By banning public smoking we are removing their freedoms so to speak. The point isn’t to remove freedoms from anyone, but to avoid imposing our choices, such as how we handle our health, on others. Smoking is a serious health risk for smokers and non-smokers alike. While it is unrealistic for smoking to be completely banned anytime soon, I don’t think banning smoking in public is out of our reach. It isn’t legal for people to go around killing each other, so why should smokers be able to affect non-smokers with secondhand smoke, which has the same effect?
Although some claim that smoking in a public place is their right and should be kept that, smoking in public places should not be legalized because it will endanger non-smokers from passive smoke and it pollutes our enviroment. The state of New York will remain restricting smoking to designated areas. Cigarettes are the most deadly habit, affecting the greatest number of people in the world today. A ban on public smoking would create a healthier country.
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.
Smoker’s life expectancy will be reduced greatly compared with non-smokers. The people near the smokers also inhale the toxic smoke, and they will be poisoned. Especially, the inhalation of second-hand tobacco smoke also has high capable risking of getting diseases than smokers. Moreover, according to Kathleen Sebelius - the Secretary of Heath and Human Services, “Tobacco use imposes enormous public health and financial cost on this nation-cost that are completely avoidable. Until we end tobacco use, more people will become addicted, more people will become sick, more families will be devastated by the lost of loved ones and the nation will continue to incur damaging medical and lost productivity cost” (“How Tobacco Smoke Causes Diseases”).
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.
To others, it can be a helpful way to prevent them from smoking. However, commercials and warning labels are not enough to protect people from the danger. The United States government should establish an indoor smoking ban on all tobacco products including electronic cigarettes and vapor pens. This ban is necessary to stop secondhand smoke from harming people, non-smokers would not have to endure the annoyance of indoor smoking, and the inconvenience to smokers would be outweighed by the health benefits for the rest of the country. Even children in grade school know that smoking causes cancer.
Tobacco is used around the world, and its negative health effects are also public knowledge. Since everyone knows that tobacco can seriously harm people who use it, many countries face the ethical dilemma of allowing this harmful substance to be sold, regulated, and smoked. The case study “Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India” addresses some of the effects of an advertising ban on tobacco in India, as well as the conflict of interest that the advertisement prompts. While I do strongly feel that smoking is harmful and dangerous, I do not think that the government should ban advertisements in India, because if they start by banning ads for one substance, they could move on to banning others. Would anyone like to see caffeine or alcohol banned, just because too much of those substances is harmful?
The federal government mandates warnings on cigarette packages and commissioning studies about the dangers of smoking. The government needs to ban smoking in public places to include bars and restaurants nationwide because smoking bans do not hurt business, second hand smoke is harmful and people have the freedom of choice. Those who are against a nationwide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants point to personal choice, addiction, and profits as the reason to oppose any national effort. Some fear local bans will drive customers across borders or into neighboring communities. Others claim that smoking and drinking are inextricably linked.
The best thing to do for your body is to stop smoking and to never start (Thompson 1 of 2). Smoke stays on the walls, floors, clothing and toys smoke is everywhere (HANSSEN 1 of 2). Therefore smoking should be banned in public spaces because it causes harm to the smoker's body, as well as causing unwarranted health and economic problems for the public. People smoke in many places. Buses, hospitals, libraries, restaurants, bars, banks and even some places that smoking is not allowed (Mwita 1 of 3 ).
Children are not fully developed and should not be exposed to secondhand smoke. Unfortunately our quality of life is being harmed by the lack of consideration of others because smoking is still allowed in public areas. Smoking should be banned in scattered places because it causes respiratory problems, lung cancer, and oral cancer. It affects others within the area, and pollutes public places making them undesirable.