Should smoking be banned in public places
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 th
, reports that, "exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) raises a non-smoker's risk of developing lung cancer by at least 50 percent" (Health Article Magazine 65). If the nation would ban together as a whole, society could eliminate public smoking completely. Is that fair in a free nation? If public places would compromise and designate certain areas for smoking and non-smoking then maybe everyone could be in a public area and be comfortable or satisfied. In response to it being a smoker's choice to smoke, and the non-smoker's choice not to smoke shows that everyone is affected by smoking being banned in public places. The only effective way to avoid the negative effects of second hand smoke is to insist on a smoke-free environment whenever possible. Only the non-smoker can be completely satisfied. Non-smokers choose not to smoke and are left alone, while people who choose to smoke are told when and where they can smoke. Because there are now designated areas for smokers and non-smokers someone could enjoy a meal without being uncomfortable. California law now requires that all restaurants be smoke-free and that all bars become smoke-free on January 1, 1998". Second hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease and heart attacks by increasing a person's risk of developing blood clots. Non-smokers can encourage smokers to walk outside to smoke and open windows to keep the room ventilated to minimize the consumption of second hand smoke. American females have the choice to end a baby's life by receiving an abortion, therefore, smokers should not be inhibited from making a choice to smoke where they choose to do so. So, an effort has already become in some places to purify the air for those who do not smoke. As citizens of a freedom-based nation, the constitution encourages the right to freedom of press, freedom of religion, and, most importantly, freedom of speech.
Common topics in this essay:
Article Magazine,
Ordinances March,
Choice Imagine,
President Clinton,
Kim MD,
choice smoke,
Crump EN,
hand smoke,
smoking banned public,
smoking banned,
banned public,
Stanton Glantz,
choose smoke,
smoker's choice,
clean air,
smoker's choice smoke,
makes choice smoke,
banned public smoker's,
risk developing,
enjoy meal,
smoke non-smokers,
banned public non-smokers,
|
Acceptance Essays
