Smoking is a divisive activity. While it can help make someone look more respectable, or help soothe their nerves, it has a negative effect on health and a disruptive odor, which puts smokers and non-smokers at odds. This has led to a number of regulations on smoking in some places, while others disregard the issue. In this essay we will consider both sides.
On the one hand, opponents of public smoking cite evidence of the risks of secondhand exposure to nicotene, such as an increased likelyhood of lung, throat and mouth cancers. Furthermore, cigarette butts or electronic vapes can pose a fire hazard indoors. Smoke can also settle onto walls and furniture, damaging property. In certain countries like Russia, it is prohibited to smoke in public at all, with smokers facing minor fines is spotted at bus stops, for example.
On the other hand, many places have a more relaxed approach to the topic. For instance, many Serbian restaraunts come equipped with ashtrays and designated tables for those who choose to smoke, and no restrictions are applied in stores and grocery shops. There, smoking is treated as a personal choice and part of society, with no need to punish or regulate it, save for locations such as hospitals, which may house people with respiratory vulnerabilities.
Overall, I tend to side with opponents of public smoking. Despite the fact that it is within one’s right to make the choice to smoke, those who did not should not have to tolerate being exposed to it. Enforcing better separation between smokers and non-smokers, as well as popularizing more targeted delivery methods, such as patches or chewing tobacco, will benefit both sides.