It is bad enough that automobiles, processing plants, and other types of industries pollute our environment, but for a smoker to choose to smoke around a non-smoker is a viol. Cigarette smoking has been a trend since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Some people believe that smoking could help them release their stress as it helps them to relax. As time flew, knowledge and technology increased, and as a result, the world came to realise that cigarette smoking brings potential harm not just to our body but also to the environment. Many people still practice smoking regardless the fact that smoking could potentially ruin their health as what is written on the cigarette box itself.
The next freedom they take away may be something that is important to me. Seriously, what's next? 'Should smoking be banned in any public space?' Before you ask questions that make no sense, ask do I make sense when I ask this question. Cars produce far , far more toxic emissions than cigarettes ever will, so you question should we ban cars?
Nicotine in cigarettes affects the nerves. Reynolds, using logos, refers to “Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service” to prove her argument. She said there are a number of chemical changes are caused by nicotine in the blood that affect brain function as the nerve-center of the human body. However, cigarette contains numerous harmful ingredients including nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide in it. When inhaled, each of these ingredients can result in hazardous effects on our respiratory system, especially the lungs which are the most important among the various organs of the respiratory system.
The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from this is to completely eliminate smoking spaces and separating nonsmokers from smokers. In order to solve this problem, we must create a smoke free environment. A smoke free environment help less people starting to smoke and more smokers quit smoking. According to Wigan Council about smoking
Even though there are designated places now on campus to smoke it really defeats the purpose because people don’t abide by the specific rules that should be followed so that everyone can be satisfied in some way. People throw cigarette butts on the ground instead of in the trash to try and keep out campus looking clean. Certain people might think otherwise because having a smoke-free campus would jeopardize some people’s health. Smoking can be addictive but can help people in some positive ways for that moment. The designated smoke areas sounded like a good idea at first so that smokers would have specific places to smoke under certain rules.
When yet Scott says they are being discriminated as smokers; when they technically are making the choice to be discriminated. For an example being born a different race you are not allowed to choose the race you would like to be born as. More over smoking is a choice; no one is being made to smoke a cigarette. How can you argue discrimination when you are the one making the choice to be discriminated? I understand that smoking is a freedom right you have but, when coming down to the point of where and where you can not smoke the smoker needs to understand that if they are somewhere public or not.
Why Ban Smoking in Public Places? The U.S constitution guarantees Americans the freedom to pursue happiness without harming others. Therefore, Michigan State has passed a law to ban smoking in public places. The law is designed to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke; however, smokers also have needs. While a cloud of smoke irritates non-smokers and makes it difficult to breathe that dense smoke, smokers feel jittery, anxious, and inconvenienced when they must go outside and distance themselves from public places.
On one side is the smoking population who believe that he or she has the right to smoke inside public areas. On the other side is the non-smoking population who agrees with the law changes and support the ban. Both sides present strong arguments regarding why smoking should be allowed, or why it should not be allowed in public areas. The main argument that non-smokers have is that the ban of smoking eliminates secondhand smoke to the nonsmoking public. The strongest argument against the ban of public smoking comes from business owners.
What comes across your mind when you hear the following, “ should the consumption of cigarettes be banned?” Would you agree or disagree? Cigarettes have become a big part of our industry and have also caused many controversial issues. Many people believe that smoking should be banned because it increases health risks, causes fire hazards and is a poor example to our younger generation. While, even though many of these things are true, many people have not taken in consideration the strong disadvantages and hard impacts that can be created if the consumption of cigarettes are banned. For example, a decrease in tax revenues, which can lead to a strong deficit in our country and the invasion of individual’s rights who choose to smoke.
It also affects the country’s economy and people’s finances. This problem can be reduced if some effort is exerted by smokers to quit smoking and possible air purification methods are designed. Since smoke is a gas, it mainly pollutes the air. We should consider the whole process, from the growth of the tobacco plants until the consumption of a cigarette that helps pollute the waters and land as well. Tobacco is addictive because it contains nicotine which constitutes approximately 0.6–3.0 % of dry weight of tobacco (“Nicotine-What is Nicotine?)