attacks in the city, and attributed most of the reduction to decreased secondhand-smoke exposure. Recently, the smoking ban came into affect in England. However, in Scotland the ban on smoking in public places has been in force since March 2006. Statistics recently released suggest that this is the primary reason for the dramatic 17% fall in heart attacks.
Government
This will help governmental agencies to deal effectively with air pollution and health. The process will help to reduce smoking related diseases and deaths which are a threat to those who smoke. It will also promote clean air and good health among people. It’s going to earn money in countries where fines for individuals and premises where smoking is caught is imposed. However, Hong Kong is a city that promotes freedom; everyone has the rights to do anything (smoking) that do not break the law. Furthermore, Hong Kong is also one of the famous city that attracts lots of tourists every year. With a large tourism trade, the ban may have had a significant negative impact on tourism. Lastly, tax on tobacco products is also a great source of income of Hong Kong government.
The tobacco industry
Tobacco industry will be the one which suffer the most of this policy. It will create an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult as it shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. As a result, it will reduce the demand for tobacco and the sales will fall.
It seems that there are different and conflicting interests between them. How will it affect the final compromise? Let’s make the assumption first.
Assumption on human nature
According to our group analyzing, we assume that different parties such as organization, government, smokers and non-smokers and so on, are basically amoral and do not consider the existence of morality plausible. They do not care what they do is right or wrong, completely absence of moral beliefs. They only analysis the cost and benefit of doing one thing and concerns their own interest.
‘There is no clear moral compass to guide through complex dilemmas about what is right and wrong.’ by Carter McNamara (Complete Guide to Ethics Management: An Ethics Toolkit for Managers)
In this situation, we cannot judge the parties doing right and wrong. In fact, people mostly concern about their main interest (i.e. money and profits) rather than the public health because they weigh the pros and cons in this situation.
For example, many researches prove that tobacco deeply affects not only smokers’ health, but also for non-smokers, however, the organization still produce and encourage people to purchase tobacco so that they can increase their profits. Thus, if smoking bans scheme establishes in Hong Kong and cover all areas, tobacco manufacturing industries must reject this scheme because it will affect the revenue greatly.
When one new policy promotes in the community, it will make many noise. Different people have different opinions and suggestions, and their decisions mostly are based on protecting their own benefits. Indeed, Freedom is the one of culture in Hong Kong, Hong Kong people can express their opinions freely, but they just concern about themselves and ignore the others. As a result, people usually are amoral and further affect their decision making. From our group, we do not suggest smoking bans in all areas and the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of this policy. Instead, we support smoking bans scheme in assigning areas, so it can satisfy different parties.
Wild Imagination --- Smoking Free Utopia
We can go deeper in this controversial issue by making an assumption that is: Should we ban smoking in Hong Kong? That is smoking is not allowed in Hong Kong, even the imported tobacco is prohibited. This policy is currently adopted in Bhutan, so can Hong Kong do this?
No people can smoking here, no passive smoking, all of us will be healthy, no further negative consequences will be caused….. We can think of many good points generated from smoking ban. Is this a better solution, compared to recent policy in Hong Kong? That is smoking is banned in the public area only? The answer is NO.
Back to reality --- Trade-off
The recent policy can be viewed as a kind of trade-off among them since they have different vested interests from this issue. So there will be no such a policy that can satisfy all parties’ wants. Then, some parties need to forgo some interests in order to make comprise to deal with this issue. Thus, each party needs to choose the most important interest to them with the respective decision approaches.
In this issue, it can be said the government has the greatest power in deciding the policy of the degree in smoking since it has the power to make law to control the behaviors of the people. So we will go deeper in the decision approach of government to see the whole picture. To sum up again, the vested interests of government: 1. health issue, 2. tobacco tax, 3. promote trade.
Does government adopt the utilitarian approach?
If so, the government will ban smoking in Hong Kong since it will benefit and protect all the non-smokers, which is the majority in the society, from passive smoking. The affected parties, such as the smokers, tobacco companies, entertainment industry, in sum, they are just minority in this case, compared to the non smoker in Hong Kong.
But what we can see from the recent situation is that smoking is “partly” banned only, and then we can say that HK government is not adopting the utilitarian approach which will benefit the greatest number of people.
So, how about the cost-benefit approach?
Yes, we agree to this point of view. Let’s assume the government balances the cost and the benefit in this issue. The other parties are also adopting this approach. (Maybe we are in Hong Kong, everything is about the efficiency, so the beneficial one should be chosen) we will prove this assumption with the followings.
Under the recent policy, it is all about “Give and Take”. The tobacco companies can still sell the cigarettes in Hong Kong, which is their priority and the only concern, since it is not banned at all, although the policy will affect the sales of their products since the policy will decrease the chance for and also the desire to smoke. The companies have to forgo part of their sales volume to continue to import cigarettes to HK, which is more beneficial than total ban for smoking.
How about the smokers and the non smokers?
The major concern for the smokers is that they can continue smoking while the non smokers can be away form passive smoking. Under the recent policy, smoking is banned in all the public area. It satisfies the major needs of them. The smokers can still continue to smoke in the private area, such as home and open area. The non-smokers can stay away from the passive smoking because there will not be passive smoking in the above smoking area. It satisfies the major concern of them, it shows that the benefit is greater than the cost for them, although smokers cannot smoke everywhere; they forgo some of the rights. At least, it is better than total smoke ban in Hong Kong.
To summarize, the tobacco companies can still sell the cigarettes, the smokers can still smoke, and the non-smokers can stay away from passive smoking. It is a compromise between them.
How about the government?
In view of this, the government will see if the policy fits all the major concern of the different parties, meanwhile, the interests of the government also. The government, in response of this, will make the policy according to the situation. The government can still tax the tobacco product, which is an important income, and also maintain the free trade principle of Hong Kong.
However….can the government still does better than the recent policy?
“Cultural variances are diminishing as a consequence of the internet society; ethical standards in one place now are likely to be similar in other geographic locales.” (By Louis C. Williams)
A great number of mostly developed countries have enacted bans on smoking in public places or workplaces since the early 2000s, often in conjunction with a reduction in the proportion of the population who smoke.Undoubtedly, legislation in prohibiting people smoking is a direct way to reduce the amount of people smoking. However, smoking bans would be turned out some problems such as economics lost and criticized on a number of grounds. Thus, we have some suggestions instead of smoking ban in Hong Kong.
Smoking area should not be revoked
Smoking area should not be revoked if the methods of banning smoking are sufficient. Also, smokers argue that they can have the right to smoke and the smoking area should maintain under no implication on others.
Government
Setting World No Tobacco Day
World No Tobacco Day (WNTD) is observed around the world every year on May 31. It aims to reduce the amount of people deaths from tobacco-related health problems. It draws global attention to the widespread prevalence of tobacco use and to its negative. More WNTD should be presented as it can promote the message of smoke-free to more people.
Organization & Individual
1. Setting ventilation system in office
Ventilation can be an alternative to smoking bans as it can reduce the harmful impacts of passive smoking. A study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, United Kingdom, published in the Building Services Journal stated that ventilation systems can dramatically improve indoor air quality.
If the Ventilation system was strong enough, the smoke will be deflated and it will drastically reduce the bad effects on others. Therefore, comprehensive anti smoking in public places or workplaces can be instead.
2. Creating anti-smoking environment and culture
Encouraging the creation of more business to join the bans voluntarily, some tax credits and other financial incentives for business should be established. It would probably attract more establishments became smoke-free businesses. Proponents of such policies claim that they would help to increase the options for customers and employees who prefer a smoke-free bar or restaurant without infringing on the rights of business owners.
3. Tradable smoking pollution permits
Tradable pollution permits has been suggested by Professor Robert Havemand and John Mullahy of the University of Wisconsin--Madison and it favored by some economists.
Tradable pollution permits is a market-based alternative and Lawmakers decide the optimal level of smoking establishments for an area. Permits are then auctioned off or otherwise allocated. Nonsmoking establishments can sell the unused permits on the open market to smoking establishments. That means, businesses are required to purchase the property rights over the clean air space of their business in order to let their customers to smoke.
Promotion and Education
Promotion and education are good ways to make widely known about the disadvantages of smoking and make them always on the alert for contracting smoking habit. The authorities can promote a smoke-free culture to the public through the mass media and raise the public awareness on the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke.
Smoking area should not be revoked
Smoking area should not be revoked if the methods of banning smoking are sufficient. Also, smokers argue that they can have the right to smoke and the smoking area should maintain under no implication on others.
Government
Setting World No Tobacco Day
World No Tobacco Day (WNTD) is observed around the world every year on May 31. It aims to reduce the amount of people deaths from tobacco-related health problems. It draws global attention to the widespread prevalence of tobacco use and to its negative. More WNTD should be presented as it can promote the message of smoke-free to more people.
Organization & Individual
1. Setting ventilation system in office
Ventilation can be an alternative to smoking bans as it can reduce the harmful impacts of passive smoking. A study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, United Kingdom, published in the Building Services Journal stated that ventilation systems can dramatically improve indoor air quality.
If the Ventilation system was strong enough, the smoke will be deflated and it will drastically reduce the bad effects on others. Therefore, comprehensive anti smoking in public places or workplaces can be instead.
2. Creating anti-smoking environment and culture
Encouraging the creation of more business to join the bans voluntarily, some tax credits and other financial incentives for business should be established. It would probably attract more establishments became smoke-free businesses. Proponents of such policies claim that they would help to increase the options for customers and employees who prefer a smoke-free bar or restaurant without infringing on the rights of business owners.
3. Tradable smoking pollution permits
Tradable pollution permits has been suggested by Professor Robert Havemand and John Mullahy of the University of Wisconsin--Madison and it favored by some economists.
Tradable pollution permits is a market-based alternative and Lawmakers decide the optimal level of smoking establishments for an area. Permits are then auctioned off or otherwise allocated. Nonsmoking establishments can sell the unused permits on the open market to smoking establishments. That means, businesses are required to purchase the property rights over the clean air space of their business in order to let their customers to smoke.
Promotion and Education
Promotion and education are good ways to make widely known about the disadvantages of smoking and make them always on the alert for contracting smoking habit. The authorities can promote a smoke-free culture to the public through the mass media and raise the public awareness on the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke.
Businesses (such as bars, restaurants) were severely affected by smoking bans since most of their customers are smokers. They will not patronize and the business value of the establishments will be dropped. Some businesses which affected have filed lawsuits claiming that bans are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
Bans may move smoking elsewhere
Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. The former British Cabinet Member John Reid even claimed that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home.
Therefore, some alternatives to bans can reach same goals without such huge controversies and grounds. Government, Organization and Individuals can have a reference on them.
Reference:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
No comments:
Post a Comment