It is generally considered by many people that, if smoker would not have an access to smoke in working place or even in any public rooms it would benefit everyone, while others think that it can be harmful for basic right of people. Personally, I believe that the disadvantages of these rules are outweighed by the advantages.
On the one hand, drawbacks for these actions can certainly have an impact on society. Firstly, the definition of freedom is that not any other individual can decide what to do with their lives and how to manage it. To give an example, the smoker in city with strict smoking bans might argue that their personal choice to smoke is unfairly restricted, even in outdoor areas where secondhand smoke may not affect others. Secondly, some pubs initially reported a decline in customers after smoking bans were implemented, as many smokers choose to stay home rather then frequent non-smoking establishments.
On the other hand, I would argue that banning smoking in public places reduces exposure to surrounded people, which can cause serious health problems. To start with, non-smokers, especially children and pregnant women, are less likely to inhale secondhand smoke, reducing vast risks. A shining example is that some cities saw a significant drop in hospital admissions for heart attacks after introducing bans in public areas. Moreover, strict smoking regulations have reduced cigarette butt litter on street, making areas and streets cleaner and more visually appealing.
In conclusion, although the disadvantages of smoking bans are widely recognized, I still think that the advantages of rules concerning smoking are more significant.