Smoking should be banned

I accept this challenge. Society accepts that adults can decide to harm themselves to some extent, so long as they do not harm others. This is why the proposition is not arguing that people should be banned from smoking in private. Passive smokers do choose to breathe in other people"s smoke. If they do not want to smoke passively, they do not need to go to places where smoking is allowed. There is therefore no reason to ban smoking in public. If enough people want to go to non-smoking bars, companies will set up non-smoking bars. If there are no non-smoking bars, this suggests that very few people want them. Some people are quite happy to work in smoky places. In any case, workers should be allowed to choose to work in dangerous conditions. This is accepted for jobs like mining, fishing and the armed forces. Individuals decide that they are better doing this work than not having a job at all. A complete ban is not necessary to protect workers anyway " ventilation fans can remove most smoke. A ban on smoking in public places would drive many bars, pubs and clubs out of business. Smokers would not go to these places. These businesses would also earn less money from selling tobacco. In many places, pubs and Working Men"s Clubs are important social places for communities. They also provide jobs for people with few skills in places with little other work. It is therefore important that they survive. It would be impossible to police this ban in many public places. Small workplaces will often ignore the ban and are unlikely to be caught. Staff who do not smoke are unlikely to report smokers, in case their colleagues work out who told the authorities. THE FACTS : Economic Impact - It is the hospitality industry that the smoking ban seems to affect the most. People who smoke, are often major patrons of cafe, bars, and restaurants, and the number of these patrons tends to diminish when a smoking ban is imposed. - The reduction in the number of patrons would earn them lesser profits, thus leading to financial difficulties. Moreover, if these difficulties go on increasing by the day, some of the businesses might also consider permanent closure. - In such cases, the risk of more and more employees losing their jobs is elevated. Also, the job market would, in turn, generate much lesser jobs, leading to a rise in unemployment. - The government earns a lot of revenue through the sale of tobacco and cigarettes. The ban results in a major drop in this revenue. Personal Right : - It has been argued that imposing a smoking ban is against the 'freedom of choice'. Some people opine that it is okay to do anything one wants as long as he/she is not hurting the others in the process. - Some have proposed that nonsmokers, in order to avoid inhaling the smoke, may prevent themselves from going to places that allow smoking. However, this is not always possible. - Moreover, banning only smoking as a potential health hazard seems a little absurd as there are some other substances as well (drugs, alcohol, etc.), which pose similar, or rather much greater health hazards. Difficult to Implement - Though a smoking ban may seem like a brilliant idea to control the potential dangers, it is not always easy to implement at all places. - Many times, it is extremely difficult for businesses to disallow their patrons from smoking in their premises, especially if the patrons insist on the same. - Furthermore, isolated areas such as washrooms, where people might secretly smoke, cannot be monitored all the time. - Also, if it is a small or a new business, it may not afford to lose its clients because of the ban. After all, it all about survival. In such cases, the ban loses its purpose. So, pro can't only look in one side but must look in all side if government banned smoking. And pro only give us his argue without solution to solve other problem if government banned smoking. Pro must think about what will happen after that. And in the fact, if government banned smoking give more negative effects than positive effect.