Banning smoking in public places will result to saving of many lives as well as monetary costs (Cunningham 250). Nevertheless, smokers are a significant source of tax income to governments, and prohibiting smoking in public places will undoubtedly reduce the income. Second hand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke, which lingers in the air hours after extinguishing of cigarettes or stoppage of smoking, has adverse health effects such as cancer, respiratory infections, and Asthma.
Active smokers in public places needlessly expose nonsmokers to grave danger. Secondhand smoke contains 4000 kinds of chemicals; 43 of these chemicals are carcinogenic attributable to thousands of lung cancer deaths, respiratory tract infections, and heart diseases among nonsmokers (Rabin 213). The only logic to minimize the ballooning number of smoking induced diseases among passive smokers is banning smoking in public.
Allowing smoking in public is sound. First of all, the broad scale prohibition of smoking in public is prejudicial against smokers whose rights should be safeguarded (Rabin 214). Public establishments should reinforce the needs of the public wholeheartedly but not sideline certain individuals because of their personal choices. Banning smoking in public spaces such as bars jeopardizes the sustainability of the places. It may also result to business closure since smokers shift to spaces where smoking is unrestrained such as at home. Nevertheless, banning smoking is compensatory as smoke free zones will equally attract non-smokers who do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke.
Banning smoking in public is helpful as it minimizes the frequency of smoking as well as forces smokers to surrender the habits altogether. Banning smoking in public breaks the sequence or renders it harder for smokers to keep up with their habit such as having to leave the bar to have a cigarette. This compels smokers to reduce the frequency of