Some countries today have passed laws against smoking tobacco in public buildings such as offices and restaurants. Other countries have no intentions of doing this. Consider the possible arguments on both sides of this debate and reach your conclusion on which side you favour.

Over time smoking has become a lifestyle statement. Many youngsters tend to smoke on a daily basis. The

last

two decades have seen a considerable rise in the use of cigarettes and other items. Every one of us is familiar with health-related issues it can cause but none of us pays any heed to

this

issue. There are some nations that completely banned lighting up cigars in public places

while

others don't consider it as worthy to make

such

laws.

However

, I found myself favouring those who oppose its usage in gatherings. First and foremost, one should not bypass health-related concerns during smoking. It can be dangerous not only to active smokers but

also

to passive smokers who are at no fault.

For instance

, If someone is lighting up his cigarette in a mall, people who passed by him inhale that smoke too which may not be good for their health if they are asthma patients. We should not forget that it can completely ruin one's lungs and

also

leads to respiratory issues where people find uneasiness in breathing.

Secondly

, it is becoming a style statement among teenagers where they start moulding just to be in a race. They slowly and gradually start overusing it and ruin their own life. They develop an addiction to smoking and remain intoxicated all day long.

Therefore

, the rate of unemployment rises to more than the normal range.

On the other hand

, some nations consider it as a right of sybarite. They advocate that it is an individual's right to do whatever they want to.

To conclude

, I can reaffirm that the rulers should limit the availability of smoking items to people to save them from being excessively exposed to smoking which does more wrong than right.