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 this debate, and reach your own conclusion on which side you favor.

It is often said that

tobacco

use harms public health,

therefore

, just a few nations worldwide have banned it.

However

, some countries are not keen to take part and impose laws opposed to smoking in places. We will consider both sides of the discussion in

this

essay. On one hand, the main justification for bans on smoking in public places is the harm secondhand

smoke

causes to people's health.

Tobacco

smoke

is detrimental to both smokers and those around them, particularly infants and pregnant women.

Tobacco

smoke

contains tens of thousands of dangerous compounds that can quickly disperse in the air and have unavoidable effects.

Additionally

,

tobacco

is considered a narcotic, leading to addiction and various diseases, including cancer.

Moreover

, Heavy smokers may need to

smoke

every 30 minutes, potentially ruining their careers.

For example

, In China, smoking is prohibited in all federal buildings, and repeat offenders face three months in jail.

On the other hand

, officials from nations like Afghanistan and India rely completely on the import and export of

tobacco

goods, which would have a big impact on their economies. In

this

case, If the government passes a law banning

tobacco

, it will financially hurt the many farmers and retail salespeople who are involved in

this

line of work another reason The political climate can

also

hinder the establishment of laws against smoking, as strong lobbying from the

tobacco

industry can thwart efforts to outlaw smoking in public places. In conclusion, I tend to support nations that have laws against smoking in public areas. It would be the best choice in terms of both people's health and their economic well-being.