It has long been a subject of discussion whether smoking in public areas should be ban by the government or vice-versa. In my opinion, the former notion has several strong elements that deserve attention and I will explain why using pertinent arguments.
My viewpoint has a myriad of arguments. The most perceptible one, to start with, lies in the fact that the majority of the government prohibited to smoke in public places in order to maintain a safe and clean environment. Not only does it reveal some astonishing figures that prove the point of having smoke near schools and libraries would affect children's health and character, but it also encourages one to consider more details further down the track which gives transparent and logical reasoning to the people of today's world about their health concern. For instance, doctors reported that passive smokers are more affected than active smokers. Self-evidently, all these merits stand people in good stead, as far as their health is concerned.
Another vital facet of the argument is that, based on some real-time facts and figures, 70% of lung cancer caused by tobacco smoking. Besides a few perks, it is up to the authorities to educate people and allow them to take a sensible decision. Therefore, it is quite evident why many are in favour of my stance.
From what has been discussed, one can conclude that the benefits of banning smoke in public places by the government are indeed too great to ignore. The government can suggest their people use the smoking zone in public places.
It has long been a subject of discussion whether smoking in
public
areas should be
ban
by the
government
or vice-versa. In my opinion, the former notion has several strong elements that deserve attention and I will
explain
why using pertinent arguments.
My viewpoint has a myriad of arguments. The most perceptible one, to
start
with, lies in the fact that the majority of the
government
prohibited to smoke in
public
places in order to maintain a safe and clean environment. Not
only
does it reveal
some
astonishing figures that prove the point of having smoke near schools and libraries would affect children's health and character,
but
it
also
encourages one to consider more
details
further
down the
track
which gives transparent and logical reasoning to the
people
of
today
's world about their health concern.
For instance
, doctors reported that passive smokers are more
affected
than active smokers. Self-
evidently
, all these merits stand
people
in
good
stead, as far as their health
is concerned
.
Another vital facet of the argument is that, based on
some
real-time facts and figures, 70% of lung cancer caused by tobacco smoking.
Besides
a few perks, it is up to the authorities to educate
people
and
allow
them to take a sensible decision.
Therefore
, it is quite evident why
many
are in
favour
of my stance.
From what has
been discussed
, one can conclude that the benefits of banning smoke in
public
places by the
government
are
indeed
too great to
ignore
. The
government
can suggest their
people
use
the smoking zone in
public
places.