The question of smoking bans and their effectiveness is very a controversial one. Governments throughout the world accept smoking bans in order to protect their citizens from the harm of second-hand smoking. However, the citizens themselves are not united in their want of denying the smokers to smoke in public places. Those who are against smoking bans say that these policies are not fair and are the act of disrespect of personal freedom. The argument that smoking should be banned because of its harm is not correct, as smoking is a personal choice of a human, and the laws that limit this freedom are not fair at all.
Smoking bans are not practical. People will not stop to smoke if they like it despite the desires of the others who would like them not to smoke. Everybody knows that smoking kills. People who smoke are in the group of risk to develop diseases, such as lung liver cirrhosis and cancer. Some people believe that if smoking is banned, heart-related sicknesses will possibly lower. However, there are the other factors that are much more dangerous and can cause one's death faster. However, they are not banned as well.
Some people are against smoking in general because of passive smoking. However, those people who do not smoke often are not completely against smoking in general, they just resist smoking in public places. The smokers can do harm to the people around meaninglessly as second-hand smoking is as harmful for one's health as the direct smoking. However, many people do not support laws that ban smoking in public places because of unfairness for a place to be considered public as everybody has the right to utilize the place, not only non-smokers. It can be also argued that, in true, there are not even true public places. For instance, a private restaurant is still private; a private bar is not public as well. If one does not like that the smoking is allowed there, he or she can just does not go or leave. In addition, private business is not supposed to satisfy the needs of every single person. There could be better to provide specific licensing that will give a right to the owners of the “public” places to allow smoking at their private area, however, this right should not be banned outright.
Food also causes health problems in the same way as smoking does, and it is not banned. Car exhaust fumes influence lives of children and adults quite the same, however, there are no laws against the creators of cars, car companies or driving. Exhaust and smog is not less bad, if not even worse than passive and direct smoking. Thus, if some people try arguing logically that public smoking should be banned, it would be logically to ban vehicles too. Thus, almost everything can be banned as all the things that surround modern human are dangerous in perspective.
Therefore, the argument that smoking should be banned because of its harm is wrong at all, as smoking is a personal choice of a human and the laws that limit this freedom are not fair. Neither the harm of second-hand smoking, nor the risk for smokers is the reason for such unfair and unpractical bans. It seems to be very weird that the people who live in democratic society are supposed to limit their freedom to choose the lifestyle they like only because the others do not approve it. Smoking does not make the person bad or unequal. Thus, smoking bans are unfair and abusive for the people who smoke and those who approve this lifestyle.
- Lambert, T. A. (2006-2007). The case against smoking bans. Regulation 2006–2007: 34-40.
- Gilmore, N. (2005).Clearing the air: The battle over the smoking ban. Dublin: Liberties Press.