Quite apart from the enormous cost to the NHS, what is even more infuriating is that in the vast majority of cases, illnesses developed through passive smoking might have been avoided. International experience has shown that the best way to rapidly and successfully tackle health risks from second hand smoke is to take action on smoking in public places.
A ban would not only improve the lives of us non-smokers but would encourage those causing the problem to help themselves. Areas such as California where smoking in public places has been banned entirely suggest that smoke-free environments reduce both the number of smokers in the population at large and the number of cigarettes they get through.
Parts of America have managed to create an atmosphere where no smoking is the social norm and there seems no reason why Britain shouldn’t be able to achieve the same. Polls have shown that a ban would be supported by as much as 85% of the public so what’s holding us back?
Finally, many people would argue that if we ban smoking in public places where will it end and that having no smoking areas in bars and restaurants is enough. But I would just like to leave with you with an anonymous comment I found on the internet, ‘A smoking section in a bar or restaurant is like having a peeing allowed section in a public swimming pool—it spreads! Would you swim there?’.
Kate Atwell puts forward the belief that smoking should not be banned in public places.
The issue of whether smoking in public should be banned in Britain has been raging for the past five years at least since the government proposed the ‘Smoking Kills’ white paper in 1998.
As a non-smoker myself it would be all too easy to declare that the cancer sticks should be as far removed from communal areas as possible. However are these dogmatic protesters who are trying to enforce a universal ban smoking in public forgetting two key concepts - freedom of choice and non-smoking areas?
Now as I have already stated, I - like many other non-smokers- am not too keen on cigarette smoke. I hate coming home from the pub smelling like an ashtray and I know the dangers of passive smoking with regard to my health. On the other hand, I also accept that this is part of pub culture.
People go to the pub to relax. Relaxation is achieved by having a few drinks, a packet of crisps, having a chat and for some this includes partaking in the legal activity of smoking.
From a business point of view enforcing a complete ban on smoking in public areas such as pubs, restaurants or bars would deter many customers. This has been proved by the decrease in customers (some lost up to half their business) in many of the bars and restaurants in New York City.
Here former mayor Rudolf Guliani enforced a complete ban on smoking in public places thus making it actually illegal to light up in any public area except on the street. This means that you could be arrested or fined for smoking a cigarette.
This seems somewhat draconian and forces smokers to become social outcasts in a way. Being forced to go out onto the street to smoke a cigarette during a meal out with friends does not make for a nice evening’s experience. Why not stay at home on a Saturday evening with a takeaway where you can smoke in peace?
Anyway, why do we need a complete ban ? We already have a partial ban on smoking in public places that seems to work fine. Smoking is banned on public transport, in cinemas, shops and a whole host of other places where you are likely to come into contact with other members of the public.
And for the places that haven’t been subjected to this partial smoking ban there is still the option of choosing to sit in a non-smoking area away from all that ‘nasty smoke’.
What about this concept of ‘freedom of choice’ that we love to throw around so much in other areas of politics? Yes, smoking is a nasty habit, but that’s what it is - a habit.
Smokers are addicted to nicotine and they need it regularly - fact. We can’t change them wanting to smoke and although they should be considerate about smoking around others we should also force ourselves to tolerate to a certain level their habit.
'Smoking to be banned in public places' is a much contentious topic these days, with almost no conclusions coming at the end. While the smokers continue to smoke in public places, the non-smoker continue to show their disgust and revulsion. Though everyone has a right to live freely in this world, he/she is not permitted to cause harm to other people. It has become practically impossible to refrain oneself from getting a second hand exposure to the smoke stench. Right from the bars and discos to simply walking on the road, everywhere a non-smoker is exposed to smoking.
It is very annoying to be surrounded by the smoke smell. It has been noted that passive smoking is much more dangerous than active smoking, because in the former case, you inhale the smoke emitted out by a smoker. Designated areas, allotted for the smoker to go and smoke, in a public place would be advantageous for both the smoker as well as the non smoker. While a smoker can freely smoke at the smoking zone, the non smoker will be able to relax, without worrying about the stench, smoke or harmful side effects.
It is pretty disgusting for a non smoker to move out of a pub, bar or disco or even a restaurant with his/her clothes stinking from the smoke stench. Second hand smoke enhances the risk of heart disease and heart attacks, by increasing the person’s risk of developing blood clots. Passive smoking also increases the chances of bronchitis and asthma to lung cancer and heart disease and even SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). While the smokers definitely affect their health, they also make the innocent people becoming a victim.
A ban would not only improve the lives of non-smokers but would encourage those causing the problem to help themselves. Till the time the ban is not in effect, the non-smokers can encourage smokers to walk outside to smoke. Along with that, they should insist on keeping the windows open, to keep the room ventilated and minimize the consumption of second hand smoke. Still, the most effective way to negate the effects of second hand smoke is to insist on a smoke-free environment, whenever possible.
Summary: This essay gives the reasons for why smoking should be banned in public. It deals with the ethics and problems related to smoking.
Smoking should be banned in public places for various reasons. The number one reason smoking should be banned in public places is for the health and safety of people. Respect for nonsmokers that have chosen not to smoke is also another important reason. Although people do have the freedom of choice to chose if they want to smoke or not, smoking should be banned in public places because tobacco smoke is a health hazard and widespread health goal.
Many people have chosen not to smoke for their health, yet when in a restaurant nonsmokers end up breathing in second-hand smoke while sitting in the "nonsmoking section" of a restaurant. Also employees of the restaurant must breath in the second-hand smoke while working (Banning smoking in bar and restaurants, February 2003). When a person that smokes lights up.....
If you were not a drug user, would you want to breathe someones second hand pot smoke? No. So why would you want to breathe someones second hand cigarette smoke? Most people like myself wouldn't. Let's take a look at this for a second, imagine you're walking in a park, you stop to sit on a bench and rest. Next thing you know a person sits down on the same bench and lights a cigarette. What can you do but continue breathing? It's not like you can hold your breath for the seven minutes it takes them to finish. My point is why would you make others breathe something they don't want? I don't hold anyone's mouth open and pour booze down it, so why am I forced to breathe someones smoke?