Topic: There are many governments that ban smoking in public places, and a great number of business also say that no one can smoke in any of their offices. However, others claim that without smoking, smokers and the economy will suffer from many disadvantages. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Here is my answer:
Some are in favour of the view that smoking in the public domain and workplaces should be prohibited by the governments. Others, however, contend that if there was no smoking, cigarette smokers and the economy will undergo numerous difficulties. I will elaborate on these differing views as well as elucidate my own personal insight.
Some people hold the opinion that the government should pass regulation of abandoning smoking at public places and places of work. Firstly, people who use cigarette tobaco is putting themselves at risk of suffering from cancer, strokes, heart diseases and a multitude of others relevant diseases. Not only do they damage themselves but also those who live nearby or often work with them will be harmed.This is called the passive smoking, which is more severe that active one. Secondly, garbage problem from smoking should be taken into account. Not many smokers throw away their cigarette into trash cans, instead of, they just litter the tobaco juice on the ground. This has an negative impact on and and leads to soil pollution.
On the other hand, the economy of cigarette tobaco would face up to many problems if the number of people consuming their products decreased gradually. In particular, many enterprises and companies producing cigarette tobaco was established in modern society and they form a huge part of the economic development in every country. If their goods did not gain in popularity, they would soon go bankrupt. This makes the economy more shrinking, which is the undesirablr thing to anyone.
To conclude, smoking itself has negative impacts on society, including many diseases and severely environmental problems, and its disadvantages outweight advantages. Banning smoking helps people suffer less disease as well as protecting environment. This is the best decision governments can make on this issue.
Here is my answer:
Some are in favour of the view that smoking in the public domain and workplaces should be prohibited by the governments. Others, however, contend that if there was no smoking, cigarette smokers and the economy will undergo numerous difficulties. I will elaborate on these differing views as well as elucidate my own personal insight.
Some people hold the opinion that the government should pass regulation of abandoning smoking at public places and places of work. Firstly, people who use cigarette tobaco is putting themselves at risk of suffering from cancer, strokes, heart diseases and a multitude of others relevant diseases. Not only do they damage themselves but also those who live nearby or often work with them will be harmed.This is called the passive smoking, which is more severe that active one. Secondly, garbage problem from smoking should be taken into account. Not many smokers throw away their cigarette into trash cans, instead of, they just litter the tobaco juice on the ground. This has an negative impact on and and leads to soil pollution.
On the other hand, the economy of cigarette tobaco would face up to many problems if the number of people consuming their products decreased gradually. In particular, many enterprises and companies producing cigarette tobaco was established in modern society and they form a huge part of the economic development in every country. If their goods did not gain in popularity, they would soon go bankrupt. This makes the economy more shrinking, which is the undesirablr thing to anyone.
To conclude, smoking itself has negative impacts on society, including many diseases and severely environmental problems, and its disadvantages outweight advantages. Banning smoking helps people suffer less disease as well as protecting environment. This is the best decision governments can make on this issue.
