Some people advocate that the ban of smoking should be extended to all other public spaces including parks, streets and beaches. However, naysayers insist that this measure is unjustified. Write an article expressing your views on this issue.
Although, under the current legislations, enclosed public space, such as restaurants and common areas of commercial buildings, are banned from smoking, the government is still to blame for not adopting a more thorough approach to the issue. Some people claim that the prohibition should not be so piecemeal that it should be extended to other public areas ranging from streets, and country parks to somewhere many people often gather. However, some insist that the policy is balanced enough to consider all parties’ benefits. People are divided on this issue. To me, a wider application of the ban is preferred.
Smokers will be opposed to the idea of expanding smoking prohibition to broader public areas as their human rights are further limited. But there is no point in exposing all other citizens to secondhand smoke in outdoor spaces. In fact, this passive smoking will make people more susceptible to developing lung cancer. These detrimental effects on public health are too large to be offset by smoking pleasure enjoyed by people using cigarettes. So, broader public spaces included in smoking prohibition areas can generate extra value to society.
Undeniably, a ban on smoking in public spaces discourage people from using cigarettes and reduce the profits enjoyed by tobacco manufacturers. In turn, it reduces the tax revenue collected by the government. In addition, cigarette companies are the main contributors to charities. So, such kind of prohibition does bring a cost to society. However, it is accompanied by improvement in public health. If there had been no such smoking ban from the start, the number of patients diagnosed with respiratory diseases and lung cancer would have increased drastically. So, it is believed that the broader application of the smoking ban can further lessen the burden on the public health system. The government will find the resources saved from medical services adequate to make up for the loss in tax revenue.
Some studies have revealed that the number of smokers has a significant drop after the ban had been introduced. It can be explained by the fact that the prohibition causes disturbance and inconvenience to smokers, who might finally choose to abandon this bad habit. The new policy creates additional restrictions. This not only further lowers smokers’ incentive to use cigarettes but also deters youngsters from taking up smoking. For the good of future generations, it is high time to impose a totl prohibition of smoking on the public space.
All in all, what I insist does not mean disregarding smokers’ human rights. On the contrary, we help set free smokers from cigarette addiction. When people can abstain from smoking, it is a real sort of liberation. The new policy helps develop a community with fewer smokers, making it a better place for us to live. We should act in union to support such broader smoking prohibition.