Smoking has been a contentious issue for a long time. My personal take is that smoking should be banned in all public areas. Currently, the government has taken a step closer to banning smoking. There are signs in most places that read “no smoking”. However, in places like coffee shops, there are still many smokers.
First and foremost, I must state the many ill effects smoking has on the smoker and second hand smokers. Most commonly known are the increased chances of heart attacks and lung cancer. The smoker is not only putting himself at risk, he is also endangering others around him. Second hand smokers have equally high risks of developing these diseases.
I believe it is very unfair for the innocent bystander to inhale smoke even though he himself does not smoke. If smoking were to be allowed in public areas, then non-smoking citizens would be deprived of a choice. Smokers, on the other hand, are still free to exercise their right to smoke, as long as their actions do not infringe on others’ rights. This would then create an ideal situation where both smokers and non-smokers enjoy their rights.
However, problems arise when smokers are unhappy about the restrictions placed on the areas where they can smoke. Some even write into online forums to criticize the government’s ban on smoking in public areas. Most are met with strong disagreements from others but the fact that they even thought to openly criticize that policy shows up their selfishness. For the ease of convenience, they are more than willing to inflict harm upon others. Of course, some are uneducated and are unaware of the health risks posed to others.
Another problem posed by smoking in public areas is the bad influence to young children. If children can see many adults smoking on the streets, then they would inevitably follow these examples. Students will not believe that smoking is bad for health if they can see for themselves large numbers of people smoking even if schools preach about the benefits of not smoking.
At the same time, there are little known health benefits to smoking. Evidence suggests that non-smokers are up to twice as likely as smokers to develop Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease. These may be cited by smokers as good reasons for smoking.
In so far, I have presented my argument from the non-smoker’s point of view. However, prohibiting smoking in public areas can be seen as an infringement on the smoker’s rights too. The government’s policy takes into account the benefit of the majority non-smokers, but the smokers as minority feel that all actions taken by the government are against their interests and restricting their freedom.
Yet, we must remember that no policy can ever fulfill everyone. Most times, some people will have to sacrifice for the greater good.
First and foremost, I must state the many ill effects smoking has on the smoker and second hand smokers. Most commonly known are the increased chances of heart attacks and lung cancer. The smoker is not only putting himself at risk, he is also endangering others around him. Second hand smokers have equally high risks of developing these diseases.
I believe it is very unfair for the innocent bystander to inhale smoke even though he himself does not smoke. If smoking were to be allowed in public areas, then non-smoking citizens would be deprived of a choice. Smokers, on the other hand, are still free to exercise their right to smoke, as long as their actions do not infringe on others’ rights. This would then create an ideal situation where both smokers and non-smokers enjoy their rights.
However, problems arise when smokers are unhappy about the restrictions placed on the areas where they can smoke. Some even write into online forums to criticize the government’s ban on smoking in public areas. Most are met with strong disagreements from others but the fact that they even thought to openly criticize that policy shows up their selfishness. For the ease of convenience, they are more than willing to inflict harm upon others. Of course, some are uneducated and are unaware of the health risks posed to others.
Another problem posed by smoking in public areas is the bad influence to young children. If children can see many adults smoking on the streets, then they would inevitably follow these examples. Students will not believe that smoking is bad for health if they can see for themselves large numbers of people smoking even if schools preach about the benefits of not smoking.
At the same time, there are little known health benefits to smoking. Evidence suggests that non-smokers are up to twice as likely as smokers to develop Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease. These may be cited by smokers as good reasons for smoking.
In so far, I have presented my argument from the non-smoker’s point of view. However, prohibiting smoking in public areas can be seen as an infringement on the smoker’s rights too. The government’s policy takes into account the benefit of the majority non-smokers, but the smokers as minority feel that all actions taken by the government are against their interests and restricting their freedom.
Yet, we must remember that no policy can ever fulfill everyone. Most times, some people will have to sacrifice for the greater good.
