Smoking or Non-Smoking...Should There Be A Choice?
             Imagine sitting in a restaurant unable to enjoy a meal due to the cloud of smoke coming from a neighbor's table. The fact that there was not a designated area for smokers has put the smoker and the non-smoker in an uncomfortable situation. Smoking should be banned in public places because non-smokers have a right to clean air, and because second hand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking a cigarette. However, smoking should not be banned in public places because it is the smoker's choice to smoke just as it is the non-smokers choice not to smoke.
             President Clinton is quoted saying that "We've got to do more to protect people in public places and clean up the air that all of us share" (Rovner 571). For non-smokers, inhaling someone else's cigarette smoke can be very aggravating. It is bad enough that automobiles, processing plants, and other types of industries pollute our environment, but for a smoker to choose to smoke around a non-smoker is a violation of their right to clean air. Stanton A. Glantz, who wrote Smoke Free Ordinances, states, "By March 1997, more than 150 communities in the United States had eliminated smoking in public places and work places. California law now requires that all restaurants be smoke-free and that all bars become smoke-free on January 1, 1998". So, an effort has already become in some places to purify the air for those who do not smoke. If the nation would ban together as a whole, society could eliminate public smoking completely. By stopping public smoking, society rids the environment of a hazardous pollutant, and it prevents the danger and unhealthy affects of second hand smoke on non-smokers.
             Second hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease and heart attacks by increasing a person's risk of developing blood clots. "
             ...