The Benefits of Banning Public Cigarette Smoking

People can be greatly punished for doing so (Mwita 1 of 3 ). Smoking in public places is killing people. American heart Association, Cancer Society and lung Association think that if we ban public smoking it will prevent a lot of deaths and diseases (Clearing the air 1 of 2). Not just these programs are trying to ban smoking, there are also some Certified Health community programs that are trying to prevent smoking in outdoor places as well (Habib 1 of 2 ). ... ... middle of paper ... ...d not have to pay for medical bills.

The effects that smoking and secondhand smoke has on people is shocking and terrible, but it could all be avoided or less common if simply people stopped smoking or if they were more careful to smoke away from others. People should not smoke with others around because they expose them to harmful chemicals and they are not the one who is putting themselves in danger. Works Cited "Air pollution"Britannica School.Encyclopedia Britanica, Inc, 2013.Web. 1. Nov. 2013 "Secondhand Smoke" American Cancer Society.

Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive.

Could you imagine a world without secondhand smoke, harmful effects to the environment, and a world that is more supportive of quitting smoking? As impossible as it seems, it’s actually not as far out of our grasp as you may think. Over the course of this paper I will be arguing for smoking to be completely banned in public places because of the numerous health concerns as well as environmental hazards. To smokers this may seem as an attack on their freedoms. By banning public smoking we are removing their freedoms so to speak.

Smokers fail to see that by banning smoking it could be very beneficial to them also. When thinking about banning smoking from the public smokers should think about all the lives they could help save. Smoking should be banned from the public because smoking leads to cancer, puts the U.S citizens lives at risk that choose not to smoke, and it could also endanger a pregnant women’s health.

Even though smokers are aware of its harmful influences that can have on their health, because of its addictiveness, they cannot easily quit smoking. It seems like it would be okay if the government or health organizations regulate the level of nicotine in the cigarette so that the level of addictiveness is not too high to nicotinize people. However, it is not something that people can control. Nicotine is in the tobacco plant even in the natural, unprocessed state (Mason 25). Though the company can reduce the component, but unless the companies get rid of nicotine which they cannot, smokers will still be addicted to the tobacco products.

According to Kotz and West (2009),”due to tobacco control policies there has been reduction in smoking in developed countries”. Smoking is not a recreational drug, most smokers do not like the fact they smoke and wish they could quit. Many governments across the world have banned smoking in public places. Smoking is known to be a leading cause for lung cancer, and it has been scientifically proven that it causes other harmful effects to the body as well. Not only for the well-being of those who don’t smoke, has this law benefited even the smokers.

That’s their choice, but does that give us the right to take their right to smoke away? Secondhand smoke may be harmful to everyday people, but there is plenty of other air toxics, and pollutants out there that can cause the same problem as secondhand smoking does. Smoking should be banned in scattered areas. Playgrounds are a huge one. Children are not fully developed and should not be exposed to secondhand smoke.

Guns do not kill people; people kill people. Cigarettes do not kill people; people who choose to smoke are killing themselves. The health risks of using tobacco are common knowledge. It is a known fact that if someone smokes their chance of getting lung cancer is increased drastically, yet so many Americans choose to do so. The FDA is taking steps to tighten the rules of tobacco marketing, some of these rules will include prohibiting self-service tobacco displays in stores, restricting vending-machine sales, and forbidding most free samples of tobacco products.

Over the years, there has been much debate about the ethical concerns of second-hand smoke. Inhaling second hand smoke is an unavoidable consequence of being in the vicinity of smokers, exposing non-smokers to the same harmful chemicals as those who voluntarily engaged in it. While acknowledging the selfish nature of second hand smoking, governments in various countries like Singapore have put in place smoke-free laws that restricts smokers from smoking in certain public places ("Smoking prohibition," 2013). However, there are many outdoor areas, which the government cannot possibly ban as well, signalling that the ethical concerns of the smoke released from smoking cannot be eliminated. The introduction of e-cigarettes was intended to reduce the health risks of smokers as unlike conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes , does not contain tobacco.