[TẶNG BẠN] TRỌN BỘ Bí kíp học tốt 08 môn
Chắc suất Đại học top - Giữ chỗ ngay!!
ĐĂNG BÀI NGAY để cùng trao đổi với các thành viên siêu nhiệt tình & dễ thương trên diễn đàn.
My topic: Many people believe that smoking in public places should be banned
I would argue that the ban on smoking in public places is of extemely importance. First, the amount of carbon and other toxic elements exhaled to the atmosphere by active smokers has reached such dizzy heights that its effect on passive smokers is more or less a reality now. In fact, the effect of first-hand smoke is seen permeable to even the second and third-hand smokers in the spectrum. Another factor significant to this context would be the financial constraints imposed by smoking. In the majority of the mediocre families, around the world, smoking drains the significant part of their family budgets. For example, I witnessed many problems with reference to my father being a chronic smoker and the financial crisis it caused. The last but not least, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person's health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sites in the body. However, the opposing minority interrupt this ban as an act of arrest on one's free will. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke where they wish. Moreover, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. Though the public ban on smoking is an individual constraint to one's freedom, considering the passive effects of smoking I would strongly accord win the ban. In my opinion, this would be a punitive measure to safeguard the health and wealth of the public or the society.
Looking forward to everyone's comments.
Thank you so much.^^
I would argue that the ban on smoking in public places is of extemely importance. First, the amount of carbon and other toxic elements exhaled to the atmosphere by active smokers has reached such dizzy heights that its effect on passive smokers is more or less a reality now. In fact, the effect of first-hand smoke is seen permeable to even the second and third-hand smokers in the spectrum. Another factor significant to this context would be the financial constraints imposed by smoking. In the majority of the mediocre families, around the world, smoking drains the significant part of their family budgets. For example, I witnessed many problems with reference to my father being a chronic smoker and the financial crisis it caused. The last but not least, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person's health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sites in the body. However, the opposing minority interrupt this ban as an act of arrest on one's free will. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke where they wish. Moreover, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. Though the public ban on smoking is an individual constraint to one's freedom, considering the passive effects of smoking I would strongly accord win the ban. In my opinion, this would be a punitive measure to safeguard the health and wealth of the public or the society.
Looking forward to everyone's comments.
Thank you so much.^^
Last edited:
