Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould smoking be allowed in public places?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 39% | 2249 votes | Total: 5765 votes | |
| No | 61% | 3516 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesSmoking should be allowed in certain public areas. For example, smoking should be allowed in open aired places such as sidewalks, parks, neighborhoods, and beaches. Places where someone who is not a smoker has area that is not affected by the smoker smoking.
Smoking inside buildings such as schools, groceries, department stores, and restaurants should not be allowed, but having smoking sections in bars, restaurants, or airports would be a good idea.
Smoking is not good. It has many health risks attached to it. Certainly nonsmokers should not have to endure the smoke in cramped, airless places. However, the smoker has certain rights as well. The smoker should be able to partake in their bad habit while at work, waiting for a plane, and walking their pet down the ocean side.
Health risks are not debatable when speaking on smoking. There are serious and real negative side effects in dealing with smoking. These factors should be considered when placing limits on where one can and cannot smoke.
The line is crossed when there is demand for the smoker not being able to smoke in their own privately owned vehicle. This form of control is truly foolish. If a smoker wants to smoke in the privacy of his or her automobile, they should be allowed to do so.
There are many who feel inclined to tell a smoker where they can and cannot smoke. Sometimes it crosses the line of reason and into the field of personal freedom. I cannot agree that if a smoker wants to have a cigarette as they depart a mall, walking toward their car, for such activities to be illegal.
There is a fine line between the need for government to tell someone what to do on their own time acting like a person's mother and a helpful force making air cleaner for those who do not smoke.
Smokers understand the habit is costly, may and will cause certain health issues, and that nonsmokers do not like it. Most go out of their way, avoiding smoking where the smoke might bother someone~ be it someone they know or a stranger.
Smokers are not inconsiderate as a whole. They DO try to go to a space without children and without people in order to light up. It would be nice if nonsmokers were more considerate as well. Rude remarks and snide comments often cause the smoker an inclination to "rebel".
The addiction of smoking has a firm gripe on many people, me included. I do not believe that smoking in certain public places should cause any harm to anyone except me in most situations. The temperament of those who smoke that are refused a space to do it can be ugly and unhappy.
Smoking SHOULD be allowed in some public forums because it is the public that smoke! Common sense and logic should factor into where would and could be proper places for the smokers to smoke. It should not be blown into a greater pretence than it already is.
This can be a healthy transition for all involved when this logic is applied. It can reduce the smokers' count of a cigarette which improve their health, but allows the addiction to be fed so that the smoker remains productive and contented. The nonsmoker can enjoy air quality, avoiding the sections where smoking is allowed, and not worry if the smoking interferes with their productivity.
A simple balance, somewhere in the middle, where both sides are sated and satisfied, should be the goal of finding a solution.
Learn more about this author, J.R. Lewis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
"They've taken away our freedom," was the first complaint that I heard as a result of England's public smoking ban. And so the situation escalated; "next they will ban smoking altogether, and then alcohol too!". But the point that many have failed to recognise this ban represents a freedom gained by the general public.
Now that smoking is banned in all of England's public places, the public have gained the freedom to enter whatever shopping centre or club they desire without having their lungs attacked by smoke. Second-hand smoking' or passive-smoking' are a term used to describe how people who inhale smoke, which is exhaled from a smoker, are affected. Passive smoking can cause just as much damage as regular smoking, with scientific evidence linking deaths, diseases and disabilities to second-hand smoking.
So when taking this into account, it would seem that the public smoking ban is long overdue. The selfish habits of others have been polluting the lungs of the innocent for too long and in England on July 1st 2007 this has been stopped. In October of this year, the age at which it is legal to purchase cigarettes will rise from 16 to 18 in England and Wales. After years of research proving how lethal smoking is, action is finally being taken against it.
If you have had the experience of being in a smoke free public place after a ban, you will know what a strange sensation it is. Just last night (Wednesday 4th July), my band played at the usually smoky Dry Bar in Manchester. But this night was different: from the stage, the back of the venue was actually visible! It was a welcome change, which meant that the next morning my clothes and hair didn't absolutely stink (although I have to admit that the stale cigarette smell was replaced by body odour).
Looking back to my introductory paragraph, I think the debate of freedom' is in need of further inspection. A lot of smokers, as well as some non-smokers, are outraged by England's new ban. They say that this ban represents another step towards a nanny state.' Obviously this side of the argument should not be overlooked, but the only freedom' lost by smokers has been their freedom to poison not only themselves, but anyone who comes into contact with them.
What will be the consequences of the absence of public smoking in England? Well firstly, the hygiene of all public places will increase. But another side affect may be that some smokers will give up smoking altogether, and that is reason enough to have a public smoking ban. The general health of the nation will rise, which may lead the government to think that they have shot themselves in the foot. Better national health means a greater life expectancy for the average man or woman, which will mean more money will be spent on care for the elderly. Also, if cigarette sales fall, the government will miss out on the billions of pounds generated by tax on cigarettes.
Admittedl y, there are negatives to the banning of public smoking, but in my opinion they barely make a mark against the positives. The positives span right down to every individual: the chances of contracting a passive smoking related cancer will drop. Some smokers will kick their habit and stop wasting their money. Younger people will not be as exposed to cigarettes as they were, and there is hope that this could prevent some youths from starting to smoke.
To finalise, the banning of smoking in public places can only do good. Over 30 countries worldwide have implemented some form of smoking ban, and it would seem that this is a spreading trend. In England, I've already seen smoking shelters being raised and wet, shivering smokers are making more and more appearances on the streets, but I can only smile.
Learn more about this author, Jeremy Fisher.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should the US institute a cap and trade system that creates financial incentive for emission reductions?
- Should former government employees be allowed to work for companies they used to regulate?
- Should all government decisions incorporate citizen input?
- How should road and bridge construction and maintenance projects be funded, through taxes or private investment?
- Should spouses of Congress members have the ability to lobby their spouse and staff?
- Should all forms of smoking be illegal?
