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 argument on both sides of this debate, and reach your own conclusion on which side your favor.

Paraphrased: Today, most countries have enacted smoke-free laws in public areas, and some countries still have not resolved

this

situation yet.

This

essay will explain that why smoking needs to be banned. Main body 1: On the one hand, the supporter might say that smoking bans have infringed on the freedom of individual choice. In

this

way, it demonstrates that person’s liberty.

For instance

, generally, smokers could think it is their choice to what do on their bodies. Unfortunately; still, numerous people have not realized the significant risk of smoking-related diseases and long-term effects.

Furthermore

, if the government enacted smoke-free laws, it would reduce demand in the economy and

thus

decrease

tax

revenue and profit for companies and the government due to cigarette sales that could be another effective way to collect sales

tax

for states. Main body 2:

On the other hand

, if most of the states excised higher tariffs on tobacco, it would directly correlate with consumption, meaning that raising cigarette taxes and prices could decrease consumption in general.

Moreover

,

this

approach could support a healthcare system that restrains inconsistent expenses of taxpayer’s money. If active smoker’s numbers decreased, long-term treatment costs would equally distribute among the non-smoker taxpayers who need medical care.

Secondly

, a higher tobacco

tax

diminishes the negative health consequences of passive smoking. According to a study, public smoking ban significantly reduces the risk of smoking-related diseases, mainly young individuals and non-smokers.

For example

, it lessens the risk of cardiovascular and pulmonary chronic diseases, cancer, other inflammatory illnesses. A

third

positive impact would be on the environment. It would be decreased soil and water pollution caused by chemicals, pesticides, other factors. Conclusion: In conclusion, the benefits of

this

approach appear to be overwhelmingly positive to levy

tax

on tobacco, particularly in public areas.

However

, the solution should involve coordinated action by individuals, companies and states.