Should There Be a Ban On Public Smoking?

1317 Words6 Pages
James Lampert once said, concerning smoking bans, “What ‘right to smoke?’ Do I have a right to light up a sulfur candle in the middle of a crowd? Or set off a 4-Gone fogger? What would happen if I ran around with a can of Black Flag, spraying it in the faces of passersby at random? I'd be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and probably also brought up on terrorism charges, and I'd deserve it mightily. So why do people addicted to inhaling an insecticide, a common ingredient in organic bug sprays, believe they have a right to spew noxious, toxic, carcinogenic fumes all over the place in public?” Many arguments can be made against smoking bans, but more arguments can be made for them. For overall health concerns, smoking should be banned in all public places, benefitting both smokers and non-smokers alike. According to Leading Issues Timelines, smoking originated with the Mayans around 1,000 BCE. It was originally used for medicinal and ceremonial purposes. Smoking started being abused in 1492, in Spain and has been used ever since. This is a growing problem that needs to be controlled. If it is not controlled, cigarette abuse will continue to spread and become worse and worse. Smokers often use the argument that smoking benefits the economy. In fact, shows that cigarette sales do create a very large amount of tax revenue. However, should America actually refuse to ban smoking in public places simply because of tax revenue? No. The International Debate Education Association argues that governments pay all or at least some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. Therefore, the government should have the right to discourage smoking. The cost of treating these diseases is very high. The money that smokers pour into the economy with the purchase of cigarettes is very much overshadowed by the amount of money the government
Open Document