Generally speaking, the debate on restricting people from smoking in public areas has brought a lot of attention across the world.
It
is, in fact, a never ending discussion point in various parts of the world.
However, the key issue is how far government can go to restrict a law abiding
citizen from this bad habit.
Smokers
certainly would not appreciate such move from the law enforcement agency. They
believe that tobacco is a legal product, and if it does harm, it must be
restricted at source by means of shutting down growing of tobacco fields. At
the same time, government is in huge dilemma in order to fix this situation.
On
the one hand, it is true that smoking has adverse effects on both smokers and
passive smokers. On the other hand , government has been earning a huge wealth
in form of tax revenue from tobacco industry.
Tax
obtained from this source is invariably used in public welfare.
The
smoker community would feel that government authority is trying to control
their freedom. If it were to ban smoking in open spaces and public areas, we need pretty clear
evidence that this would have direct health benefits.
On
this argument, the other group may not have any imposing rights.
Personally,
I feel that it is hard to enforce such regulation even if government favors non-smoking. It is significant that government invests money and resources to
educate people about detrimental effects of smoking. Constant adverts such as
how smoking impacts the young generation-they see smokers in corners and adopt
same habit-and try to tug at smokers’ heartstrings.
Yes,
smoking should be banned in public spaces. How we do it is very important; not
by enforcement or enacting a law but through educating people about its nasty
impacts o existing and forthcoming generation
Vocabulary:
Law
enforcement agency : a government agency responsible for the enforcement of the
laws
Detrimental:
damaging, harmful
To
tug at someone’s head stringss: to
cause strong feelings of affection or sympathy
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon