Reasons Why Government Should Ban Smoking in Public Places

As more places think of banning smoking in public areas, Kentucky, as one of the more difficult tobacco-using states, will surely proceed to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this matter with significant fervor. As someone in the health and fitness industry, I feel the obligation to weigh this concern.  There are plenty of reasons why smoking must be banned. Here are some:

No. 1: Secondhand smoke has severe adverse health impacts even if its a Let’s RELX vape. I especially don’t mind what you do to your own body, although the educator in me would suggest you to resign for your own good. I do care that your behavior influences the health of others.

No. 2: Litter decrease. Cigarette butts equates for thousands of pieces of litter annually and detracts from a location’s aesthetic. If smokers would get rid of their waste correctly when they’re in public areas, this might may not be a big deal, but unfortunately, they don’t. The proof is there, dirtying clean buildings and the neighboring landscape with cigarette trash. A smoking ban would lessen litter. Although not a main argument in assistance of a public smoking ban, it is still a reliable one.

No. 3: The lingering smell of stale cigarettes. In bars and restaurants and other institutions that permit smoking, several patrons find the scent of cigarettes to be uncomfortable and irritating. Cigarette smoke does stick on people’s clothes and hair and takes longer to disappear even after the person smoking has left. Clothes used to a smoky bar may still smell like smoke after a few days.

No. 4: The power to a good workplace. It is the burden of the employer to give a safe and healthy atmosphere for its workers. While a to of workers prefer to work in workplaces that allow smoking, others may choose not to be around smoke but continue to do so since they need the work. A smoking ban opponent may just say, “work somewhere without smoke,” yet I would say that your determination to smoke in public is not as essential as that employee’s health and livelihood.

Changes in the Art of Government

Today’s political practice, which Foucault describes with the clumsy-sounding word governmentality, has only established itself in the last few centuries. However, it arises from a religious and political attitude that originates from the oriental empires of antiquity and that Christianity takes up. Foucault says in the first volume about security, territory and population.

How is politics made?

The idea that it is primarily the task of politics to look after the well-being of the population, that the goal of politics is not to increase the power of the state, such a development has only been on the way for about three centuries. Conversely, the power of the state today owes itself primarily to the well-being of the population: if they are productive and earn a lot, they can also pay high taxes. Therefore, politically and state-wise, it is primarily a matter of securing supplies for the population, increasing their prosperity, but also nurturing and caring for the population themselves.

In the modern age, on the other hand, politicians orientate themselves towards a rationality, the core of which consists of economic thinking, which in the age of liberalism, albeit it is in very different variants. Since then, politics has served the economy to improve the well-being of the population.

In addition to the orientation towards the population and the resulting political economy, concern for security is the third constitutive element for governmentality or modern governance. Since the 18th century, a police administration has developed, which initially made the big cities necessary to have. From there, this police concern for security extends to the entire country.

Foucault describes the biopolitics that go hand in hand with liberalism as follows:

The development of the medical police, hygiene publique or social medicine , which began in the second half of the 18th century, had to be placed in the framework of a new ‘biopolitics’, which in the’ Population ‘saw an ensemble of living beings with specific biological and pathological characteristics, for which specific areas of knowledge and techniques were responsible.

The governmentality, due to its pastoral background, results in a policy of comprehensive population care, which, with the scientific revolution, expanded into various areas and brought about the human sciences. Biopolitics means, in the service of the population and thus supposedly in the service of each individual, to control population development. Governmentality uses biopolitics as a government practice to control the population by means of health care, hygiene, the birth rate, lifespan, but also through racial politics.

The tighter the social budget, the more disciplinary the politics, while the liberal element of freedom is more distributed according to income like custom paint by number its easy to learn as an art, so one could learn a lot from Foucault’s analysis for current debates.