Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.

Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke wherever they wish.

However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sides in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas.

In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.

Sample 2:

The earlier we can ban smoking in public places, the better it would be for humankind. Having foreseen the same, many offices and governing bodies imposed a strict ban on public smoking. This measure is generally applauded by the majority of mass. However, the opposing minority interrupts this ban as an act of arrest on one's free will. Let us discuss this moot issue below.

It is generally agreed and even proven with scientific studies, that smoking is injurious to health. The health problems that smoking can induce are numerous. Cancer is among the major detrimental effects of smoking on one’s health. As clearly shown on cigarette packages, smoking is a primary cause of cancer. Furthermore, the effects of smoking on the systemic and peripheral circulation in the human body are appalling, as put forward by medical experts. The havoc of this insane habit is so horrifying that research points towards its possible harmful effects on unborn children, even. Smoking is considered as a culprit among the many, behind congenital birth defects and anomalies.

Another factor significant to this context would be the financial constraints imposed by smoking. In many developing countries, where people work on daily wages, the habit of smoking has an atrocious impact on their quality of life. In the majority of the mediocre families, around the world, smoking drains the significant part of their family budgets. For example, I witnessed many problems with reference to my father being a chronic smoker and the financial crisis it caused.

The amount of carbon and other toxic elements exhaled into the atmosphere by active smokers has reached such dizzy heights that its effect on passive smokers is more or less a reality now. In fact, the effect of first-hand smoke is seen permeable to even the second and third-hand smokers in the spectrum. The significance of the public ban on smoking is not just justifying but a necessity as it calls for. As a result, it is widely banned in some offices and institutions. Awareness programmes are being conducted all around the world against this habit.

Though the public ban on smoking is an individual constraint to one's freedom, considering the passive effects of smoking I would strongly agree with the ban. In my view, this would be a punitive measure to safeguard the health and wealth of the public or the society.

Sample 3:

Smoking has inevitably been a concern of governments around the globe considering how to manage and educate smoking people. This is due largely to the danger of the substance contained in cigarettes, nicotine. As its drawback may also occur for the people near the smokers, policies related to this, particularly in public places, should be taken into account; whether it should be banned or not.

I personally think that forbidding such a dangerous activity will be much more beneficial, as it can prevent others from developing a vulnerable respiratory system. Moreover, this can keep the places so clean that people could always find them fascinating with less air pollution. However, governments should consciously provide some special places which, in this case, can be used for smoking.

On the other hand, people who have currently become addicted to smoke would find it hard to avoid smoking in such places. As a result, they may smoke, breaking the rule and not even feeling guilty. For this reason, there are two steps then to encounter this probable emerging problem. First, some strict laws and appropriate punishments, such as to pay more tax or to give any charity orphans or others needing. Second, education is one of the most prominent and essential ways to change people’s belief in terms of having their cigarette burnt.

However, banning such activity in public places is not merely a way to prevent others from harming smoke, but it will, to a larger extent, possibly be able to elevate people’s awareness of how dangerous smoking is.

To sum up, despite it being difficult for smokers to quit, the policy which bans smoking in public places should be applied in order to save others. Nonetheless, people’s education in terms of the drawbacks of smoking is a part of this aim.

Sample 4:

Smoking has been a major public health issue for decades, and despite numerous efforts to discourage the habit, it continues to be a prevalent problem in society. Not only does smoking harm the individual who partakes in the habit, but it also poses a significant risk to those who are in close proximity to the smoker. For this reason, many argue that smoking should be banned in public places in order to protect the health and well-being of the general population.

First and foremost, it is widely known that smoking causes a myriad of health issues for the individual who smokes. From lung cancer to heart disease, the negative impact of smoking on one's health is undeniable. However, what is often overlooked is the fact that secondhand smoke can also have serious consequences for non-smokers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), secondhand smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals, hundreds of which are toxic and about 70 that can cause cancer. When non-smokers are exposed to these harmful chemicals, they are at an increased risk for developing the same health issues as smokers, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory problems. This means that not only are smokers jeopardizing their own health, but they are also putting those around them in harm's way.

Furthermore, smoking in public places can have a negative impact on the overall environment. Cigarette butts, which are the most common form of litter, contain toxic chemicals that can leach into the soil and water, posing a threat to wildlife and polluting the ecosystem. In addition, the smoke itself contributes to air pollution, which can have detrimental effects on the environment and public health. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can reduce the amount of secondhand smoke that non-smokers are exposed to and mitigate the environmental impact of smoking.

While some may argue that a ban on smoking in public places infringes upon an individual's right to smoke, it is important to consider the greater good of the population. The potential health risks and environmental impact of smoking far outweigh the desire of an individual to smoke in public spaces. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can protect the health and well-being of both smokers and non-smokers, as well as the environment.

In conclusion, smoking not only harms the smoker, but also poses a significant risk to those who are nearby. With the potential health risks and environmental impact in mind, it is clear that smoking should be banned in public places. By doing so, we can create a healthier and safer environment for all members of society.

Sample 5:

In the present era, there is a rising trend of smoking, especially among the younger generation. Smoking has evident detrimental effects on both the smoker and the people in his surroundings. It is claimed that smoking should be prohibited in public areas. I strongly agree that smoking should be banned publicly to prevent its negative aspects on people.

To begin, there are many drawbacks of smoking which have progressive impacts on both individual and environmental level. First and foremost, it increases the risk of many health related issues in human beings, due to presence of disease producing chemicals in tobacco . For instance, a rising trend of lung related diseases, like tuberculosis and lung cancer, has been reported in smokers. Furthermore, smoke not only damages the body of the smoker, but also results in many unfavourable outcomes in the surrounding people. Moreover, it is very distressful and challenging for non-smokers to work in smoking places. So, there is urgent need to halt smoking in populated areas.

There is, however, a faction that claims that there are some challenges in preventing public smoking. Firstly, many resources will be consumed to construct specified smoking areas to restrict smoking at workplace and other public places. Simultaneously, there might be no checks and balances on people who are constrained to stay in specific smoking places.

To recapitulate, although there are few disadvantages of stopping people from smoking publicly, it has many beneficial impacts. I strongly agree to halt smoking in populated areas because it will remarkably decline the percentage of health related problems. Moreover, in the same way, it can aid in developing a comfortable environment at the workplace, as well as at other public places like shopping malls, restaurants and public transport.

Sample 6:

In the contemporary era, it is a moot point that smoking has detrimental effects on the smoker as well as the people living around him. A significant chunk of the community welcomes the conception, whereas the remaining members oppose the same. In this essay, I will explain this point of view in detail with the relevant examples to support my argument.

I am in agreement to a large extent with the aforementioned notion. Multifarious reasons can be discussed to justify my stance. The most conspicuous one is the smoker himself welcomes deadly diseases like cancer (mouth and lungs), kidney failure to his body. For instance, a cigarette contains killing components like tobacco, nicotine, and carbon monoxide these destroy the airbus of the lungs. As a consequence, a person’s digestive system starts to stop working. Its impacts do not appear overnight but if its consumption lasts for years a brutal death can knock at your door. Additionally, it is more harmful to passive smokers. To illustrate this, I would quote an instance of my friend who is suffering from lung cancer. However, he had never smoked in his life. He got infected just because his father is an active smoker. Having lived in the same house inhaling cigarette smoke he got affected.

On the other hand, I do have some grounds against the central idea. First and foremost, rationale is it may bring some of the businesses to an end. For instance, pubs and discos are usually visited by a proportion of 80% of smokers. If it is banned completely, it will wash off the above-mentioned businesses.

To put it in a nutshell, I personally believe that it is difficult to persuade people to quit but it must be prohibited in public places. Moreover, in clubs, there should be a separate area for smoking so passive smokers would not suffer.