Some countries today have passed laws against smoking tobacco in public buildings such as offices and restaurants. Other countries have no intention of doing this. Consider the possible arguments on both sides of the debate, and reach your own conclusion.
It is evident that some nations have prohibited the act of smoking tobacco in commercial buildings. However, there is an argument to this decision as not all nations are declaring such laws. This essay will discuss both views and come out with a decisive conclusion. On the one hand, the supporters of this idea believe that smoking is not just dangerous to the smokers alone, but also, those in close proximity are affected as well. This is called passive smoking. It is a situation of inhaling the fumes from a nearby smoker. Medical professionals have concluded that passive smoking is as unhealthy as active smoking. For example, in a survey in Nigeria in 2016, it was discovered that 20% of lung cancer patients were victims of passive smoking. Furthermore, proponents of this decision will also argue that smoking is a big contributor of air pollution which makes the environment generally unhealthy. However, contrary to this view, critics of this idea emphasizes that everybody has a right and freedom to live, and banning smoking in certain places is discrimatory and should be discouraged. They are of the opinion that special areas in public buildings should be provided for smokers instead of stopping it out rightly. For instance, a small enclosed room can be created in a restaurant where smokers can smoke. This, they feel is more diplomatic. In conclusion, it seems advisable to stop smoking in public places. This is as a result of the health implications it poses on both the smokers and the people around. Hence, I support the idea against smoking tobacco in public buildings.