Smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by, hence smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.
To begin with, opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. For instance, a young adult would be affected by smoking fumes only when he visits a club house or is found around active smokers. Secondly, they believe an embargo would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. To illustrate, a survey amongst bars revealed that an active campaign against smoking led to the closure of most pubs where smoking is allowed because, the rate of patronage declined.
However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sites in the body. Thus,
It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. For example, it was recorded in a fitness journal that passive smokers are at a greater risk of developing respiratory ailments, thus public smoking should be discouraged.
In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the well-being of several people, which is definitely a positive development.
Smoking
not
only
leads to health problems for the smoker,
but
also
for
people
close by,
hence
smoking
should not be
allowed
in public
places
. Although there are arguments on both sides, I
agree
that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.
To
begin
with, opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons.
Firstly
, they say that passive smokers
make
the choice to breathe in other
people
’s smoke by going to
places
where it is
allowed
. If they
would prefer
not to smoke
passively
, then they do not need to visit
places
where
smoking
is permitted
.
For instance
, a young adult would be
affected
by
smoking
fumes
only
when he visits a club
house
or
is found
around active smokers.
Secondly
, they believe an embargo would
possibly
drive
many
bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. To illustrate, a survey amongst bars revealed that an active campaign against
smoking
led to the closure of most pubs where
smoking
is
allowed
because
, the rate of patronage declined.
However
, there are more convincing arguments in
favour
of a ban.
First
and foremost, it has
been proven
that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not
only
the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sites in the body.
Thus
,
It is
simply
not
fair
to impose this upon another person.
For example
, it
was recorded
in a fitness journal that passive smokers are at a greater
risk
of developing respiratory ailments,
thus
public
smoking
should
be discouraged
.
In conclusion
, it is
clear
that it should
be made
illegal to smoke in public
places
. This would
improve
the well-being of several
people
, which is definitely a
positive
development.