Whereas policies banning public smoking in workplaces and dining areas are becoming
significantly popular in certain nations, the rest of the countries appear to show no consideration
for this issue. This essay will explore both sides of the debate and summarize based on personal
opinion.
On the one hand, the governments that have not regulate public smoking tend to prioritize
other crucial issues such as supporting foreign investment and international policies. Such kind
of countries are more likely to be developing countries, so authorities are highly likely to
concentrate on more significant problems. Thus, this phenomenon seems to be ignored.
Furthermore, those who oppose this concept argue that it is an action that goes against human
rights, suggesting that individuals should have the to smoke wherever they want.
On the other hand, supporters of the government’s measure to prohibit smoking in public
facilities strongly believe that it can mitigate the effects of both active and passive smoking. It is
proven that smoking can be harmful to not only the well-being of smokers but also that of the
people who surround them. This also means that it also violates a non-smoker’ right to live a
healthy life style. Moreover, proponents of the banning of public smoking consider that such
action is a lack of ethics. This is because if there were children in the public area, they might
mimic the behavior of smokers, wishing to be seen as similar to them.
In conclusion, I would tend to side with the supporters of law restricting smoking in
public areas. It seems unreasonable not to take action against public smoking, in terms of
government’s priorities and human rights without considering the individuals overall health and
morality.