Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No Smoking in Public Places
No Smoking in Public Places
No Smoking
Student Name
Course Name
Professor Name
July 2, 2020
NO SMOKING 2
No Smoking
Yes, I agree with this referendum. Nowadays, several nations have laws banning
public smoking, but often concerns non-smokers. This is harmful to their health and can
cause lung cancer. However, the statute still tends to cover only one hand and public areas
(which will also be open to all) only meet the wishes of non-smokers, harmful nicotine
triggers, and committed smokers cannot go a long period without burning cigarettes that
therefore make public areas and several other facilities unacceptable. Because of the harmful
character of second-hand smoke, just as smoking does. I think that public smoking should be
prohibited because it does not only damage the health of smokers but also the health of
people around them. Smoking is a fairly selfish thing to do in public spaces and particularly
doubt, be a social practice if smoking were prohibited in public areas. Smokers should then
kick their mates in to put back. If it's cold or wet, that will be particularly inconvenient. One-
third of Scottish cigarettes claimed that the prohibition tended to reduce them. If smoking
became less common, less would continue to smoke. Governments in certain nations
compensate for any or half of the burden of smoking-related diseases. Therefore, states would
be able to prohibit smoke (Committee & Barron, 2005). Defending people's safety is more
relevant than protecting businesses. Pubs and clubs can respond to selling food, for instance,
by trying to obtain more. Just 9 percent of restaurants registered a drop in trade after a
References
Committee, G. B., & Barron, K. (2005). Smoking in public places: First report of session