by Jan Wognnugh

Created on: February 23, 2007   Last Updated: June 29, 2009

My first response would be NO, people should not be allowed to smoke in public places. Singapore has already enforced the ban on smoking in outdoor spaces such as coffee shops, bus shelters and swimming pools and this ban is much welcomed for non-smokers like myself. Some people might typically comment that this is yet another measure of a country known for its tough laws, it still does not mitigate the benefits of such a ban. Let's consider the issue for a moment, smokers would most definitely try to passionately plea that they have a right to do what they want and smoke if they feel like it, if they were to be restricted or prevented in doing something that seems as natural to them as having a meal, it could be seen as a possible intrusion of my rights as a citizen. However, on the other side of the coin, you are looking at the potential negative consequences your action has on the people around you when you smoke. While the smoker might have the legit freedom to do what he wishes, but this does not mean that he has the right to subject those around him to the hazards of second hand smoke and the stench of cigarette smoke. And for non-smokers, they are exercising their right and entitlement to clean air and minimized risk of cancer as well as other harmful effects of second hand smoking brought to them no thanks to the actions of others.

Some might say that if you don't like the smell of it or the risk of contracting diseases associated with second hand smoke, you have the freedom to walk away, but the question is for something that is borne by air particles, how far away can you really go and what about instances where you really can't get too far away to begin with because you are either having a meal and the guy at the next table lights up or when you are waiting for a bus in a shelter and a guy lights up?

I also know for a fact that yes, there are gracious smokers too, the kind who would blow the smoke away from people for instance, instead of blowing straight into an innocent party's direction. And some would insist that if someone was polite enough to make a request for them to not smoke because the smoke affects them, they would probably apologize and stop, yet how certain are we that all smokers we politely request to stop smoking will do so willingly and not launch into a tirade of abuse, god forbid, get physical even? It is because of the irresponsible actions of a group of smokers, who choose to exercise their right to smoke in an irresponsible manner and ignore the needs of others around them that leads to the public declaration of "war" by encouraging the imposition of smoking bans. By making it illegal and banning it, the enforcement by a greater authority with real power would have greater effectiveness as they come from a position of power and would be in a better position to curb this irresponsible behavior. In a way, it is akin to casting a blanket statement and saying "all smokers are bad people" which we know is not true, but we often justify actions such as this under the notion that it is for "the greater good"

For me, my stance is clear, you are free to do whatever you want with yourself as long as your actions does not adversely affect another individual, whose only crime is to be unfortunate enough to have to wait for a bus at the same bus stop as you while you puff away and shorten both your life and hers. No one will stop you from trying to kill yourself, but everyone would stop you if you are trying to kill them. And it is because of the "need" to survive that such bans are encouraged.

Learn more about this author, Jan Wognnugh.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.