Naturally, humanity likes to have the chance to enjoy their human rights. This concept is particularly evident in the debate on whether or not cigarette smoking ought to be banned. Proponents of the argument hold that smokers unnecessarily antagonize their non-smoking counterparts by subjecting them to second-hand smoke. Further, supporters argue that smoking costs the country dearly in managing smoking-related health complications. Conversely, opponents of the aforementioned premise state that banning smoking would violate smokers’ rights to enjoying life uninterrupted.
Moreover, those opposed to banning smoking argument hold that cigarettes earn the government much income through taxes. From the foregoing analysis, it is evident that the smoking debate is a complex one whose definitive solution is only achievable after carefully analyzing both the pro and con arguments. To begin with, opponents of the ban hold that by outlawing smoking, cigarette smokers will essentially be denied their basic rights to enjoyment. This is a valid point assuming that the smoke emitted does not harm bystanders.
Nevertheless, since second-hand smoke is a reality, this argument loses its appeal. Further, the proposition that cigarettes earn the government revenue via taxes becomes void when viewed against the fact that equally huge sums of money are used in tackling smoking-related illnesses. For this reason, the argument is rendered inconclusive. Conversely, the proponents’ view that smoking should be outlawed since it endangers the health of bystanders appears deficient bearing in mind that a ban on smoking would infringe on smoker’s rights to enjoyment.
The Term Paper on Should Smoking Be Banned
... smoking exaggerated age-related brain atrophy and must be banned from cafes and restaurants since passive smokers (people who do not smoke ... Former cigarette smokers were significantly more aware than either never-smokers or smokers while never-smokers were more aware than smokers (Remer, ... more at stake than just scientific and philosophic arguments. Generally speaking, the public health is at stake, ...
The health-related argument thus sounds questionable. Likewise, the finance-oriented argument against smoking is uncertain since, currently, no definitive research has been done to compare cigarette-related costs with benefits. The absence of such data renders the economic-inclined argument inconclusive. In conclusion, the foregoing discussion has ascertained that the smoking debate is blurry owing to the lack of definitive facts to back either side. It is thus evident that tolerance and sound reasoning is required to enable smokers and non-smokers to co-exist peacefully.
