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.

In

this

day and age, there are

countries

which approve their nation for smoking in public

places

such

as restaurants and offices.

However

, some other governments have introduced laws banning any kind of smoking in public areas in their territories.

This

essay will discuss the debate and give a concluding view. On the one hand,

countries

that support the idea of smoking in public would like to assure people that human right has the most essential value for lawmakers,

therefore

citizens have the allowance to

smoke

tobacco

in public atmospheres.

For example

, the severe kingdom in Iran permitted the nation to have the freedom to

smoke

.

Furthermore

, proponents would like to possess a better workforce

due to

their needs.

This

had been another crucial reason for allowing people to

smoke

. In

this

case, they could have a more practical staff. As an example, some

countries

have provided many possibilities for their employees to have a better output by allocating special outdoor or indoor

places

for smokers to

smoke

even in their own

office

Fix the agreement mistake

offices

show examples

.

However

, opponents of smoking

tobacco

in specific

places

could claim that

this

action could endanger other’s state of

health

. When consumers of

tobacco

smoke

in closed rooms of eating

places

or workplaces, it seems that other attendees suffer from the smoky air, which can later cause lung cancer so lawmakers introduce and enforce restricted laws about smoking the public areas to protect everyone’s

health

condition.

For example

, 20% of the damage belongs to smokers and the other 80% to the people who breathe the poisoned air that can bear the burden of

health

issues on the government and

this

kind of law will lessen the responsibilities.

Moreover

, critics of

this

idea could cite that

this

unpleasant routine could show the city less aesthetic. The beauty of town should be saved

due to

the policy of tourists. When a state does not have the attraction any longer, it can damage the country’s role in the world. In

this

case, opponents could say that smokers should be obliged to not do

this

troubled manner. Some Asian

countries

do not have a pretty look at other’s nationality mind. In conclusion, I would side with the opponents of smoking

tobacco

in public

places

such

as restaurants and offices. It seems reasonable that the state of

health

and beauty of the city is more essential than enjoying and having a dangerous free of smoking.