Some governments now ban smoking in public places, because it is harmful for both human health and the public environment. Some argue that it deprives smokers of their basic rights. I do not agree with these critics because I believe that such a strategy is a decisive way of being constructive in civilized society.
To begin with, a ban reduces the risks for passive smokers of lung cancer and heart disease. In recent times, scientific research has provided evidence that years of secondhand smoking vastly increases the risks of developing fatal medical conditions. Accordingly, a law to prohibit public smoking is a panacea to sidestream smoke problems, which may result in serious diseases.
Furthermore, a smoking ban is an effective way to cut urban smog, which probably contributes to the greenhouse effect, depletion of the ozone layer, acid rain and toxic waste. Burning smoke from tobacco, as well as the emission of car exhaust fumes and smog coming from industrial production, is responsible for at least 90% of air pollution. Obviously, it is a useful method to decrease the emission of smog and improve air quality.
In addition, only by doing this can governments lessen the manmade fire which threaten citizensí property and lives. It is reported that more than three-fourths of the fires that happen in public places are caused by discarded cigarettes which were still burning. Consequentely, the potential threaten of public smoking is beyond mere health and environmental concerns. Hence, the forbidding of public smoking is both sensible and necessary.
In conclusion, the limited-smoking strategy has substantial favorable effects not only individual health but also on the public environment, it is also helpful to decrease fire disasters. Certainly, it is high time that politicians took similar action against public smoking as they have against AIDS and illegal drugs.
- For Teachers