
                   In the present scenario smoking is one of the most controversial topics in the health industry. Smoking affects the non-smoker who’s being exposed to smoking. Tobacco use kills more than five million people every year - more than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined, as per the research carried out by World Health Organization. It is evident that smoking has serious repercussions on the health of a smoker and the people who are in contact with the smoker. Passive smoking is on rise, as it is very unfortunate that health of a non-smoker is in serious trouble. Passive smoking causes irreparable damage to the health of a non-smoker and most of them don’t even realize it until their health deteriorates.  A large part of the problem is due to the inability of the government, which does not acts to ban the cigarette manufacturers. The cigarettes industries become so rich that it’s almost impossible to ban them because they are powerful enough that they can fight against the government (Rachael Rettner). The government must take immediate measure to ban smoking in public areas, so we can save the lives innocent people who die just because of passive smoking.

                   Joseph Bast, the president and CEO of Heartland Institute, a nonprofit think tank concerned with social and economic issues, argues "people are free to do things both great and foolish so long as they do not conflict with an equal right held by others." In his article, joseph bast argues how smoker’s freedom must be protected. He argues that smokers are always considered to have a negative effect on the society. Furthermore, an adult smoker is capable and mature enough of making his/her own decisions. Buying cigarettes and smoking should not be opposed since it depends on the wish of a buyer as he/she is paying for it. Bast is making an argument that non-smokers have the equal rights as other people do and banning is not a solution. He argues that non-smokers always come up with a debate about how smoking negatively affects health and putting a ban is the only solution.

                    I agree with the viewpoint of joseph that everyone has the right to choose freely as to what they want to do with their lives until and unless they are not affecting the people surrounding them. However, I believe whenever we talk about freedom, an individual must always practice freedom without hurting others. If a person is enjoying his or her rights on the cost of damaging the health of other non-smokers who come in his/her contact, creates an imbalanced society. A famous quote from Nelson Mandela, “For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” So, if we consider the argument made by Joseph bast, if a smoker is smoking in a public place than that smoker is exercising his/her freedom, but if somebody else is feeling uncomfortable because of the smoke released by burning tobacco, and if that person decides to ask the smoker to not smoke that’s called violation of freedom! Just because of freedom and the rights provided by the government an individual cannot choose to smoke whenever and wherever he/she feels like. Misuse of rights can lead to deterioration in the health of a non-smoker while, a non-smoker unintentionally becomes a potential threat to the health of other people who surround him/her.

                   Banning smoking in public areas is a valid and a feasible solution to decrease the use of cigarettes while, ensuring a good health amongst the population. Placing a ban on cigarettes will lead to a shortage in the supply and further when less cigarettes will be available to purchase smokers would smoke less eventually giving up smoking. A smoker often time tries to quit smoking but the craving to smoke is deeply rooted in their bodies that it becomes impossible for them leave smoking. The addiction to smoke after a period of time grows and completely overtakes the mind of a smoker. However, people who quit smoking have shown better results in terms of their physical and mental health. Once, smoking is no longer a craving the smokers starts to feel better and the stress levels decreases as compared to the time when they use to smoke at regular intervals (Randy Dotinga). So, the fact that smokers have this illusion in their mind that survival without smoking is hard for them due to which they neglect any thoughts of giving up smoking at the first place. Moreover, banning cigarettes will act like a push to discourage smokers from smoking and making them realize that quitting smoking is not as hard as they think. Additionally, smokers consider smoking as a pleasure activity, as an escape from their busy lives so they have made it more like a social activity. Smokers often smoke a cigarette while, accompanied by a friend which turns this bad addiction into a social activity. If a ban on smoking was placed in public spaces, it would restrict users to stay indoors and not have that excuse that they smoke to cope with their stress. Moreover, people usually start smoking at an early age due to seeing other mature individuals smoking and as an attempt they do it for the first time till a moment that smoking becomes a normal routine in their life. So, banning smoking will not only help the smokers leave smoking, it will also keep away any new user to try and eventually, falling prey to cigarette addiction by seeing other people do it. 

                   One of the main reason why smoking must be banned in public areas is because, it severely affects children and is a leading cause in health problems. A non profit organization - American for nonsmokers rights studies that “More than 1 in 3 nonsmokers who live in rental housing are exposed to passive smoking, and 2 out of every 5 children (including 7 out of 10 African American children) are exposed.” This situation is very deadly for children who especially younger than 10 years, because their body is still growing and developing, and when the children breathe from the same air in which cigarette smoke is present their chances of facing health related problems like, lung cancer and asthma increases drastically.

                  Further leading to a lot of problems at a very early age. According to the study done by Em Al-sayed, researcher at Department of Food Science and Nutrition, National Research Center of Egypt shows that “Children who are exposed to passive smoking are subjected to oxidative stress, which has been implicated in the etiopathogenesis of many disorders. Some of which occur in organs that have no direct contact with the smoke itself such as the liver.” This study, had proved that passive smoking affects the physical health as well as the mental health of an individual. The study also showed that how smoking affects the whole body, as we expect that smoking largely affect lungs, but the researchers proved that smoking also affects the organs which are do not have a direct contact with the smoke inhaled. Being exposed to the diseases like cancer not only ruins the future of the child but also create a financial hole in the earnings of them family as being treated for major smoking problems like, lung cancer is very costly and is often unbearable by the family. Moreover, future of that child faces a big hit as survival with a fatal disease can be very challenging. Thus, the child has to bear the consequences of a task which they never did. A smoker who smoke in public areas is unintentionally becoming a threat to the health of other individuals. Hence, banning cigarettes will decrease the chances of a child suffering from a fatal lung disease and breathing problems. 

                   Passive smoking is a potential threat as far as the health of a pregnant women in concerned. It affects the mother as well as damages the health of the baby. Some of the health conditions associated with passive smoking are miscarriage, low birth weight, early birth, learning or behavioral deficiencies in the child, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). SIDS is a disorder in which an infant dies unexpectedly while, they are sleeping. Furthermore, according to the survey done by Sharon D. Dell(et al), MD, Division of Respiratory Medicine and Child Health Evaluative Sciences, states that “During pregnancy, 5.0% of mothers smoked and 6.2% were nonsmokers who were exposed to passive smoking. Infants whose mother smoke during pregnancy or were exposed to passive smoking were more likely to develop asthma.” The survey done by Sharon D. Dell shows some unexpected results that the women who smoke or were being exposed to smoking had a high chance that their children would suffer from asthma. Nearly, about 15.5 percent of children whose mother was indulges into smoking suffered with asthma.

                   If we ban smoking in public areas. Where will the smokers go? Are they going to smoke at home or indoors? Maybe, as smoking cigarettes is an addiction, it will encourage people to smoke more at home. The result of smoking at home is that the smoker’s family is at a high risk of falling prey to bad health and an unhealthy environment. Even if there is no one in the smoker’s family who smokes cigarettes, the chances of the family members suffering or falling ill are very high. Due to passive smoking, which will ultimately cause a problem for the whole family. After, considering that passive smoking can negatively affect health of a smoker’s family, the smokers will try as hard as they can to stop smoking and change their perception about smoking. According, to an article given in New York times in 2002, after there was a ban placed on smoking in almost every public area, there was a sharp drop in the smoking rate to 14 percent in the adults. These figures signify that banning smoking discourages smokers. The places where smoking is banned in public places showed amazing results. Kathy sheran, senator of state of minnesota talks about her “freedom to grieve act” which was brought to ban smoking in public places such as restaurants. She stated that smoking ban in public places such as restaurants of minnesota. After five weeks on ban, studies showed that in particular restaurant where the people who had been exposed to smoking in restaurants and bars but not had been exposed outside of that place. Researchers did the urine test of those people and found out that each person had eighty percent reduction in carcinogens in their bodies. Carcinogen is a substance capable of causing cancer in living tissue.

                   In his article, joseph makes a point where he says “This is pure junk science. The first principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. We are exposed to thousands of natural poisons and carcinogens in our diets every day, but they don't hurt us because the exposure is too small to overcome our bodies' natural defenses. The same is true of second-hand smoke. No victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can "prove" his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.” I agree with joseph that we are always exposed to natural poisons in our diets every day, however where he says that no victim of cancer, heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke is not true. According to the study by max wendy(et al) shows that Secondhand smoking exposure resulted in more than 42,000 deaths: more than 41 000 adults and nearly 900 infants. They used whole bunch of statistics to prove that by how much chemicals those victims of secondhand smoke were exposed to. It was proved that the reason of their death was Ischemic heart disease, lung disease, low birth weight, Sudden infant death syndrome, Respiratory distress syndrome and Respiratory conditions of the newborn being exposed to secondhand smoke.

                   Sabrina Tavernise, editor at new york times post the report on new york times “secondhand smoke exposure drops”. It shows that second hand smoking exposure had been now reduced by 83 percent since 1993 in the areas where public smoking is banned. It follows as “There were many reasons for the decline. Around 700 towns and cities have banned smoking in public places over the past few decades, as have 26 states and the District of Columbia.” The article furthermore says that despite of the decline, in areas where public smoking is allowed and being exposed to secondhand smoking, 480,000 people die annually. She also argues that passive smoking puts the young children at increased risk of getting illness. She said that there is a sluggish decline in exposure of children to passive smoking which is due to low rate of adult smoking, followed by ban smoking in public areas. She shows that by banning smoking in public areas have an overall good result. Smoking rates in the U.S. have dropped from 43 percent of all adults to 18 percent and smoking is banned in many public places.(Lushniak, Boris) But still half a million die every year in united states just because of smoke-related issue. We need to make a change, so that we can have sustainable future.

                   Dan Collins, reporter of CBS News argues that does smoking ban cut heart attacks. He shows that after banning smoking in public places of helena, the doctors kept a track of all heart attacks of patients. And they found that after banning smoking the biggest impact was on smoker and incidents of heart attack drop by three-quarters. He said the following “They found the smoking ban appeared to have its biggest effect on smokers. Their incidence of heart attacks dropped by three-quarters, compared with two-thirds for former smokers and one-half for nonsmokers.” It shows that banning smoking doesn’t only affect the non-smoker but it also good for smoker’s health. I think the people who support banning smoking in public places will support this article. The authority shows a very gradual decline in number of heart attacks after smoking was banned in that place. This shows that smoking in public places does affect the overall health of the society including smoker and non-smoker.

 The government must ban smoking in public places, so that everyone can live a healthy and long life. An individual freedom rights must be protected but the government need to make sure that those rights doesn’t hurt others individual. By banning smoking in public places, we can save the young generation who get ill just because of the passive smoking. Smoking is as much danger for the non-smoker as it is for the smoker. If we ban smoking in public places, we are not only protecting the non-smoker but also we are trying to save the smoker too. So, that we can have a sustainable future. We must protect the freedom rights of an individual but at the same time, we should care about others.
