The number of the individuals who smoke has risen over the years. Even though they are aware of how harmful smoking can be, the public still decides to use a cigarette. It is an individual decision, and it is a habit which is extremely addictive. It is not the responsibility of the state or any other third party to determine whether or not an individual should be permitted to use a cigarette. Consequently, smoking does not only negatively affect the smoker but also affect all the individuals in the surrounding environment of those who smoke since when a person smoke in public the fume moves all over via the air. The smoke from the cigarette affects all the breathing creatures. As a result, smoking needs to be prohibited in all the public places (Evaluate the Implementation of the Smoking Ban 45).
Individuals who use a cigarette in public depict a bad picture. Young kids are easily affected by their growing levels. They will try to do what the individuals around them are doing sins they cannot know the difference between wrong and right. Thus the view the activities they see around them as the manner in which things should be and should be done. Apart from that, adolescents who see individuals smoking in the public place take it as an example to smoke too. There are a phrases that state "monkey see monkey do," and this indicates that people copy the activities of others as they observe them in their day to day lives. Young people tend to imagine smoking makes an individual “cool.” When they observe adults smoking in public it boosts their belief in the “coolness” related to the smoking. With this kind of belief, will the teenagers fail to smoke when they grow up? They will always wish to be like adults who are their role models, and some of them are even their parents. Some of them even think that one way of transition into adulthood and maturity is through smoking. Therefore, more young individuals begin smoking as a result of the influence of seeing the adults smoking in public.
Banning of smoking in the public areas will result in a healthy lifestyle for everyone. The people will view it as the state initiative to ensure a healthier lifestyle of all the citizens. This is because prohibiting smoking in public places the state sends a message that it values the health of its people. Therefore, when smoking is not permitted in the public areas, it reminds people the importance of healthcare. Every person is reminded that the state is seriously worried about the well being of its populace. As a result, individuals would be reminded to live a fit lifestyle.
Also, banning smoking in public will safeguard the being of the smoker and that of the public in general. Research has indicated that released smoke from cigarette kills. The second-hand fume results in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory tract attack and asthma in kids. Apart from that, second-hand fume results in lung cancer and heart diseases in both non-smoking and smoking adults. Second-hand smoke according to Center for Disease Control (CDC) contains more than 250 chemicals that are toxic, as well as not less than 50 that bring about cancer (Mathur 24). It has been proven by the studies that second-hand smoke can lead to cancer and is very bad for the health of both the non-smokers and the smokers. Furthermore, it has also be stated by CDC that “ It has been estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency second-hand smoke exposure leads to about 3,500 lung cancer decease and approximately 40, 00 deaths from heart diseases yearly among the adult non-smokers in America.” This implies that simply by being closer to the individuals, individuals who are blameless are dying from the sickness that is brought by the second-hand smoke (Mathur 33). This violates the healthy rights lifestyle of those who are not smoking since just by staying in the public spaces where there are smokers they are exposed to breathing in the poisonous smoke. As a result, the well-being of the non-smoker who is innocent who are in the public areas is being endangered contrary to their will.
By not enabling people to use cigarettes in public, it will ensure that those who smoke less. Since the use of cigarette is not permitted in public, individuals are only can only smoke in their homes or at the designated smoking zones. This would imply that as long as they are out of their homes or the smoking areas, they cannot smoke. At their workplace or any public place, the smoker will have to wait until they reach their homes so that they can start smoking. Due to this, their cigarette use is minimized, and they smoke a smaller amount. This will, in turn, help the smokers who had been attempting to leave smoking but are not capable to since they have enough reason to stop. They are prohibited by the law to smoke in the public areas, and therefore cigarette consumption, in general, is reduced. Moreover, if they experience any feeling to smoke in public they will put in more effort to overturn the craving since it is unlawful. Also, there is reduced temptations by the smokers who are attempting to leave smoking if the prohibition is imposed since there is no one who can offer them cigarettes. Thus, this enables them to desist from smoking. This case is proven by the research that indicated that not less than 500,000 individuals in England have abstained from smoking due to the ban of lighting up in the public areas (Mathur 55). Those who smoke will profit from this prohibition since it will assist them to reduce the frequency as well as the amounts of smoking. It can also assist them to break the compulsion to the cigarettes. It will assist them to quit in the long run and at the same time assisting them to develop a healthier lifestyle.
By banning smoking in the public area, it will prevent those not smoking from beginning to smoke at all. Individuals will not be tempted to begin using cigarettes since they know smoking is addictive, and if using cigarette is not permitted in public they will face the impacts of withdrawal from the addiction to the nicotine in their cigarettes. A new study has shown that ten smokers claim to have abstained from smoking and more than half of the south-west users of cigarettes have thought about leaving since the countrywide prohibition was enforced (Proctor). If those who are smoking decide to quit or even think of quitting as a result due to the trouble of not being in a position to smoke in public, would it not hinder the non-smokers from smoking? For sure people will not expose themselves intentionally to addiction being aware that they will suffer from the withdrawal effects as a result of the dependence. By prohibiting smoking in the public places, the state support for the truth that using cigarette is not good and it assists in altering mindset in individuals reinstating to them that using cigarette is a bad habit. Also, smoking will never be an issue again when it comes to the pressure of young individuals since people are prohibited from smoking in public. In the event, the peers will not force a person to begin smoking.
Some people may claim that by banning the use of cigarette in public, it violates their rights. It is true that there are rights that protect the smokers and therefore these rights should not be infringed upon. Nevertheless, the rights of the non-smokers to clean breath air are essential, and it should also be considered. The toxic fumes move via the air into the lungs of the others when people smoke in public. The health of the non-smokers is compromised when they breathe in the second-hand smoke. Should those who are not smoking be subjected to vile and unhealthy smelling fumes each time smoker decides to smoke? Smoking is an individual decision, and some individuals can decide to smoke, but the rest must not be exposed to the health-related risks that result from breathing in the second-hand fume.
Works Cited
Evaluate the Implementation of the Smoking Ban. Committee on Regulated Industries, 2004.
Mathur, Vanya. Characteristics Associated with Support for Smoking Ban in Rental Housing Units Among Adults in New Haven. 2015.
Proctor, Robert N. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. U of California P, 2012.
