There is no scope of argument that cigarette smoking is harmful both for the smoker and the people around him/her. Cigarette smoking has two major effects on non-smokers-injurious passive smoking and smoking, display that has an invitational or persuasive effect on non-smokers. I believe banning smoking in public places and offices not only will discourage smoking, but will also keep the smoking practice out of sight, though it might apparently look like transgress into smoker’s freedom. But I believe any harmful activity of a particular person or a group of people cannot be a definition of freedom. If smoking right in any place is a definition of freedom, then why not other drugs? In my opinion, every public place, including office must be smoke free.
There are several reasons that government and private authorities are being stricter on smoking in offices and even in public places. Firstly, this is an accepted fact that smoking is injurious and deadly to health in several ways. Secondly, smoking causes health hazards of non-smokers who inhale smoke passively from the smokers. Thirdly, smoking has a strong psychological influence on others, particularly on children and young who learns from their elderly. Fourthly, in many countries, the cost of health care and insurance has gone up due to smoking related illnesses. So health authorities and governments are trying to have been seen that due to the restrictions, the habit of smoking is on a decline among office goers.
Though non-smokers think that restricting smoking in offices and public places is a good idea, smokers often view it as an intervention into their right. Smokers argue that cigarette smoking has a direct relation to their workplace performance, though passive smoking can cause objections from colleagues. But considering the harm of smoking it should be banned.
Though pressure groups such as tobacco companies may discourage restrictions on smoking, since the advantages of ban outweigh the disadvantages, mass public support such bans. Moreover, offices have the right to regulate staff behaviour and activities and governments too can ban smoking in public places for a greater societal benefit.
In conclusion, restricting smoking in workplaces and in public is a good idea. I can also understand the opinion of smokers that banning smoking in such places limits their work speed, but I believe with a little practice and determination they can overcome it. So I strongly support the idea of prohibiting smoking in any public place including the office premises.
There is no scope of argument that cigarette
smoking
is harmful both for the smoker and the
people
around him/her. Cigarette
smoking
has two major effects on non-smokers-injurious passive
smoking
and
smoking
, display that has an invitational or persuasive effect on non-smokers. I believe banning
smoking
in
public
places
and
offices
not
only
will discourage
smoking
,
but
will
also
keep
the
smoking
practice out of sight, though it might
apparently
look like transgress into smoker’s freedom.
But
I believe any harmful activity of a particular person or a group of
people
cannot be a definition of freedom. If
smoking
right in any
place
is a definition of freedom, then why not other drugs? In my opinion, every
public
place
, including
office
must
be smoke free.
There are several reasons that
government
and private authorities are being stricter on
smoking
in
offices
and even in
public
places
.
Firstly
, this is an
accepted
fact that
smoking
is injurious and deadly to
health
in several ways.
Secondly
,
smoking
causes
health
hazards of non-smokers who inhale smoke
passively
from the smokers.
Thirdly
,
smoking
has a strong psychological influence on others,
particularly
on children and young who
learns
from their elderly.
Fourthly
, in
many
countries, the cost of
health
care and insurance has gone up due to
smoking
related illnesses.
So
health
authorities and
governments
are trying to have been
seen
that due to the restrictions, the habit of
smoking
is on a decline among
office
goers.
Though non-smokers
think
that restricting
smoking
in
offices
and
public
places
is a
good
idea
, smokers
often
view it as an intervention into their right. Smokers argue that cigarette
smoking
has a direct relation to their workplace performance, though passive
smoking
can cause objections from colleagues.
But
considering the harm of
smoking
it should
be banned
.
Though pressure groups such as tobacco
companies
may discourage restrictions on
smoking
, since the advantages of ban outweigh the disadvantages, mass
public
support such bans.
Moreover
,
offices
have the right to regulate staff
behaviour
and activities and
governments
too can ban
smoking
in
public
places
for a greater societal benefit.
In conclusion
, restricting
smoking
in workplaces and in
public
is a
good
idea
. I can
also
understand the opinion of smokers that banning
smoking
in such
places
limits their work speed,
but
I believe with a
little
practice and determination they can overcome it.
So
I
strongly
support the
idea
of prohibiting
smoking
in any
public
place
including the
office
premises.