Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_2 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 64

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_3 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 65

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_4 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 66

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_5 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 67

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_6 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 68
SamplesExploratorySmoking in PublicBuy essay
← Implementation PlanScreen Writing →

Free Example of Smoking in Public Essay

The issue of public smoking has always been a debate for many years. Many governments have been trying to discourage people from smoking by imposing methods such as: rendering higher taxes on tobacco, making many advertisements that discourage people from public smoking. Some governments have also a policy such that they write warnings on packets of cigarettes. These warnings may include” cigarette smoking is harmful to your health” while others maybe” smoking of cigarettes causes miscarriages in women.”All this is done in effort to reduce the rate of smoking.

The places which are banned from public smoking include enclosed buildings. These include restaurants, offices and also bars. In many republics such as South Africa and Ireland, all enclosed places have public smoking bans. Other republics with this policy are Italy and New Zealand. In some places such as England, pubs which do not serve food have the priority of choosing whether to allow smoking inside or not. Street smoking in Japan has also been banned. This policy has also included smoking near entrance of buildings. Places like open air markets and game parks are less affected. Basically, this policy applies to areas with large human population and less air circulation.

This issue has always created a lot of debate since it is not clear whether smoking should be banned in all public places or the congested and enclosed public places. Some have also brought in the idea of public smoking in bars. Should the policy affect the bars that serve food or it should affect all the bars in the country. Many exceptions have also come up in places such as private pubs where only the members are allowed in. Should smoking be banned in such areas since they are also public places? Many questions have come up after the policy was passed and the debate is still on. In this paper, we are going to look at the pros and cons of public smoking hence come up with a strong conclusion.

Pro:

According to scientist, smoking of cigarettes is hazardous to our health. From scientific research, many sicknesses present today are related to tobacco smoking. These diseases include cancer, heart disease and also many cases of stroke. Smoke circulates in air and it therefore ends up that not only the smoker, but also people around him/her inhale the smoke. This is commonly known as passive smoking. Some sources also refer it to as secondary smoking. As a result of this, it is not only the smoker who ends up getting the diseases but also the people around him are affected. If you are smoking, it is therefore good to consider the people around you and smoke in a private place. Banning of smoking in public places therefore helps the innocent from these effects.

Con:

I strongly disagree to the point on passive smoking. Smoking is only allowed to people with the age of eighteen years and above. At this age, one is considered to be a grown up and can choose what to do. As an adult, you can choose to harm yourself in any way so long as you understand the effects following it. This is why smoking can never be banned since many people enjoy it. As a passive smoker, you are not forced to go to places where smoking is allowed. It is therefore up to a person to take good care of his/her health. If you find smoking enjoyable, do it, provided you are aware of the effects. If you don’t smoke, don’t go into places where people are smoking. The policy of public smoking should therefore not be passed and people should be given the freedom to smoke.

Pro:

The opposition is wrong to say that. Consider the people working in places like bars. It was not their choice to be in such places and others are irritated by smoke but they can not quit the job since it is their only means of earning a living. It is the work of government to protect its workers from such dangers according to the set safety standards ands therefore the policy of banning public smoking is important. Again, there are few bars and restaurants that do not allow smoking and if you want to go and have fun with friends you have no choice but to be a passive smoker.

Con:

If there were enough people who would want to go to areas such as bars which are non smoking, the companies and the people responsible of that would have come up with such ideas and started such bars. It is therefore clear that only a small percentage of people do not smoke and if such bars and restaurants would be established, it is not debatable that they would run at a loss. Again, not every worker is uncomfortable with working in smoky areas. If anything, many workers risk their lives working in places such as mines and deep sea fishing. In cases where ventilation is a problem, there are ventilation fans to remove excess smoke in the air.

Pro:

Governments should have the right to ban smoking. In almost every country, it is the government that pays for the services in public hospitals. It is upon it to provide medicines in public hospitals. The government therefore incurs great expenses in treatment of diseases caused by smoking. Banning of smoking in public areas will help cut down the rate of smoking. Many people will be forced to be going to the restricted smoking areas if they want to smoke. Incases where one is in a bar, you will have to walk out to go and smoke. Sometimes the weather will not allow you and hence many will stop smoking.

Cons:

If governments want to stop people from smoking, they should make tobacco smoking illegal. It therefore does not make sense to say that the governments want to stop people from smoking yet they are the same people who make laws and can make smoking illegal altogether. Many people who smoke have health insurance policies and can take good care of their health. It is therefore wrong to say that governments undergo great expenses in taking care of such. The high taxes paid by smokers when buying tobacco are enough to cater to their health care expenses anyway. It is also clear that nicotine is addictive and ban of public smoking cannot make people to stop smoking.

Pro:

Ban from smoking will make smokers to smoke less while at work. Many people do not smoke at home as they care for their children. As a result, they only smoke away from their families and most probably while at work. This policy will therefore reduce their general smoking rate. It will also act as a source of economic growth of a country since many non smoking bars and restaurants will come up. People’s health will also be taken care of since nicotine levels in their blood will balance because of reduced smoking. With time, many people will come to appreciate this policy.

Con:

I strongly disagree to that point. If already one is addicted he/she can not stop smoking easily. Banning of smoking in public areas will cause such people to be smoking at home. In this case, the children will be the passive smokers. They can not go anywhere else away from smoke and they can not tell their parents as they will be seen as loosing respect to them. An addicted smoker will not care for the children provided he/she gets the satisfaction he/she wants. These effects are diverse on children and therefore the government should consider and rub of the policy of public smoking.

Con:

There are many bars, clubs and restaurants that allow smoking. If this policy is implemented, many smokers will not go to such places but will instead go to private places where they can exercise their freedom. In such cases, these businesses will run out of customers and will end up closing. This will not be a loss to the owners only, but also to the workers and their families. The economy of the country will go down drastically. These places also act as social places for productive meetings. It is important that the government should consider such cases and do away with the policy. In any way, whether the policy is there or not, many people will always ignore it and public smoking will go on despite the heavy charges passed.

Conclusion

From the debate, it is clear that the cons outdo the pros. I agree to the facts that public smoking affects people’s health. That is the only strong point supporting this motion otherwise the other effects of the policy are many. For instance in cases where the children will end up being passive smokers, the businesses will close down making people to loose their jobs. Again it does not make any sense putting a policy that many people will not follow. The answer to the question is therefore “No”. Public smoking should not be banned.

Code: Sample20

Related essays

  1. Screen Writing
  2. Circadian
  3. Implementation Plan
  4. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Techniques
call-back-button
Live chat