A majority of work places enforce a strict guideline within their compound. The elected state in several areas has also prohibited smoking at private places. This happens to be a great idea but I strongly disagree that a step like this would reduce the right to practice one's freedom. This essay will focus on highlighting the causes to support my opinion. The primary two reasons are smoking, being a choice and the damage incurred by passive smokers.
Firstly, to smoke or not is an individual's personal decision. Just because anyone wants to smoke, it does not mean that the other has to bear the brunt of it. When a person is smoking in office or any other public place, everyone around can smell it; not everyone is comfortable with the odor that is emitted. Therefore, if the question is based on someone's personal approach, then every single person's thought who happen to be affected by it, need to be considered. For example, a recent study by Columbia University shows that 55% of the working population agree that they would prefer working in an office which does not allow smoking.
Secondly, all public places are accessible to everyone. Some people might be allergic to the smoke. If the bureaucracy does not make a law to curb smoking. Smokers can start smoking at all the available areas which are also in turn, open to the entire population and hence, resulting in the inconenience for non smokers. For example, an independent survey revealed, that a staggering 72% of families prefer going to the restaurant that does not admit smokers. Thus, re-iterating the fact that majority of the people would be in support of such a ban.
In conclusion, I believe that putting restrictions on smoking at common places and the working institutions is a progressive decision and therefore, would certainly not interfere with the personal freedom of anyone.
A majority of work
places
enforce a strict guideline within their compound. The elected state in several areas has
also
prohibited
smoking
at private
places
. This happens to be a great
idea
but
I
strongly
disagree that a step like this would
reduce
the right to practice one's freedom. This essay will focus on highlighting the causes to support my opinion. The primary two reasons are
smoking
, being a choice and the damage incurred by passive smokers.
Firstly
, to smoke or not is an individual's personal decision.
Just
because
anyone wants to smoke, it
does
not mean that the other
has to
bear the brunt of it. When a person is
smoking
in office or any other public
place
, everyone around can smell it; not everyone is comfortable with the odor that
is emitted
.
Therefore
, if the question
is based
on someone's personal approach, then every single person's
thought
who happen to be
affected
by it, need to
be considered
.
For example
, a recent study by Columbia University
shows
that 55% of the working population
agree
that they would prefer working in an office which
does
not
allow
smoking.
Secondly
, all public
places
are accessible to everyone.
Some
people
might be allergic to the smoke.
If
the bureaucracy
does
not
make
a law to curb
smoking
. Smokers can
start
smoking
at all the available areas which are
also
in turn, open to the entire population and
hence
, resulting in the
inconenience
for
non smokers
.
For example
, an independent survey revealed, that a staggering 72% of families prefer going to the restaurant that
does
not admit smokers.
Thus
, re-iterating the fact that majority of the
people
would be in support of such a ban.
In conclusion
, I believe that putting restrictions on
smoking
at common
places
and the working institutions is a progressive decision and
therefore
, would
certainly
not interfere with the personal freedom of anyone.