While some people believe that the law of complete ban on smoking at the public places is justified, others argue that it is not. This essay totally agrees with the statement that, this law is justified as it saves other visitors of public places from passive smoking and also forces smokers to quit smoking for at least that period of time.
Firstly, These people are not only causing harm to their own lungs, but are also harming others by passive smoking. In other words, it is scientifically proven that, when a person stays in an area, where smoking is done, this smoke penetrates into the lungs of surrounding people via inhalation and unknowingly they are also affected by the detrimental effects of smoking. For example, a study conducted at the Stanford university found that, the lungs of the friends of the chain smokers were 10 percent more damaged than that of the actual smokers. As a result, the council has taken this decision, so that this will keep safe people who are not actually smoking.
Secondly, it helps smokers to quit smoking. That is to say, these people generally have misconception that, they cannot survive without smoking at the regular intervals, but when they visit these public facilities where they are not allowed to smoke, they any how try to resist their urge to do it and this gives them the perspective that, they can live without it. To exemplify, one of my paternal uncles was addicted to the cigarettes and when he went to the pilgrimage, there he was not allowed to smoke for 40 days, today, he left it and he is delighted that he has made it. As a consequence, this law acts as the ray of hope and motivates them that, they can be free from addiction.
To conclude, the implementation of the ban on smoking at public facilities is a step in the right direction, as it will not only safeguard lungs of the surrounding audience, but it will also encourage the smokers to quit such a bad habit.
While
some
people
believe that the law of complete ban on
smoking
at the
public
places
is justified
, others argue that it is not. This essay
totally
agrees
with the statement that, this law
is justified
as it saves
other
visitors of
public
places from passive
smoking
and
also
forces smokers to quit
smoking
for at least that period of time.
Firstly
, These
people
are not
only
causing harm to their
own
lungs,
but
are
also
harming others by passive
smoking
. In
other
words, it is
scientifically
proven that, when a person stays in an area, where
smoking
is done
, this smoke penetrates into the lungs of surrounding
people
via inhalation and
unknowingly
they are
also
affected
by the detrimental effects of
smoking
.
For example
, a study conducted at the
Stanford university
found that, the lungs of the friends of the chain smokers were 10 percent more damaged than that of the actual smokers.
As a result
, the council has taken this decision,
so
that this will
keep
safe
people
who are not actually smoking.
Secondly
, it
helps
smokers to quit
smoking
.
That is
to say, these
people
generally
have misconception that, they cannot survive without
smoking
at the regular intervals,
but
when they visit these
public
facilities where they are not
allowed
to smoke, they any how try to resist their urge to do it and this gives them the perspective that, they can
live
without it. To exemplify, one of my paternal uncles
was addicted
to the cigarettes and when he went to the pilgrimage, there he was not
allowed
to smoke for 40 days,
today
, he
left
it and
he
is delighted
that he has made it. As a consequence, this law acts as the ray of hope and motivates them that, they can be free from addiction.
To conclude
, the implementation of the ban on
smoking
at
public
facilities is a step in the right direction, as it will not
only
safeguard lungs of the surrounding audience,
but
it will
also
encourage the smokers to quit such a
bad
habit.