Ellix 1

Caroline Ellix

Janashi Mantao

ENG-102 – 1001

7 July 2011

A Cigarette Ban for the Sake of the Sea Business

A lit cigarette is recognized as an obvious danger for its health risks, yet little mention is

made about the remains carelessly tossed onto the curb. Not only an eyesore, improperly

disposed of cigarettes butts become a hazard to the environment, slowly leeching out deadly

chemicals over time. Those butts we so often see littering the sidewalks and streets eventually

end up in our seas where they join the mass amounts of marine debris to poison and wreck some

of the most important resources in the world; the sea and all creatures living within it. Although

many organizations have begun to join together to change bring about an educated and aware

society where such actions are prevented before they happen, change is slow. The time for the

end of debating and negotiations is long overdue despite the many unknown variables still

unanswered in the scientific evidence. The federal government should intervene by passing a

smoking ban on all beaches as part of stronger waste management plans to prevent the careless

disposal of cigarettes becoming the eventual destruction of the marine ecosystem and the

revenue generated by tourism to these areas.

Today it is common knowledge that cigarettes are dangerous for your health and

countless researchers have proven time and time again that the chemicals, even when inhaled

through a filter, lead to all sorts of sicknesses and diseases. Only recently has the focus on

smoking expanded to include knowledge on the effects of the cigarette butt on the environment.

The smoked filter poses an enviromental risk to the natural balance of an ecosystem. Built to

retain the absorbed chemicals of the burnt cigarette, tar and nicotine, it can wreck havoc in an

Ellix 2

area over time (Novotny 4). In essence, it is toxic waste seeping deadly streams of chemicals into

the ground and water, creating an uninhabitable environment for supporting living creatures.

While a single cigarette is relatively harmless by itself, imagine a situation where millions

upon millions of cigarette butts litter the world. This is the scene described by the Ocean

Conservancy, the world's leading organization battling marine debris and the sole source of an

international overview of marine litter. In their report of the 2009 International Coastal Cleanup,

a world-wide volunteer single-day event to clean up trash both inland and on the coast over two

million butts were collected. High enough as it is, this number is only an indication of the

uncountable amount of trash spreading throughout the oceans. Cigarettes play a large role in this,

having been consistently reported as the highest item found in volume by the Ocean

Conservancy ever since its founding 25 years ago. Worldwide every year an estimated 1.69

billion pounds, almost 845,000 tons, of butts end up as litter (Novotny 2).With the numbers only

increasing with time, proper cigarette butt disposal is an issue that requires serious consideration-

otherwise we run the risk of allowing the oceans to become a dumping ground for used consumer

goods.

Nowadays there are very few existing beaches in the world where one can dig their feet

into the sands and not turn up a discarded cigarette butt yet it must be noted that the nature of the

problem lies not with smoking itself, but with littering and a lack of proper knowledge

(Register). Many smokers tend to toss their butts onto the ground, or into a storm drain, or bury it

into the rocks or sands to put it out, not seeing it as actual 'trash'.

Andrea Scott says she would never throw a candy wrapper on the ground. Yet she

confesses that she routinely discards cigarette butts on the sidewalk. For her and

countless other American smokers, cigarette butts are an exception to the no-littering

rule. 'Aren’t cigarettes biodegradable?' volunteered Libby Moustakas, a co-worker who

Ellix 3

was enjoying a smoking break with Ms. Scott (Kaufmann).

Studies collected by Clean Virginia Waterways have shown that contrary to popular belief

cigarette butts last, depending on brand, with varying time ranges from 18 months up to 10 years.

If out of “5 to 10 cigarettes we smoke each day, at least three butts end up on the ground”

(Kaufmann), were true for every single smoker, we are looking at large numbers of cigarette

litter scattered around the globe.

The implication of cigarette littering is terrifying as recent studies demonstrate the toxic

effects of the cigarettes butts on marine life. In one standard laboratory test by the Tobacco

Control, a single cigarette butt was able to leech out enough poison to kill nearly half the fish in a

litre bucket of water in 4 days (Slaughter et al.). Taken on a larger scale such as the sea, it seems

difficult to imagine the number of cigarettes and time it would take to infect the world's waters,

but the fact that it has already been shown to be possible in a controlled environment is cause for

enough worry. The cigarette butt, no matter how innocent it looks, seems to be a catastrophe just

waiting to happen. Yet such assumptions cannot be taken as proven fact; this evidence is only the

beginning of a series of studies that must be accomplished to offer hard proof to this theory. At

the moment though, it stands as a silent warning of a lurking danger in the background and with

the growing number of cigarettes every day, the threat grows, not only for fish but for all other

life too.

Apart from being a source of pollution, “[cigarette butts] also present a threat to wildlife.

Cigarette filters have been found in the stomachs of dead fish, birds, whales and other marine

creatures who mistake them for food” (Clean Virginia Waterways). The common picture of litter

hurting animals is the sea-turtle caught by a plastic bag choking its neck, yet the cigarette,

although much smaller, brings harm as well. Though it is unknown how many must be consumed

to induce health effects in animals, it is clear that our trash has been going too far if cigarette

Ellix 4

butts end up in the mouth of any creature and risks their lives and habitats.

Although dealing with a still hypothetical situation, the eventual demise of the ocean's

ecosystem through discarded cigarettes remains a possibility. The cigarette litter issue is just as

much of a blight upon the ocean as oil spills and sea storms, risking the lives of men and the

creatures that live in the sea while also being a large eyesore. In the end, the question should not

be, where is the line of danger, the point of 'too much' that we might avoid it? Instead, it should

be asked; how can we prevent such things from being in the first place?

The answer is two-fold: to clean up the seas, first fix the beach then clean up the towns.

Though nothing in the research available today can clearly state the exact level of danger

that cigarettes hold for the ocean as a whole, a ban would be a general benefit. As they say that

“an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”, stricter regulations would ward off

problems before they ever happened therefore would be more cost-effective and beneficial to

everyone involved (Ventura County 2). The task of keeping public beaches in good condition lies

with the municipal government of the area, usually costing millions each year to keep butts

swept up and out of sight (Kaufman). With a ban on smoking on beaches, the expensive task of

cleaning up cigarettes would be reduced, as many beaches in California have found after

enacting such a ban (Venura County 1). Saving cities money in their budget that could be

relocated to more important tasks than sweeping up litter is surely an admirable goal if litter

could be removed from the picture altogether.

Yet for the task to be fully complete and the ban effective, stronger littering regulations

must be imposed within the cities as well. The majority of cigarettes from the marine debris is

not actually related to beach-smoking activities. “Much of the trash is actually from the city's

streets. Rainstorms carry it down storm sewers into rivers, which flow to the sea, which pushes it

back. Cigarette butts and paper food wrappers don't travel far [from the shore], since they absorb

Ellix 5

water and sink.” (McNeil Jr.) A ban is merely a step towards the beginning to controlling waste

as cigarettes flow from cities to waterways towards the ocean (Novotny 12). Simply sweeping

them neatly into corners and piles is not enough; cigarettes do not simply disappear. Every single

butt on the ground is one that has a chance to end up in the seas and only proper disposal can

prevent that.

While local government might seem to be the first option in such a case, federal

intervention is the better option for full effectiveness. It is completely within the rights of

municipalities and state governments to make such decisions as “cities regulate plenty of

behaviour in public spaces, and it is well within the regulatory power of city governments to

regulate smoking as well” (Glaeser) and many have done so with stellar results including all

across California, New Jersey, Minnesota and 14 other states and territories (Novotny 8). Yet the

issue for the whole nation would be difficult to solve from a simple ban and tougher enforcement

by local police and watchers. With the majority of litter being the outcome of poor waste

management (Register) and the issue at hand being so full of unknowns, including the necessity

of time itself, the funding of such a wide-spread collaboration for an anti-litter campaign would

call for either a multitude of private organizations or the federal government reaching in a strong

hand. For the most efficient methods to be reached and maintained at a grand scale, it is unlikely

that locals could manage this alone effectively without any federal laws or bans.

Obviously there still remains the question of the right of the government to make such a

choice for the people. Much as many other situations in time; prohibition, etc. any ban that

infringes on a certain action or course thereof violates the rights of freedom of choice to do as

one will and if the cost of freedoms are tried and pushed for every individual action, there must

be a point where enough 'nanny-ing' is enough. After all the basis of freedom lies with individual

rights including the right of “individuals... [to judge] whether they want to take on the risks

Ellix 6

involved” (Glaeser). Without strong scientific evidence backing this decision, it is only a

theoretical issue (Siegel). It cannot be forgotten still that when any event threatens the safety of

the nation then it is the task of the government to defend it. Research showing that cigarettes are

dangers and studies and volunteer effortsproving that there is an uncomfortably immense amount

of cigarette litter in the seas give precedence for action to be taken.

Yet as mentioned before, such a program implemented to fully regulate litter control

requires a large amount of time and resources. Government funding for any event is picked at

and critically scrutinized nowadays with the financial crisis at hand and a program of this

magnitude draws funds from other programms that could be more valuable to public interest

(Barnes). Also as many businesses could argue, bans and regulations are a risk to business,

especially along major ‘party’ areas. (Glaeser) Where tourists and vacationers might have their

rights to pleasure taken away, they would be slower to visit again.

Yet often overlooked in this is that though the intial costs are high, benefits increase over

time, canceling out most negative externalities. For example, the benefit of the new market that

would arise through a smoking ban; eco-tourism. While old doors would close on allowing

beachgoers to allow the use of “the sands as a giant ashtray”, new markets open based on the

growing interest in becoming “green”. As demonstrated in many bars and restaurants across the

country with indoor-smoking regulations, overall business is not impacted by a smoking ban. In

the case of an environmentally friendly area, the effect tends to be that more people, especially

families and 'eco-tourists', tend to be more likely to visit smoke-less areas (Hirasuna 4). Business

would still be able to profit and gain new customers even with the loss of old ones and on the

side of customers, would be able to enjoy trash-free beaches so long as the regulations are kept.

In the end, despite all the different factors the choice lies between supplying the needs of

the many versus the needs of the few, in the far future or in the present, with or without hard

Ellix 7

proof. Basing laws on pure speculation is folly (Siegel), yet new research appears day after day

proving the dangers that cigarettes are to their surroundings. Even if the entire cycle might only

possibly lead down to a disaster, the possibility is still there. A call for such regulation already is

prevalent among many environmental groups to prevent consumer-waste in general from dirtying

the environment and a nation-wide cigarette ban would be a step for the beginning of cleaner

seas.

For the population as a whole, the most beneficial act for the environment would be to

erect new laws banning smoking on beaches and regulating litter, for even though some

independence is forfeit and a few businessess might suffer, the general public would benefit with

cleaner beaches and a more secure future for the environment.

Several notable alternative methods have been proposed as well to fight cigarette litter

along beaches including requiring tobacco industries to take responsibility, as many other

consumer good-production industries are, for disposing of their products properly, educating

smokers on the importance of proper cigarette disposal and the proposition for “disposal-deposit-

recycling” (Novotny 11), where cigarette butts would be brought in to be recycled for one cent a

butt or ten cents per pack. Many of them have great merit, but implementing them individually

without the support of strong government action would still not address the whole issue at hand.

Though they might address a single aspect of the littering problem, the best method would still

be to follow a comprehensive programm implemented, enforced and regulated by the

government where all such methods can be placed under a single umbrella for the nation as a

whole.

As Ocean Conservancy argues, the main argument lies not with smoking, but with

combating and renewing the current waste disposal system into a clean and efficient act that

would be beneficial to both the environment and business. Such a wide problem requires an

Ellix 8

organization strong enough to spur the nation as a whole into action, with enough resources to

keep up a sustained and thorough enforcement through a long period of time. Waiting for the

individuals’ states and localities to realize the situation and act accordingly might be a moment

too late. Though some states have done well to begin banning smoking, the environment does not

change for a few individuals; it requires the combined efforts of tobacco industries, federal

government and the people to make a difference (Barnes). Although this is a costly project that

will not bear any immediate measurable results, it is a fundamentally important long-term goal

towards freedom from pollution, environmental safety and a brighter future that resources should

be allocated towards and fought for. “This is something that is going to be a long process. But

imagine if we had started cleaning them up 20 years ago” (McNeil).

Ellix 9

Works Cited

Barnes, Richard L. “Regulating the Disposal of Cigarette Butts as Toxic Hazardous Waste.”

Tobacco Control 20.4 (2011) : pi45-i48. Web. 23 June 2011.

Clean Virginia Waterways. “Are Cigarette Butts Biodegradable?” (2007). Web. 20 Jun. 2011

Glaeser, Edward. “Should Cities Ban Smoking in Public Places?” New York Times. 11 November

2008. Web. 28 June 2011.

Hirasuna, Donald. “Review of Economic Studies on Smoking Bans in Bars and Restaurants.”

House Research Department. 27 March 2006. Web. 6 July 2011.

McNeil Jr., Donald. “How Water On the Beach Brings Havoc to the Shores.” New York Times. 12

October 2004. Web. 22 June 2011.

Novotny, Thomas, Kristen Lum, Elizabeth Smith, Vivian Wang and Richard Barnes. “Cigarettes

Butts and the Case for an Environmental Policy on Hazardous Cigarette Waste.”

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Spec. issue of

Tobacco Smoking and Public Health 6.5 (2009) : 1691-1705. Web. 23 June 2011.

Ocean Conservancy. "Trash Travels: From Our Hands to the Sea, Around the Globe, and

Through Time." (2010) Web. 26 June 2011

Siegel, Michael. “A Smoking Ban Too Far.” New York Times. 5 May 2011. Web. 27 June 2011.

Slaughter, Elli , et al. “Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and their Chemical Components, to Marine

and Freshwater Fish.” Tobacco Control 20.1 (2011): i25-i29. Web. 26 June 2011

Register, Kathleen. “Cigarette Butts as Litter-Toxic as Well as Ugly.” Underwater Naturalist,

Bulletin of the American Littoral Society 25.2 (2000) Web. 27 Jun. 2011