Many studies and scientific research has proved that smoking is injurious to health. Smoke is unhealthy. It pollutes the environment. There are two types of smokers, active and passive. The person who smokes is active and other who are near to him and inhale the smoke are passive smokers. Both are equally affected by the ill effects of smoking. Smokers and non-smokers meet at many places like offices, hotels, etc. So, considering the bad effects of smoking on individual’s health, environment as well as individual rights, it should be banned in public places. A person who wants to smoke can do so by keeping himself in isolation.
However, smoking is not a good habit. Those who smoke suffer from several health problems. A chain-smoker is the worst sufferer. Cigarette contains 4,000 types of chemicals out of which 43 are carcinogenic. The carbon monoxide concentration in the smoke is greater than 20,000 ppm. This is diluted to 400-500 during inhalation. It displaces oxygen from hemoglobin and the result is impairment of the central nervous system, cardiac and pulmonary diseases . These may eventually lead to heart attacks. Cigarette also contains ammonia and other hydrocarbons which could cause asthma, other respiratory infections and lung cancer. The dust particles in it may be the cause of irritation of the eyes, cancer, and emphysema. Its nicotine content is highly addictive and reaches the brain immediately. It constricts the blood vessels, raises the blood pressure and gives the central nervous system a small jolt. It can lead to reproductive disorders in the long run.
- Let see some Differents Arguments for and against:
The number one advantage is that a ban will not only help in saving smokers from various kinds of health conditions and diseases, but also reduce the damages caused by passive smoking. Whether the smoker is using public transport or is in a restaurant, the people around him are bound to inhale the smoke coming out of his cigarette, thus making them prone to all the diseases an active smoker gets. Thus, if smoking is banned, spread of these diseases can be checked. Moreover, asthma and ear infections are commonly seen in children who live around smokers.
One of the facts is that smoking in public spaces influences non-smokers, especially adolescents, to take it up as well. Since teens are in an impressionable age, when they see people around them smoking, they get instigated to try it. Hence, it becomes a habit, increasing the incidence of teen smoking.
Another argument is that it will put pressure on the smoker to quit. Since he will be unable to smoke in public places, he will learn how to live without it for long hours. Moreover, when he does not see anybody around him smoking or smelling of cigarette, it might reduce his urge to smoke as well. Thus, one of the major advantages of a ban is that it induces the notion to quit smoking.
Smoking is an individual’s personal choice. If the government forces people to quit smoking, it is encroaching on individual freedom.
Secondly, banning smoking is actually a financial loss for the government, as it collects a lot of revenue through the taxes on cigarette sales.
Another argument is that it is human tendency to do exactly those things which are forbidden. So, if smoking is banned in public places, adults and teens are more likely to smoke and find their own means to evade this law, to continue with the habit.
From the economic point of view, restaurant, pub, and cafe owners will not be able to cater to everyone. This will reduce their sales, thus causing them losses. Places where smoking is banned might see a reduction in tourist arrivals as well.
- However, banning smoking in public places will give some justice to the non-smokers. Separate smoking sections should be introduced in workplaces. The smokers can go to that section for a puff and at least leave the non-smokers free of pollution.