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 favour.

In many countries, there is some divided decision in the case of smoking

tobacco

in public places

such

as offices and restaurants. Some nations have given

this

permission to

smokers

to do their habit in these specific places but other nations were not willing to do so. In

this

essay, both sides of the discussion will be considered. On the one hand, those who support smoking

tobacco

in these buildings promote the idea that the rights and

freedom

of every human being should be saved. When

people

want to smoke

this

kind of drug, it should be their decision to where do

this

action

due to

their rights and

freedom

of action. In

this

case

Add a comma

,case

show examples

not all of the states worldwide have given

this

amount of

freedom

to their nations.

For example

, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan could be named as countries with restrictions on smoking in public places.

Furthermore

, proponents of consuming

tobacco

in public highlight the difficulty of their needs. When the state supports

people

enough to not let them go through any hard times, especially when it’s about the need of what your body demands because of the habit,

then

the consumers could use

tobacco

every other place they want to.

On the other hand

, opponents of

tobacco

are able to cite the evidence of

tobacco

consumption causes over 20 different types of cancer for the smoker themselves, but

this

danger is not dedicated to only

smokers

; but, it has a major effect on humans who are next to these users.

Therefore

, a country giving approval to

smokers

to emit

tobacco

in public

such

as offices and restaurants, which contain a huge amount of

people

could be an irretrievable mistake. Nowadays, the rising number of

people

who are suffering from these diseases could easily be seen.

Moreover

, critics of smoking

tobacco

claim that the city has no longer the aesthetics of the town as before. As long as

smokers

and none

smokers

share rooms in public would cause

this

inevitable damage to the sight of the town, which no longer the city has its beautifulness and cause

this

divided picture of

people

. In conclusion, I would tend to side with the opponents of smoking

tobacco

in public. It seems to be unreasonable to give rights and

freedom

to

people

who could only cause different types of diseases to them.