Smoking should not be allowed in public places where any of its effects can have a negative impact on any other person in the area. Most smokers will argue that smoking should be allowed in public places because banning it infringes on their rights. The rights of a smoker to indulge in their self-imposed addiction end when those rights clash with any other person's unalienable rights Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
LIFE
This is not a debate on whether or not smoking and second-hand smoke has negative effects on health it is a proven fact and should not be argued. To those people who say something along the lines of "my Grandfather smoked for 40 years and climbed Mt Everest when he was 50 ... etc," I ask you to thank the Universe for his luck and then take a discerning look at the facts.
One person smoking in a closed space endangers everyone who is forced to breathe in the toxic chemicals expelled. There is no set of morals worth having that would allow the cravings of one person to override the safety and health of everyone around him/her. Smoking is not simply offensive or an annoyance; it is a proven health risk that is easily avoidable.
Second-hand smoke is different from all other forms of pollution in that it is a concentrated form of 4000 chemicals, including forty-three known carcinogens and more than fifty toxic compounds, that is imposed on unwilling people by those who voluntary subjugate themselves to it. A non-smoker often breathes in this unfiltered condensed mixture (which includes cyanide, ammonia and sulfuric acid) before it is dispersed into the environment at large.
LIBERTY
Another argument posed by smokers is that if non-smokers do not want to be around the second-hand smoke they should go only to places where there is none. Now smokers are pretentious enough to limit the places that non-smokers, who wish to not be exposed to the stench and toxicity of smoke, can frequent?!
Smokers claim that a ban on smoking in public places translates to the government "telling them how to live their lives." Take a realistic look at any proposed legislation and notice that it will not say you cannot smoke. It says you cannot smoke at the expense of other people. You can own guns, but you cannot shoot anyone to please your own fancy. In both situations it is murder, though second-hand smoke is a much slower and often-times more painful version of manslaughter.
PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
Ignore, if you are able, for a minute that smoking is a dangerous health hazard. Is there anyone who would argue that the smell is pleasant? The odor is not only repulsive; it ruins the flavor of food and drink. The smell clings to fabric, leaving clothes of innocent bystanders and the walls and ceilings of public establishments reeking.
Non-smoking sections are of no help either. In most restaurants the only divider between the sections is an often-blurry imaginary line demarcated only in the host's head. You can be sitting in a 'non-smoking section' three feet away from someone smoking like a chimney. A non-smoking section that shares the same air circulation as a smoking section is not a non-smoking section in any way, shape or form.
Even if the habit is hard to kick and a smoker was pressured into starting, they personally made the choice to succumb to social pressures and light up for the first time. Non-smokers did not make the choice for them and should not suffer the consequences of that CHOICE. The fact that a smoker is addicted does not excuse exposing others to the danger of it.
Those against smoking bans should ask themselves three questions: Should anyone be allowed to go into a public area and inject ammonia, sulfuric acid, cyanide, formaldehyde, tar, and hundreds of other chemicals into the veins of men, women and children in their immediate area? Should anyone be permitted to walk around spraying foul-smelling scents onto anyone and any material they come in contact with? If both of these are allowed, should anyone who wishes not to be exposed to such acts be forced to stay in their home to avoid it? If you answer 'no' to any one of these questions, you must say no to allowing smoking in public places.