Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Breathe in. Breathe out.

A puff of white smoke escapes your parted lips as your lungs squeeze out a
pungent cloud of gaseous fire. How does it feel like to smoke? Since the cultivation of tobacco in
1559, people have been smoking via all manner of mediums. Cigars, cigarettes and—more
recently—e-cigarettes…smoking has become a part of our everyday lives. In most cultures, however,
smoking is generally frowned upon, a clandestine affair best enjoyed in private. Why should smoking
be banned? Personally, I feel that smoking should be banned because it poses a threat to personal
health and infringes on the rights of non-smokers when unchecked.

Smoking should be banned as it causes immense harm to one’s personal health. This is because the
act of smoking involves the inhalation of multiple harmful substances, many of them poisonous or
downright fatal to the human body in larger doses. Over time, the accumulation of these substances
takes a toll on the smoker’s health. For example, cigarettes contain varying amounts of tar, rat
poison and cyanide, amongst other toxic substances. These chemicals destroy the body’s
functionality and have adverse effects on one’s respiratory system, throat and lungs. In some cases,
smoking may ultimately result in throat and lung cancer, conditions that are both fatal and incurable
if left untreated. Thus, for the good of one’s personal health, smoking should be banned.

Additionally, another reason why smoking should be banned is that it infringes on the rights of
unsuspecting others, causing similar harm to them. When one is near a smoker, one inevitably takes
in the smoke that said smoker exhales, in a process known as second-hand smoking. Studies have
shown that second-hand smoking is just as harmful as smoking, given that the victims take in the
same 4000 harmful chemical compounds that smokers do. Too few public places are designated as
smoke-free zones, and so it is common for smokers to smoke in the presence of many non-smokers.
While smokers do have a right to smoke, non-smokers do have an equally valid right to not smoke—
or be exposed to smoke. Hence, to protect the interests of unwilling non-smokers, it is better to ban
smoking entirely.

At the same time, one must acknowledge that there exists a case for smoking to be allowed to
persist, as to ban smoking would be an affront to personal freedom.

After all, some would say that smoking should not be banned as to do so would infringe on personal
rights. Insofar as smoking is a private affair, people should have the right to engage in it if they do
not implicate anyone else. The relationship between the Government and the people is built on
mutual trust, and the Government is duty-bound to protect the interests of the people, including
their freedom of choice. For example, in Singapore, access to other similarly harmful activities such
as drinking or gambling might be restricted in varying levels, but is certainly not completely banned.
Such a ban would be illiberal and draconian. We can observe that so long as one keeps the harmful
activity to oneself, and harms no one else, one should have the right to continue engaging in it. Thus,
to respect the rights of its citizens to make personal life choices, the government should not ban
smoking.

In conclusion, while we acknowledge that smoking is a personal choice, we must also ask ourselves if
the people are ready to handle the consequences of this choice. Often, smokers harm the people
around them, and the society or environment that they share with everyone else, due to
irresponsible and rampant smoking. Ultimately, for the greater good of society at large, it is better
for smoking to be banned entirely.

S-ar putea să vă placă și