essay on causes and effects of smoking

Essay on Smoking

500 words essay on  smoking.

One of the most common problems we are facing in today’s world which is killing people is smoking. A lot of people pick up this habit because of stress , personal issues and more. In fact, some even begin showing it off. When someone smokes a cigarette, they not only hurt themselves but everyone around them. It has many ill-effects on the human body which we will go through in the essay on smoking.

Ill-Effects of Smoking

Tobacco can have a disastrous impact on our health. Nonetheless, people consume it daily for a long period of time till it’s too late. Nearly one billion people in the whole world smoke. It is a shocking figure as that 1 billion puts millions of people at risk along with themselves.

Cigarettes have a major impact on the lungs. Around a third of all cancer cases happen due to smoking. For instance, it can affect breathing and causes shortness of breath and coughing. Further, it also increases the risk of respiratory tract infection which ultimately reduces the quality of life.

In addition to these serious health consequences, smoking impacts the well-being of a person as well. It alters the sense of smell and taste. Further, it also reduces the ability to perform physical exercises.

It also hampers your physical appearances like giving yellow teeth and aged skin. You also get a greater risk of depression or anxiety . Smoking also affects our relationship with our family, friends and colleagues.

Most importantly, it is also an expensive habit. In other words, it entails heavy financial costs. Even though some people don’t have money to get by, they waste it on cigarettes because of their addiction.

How to Quit Smoking?

There are many ways through which one can quit smoking. The first one is preparing for the day when you will quit. It is not easy to quit a habit abruptly, so set a date to give yourself time to prepare mentally.

Further, you can also use NRTs for your nicotine dependence. They can reduce your craving and withdrawal symptoms. NRTs like skin patches, chewing gums, lozenges, nasal spray and inhalers can help greatly.

Moreover, you can also consider non-nicotine medications. They require a prescription so it is essential to talk to your doctor to get access to it. Most importantly, seek behavioural support. To tackle your dependence on nicotine, it is essential to get counselling services, self-materials or more to get through this phase.

One can also try alternative therapies if they want to try them. There is no harm in trying as long as you are determined to quit smoking. For instance, filters, smoking deterrents, e-cigarettes, acupuncture, cold laser therapy, yoga and more can work for some people.

Always remember that you cannot quit smoking instantly as it will be bad for you as well. Try cutting down on it and then slowly and steadily give it up altogether.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Smoking

Thus, if anyone is a slave to cigarettes, it is essential for them to understand that it is never too late to stop smoking. With the help and a good action plan, anyone can quit it for good. Moreover, the benefits will be evident within a few days of quitting.

FAQ of Essay on Smoking

Question 1: What are the effects of smoking?

Answer 1: Smoking has major effects like cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and more. It also increases the risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems with the immune system .

Question 2: Why should we avoid smoking?

Answer 2: We must avoid smoking as it can lengthen your life expectancy. Moreover, by not smoking, you decrease your risk of disease which includes lung cancer, throat cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and more.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Health Effects

Smoking leads to disease and disability and harms nearly every organ of the body.

More than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking. For every person who dies because of smoking, at least 30 people live with a serious smoking-related illness. Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis.

Secondhand smoke exposure contributes to approximately 41,000 deaths among nonsmoking adults and 400 deaths in infants each year. Secondhand smoke causes stroke, lung cancer, and coronary heart disease in adults. Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, middle ear disease, more severe asthma, respiratory symptoms, and slowed lung growth.

Tobacco use increases the risk for many types of cancer, such as Lung cancer.

Heart Disease

Studies show a direct link between cigarette smoking and coronary heart disease.

Smoking, including during the teenage years, increases the risk of dying from COPD.

Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk for pregnancy complications.

Related Materials

• Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking
• Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke
• Tobacco-Related Mortality
• 50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General [PDF–35.9 MB]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014 [accessed 2016 Dec 20].

To receive email updates about Smoking & Tobacco Use, enter your email address:

• Tips From Former Smokers ®
• Division of Cancer Prevention and Control
• Lung Cancer
• National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program
• Division of Reproductive Health

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

200+ Persuasive Essay Topics to Help You Out

Learn How to Create a Persuasive Essay Outline

30+ Free Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Learn to Write Persuasive Essay About Business With Examples and Tips

Check Out 12 Persuasive Essay About Online Education Examples

Are you wondering how to write your next persuasive essay about smoking?

Smoking has been one of the most controversial topics in our society for years. It is associated with many health risks and can be seen as a danger to both individuals and communities.

Writing an effective persuasive essay about smoking can help sway public opinion. It can also encourage people to make healthier choices and stop smoking. 

But where do you begin?

In this blog, we’ll provide some examples to get you started. So read on to get inspired!

• 1. What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay
• 2. Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking
• 3. Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples
• 4. Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay

A persuasive essay is a type of writing that aims to convince its readers to take a certain stance or action. It often uses logical arguments and evidence to back up its argument in order to persuade readers.

It also utilizes rhetorical techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make the argument more convincing. In other words, persuasive essays use facts and evidence as well as emotion to make their points.

A persuasive essay about smoking would use these techniques to convince its readers about any point about smoking. Check out an example below:

Simple persuasive essay about smoking

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. It leads to adverse health effects, including lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the respiratory tract. However, the number of people who smoke cigarettes has been on the rise globally.

A lot has been written on topics related to the effects of smoking. Reading essays about it can help you get an idea of what makes a good persuasive essay.

Here are some sample persuasive essays about smoking that you can use as inspiration for your own writing:

Persuasive speech on smoking outline

Persuasive essay about smoking should be banned

Persuasive essay about smoking pdf

Persuasive essay about smoking cannot relieve stress

Persuasive essay about smoking in public places

Speech about smoking is dangerous

Persuasive Essay About Smoking Introduction

Persuasive Essay About Stop Smoking

Short Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Stop Smoking Persuasive Speech

Check out some more persuasive essay examples on various other topics.

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that uses facts and logical arguments to back up a point. It is similar to a persuasive essay but differs in that it utilizes more evidence than emotion.

If you’re looking to write an argumentative essay about smoking, here are some examples to get you started on the arguments of why you should not smoke.

Argumentative essay about smoking pdf

Argumentative essay about smoking in public places

Argumentative essay about smoking introduction

Check out the video below to find useful arguments against smoking:

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

You have read some examples of persuasive and argumentative essays about smoking. Now here are some tips that will help you craft a powerful essay on this topic.

Choose a Specific Angle

Select a particular perspective on the issue that you can use to form your argument. When talking about smoking, you can focus on any aspect such as the health risks, economic costs, or environmental impact.

Think about how you want to approach the topic. For instance, you could write about why smoking should be banned. 

Check out the list of persuasive essay topics to help you while you are thinking of an angle to choose!

Research the Facts

Before writing your essay, make sure to research the facts about smoking. This will give you reliable information to use in your arguments and evidence for why people should avoid smoking.

You can find and use credible data and information from reputable sources such as government websites, health organizations, and scientific studies. 

For instance, you should gather facts about health issues and negative effects of tobacco if arguing against smoking. Moreover, you should use and cite sources carefully.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Make an Outline

The next step is to create an outline for your essay. This will help you organize your thoughts and make sure that all the points in your essay flow together logically.

Your outline should include the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. This will help ensure that your essay has a clear structure and argument.

Use Persuasive Language

When writing your essay, make sure to use persuasive language such as “it is necessary” or “people must be aware”. This will help you convey your message more effectively and emphasize the importance of your point.

Also, don’t forget to use rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make your arguments more convincing. That is, you should incorporate emotion, personal experience, and logic into your arguments.

Introduce Opposing Arguments

Another important tip when writing a persuasive essay on smoking is to introduce opposing arguments. It will show that you are aware of the counterarguments and can provide evidence to refute them. This will help you strengthen your argument.

By doing this, your essay will come off as more balanced and objective, making it more convincing.

Finish Strong

Finally, make sure to finish your essay with a powerful conclusion. This will help you leave a lasting impression on your readers and reinforce the main points of your argument. You can end by summarizing the key points or giving some advice to the reader.

A powerful conclusion could either include food for thought or a call to action. So be sure to use persuasive language and make your conclusion strong.

To conclude,

By following these tips, you can write an effective and persuasive essay on smoking. Remember to research the facts, make an outline, and use persuasive language.

However, don't stress if you need expert help to write your essay! We're the best essay writing service for you!

Our persuasive essay writing service is fast, affordable, and trustworthy. 

Try it out today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Nursing — Argumentative Essay On Smoking Cigarettes

Argumentative Essay on Smoking Cigarettes

• Categories: Nursing

About this sample

Words: 507 |

Published: Mar 13, 2024

Words: 507 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Health effects of smoking, economic implications, impact on non-smokers, the case for regulation, references:.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Smoking & Tobacco Use. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/index.htm

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 777 words

4 pages / 1784 words

4 pages / 1732 words

1 pages / 403 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Nursing

Gagnon, K., & Sabus, C. (2015). Professionalism in a Digital Age: Opportunities and Considerations for Using Social Media in Health Care. Physical Therapy, 95(3), 406–414.Nayak, S. G. (2018). Time Management in Nursing -- Hour [...]

Ball J. & Pike G. (2009). Shift length: A literature review. Nursing Management (Harrow), 16(4), 22-25.Bogossian, F., Winters-Chang, P., & Tuckett, A. (2014). Extended work shifts and the impact on patient safety, productivity, [...]

A Better NHS. (2011). Patient autonomy and choice. Retrieved from 71-77.

Davis, S. H., & Berk, S. F. (Eds.). (2017). Teaching nursing: The art and science. Wolters Kluwer Health.Dossey, B. M., Keegan, L., & Guzzetta, C. E. (Eds.). (2015). Holistic nursing: A handbook for practice. Jones & Bartlett [...]

In the world of healthcare, professionalism is the cornerstone of nursing practice. It encompasses a set of qualities and behaviors that not only uphold the standards of the profession but also ensure the delivery of safe and [...]

The role of a nurse is often seen as one of care and compassion, providing support and medical treatment to those in need. However, there is another aspect to nursing that is equally important but often overlooked - that of the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Essay: Causes and Effects of Smoking Among Students

Smoking is one of the most dangerous widespread phenomena that threaten lives of a huge number of people worldwide. It starts as a way of having fun, but ends as an addiction that is therefore so difficult to give up. Today, we often hear of “smoking among students”. So why do students smoke and what are the effects that smoking has on them?

Related Papers

The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government

Tabssum Naz

Introduction: The World Health Organisation has declared that smoking is the biggest health problem, since over four million people die because of it every year and it causes much harm. The assumption that all over the world, including Turkey, about 45% of the population over 15 years old has a smoking habit on a very serious scale reveals how important the problem is for the young population. Material and Method: This study was carried out to determine the smoking status of the final grade students at Atatürk University in the 2003-2004 academic year. A questionnaire form developed by the researchers was used as the data gathering tool. Results: It was found that 42.0% of the participants had smoked (continuous and occasional smoking). The age of onset of smoking was mainly between 14 and 21 years. There was a statistically strong association between duration of smoking, starting time, and smoking amount (p<0.001), including the association between age of onset and smoking status of the students (p<0.05). Of the students, 22.1% stated that they did not know why they started smoking. Their main answers were; 56.5% of them stated they smoked to relieve their stress feelings, 24.6% stated they smoked for pleasure. Conclusion: Cigarette are widely used by university students. The reason why the students started smoking was mostly fellowship environment, and the reason for continuing to smoke was mostly to relieve stress. (Tur Toraks Der 2008;9:93-8) Key words: Smoking, university student, Erzurum, Turkey.

Journal of emerging technologies and innovative research

Dr. Manjur Hossain

IJHASS Journal

International Journal of Public Health Science (IJPHS)

Smoking is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in the world and is estimated to kill 5 million people each year worldwide. If current patterns of tobacco consumption continue, smoking will kill more than 8 million people each year globally by the year 2030, with 80% of these deaths in the developing countries. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and associated factors of cigarette smoking among male university students in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 542 male students at University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir in Muzaffarabad from July to December 2015. The socio-demographic characteristics and cigarette smoking behavior of the students were measured by using a standardized pre-tested self-administrated validated questionnaire in English. The overall prevalence of cigarette smoking among students was found to be 49.4%. The mean age of starting cigarette smoking was 19.2 2.73 years. Age, marital status and education were found significantly associted with cigarette smoking behavior (p-value<0.05). The most common reason for cigarette smoking was stress alleviation (35.0%) followed by peer pressure (24.5%). As cigarette smoking is considerably higher among students. There is a need to develop effective tobacco control measures among university students in Muzaffarabad.

Mubarak Hussain

Aija Zobena

Despite the detrimental impact of smoking to health, its prevalence remains high. Most students who smoke start to do so regularly around the age of 16-18. Although the proportion of smokers in Latvia is decreasing, the share of electronic cigarette users among young people is growing prematurely, which indicates a change of habits among young people. The aim of the study is to investigate the motives for starting smoking, the factors that contribute to smoking initiation and how high school students become “regular smokers” from “trying” tobacco products. In February 2019, two focus group discussions were organized to obtain information on young people&#39;s smoking experience. In each of them, high school students (aged over 18) and students took part. The participants of the focus group discussion were chosen by the “snowball” method. Social factors and the social and psychological characteristics of adolescents have a major impact on the transition from the first cigarette smoke...

Journal of Tropical Pediatrics

Shubhadeep Das

Turk J Med Sci

Sevgi ONCEL

Journal of King Abdulaziz University-Medical Sciences

Samar Alsaggaf

RELATED PAPERS

Fernando Mateo

Eduardo Bianchi

Acta Scientiarum. Biological Sciences

Eraldo Medeiros Costa Neto

Ana Rita Sulz

International Journal On …

Franco Chiaraluce

Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics

Raymond Chastain

Edwin Barboza Estela

INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research

Yiqiang Zhao

Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Extending database technology Advances in database technology - EDBT '08

Ricardo Baeza-yates

Cyber Security and Computer Science

Saddam Hossain

Brain Structure and Function

Esther Castillo Gómez

Ahmad Marjuki

2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)

Jennifer Karlin

Oxidative Stress and Chronic Degenerative Diseases - A Role for Antioxidants

Delina Guadalupe Montes Sanchez

BELLI AC PACIS

Kartika Salsabila

Susana Álvarez Álvarez

OECD Development Centre Working Papers

Richard Drobnick

Science of The Total Environment

Jean-Marc Guarini

快速办理毕业证 各种各类的毕业证齐全

The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

Rénion Saye

Joshi Fullop

European Journal of Computational Mechanics

Mohammad Najafi

Global Social Sciences Review

Areeba Haider Aali

Prática Pedagógica Construcionista com a Linguagem de Programação Scratch em uma abordagem STEAM

Katia Monica Verdim Eggert , Monica Asquino , Dulce Márcia Cruz

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2021 than in any other year on record, according to the latest available statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That included record numbers of both gun murders and gun suicides. Despite the increase in such fatalities, the rate of gun deaths – a statistic that accounts for the nation’s growing population – remained below the levels of earlier decades.

Here’s a closer look at gun deaths in the United States, based on a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the CDC, the FBI and other sources. You can also read key public opinion findings about U.S. gun violence and gun policy .

This Pew Research Center analysis examines the changing number and rate of gun deaths in the United States. It is based primarily on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The CDC’s statistics are based on information contained in official death certificates, while the FBI’s figures are based on information voluntarily submitted by thousands of police departments around the country.

For the number and rate of gun deaths over time, we relied on mortality statistics in the CDC’s WONDER database covering four distinct time periods:  1968 to 1978 ,  1979 to 1998 ,  1999 to 2020 , and 2021 . While these statistics are mostly comparable for the full 1968-2021 period, gun murders and suicides between 1968 and 1978 are classified by the CDC as involving firearms  and  explosives; those between 1979 and 2021 are classified as involving firearms only. Similarly, gun deaths involving law enforcement between 1968 and 1978 exclude those caused by “operations of war”; those between 1979 and 2021 include that category, which refers to gun deaths among military personnel or civilians  due to war or civil insurrection in the U.S . All CDC gun death estimates in this analysis are adjusted to account for age differences over time and across states.

The FBI’s statistics about the types of firearms used in gun murders in 2020 come from the bureau’s  Crime Data Explorer website . Specifically, they are drawn from the expanded homicide tables of the agency’s  2020 Crime in the United States report . The FBI’s statistics include murders and non-negligent manslaughters involving firearms.

How many people die from gun-related injuries in the U.S. each year?

In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That figure includes gun murders and gun suicides, along with three less common types of gun-related deaths tracked by the CDC: those that were accidental, those that involved law enforcement and those whose circumstances could not be determined. The total excludes deaths in which gunshot injuries played a contributing, but not principal, role. (CDC fatality statistics are based on information contained in official death certificates, which identify a single cause of death.)

What share of U.S. gun deaths are murders and what share are suicides?

Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths . In 2021, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328), while 43% were murders (20,958), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were accidental (549), involved law enforcement (537) or had undetermined circumstances (458).

What share of all murders and suicides in the U.S. involve a gun?

About eight-in-ten U.S. murders in 2021 – 20,958 out of 26,031, or 81% – involved a firearm. That marked the highest percentage since at least 1968, the earliest year for which the CDC has online records. More than half of all suicides in 2021 – 26,328 out of 48,183, or 55% – also involved a gun, the highest percentage since 2001.

How has the number of U.S. gun deaths changed over time?

The record 48,830 total gun deaths in 2021 reflect a 23% increase since 2019, before the onset of the coronavirus pandemic .

Gun murders, in particular, have climbed sharply during the pandemic, increasing 45% between 2019 and 2021, while the number of gun suicides rose 10% during that span.

The overall increase in U.S. gun deaths since the beginning of the pandemic includes an especially stark rise in such fatalities among children and teens under the age of 18. Gun deaths among children and teens rose 50% in just two years , from 1,732 in 2019 to 2,590 in 2021.

How has the rate of U.S. gun deaths changed over time?

While 2021 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population. On a per capita basis, there were 14.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2021 – the highest rate since the early 1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.

The gun murder rate in the U.S. remains below its peak level despite rising sharply during the pandemic. There were 6.7 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2021, below the 7.2 recorded in 1974.

The gun suicide rate, on the other hand, is now on par with its historical peak. There were 7.5 gun suicides per 100,000 people in 2021, statistically similar to the 7.7 measured in 1977. (One caveat when considering the 1970s figures: In the CDC’s database, gun murders and gun suicides between 1968 and 1978 are classified as those caused by firearms and explosives. In subsequent years, they are classified as deaths involving firearms only.)

Which states have the highest and lowest gun death rates in the U.S.?

The rate of gun fatalities varies widely from state to state. In 2021, the states with the highest total rates of gun-related deaths – counting murders, suicides and all other categories tracked by the CDC – included Mississippi (33.9 per 100,000 people), Louisiana (29.1), New Mexico (27.8), Alabama (26.4) and Wyoming (26.1). The states with the lowest total rates included Massachusetts (3.4), Hawaii (4.8), New Jersey (5.2), New York (5.4) and Rhode Island (5.6).

The results are somewhat different when looking at gun murder and gun suicide rates separately. The places with the highest gun murder rates in 2021 included the District of Columbia (22.3 per 100,000 people), Mississippi (21.2), Louisiana (18.4), Alabama (13.9) and New Mexico (11.7). Those with the lowest gun murder rates included Massachusetts (1.5), Idaho (1.5), Hawaii (1.6), Utah (2.1) and Iowa (2.2). Rate estimates are not available for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont or Wyoming.

The states with the highest gun suicide rates in 2021 included Wyoming (22.8 per 100,000 people), Montana (21.1), Alaska (19.9), New Mexico (13.9) and Oklahoma (13.7). The states with the lowest gun suicide rates were Massachusetts (1.7), New Jersey (1.9), New York (2.0), Hawaii (2.8) and Connecticut (2.9). Rate estimates are not available for the District of Columbia.

How does the gun death rate in the U.S. compare with other countries?

The gun death rate in the U.S. is much higher than in most other nations, particularly developed nations. But it is still far below the rates in several Latin American countries, according to a 2018 study of 195 countries and territories by researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

The U.S. gun death rate was 10.6 per 100,000 people in 2016, the most recent year in the study, which used a somewhat different methodology from the CDC. That was far higher than in countries such as Canada (2.1 per 100,000) and Australia (1.0), as well as European nations such as France (2.7), Germany (0.9) and Spain (0.6). But the rate in the U.S. was much lower than in El Salvador (39.2 per 100,000 people), Venezuela (38.7), Guatemala (32.3), Colombia (25.9) and Honduras (22.5), the study found. Overall, the U.S. ranked 20th in its gun fatality rate that year .

How many people are killed in mass shootings in the U.S. every year?

This is a difficult question to answer because there is no single, agreed-upon definition of the term “mass shooting.” Definitions can vary depending on factors including the number of victims and the circumstances of the shooting.

The FBI collects data on “active shooter incidents,” which it defines as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Using the FBI’s definition, 103 people – excluding the shooters – died in such incidents in 2021 .

The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people are shot, even if no one was killed (again excluding the shooters). Using this definition, 706 people died in these incidents in 2021 .

Regardless of the definition being used, fatalities in mass shooting incidents in the U.S. account for a small fraction of all gun murders that occur nationwide each year.

How has the number of mass shootings in the U.S. changed over time?

The same definitional issue that makes it challenging to calculate mass shooting fatalities comes into play when trying to determine the frequency of U.S. mass shootings over time. The unpredictability of these incidents also complicates matters: As Rand Corp. noted in a research brief , “Chance variability in the annual number of mass shooting incidents makes it challenging to discern a clear trend, and trend estimates will be sensitive to outliers and to the time frame chosen for analysis.”

The FBI found an increase in active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2021. There were three such incidents in 2000. By 2021, that figure had increased to 61.

Which types of firearms are most commonly used in gun murders in the U.S.?

In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”

It’s important to note that the FBI’s statistics do not capture the details on all gun murders in the U.S. each year. The FBI’s data is based on information voluntarily submitted by police departments around the country, and not all agencies participate or provide complete information each year.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Aug. 16, 2019.

• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues
• Politics & Policy

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

Striking findings from 2023, key facts about americans and guns, for most u.s. gun owners, protection is the main reason they own a gun, gun violence widely viewed as a major – and growing – national problem, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Influence of the Social Environment on Youth Smoking Status

Youth smoking is complex with multilevel influences. While much is known about certain levels of influence on youth smoking, the lack of focus on institutional influences is notable. This study evaluated the effects of ambient smoking attitudes and behaviors in schools on individual youth smoking.

Data from the 2012 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey (n=67,460) were analyzed. Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate individual and aggregated school-level factors that were associated with a youth being classified as a “susceptible nonsmoker” (SN) or “current smoker” (CS) relative to a “non-susceptible nonsmoker” (NN).

The aggregated percentage of regular smokers at a school, ambient school level positive smoking perceptions, and the standardized difference between individual and school-level positive smoking perceptions were statistically significant in the fully adjusted model. We also found an increased risk of being a SN relative to a NN for Hispanic youth. Moreover, our approach to modeling institutional-level factors raised the pseudo r-squared from 0.05 to 0.14.

These findings suggest the importance of ambient smoking attitudes and behaviors on youth smoking. Prevention efforts affecting ambient smoking attitudes may be beneficial.

Introduction

Youth cigarette smoking continues to be an important public health concern in the United States ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010 ; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014 ). Youth smoking is complex with multilevel influences impacting the likelihood that an individual youth will smoke. An extensive literature exists for many of the levels of influence identified by the ecological model of health behavior ( Glanz et al, 2002 ) and youth smoking status. For example, intrapersonal attitudes and behaviors ( Carvajal et al., 2000 ; Conrad et al., 1992 ; Flay et al., 1998 ; Lopez et al., 2010 ), peer and family influence as a function of interpersonal processes and primary groups ( Bauman et al., 2001 ; Clark et al., 1999 ; Gritz et al., 2003 ; Kegler et al, 2002 ; Landrine et al., 1994 ), neighborhood and built environment influences as community factors ( Goldade et al., 2012 ; Pickett and Pearl, 2001 ), and public policy initiatives to increase taxes on tobacco products ( Lando et al., 2005 ), ban indoor smoking ( Siegel et al., 2008 ), and restrict advertising and point of sale purchases of tobacco products to minors ( DiFranza et al., 2006 ; Gostin, Amo, & Brandt, 1997 ; Kessler et al., 1996 ; Willemsen & deZwart, 1999 ) have all shown direct influence on youth smoking. However, the lack of focus on institutional influences, particularly the influence of the school environment, on youth smoking is a notable exception to this otherwise extensive body of work.

The institutional influence of the school environment on susceptibility to youth risk behaviors, like smoking, is particularly important given the proportion of waking hours adolescents spend at school ( Flannery, Williams and Vazsonyi, 1999 ; Fuller & Clarke, 1994 ; Stewart, 2008 ). Although studies have examined the effect of perceived peer attitudes and behaviors on youth smoking ( Maxwell, 2002 ; Prinstein, Boergers, and Spirito, 2001 ; Urberg et al., 1990 ), we found no studies exploring the effect of the school environment via the aggregate attitudes and behaviors of students who may or may not be friends with a focal respondent.

The school environment can influence smoking through passive exposure social attitudes and behaviors regarding smoking. Positive social attitudes regarding smoking can be expressed in two main ways by either direct or indirect endorsements of smoking behavior ( Nosek, 2007 ; Petty & Brinol, 2006 ). Direct endorsement of smoking behavior could be captured by engaging in smoking with or without expressing pro-smoking attitudes (i.e. the act of smoking provides advertisement of the behavior). Conversely, indirect endorsement of smoking behavior would be captured by expressing pro-smoking attitudes with or without engaging in smoking behaviors ( Huijding et al., 2005 ). It is possible that one or both mechanisms affect youth smoking status.

This study addresses the relative dearth of knowledge about how the school environment affects youth smoking. Specifically, we examined the following research questions: (1) Does exposure to explicit peer smoking influence youth smoking status? We predict that youth smoking status will vary by the percentage of smokers in the focal respondent's school net of individual demographic characteristics. Second, does exposure to peer attitudes regarding social benefits of smoking influence youth smoking status? We predict that youth smoking status will vary as a function of differences in exposure to positive social perceptions regarding smoking in the school environment. Further, we predict that this effect will increase after adjusting for the difference between individual and aggregate implicit positive social perceptions regarding smoking in the school environment.

Materials and Methods

Data from the 2012 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey (FYTS) were analyzed. The Florida Youth Tobacco Survey is a school-based survey administered annually by the Florida Department of Health. The sample includes students across the state of Florida in middle (38,989 students) and high schools (36,439 students), using a two-stage cluster probability design. The complex sampling design included a random sampling of public middle and high schools across the state and random sampling of classrooms selected within each selected school. All students clustered in the selected classrooms were invited to participate in the survey. Data were collected from 66 counties in Florida, with two counties excluded due to unrepresentative sampling or abstention. The overall survey response rate for middle schools was 77 percent, and the overall survey response rate for high schools was 73 percent (accessed March 5, 2015 http://www.floridahealth.gov/statistics-and-data/survey-data/fl-youth-tobacco-survey/index.html ).

Individual level variables

Individual level variables included both demographic variables and a measure for in-home smoking. Demographic variables included participant age in years, race/ethnicity, sex (male =1; female =0), type of housing (single family home=0; apartment/trailer/etc.= 1), and a measure of attending a school located in non-metro/rural area according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Rural-Urban Continuum Code (rural =1; urban=0). The options for race/ethnicity included non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or other race. We also included a dichotomous measure of in-home smoking to assess smoking by at least one other individual in the respondent's home (yes=1, no=0).

Focal Independent Variables: Scaled Individual and School-Level Characteristics

The key independent variables in the full analysis were: (1) the percentage of students in the focal respondent's school who reported ever smoking regularly and (2) the standardized difference between individual and school-level positive smoking attitudes. The two focal independent variables included the percentage of students in the respondent's school who indicated ever smoking regularly and the average aggregate positive smoking attitudes in the respondent's school. The positive smoking attitude questions included three measures assessing whether youth believed that young people who smoke: “have more friends,” “look cool or fit in,” and “feel more comfortable at parties.” These questions were asked on a 4-point scale with higher values indicating more positive agreement with these statements (α=0.68).

Given the variation in the difference between individual and school level positive smoking attitudes ( Equation 1 ), we standardized these scores to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one to compare across youths and schools ( Equation 2 ). The resulting score from Equation 2 is used in the fully adjusted model analysis (Model 3).

Equation 1 : Difference between individual and school level positive smoking perceptions

Equation 2 : Standardized difference between individual and school level positive smoking perceptions

This measurement strategy builds upon the method used by Hatzenbuehler and colleagues (2014) and scales for the relative difference between individual attitudes and the ambient level of attitudes surrounding the focal individual. This strategy enables analyses across two levels without necessitating nested models while also scaling for the relative effects of personal implicit attitudes to aggregate values.

Our other focal independent variable is the school-level average of the percentage of students in the respondent's school who reported ever smoking regularly (i.e. - responding “Yes” to “Have you ever smoked cigarettes daily, that is, at least one cigarette every day for 30 days?”). Using this measurement, a one-unit increase is equivalent to a 1% increase in the percentage of students in the focal respondent's school who have ever smoked regularly.

Two school-level control variables were also created and include the percentage of students who had been exposed to anti-smoking ads on at least 10 days in the past month and the percentage of students who reported getting mostly A's in school.

Dependent Variable

Youth smoking status was the main outcome of this study. Youth smoking status was measured as a three-level categorical variable. Each respondent was categorized as a current smoker (CS, n=6,108), a susceptible nonsmoker (SN, n=17,607), or a non-susceptible nonsmoker (NN, n=43,745). Current smokers were defined as individuals who had smoked in the past month. Susceptible nonsmokers were respondents who indicated they would either be smoking within the next year; they would be smoking within the next 5 years, or would smoke if given a cigarette by a friend. Non-susceptible nonsmokers included youth who responded “definitely not” to all three susceptibility questions and were not current smokers. Respondents who reported a prior history of smoking, but who were not currently smoking, were excluded from the present analysis (n=650; 0.9%) These former smokers did not comprise a large enough group for comparative analyses.

Statistical Analyses

Weighted multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to assess the relative likelihood of each level of smoking status given the same set of predictors. Due to the large sample size and relatively low amount of missing data (<5% per item), we limited our analyses to respondents with complete information through listwise deletion. The final analytic sample included 68,110 respondents. All analyses were weighted to account for the complex survey design.

Three models were examined. The outcome for each model was the individual smoking status variable. The first model included the individual demographic characteristics and in-home smoking variable (Model 1). The second model included the school-level variables only (Model 2). The final, fully adjusted, model (Model 3) combined the variables in Models 1 and 2, as well the standardized difference between individual and school level average positive social perceptions about smoking.

Table 1 includes the weighted means for all variables in the full sample and by smoking status. Current smokers were significantly different from both non-susceptible nonsmokers and susceptible nonsmokers by age (slightly older), sex (more males), race (higher proportion NH White, lower proportion NH Black), housing type (fewer residing in single family homes), rural residency (more rural), and higher rates of in-home smoking. Current smokers were also more likely to come from schools with a higher percentage of ever smokers, higher average positive smoking perceptions, and higher values on the standardized difference in perceptions measure. Among the two groups of nonsmokers, susceptible nonsmokers were more likely to be Hispanic, less likely to be NH Black, more likely to have a smoker in the home, and have higher values on the standardized difference in perceptions measure than non-susceptible nonsmokers.

Weighted Means or Percentages of Individual and School Level Predictors of Youth Smoking Status

Demographics Model

SN vs. NN. In the demographics only model (Model 1; Table 2 ), increased age (AOR=1.03, p<0.001), male gender (AOR=1.09, p<0.001), and in-home smoking (AOR=1.70, p<0.001), increased the likelihood of being a susceptible nonsmoker (SN) relative to a non-susceptible nonsmoker (NN). The relationship between race/ethnicity and smoking status for SNs, relative to NN, was more complicated with decreased risk for NH Blacks (AOR=0.76, p<0.001) and Asian or Pacific Islanders (AOR=0.75, p<0.001), but increased risk for Hispanic youth (AOR=1.26, p<0.001) compared to NH Whites. American Indian and other race individuals did not differ from NH White youth.

Predictors of Smoking Susceptibility and Current Smoking Relative to (Non-susceptible) Nonsmokers, Adjusted Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals Reported

CS vs. NN. As seen with SN in the demographics only model, increased age (AOR=1.40, p<0.001), male gender (AOR=1.28, p<0.001), and in-home smoking (AOR=3.37, p<0.001), increased the likelihood of being a current smoker (CS) relative to a non-susceptible nonsmoker (NN). However, additional effects were seen for both living in a non-single family home (AOR=1.62, p<0.001) and living in a rural area (AOR=1.43, p<0.001), which increased the likelihood of being a CS relative to a NN. Unlike with SN, Hispanics (AOR=0.86, p<0.05), NH Blacks (AOR=0.40, p<0.001), and Asian or Pacific Islanders (AOR=0.61, p<0.001) were all less likely to be CS relative to NN. American Indian and other race individuals did not differ from NH White youth.

The demographics only model explained 5.07% of the variance in smoking status.

School-Level Model

In the school-level variable model (Model 2), the average positive social perception of smoking (AOR=3.33, p<0.001) increased the odds of being an SN versus a NN. Both the average positive social perception of smoking (AOR=6.80, p<0.001) and the percentage of students who had ever been regular smokers in the focal respondent's school (AOR=1.11, p<0.001) increased the risk of being a CS relative to a NN.

The school-level model explained 2.31% of the variance in smoking status.

SN vs. NN. In the fully adjusted model (Model 3), increased age (AOR=1.03, p<0.001), male gender (AOR=1.08, p<0.05), and in-home smoking (AOR=1.55, p<0.001), increased the likelihood of being a susceptible nonsmoker (SN) relative to a non-susceptible nonsmoker (NN). NH Blacks (AOR=0.64, p<0.001) and Asian or Pacific Islanders (AOR=0.69, p<0.001) were less likely to be SN, while Hispanic youth (AOR=1.19, p<0.001) were more likely to be SN than NH Whites relative to NN. American Indian and other race individuals did not differ from NH White youth. Moreover, in the fully adjusted model, the percentage of ever smokers in the focal respondent's school (AOR=1.01, p<0.05) increased the likelihood of being a SN relative to an NN. Further, increased values for the standardized difference between individual and school-level positive social perceptions of smoking (AOR=2.11, p<0.001) strongly increased the likelihood of being a SN relative to an NN.

CS vs. NN. As seen with SN in the fully adjusted model, increased age (AOR=1.32, p<0.001), male gender (AOR=1.17, p<0.01), and in-home smoking (AOR=2.90, p<0.001), increased the likelihood of being a current smoker (CS) relative to a non-susceptible nonsmoker (NN). Like the demographics model, additional effects were seen for both living in a non-single family home (AOR=1.58 p<0.001) and living in a rural area (AOR=1.18, p<0.01) increasing the likelihood of being a CS relative to a NN. Unlike the demographics model for SN, Hispanics no longer differ from NH Whites in the fully adjusted model. However, NH Blacks (AOR=0.35, p<0.001), and Asian or Pacific Islanders (AOR=0.53, p<0.001) were still less likely to be CS relative to NN. American Indian and other race individuals did not differ from NH White youth. Moreover, the percentage of ever smokers in the focal respondent's school (AOR=1.08, p<0.001) increased the likelihood of being a CS relative to an NN in the fully adjusted model. Further, increased values for the standardized difference between individual and school level positive social perceptions of smoking sharply increased (AOR=3.00, p<0.001) the likelihood of being a CS relative to an NN.

The fully adjusted model explained 13.78% of the variance in smoking status.

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to address how the institutional effects of social attitudes about smoking and smoking behavior at the school-level affect individual youth smoking status. This paper adds to the literature in three important ways. First, this paper demonstrates that pro-smoking attitudes and behaviors at the institutional level in the social environment are important and can strongly influence youth smoking status above and beyond individual factors. Second, we find that endorsements of pro-smoking attitudes have particularly increased effects for Hispanic youth with regard to being susceptible non-smokers. Finally, this paper introduces a novel way of modeling institutional effects by scaling the differences between individual attitudes and behaviors with aggregate measures of attitudes and behaviors in order to model individual outcomes influenced by the social environment within institutions. Taken together, these findings suggest that the effects of aggregated attitudes and behaviors towards smoking may be useful in explaining some variation in youth smoking status influenced by social environments within institutions.

Our study adds to the extensive work on multilevel influences on youth smoking. Our study is the first to extend the multilevel influences on youth smoking literature to include school-level institutional factors as well. With this modeling strategy, it is possible to model effects at each of the levels of influence in the ecological model of health behavior ( Glanz et al, 2002 ). We encourage future scholars to use this method to extend our findings both with regard to predicting youth smoking status and to modeling the ecological model of health behavior in other contexts.

Limitations

The contributions of this study must be viewed in light of its limitations. The most notable limitation involves the generalizability of the study. Although this study used a large sample of racially and ethnically diverse youths in the state of Florida, it is possible that the patterns observed may not be generalizable to youth in other states, or nationally. The methods used in this study could be used in large nationally representative samples of youth (e.g., National Youth Tobacco Survey) to generalize outside the state of Florida.

Although our modeling strategy allowed us to model the ambient institutional effects of the school environment, by lacking respondent friend nominations within and across schools we were unable to disentangle the effects of attitudes and behaviors of peers that are friends (chosen friends) from those who are non-friend peers (schoolmates that may not be friends). Peer assignment to schools is nonrandom based on socioeconomic and geographic factors that may alter the impact of peer effects due to differences in possible peer networks. Additionally, recent work by Angrist (2014) highlights the challenges of attributing peer effects in non-experimental data. Although we lack an experimental setting, we believe that our model examines reasonable associations by using the standardized difference between individual and school-level positive smoking perceptions while controlling for several individual and school-level contributing factors that influence smoking. Future research with studies that include responses of students clustered in schools and peer nominations of friends should attempt to tease out the distinction between interpersonal processes (influence of peer-friends) and institutional factors (influence of non-friend peers in the school environment) both in and outside of experimental settings. Despite these limitations, this is the first known study to employ this method to model the ambient institutional effects of the school environment on youth smoking status.

In sum, both pro-smoking attitudes and behaviors in the social environment are important institutional factors that can influence youth smoking status. We find that these effects hold while controlling for both individual and school-level characteristics. Future research should focus on more comprehensively gauging the institutional effects of attitudes and behaviors within youth social environments to best target prevention and cessation strategies for at-risk youth.

• Pro-smoking attitudes and behaviors in the social environment are important institutional factors that can strongly influence youth smoking status.
• Ambient school-level attitudes and behaviors predict youth smoking susceptibility net of individual factors.
• Hispanic youth have increased risk of being susceptible nonsmokers relative to non-susceptible nonsmokers compared to non-Hispanic White youth.

Acknowledgement

Dr. Bellatorre and Dr. Choi's effort on the study is funded by the Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bernat's effort is supported with a grant from the National Cancer Institute (R03 CA168411; D. Bernat, Principal Investigator). The views presented in this paper don't necessarily reflect the views of the Florida Department of Health, NIH, or the University of Maryland.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

We have no known conflicts of interest.

• Angrist JD. The perils of peer effects. Labour Economics. 2014; 30 :98–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauman KE, Carver K, Gleiter K. Trends in parent and friend influence during adolescence: the case of adolescent cigarette smoking. Addictive behaviors. 2001; 26 (3):349–361. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carvajal SC, Wiatrek DE, Evans RI, Knee CR, Nash SG. Psychosocial determinants of the onset and escalation of smoking: cross-sectional and prospective findings in multiethnic middle school samples. Journal of adolescent health. 2000; 27 (4):255–265. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC. Atlanta, GA: 2010. 2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey Methodology Report. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark PI, Scarisbrick-Hauser A, Gautam SP, Wirk SJ. Anti-tobacco socialization in homes of African-American and white parents, and smoking and nonsmoking parents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 1999; 24 (5):329–339. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conrad KM, Flay BR, Hill D. Why children start smoking cigarettes: predictors of onset. British journal of addiction. 1992; 87 (12):1711–1724. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DiFranza JR, Wellman RJ, Sargent JD, Weitzman M, Hipple BJ, Winickoff JP. Tobacco promotion and the initiation of tobacco use: assessing the evidence for causality. Pediatrics. 2006; 117 (6):e1237–e1248. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flannery DJ, Williams LL, Vazsonyi AT. Who are they with and what are they doing? Delinquent behavior, substance use, and early adolescents' after-school time. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1999; 69 (2):247. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flay BR, Phil D, Hu FB, Richardson J. Psychosocial predictors of different stages of cigarette smoking among high school students. Preventive medicine. 1998; 27 (5):A9–A18. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuller B, Clarke P. Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules, and pedagogy. Review of educational research. 1994; 64 (1):119–157. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glanz K, Rimer B, Lewis FM. Theory, Research and Practice. 3rd edn Jossey-Bass; San Francisco: 2002. Health behavior and health education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldade K, Choi K, Bernat DH, Klein EG, Okuyemi KS, Forster J. Multilevel predictors of smoking initiation among adolescents: findings from the Minnesota Adolescent Community Cohort (MACC) study. Preventive medicine. 2012; 54 (3):242–246. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gostin LO, Arno PS, Brandt AM. FDA regulation of tobacco advertising and youth smoking: historical, social, and constitutional perspectives. JAMA. 1997; 277 (5):410–418. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gritz ER, Prokhorov AV, Hudmon KS, Jones MM, Rosenblum C, Chang CC, de Moor C. Predictors of susceptibility to smoking and ever smoking: a longitudinal study in a triethnic sample of adolescents. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2003; 5 (4):493–506. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, Bellatorre A, Lee Y, Finch BK, Muennig P, Fiscella K. Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual minority populations. Social Science & Medicine. 2014; 103 :33–41. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huijding J, de Jong PJ, Wiers RW, Verkooijen K. Implicit and explicit attitudes toward smoking in a smoking and a nonsmoking setting. Addictive behaviors. 2005; 30 (5):949–961. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kegler MC, McCormick L, Crawford M, Allen P, Spigner C, Ureda J. An exploration of family influences on smoking among ethnically diverse adolescents. Health education & behavior. 2002; 29 (4):473–490. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kessler DA, Witt AM, Barnett PS, Zeller MR, Natanblut SL, Wilkenfeld JP, Schultz WB. The Food and Drug Administration's regulation of tobacco products. New England Journal of Medicine. 1996; 335 (13):988–994. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lando HA, Borrelli B, Klein LC, Waverley LP, Stillman FA, Kassel JD, Warner KE. The landscape in global tobacco control research: a guide to gaining a foothold. American Journal of Public Health. 2005; 95 (6):939. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landrine H, Richardson JL, Klonoff EA, Flay B. Cultural diversity in the predictors of adolescent cigarette smoking: the relative influence of peers. Journal of behavioral medicine. 1994; 17 (3):331–346. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez B, Huang S, Wang W, Prado G, Brown CH, Zeng G, Pantin H. Intrapersonal and ecodevelopmental factors associated with smoking in Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2010; 19 (4):492–503. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxwell KA. Friends: The role of peer influence across adolescent risk behaviors. Journal of Youth and adolescence. 2002; 31 (4):267–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nosek BA. Implicit–explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007; 16 (2):65–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petty RE, Brinol P. A metacognitive approach to “implicit” and “explicit” evaluations: Comment on Gawronski and Bodenhausen. 2006. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pickett KE, Pearl M. Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review. Journal of epidemiology and community health. 2001; 55 (2):111–122. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prinstein MJ, Boergers J, Spirito A. Adolescents' and their friends' health-risk behavior: Factors that alter or add to peer influence. Journal of pediatric psychology. 2001; 26 (5):287–298. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegel M, Albers AB, Cheng DM, Hamilton WL, Biener L. Local restaurant smoking regulations and the adolescent smoking initiation process: results of a multilevel contextual analysis among Massachusetts youth. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine. 2008; 162 (5):477–483. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart EB. School structural characteristics, student effort, peer associations, and parental involvement the influence of school-and individual-level factors on academic Achievement. Education and Urban Society. 2008; 40 (2):179–204. [ Google Scholar ]
• Urberg KA, Shyu SJ, Liang J. Peer influence in adolescent cigarette smoking. Addictive behaviors. 1990; 15 (3):247–255. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• US Department of Health and Human Services . The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: A report of the surgeon general. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; Atlanta, GA: 2014. p. 17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willemsen MC, de Zwart WM. The effectiveness of policy and health education strategies for reducing adolescent smoking: a review of the evidence. Journal of adolescence. 1999; 22 (5):587–599. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Causes and Effects of Smoking in Public Essay

Introduction, core problems.

Smoking in public places has been banned in most parts of the world. Some people smoke publicly simply because this is their personal lifestyles and individual choice on which they should not be victimized. However the right to smoke as one pleases could greatly be countered by another person’s lifestyle of the right to breathing smokeless air. Recent researches have shown that those who do not smoke are at risk of being exposed to the same carcinogens which are cancer causing as those who are active smokers and they smoke in public settings.

The environmental tobacco smoke is known to contain more than 4000 chemicals and at least 40 carcinogens that are known. The research has further indicated that the carcinogens are in higher concentrations in the second hand smoke rather than in the mainstream smoke which makes it more harmful for people to smoke publicly. This is because there are very harmful effects that follow on the smokers themselves and to those who inhale the second hand smoke. One of the major effects for smoking in public places is that it causes a higher risk of cancer, emphysema heart diseases and other acute and chronic diseases. Cigarette smoking is known to increase the aggregation of blood platelets or the clotting of blood. It also damages the endolithium a layer of cells in the blood vessels. Due to public smoking, the second hand smoke has been a triggering factor for the heart attacks and there have been an increased number of heart attack hospitalizations and even deaths from the smoke effects. For the smokers and the non smokers who inhale the fumes they are at a greater risk of developing heart diseases especially if one has high blood pressure. Another effect of smoking in the public places is that there are increased risks of fire break outs in the areas that have any explosive hazards or even where there is handling of flammable materials. Similarly when smokers smoke publicly they increase the risk of contamination in places where pharmaceuticals and foods are manufactured and prepared for human consumption.

On the other hand smokers litter around without considering the environmental effects and this causes the environment to be hazardous. Public smoking also affects the air quality in public establishments where some respirable suspended particles are released thus enhancing air pollution and also increasing the toxin exposure to human beings. Public smoking on the other hand has made many businesses to suffer directly or indirectly due to the loss of customers especially in establishments like hotels which encourage smoking in their premises. Public smoking similarly affects people from vulnerable groups such as the children, the pregnant women and also the disabled who are unable to choose their environments.

There is a more serious concern that the banning of a smoking in public places may lead to an increased rate of smoking in the homes and this could be more hazardous especially when there is the presence of small children. Passive smoke contains very strong sensitizers and irritants and many children as well as adults the suffer a lot of irritation and other acute effects when they are exposed to secondhand smoke.In addition to this there is increasing evidence that an individuals exposure to passive smoke can affect the cardiovascular system. (Scollo, 2003).

Smoking publicly has negative effects on the health of those who work in the public places especially the bars workers. On the contrary smoking in public places brings a sense of belonging and identity to those who smoke since they can easily identify with other public smokers in the public setting as they share similar habits. Public smoking needs to be controlled so as to reduce the negative effects that come as a result of the exposure of individuals to the fumes. (The New York Times, 2003).

Scollo, M. (2003): Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control, pgs 13-20.

The New York Times (2003): Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, New York Times Archives.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, September 11). Causes and Effects of Smoking in Public. https://ivypanda.com/essays/causes-and-effects-of-smoking-in-public/

"Causes and Effects of Smoking in Public." IvyPanda , 11 Sept. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/causes-and-effects-of-smoking-in-public/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Causes and Effects of Smoking in Public'. 11 September.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Causes and Effects of Smoking in Public." September 11, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/causes-and-effects-of-smoking-in-public/.

1. IvyPanda . "Causes and Effects of Smoking in Public." September 11, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/causes-and-effects-of-smoking-in-public/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Causes and Effects of Smoking in Public." September 11, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/causes-and-effects-of-smoking-in-public/.

• Importance of Discovery of Occupational Carcinogens
• Dr. Paul Demers Presentations: Asbestos and Occupational Cancers and Carcinogens
• Use of Household Disinfectants
• Health Effects of Tobacco Smoking in Hispanic Men
• Smoking and Its Negative Effects on Human Beings
• Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity Testing
• Smoking Should Be Banned In the United States
• Asbestos Removal and Health Threats
• Mechanisms Behind Cancer Development
• Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones and Microwave on Human Health
• Military Substance Abuse Issue Analysis
• Quitting Smoking: Motivation and Brain
• Solving the Problem on Drug Withdrawal
• “Leaving Las Vegas”: Film Studies
• Drunk Driving Issue Analysis