Smoking should be banned in public places. To what extend do you agree or disagree

Medical studies advise that smoking can have detrimental effects on smoker’s health as well as on people around his vicinity. Therefore, the ban on smoking is recommended by health agencies and anti-smoking supporters in public places which can be more beneficial in terms of passive smoker’ health and its influence on him. Firstly, the major and predominant benefit of the ban on smoking is reduction in a spread of carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco and fume of cigarettes. If these carcinogenic compounds are inhaled by people in close periphery of the smoker, they can severely damage the lungs capacity of air intake and develop the symptoms of lung cancer in a long run. The strict restrictions can limit this health exploitation of innocents. Secondly, the influence of smoking should be taking into consideration next to health effects. The government are actively working to reduce the influence of smoking on people by prohibiting the marketing on television and social media. In contrast, the smoking in public place does a direct advertisement of it and the adolescent’s teenagers are the major group of prey. The banning can be more effective preventive action. On the other hand, there can be an economical dent on businesses of bar and pub due to this disallowing step, but the health issues outweigh the minor drop in cashflow. Morally, such nuisance is not advisable for a healthy society. In conclusion, it is blindingly obvious that the smoking must be banned in public gathering spots such as parks, bus stops, metro stations, picnic spots, etc. , and benefits of it advocate themselves.