smoking

I do agree with some of your stances, but there is evidence that second hand smoke can cause cancer and even death. According to an EPA report on second hand smoke in California in 1997, 53,800 people died from second hand smoke exposure. Also, children are at risk to many smaller, chronic diseases as a result of second hand smoke. I am not saying they will die from it, but they are certainly affected. I am aware that maybe going to the bar every once in a while and inhaling second hand smoke may not have nearly as much affect on you as constant, more long term exposure, but it is still unhealthy regardless. Many public places do have special areas for smokers and I think that is a start in the right direction. One issue I have found and many others have as well that in restaurants that have smoking and non-smoking areas, they are not exactly separated. There are barriers, but they do not necessarily keep smoke from drifting in the non-smoking sections. People do have the decision to enter or not enter these environments and you made a good point about that, but people should not feel limited either. This website contains valuable information on second hand smoke and studies that have been done: http://www.no-smoke.org.... Your points about smokers and their willingness to quit is very valid. I will say, although it would not necessarily be fair to forbid smoking and have smokers give it up cold turkey, perhaps the government instead of one day just taking it away, give smokers time to quit. People are very aware of the harm cigarettes can do to them which in some sense does makes it ok. For instance, I do not smoke and I do not choose to smoke because of the harm I think it will cause on my body. I know people who do smoke and know the precautions, but choose to anyways. It is up to the person and their rights. This idea is not relevant to my argument, but I wanted to point out that my opponents point on this topic is valid. On the other hand, I did want to point at that people do have very different reasons for why they smoke. Maybe they smoke to decrease stress, keep weight off, or any other unknown personal reason. I was suggesting that there are other ways to eliminate these issues. Studies have found that exercise does affect stress relief positively and according to the ADAA scientists have found that regular participation in aerobic exercise has been shown to decrease overall levels of tension, elevate and stabilize mood, improve sleep, and improve self-esteem. There are other ways to achieve what we intend to get from a cigarette, not just going to the gym, which may not be what many people need or want to do. But other forms of distraction, for instance, may be beneficial when trying to quit. http://www.adaa.org... Many people are able to quit smoking and that is a very good statistic to see when it is easy to believe a lot of people cannot quit or have a really hard time with it. Shopping, caffeine, or even cleaning as you mentioned are not necessarily harmful to the body, but I do understand the point you are making. People do have a right to choose, but it is encouraging to see that people do have the ability to quit. I do not agree smoking should be legal, but I do know that is a hard task to achieve especially when people are given the right to do things they wish, regardless of the outcome. Smoking does cause harm to our bodies and others as well, so smokers and non smokers would benefit from the banning of tobacco. The government, I believe can possibly find other means to supply jobs although it was stated that cutting the jobs related to the tobacco industry would be "more harmful to the overall health and well being to our country than to ban smoking altogether." I am well aware that banning smoking would be a hard feat, but the government could aid in assisting those who want to quit and perhaps advocate how harmful it is. At some point, with hope, a huge amount of smokers will quit and banning tobacco will be easier to achieve.