Some countries today have passed laws against smoking tobacco in public buildings such as offices and restaurant. Other countries have no intention of doing this. Consider the possible arguments on both sides of debate, and reach your own conclusion on which side your favor.

Some countries agree that have passed laws against smoking tobacco in public buildings.

However

, the issue is not entirely straightforward, and arguments can

also

be against the idea. In the following paragraphs, I shall put both sides of the argument. On the one hand, opponent countries against

such

law

Fix the agreement mistake

laws

show examples

cite that they are solely dependent on importing and exporting tobacco products and that would have

significant

Add an article

a significant

show examples

impact on their economic system.

For instance

,

For instance

, there are the costs of creating and maintaining smoking areas, potential lost productivity

due to

increased smoking breaks for smoking employees, and the loss of business from customers who smoke.,

However

, banning smoking in public places is one way to reduce both

overall

smoking rates and exposure to second-hand smoke. Researchers find that smoking bans can reduce the number of heart attacks by as much as 26

percent

Change the spelling

per cent

show examples

per year.  If it were not harmful to health there would be no reason to control its use. Ireland was the first country to ban indoor smoking in all public places, back in 2004, and many other countries and regions have since done so. Today, most country and territory bans smoking in enclosed public places. Making public spaces smoke-free reduces secondhand smoke exposure and has a long list of benefits.