Smoking in public and office buildings is illegal in most jurisdictions, and certain measures have been put in place to discourage cigarettes from negatively harming others by their practices. This has not gone unnoticed, as many smokers strongly condemn the policy, seeing it as an infringement of civil rights that violates the democratic constitution. Despite this resistance, the United States government has completely adopted a ban against public smoking, making it illegal to do so in public spaces, including office buildings and other areas of public concern. From my perception, this rule is excellent as it will bring more benefits not only to the environment but also to the wellbeing of both passive and active smokers in general.
Direct impact of smoking does not only affect the health situation of actual smokers but also the non-smokers (Harold and Baldwin 12). This is achieved through a process known as passive smoking where the non-smoker inhale the smoke from active users of both traditional and modern e-cigarettes. The smoke accumulation rate, particularly the narcotic contents, has been scientifically proven to be comparable to both active and passive smokers and this has prompted an action to protect docile non- smoking group from health complications associated with smoking. In most cases, diseases such as lung cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases have been linked to smoking activity. Hence, banning of public smoking will be a great step towards achieving a holistic preservation of human health which is a key component of the United States constitution.
Public smoking in areas populated with children develops a desire by these young millennial to make a try of the habit (Warner 14). Since the young generation might not be aware of smoking dangers, the process might become a habit and the long run effect will be an addiction problem which might lead to usage of other hard drugs and alcohol. To nurture a healthy generation, the government has to intervene and this results to public ban of smoking which is very vital for the wellbeing of coming generations. If not effected, the issue of public smoking might lead to a “smoking nation” which is termed to be a “dying nation” by Pacheco (6). Hence, restriction of outdoor smoking will result to a healthy human resource which will be efficient in provision of labor for economic growth and nation prosperity.
Finally, by depressing outdoor smoking, active smokers might progressively force to quit their habit or minimize the rate of smoking. This will highly boost their health and also save their economic status which might also have a positive outcome to their families. Furthermore, environmental pollution will also have been reduced to some extent as pertained to the smoke exhaled during the smoking process (Pacheco 5). In consideration of the above facts, I strongly agree with complete banning of public smoking as it will not only save the health of people, but also preserve our environment to some extent.
Intense public smoking policy should be put forward by the government of United States. This will play a vital role in public fight against drug abuse and addiction as many children in our country learn substance abuse through imitation of other people they see on different public places. Furthermore, the health and wellbeing of citizens of United Sates will be preserved which will facilitate accomplishment of American dream of a more stable nation with a flourishing economic status. This can only be achieved by a sober nation with good health and strong labor force.
Dawley, Harold H., and Joe Baldwin. “The Control of Smoking: Smoking Rate in Designated Smoking and No-Smoking Areas.” International Journal of the Addictions, vol. 18, no. 7, 2013, pp. 10-13.
Warner, Kenneth E. Tobacco Control Policy. John Wiley & Son, 2006.
Pacheco, J. “Trends–Public Opinion on Smoking and Anti-Smoking Policies.” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 75, no. 3, 2011, pp. 4-6.