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 the debate, and reach your own conclusion.

Recently, lawful restrictions against smoking

tobacco

publicly have been implemented in several countries

due to

the detrimental health and moral compass effects it might cause.

On the contrary

, some nations have not really taken the matter into a big deal owing to its paramount economic ramifications. In

this

essay, I will discuss both views of the polemic and postulate my opinions.

To begin

with, governments enforce the law against smoking because of several judgements.

Firstly

, it is undeniable that cigarettes cause a myriad of health setbacks for active smokers and passive surroundings. Smoking in overt

also

opens the possibility for underage children to observe inane behaviour and,

hence

, get influenced and exposed within their vulnerable lifetime. Take the example of research from Forbes disseminating about the higher propensity of the early smoking habit in teenagers after seeing the unethical action performed by their surroundings frequently. For these two considerations, many countries strictly oppose smoking in public through obligatory policies.

In contrast

, a plethora of nations still

allow

Change the verb form

allows

show examples

smoking in public mainly

as a result

of the monumental economic effect on its development. Obviously,

tobacco

is one of the essential industries that generate revenues for the nation. To illustrate, think of the number of prominent companies in the sector

as well as

their employees, small stalls on the street selling cigars, or even

tobacco

farmers.

Consequently

, the colossal reliance on the sector has deterred the governance from enforcing laws against smoking in public.

For instance

, my country has a big dependence on the

tobacco

sector and,

thus

, there is no mandatory policy opposing smoking. In conclusion, both sides of the debate have their own merits.

Nonetheless

, on balance, I strongly opine that smoking in overt should be banned by law because its demerits outweigh its superiorities.

At the end

of the day, the world will be nicer if all people can breathe fresh air which is non-polluted by cigars.