An argument for smoking in public was outlined by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, who said that disallowing people to smoke in public is "an improper intrusion of government into people's lives". It is argued that individuals should have the freedom to choose to smoke and not be marginalized by a ban. A ban is said to impede personal liberty and freedom by preventing adults from acting however they want.
Smoking in public should be allowed to avoid damaging the trade of some businesses. Preventing smoking in public would have an economic impact on bars, restaurants and cafes. Punters choosing to smoke would be segregated to outside areas or stop visiting these venues because they would not be able to eat or drink while smoking. Without smokers, the venues would not have as much business.
Is there a green way to Oslo's white skiing paradise? Watch video siemens.com/answers/urban-mobility
People Choose Where They Work
It is argued that one of the reasons to support a ban on smoking in public is to protect the rights of the worker. The worker is exposed to harmful chemical without having a choice. However, an argument against this is that workers choose where they work. A worker who performs a dangerous job has a choice of whether or not to work in such an environment. For example, deep sea divers or policemen do a dangerous job but accept their working conditions.
Control for Businesses
Apart from public health concerns, another argument for smoking in public is explained by Thomas A Lambert. He argues that smoking in public should be allowed because this gives control to venues, cafes or restaurants to allow smoking or not rather than the government. Individually, each business can decide what restrictions are placed in their own air space or not. Lambert adds that if consumers prefer non-smoking areas then...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document