In many countries, smoking tobacco has been banned by law, while others ignore this idea. We will discuss both sides of the discussion and give a concluding view?

On the one hand, those who support smoking restriction in social places cite health issues because smoke contains hazardous substances that cause cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. It has vital importance, especially for those who do not smoke, because secondhand smoke has more adverse health effects than firsthand smoke. Evidence from many studies shows that most victims of tobacco-related diseases are a nonsmoker. These people are range from children to pregnant women and elders. Moreover, many people disgust cigarettes in the public community. It means smokers should respect the interest of others. Also, youths and children tend to try or addict to smoking unconsciously by seeing public places smoking. On the other hand, opponents of such law cite some benefits that this can bring to a person and state. To some countries, the state budget mainly consisted of smoke production. An example can be seen in Chinese provinces that are solely dependent on smoke production. Forbidding smoke leads to economic difficulties in such regions. Furthermore, it is argued that consuming things that give pleasure is a matter of freedom. Overall, I would tend to side with the supporters of enacting laws on smoking. It seems to be a valuable decision for health. Even if some countries make profits from smoke import, in the future, maybe it would equate with expenditures for the healthcare service.