Should the Government Ban Smoking in Public Places?

Dharampreet Singh (2338695)

University Canada West

ENGL 100

Mehrnoush Shahbandi

September 9, 2024
 Smoking has harmful impacts on the health of both smokers and non-smokers due to

which banning of smoking has become a debatable issue. Smoking has been linked with serious

health issues like respiratory diseases, heart problems, and cancer. On the one hand, there are

various benefits of banning smoking such as improvements in public health, promotes healthier

behaviors, and protects the environment. However, some people argue that banning smoking in

public places violates personal freedom. This essay will explore the advantages of implementing

a ban on smoking that outweighs the disadvantages.

Firstly, the protection of public health is one of the main reasons to support the banning

on public smoking. It puts negative impacts not only on the person who is indulged in this

activity but also has harmful consequences on the non-smokers who get exposed to secondhand

smoke, the smoke exhaled by smoker and by burning end of cigarettes. Many studies indicate

that there is a cause-effect relationship between tobacco smoking and risks of diseases like lung

and bronchial cancer and coronary heart disease (Butorin et al., 2024). There is several health

risks associated with smoking. Moreover, there is a higher risk of secondhand smoke exposure in

public places like streets, parks, restaurants as smokers usually smoke on such places. Therefore,

smoking is harmful not only for smokers but also put significant negative impacts on other

individuals. So, there should be ban on public smoking to decline the risk of secondhand

smoking to protect the health of public.

Moreover, a ban can encourage healthy behaviors and contribute in lowering smoking

rates. Many studies have shown that ban on public smoking helps to reduce smoking. For

example, according to Gallus et al., in Italy ban on public smoking report a significant decline in

both smoking prevalence (2.3%) and cigarette consumption (5.5%) (Bono & Vuri, 2018).
Moreover, healthy behavior initiatives can include educations campaigns and support programs

that will encourage smokers to quit smoking. With a ban on public smoking, the visibility of

smoking in public spaces will also be reduced. Thus, smoking ban can help to denormalize

smoking in the society. New smokers will also be discouraged from getting the habit and existing

smokers will also be supported to quit due to ban.Thus, a ban can be helpful in reducing the rate

of smoking among individuals aa well as it will promote health.

Moreover, there is a positive impact of ban on reducing environment harm by solving

various issues related to pollution that is caused by smoking. One of the main environment

benefits of ban is reduction in cigarette litter. Cigarette litter is one of the most common types of

waste. In 2022, 124 billion cigarette butts were littered in the US and this cigarette butt affects

human and environmental health (Lowe et al., 2024). When smoking is prohibited in public areas

such as parks, restaurants, sidewalks, these regulations can help to prevent cigarette butts. Thus,

a ban can lead to cleaner public places and a healthy ecosystem.

However, some people argue that banning smoking can violate individuals' rights and

freedoms. They claim that people should have independence to make their own choices including

the decision to smoke. While personal liberty is important, but personal liberty should not harm

others. As people smoke in public places, it put a negative impact on the health of nonsmokers

through secondhand smoke because public spaces are the places that are used by everyone. It is a

right of everyone to have access to fresh and healthy air and smoking can pollute air that impacts

the health of nonsmokers. Due to banning, smokers will smoke in their private spaces rather than

public areas. The aim of public smoking ban is not to restrict freedom but to provide everyone

the environment as healthy. Therefore, public smoking bans are necessary to reduce the risks

associated with smoking because people will have access to fresh air on public places.
 Moreover, the negative impact on businesses is another reason to oppose the ban on

public smoking. Opposers of ban argue that smoking bans can reduce the profits of bars,

restaurants and other places where smoking is very common. They believe that ban can result in

reduction of customers and thus, leading to loss in businesses. For example, in Hong Kong, the

government faced criticism from ban on smoking due to its impacts on businesses so the

governments allow venues to continue permitting smoking. However, when the ban was fully

implemented, the concerns related to negative business impacts were found invalid. In Hong

Kong, ban helped in increase of revenues in hospitality. The restaurant revenue was inclined by

13.4% in 2007 as compared to the previous year (Simpson, 2009).

Lastly, designated smoking areas are the significant counterargument against ban on

public smoking. People argue that there is not any need of ban to solve the issue as the solution

already exists. They think that specific zones for smokers allow them to continue their habit of

smoking as well as these areas also protect nonsmokers from the negative impacts of smoking.

So, the personal freedom of smokers should not be snatched. However, designated smoking areas

don’t solve the problem fully because smokers can be restricted to smoke in nonsmoking areas

but the smoke cannot be restricted to enter nonsmoking areas as it can enter nonsmoking areas.

Therefore, smoking areas can’t provide full protection to public.

In conclusion, the advantages of banning smoking in public places outweigh its

disadvantages. The ban can protect health of individuals by reducing their exposure to

secondhand smoke. It is also helpful in declining smoking rates and minimizing environment

harms that are caused by cigarette litter. While, some people argue that the ban violates personal

freedom and put negative impacts on businesses, the designated smoking areas are enough to

protect the health of public. These counterarguments are not fully valid. Therefore, it is
necessary to implement a ban on public smoking to ensure that everyone can enjoy clean and

fresh air free from risks of secondhand exposure to smoke.

Bono, E.D., & Vuri, D. (2018). Smoking behavior and individual well-being: A fresh look at the

effects of the 2005 public smoking ban in Italy. Oxford Economic Papers, 70(3), 741-

762. https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/doi:10.21668/health.risk/2024.1.08.eng?

sid=ebsco:plink:crawler&id=ebsco:doi:10.21668/health.risk/2024.1.08.eng

Butorin, A.V., Rodkin, V.P., & Shiriskii, V.A. (2024). Hygienic assessment of health risks for

employees of the Omsk ambulance service due to tobacco smoking. Analiz Riska

Zdorovu. (1). P. 81-89. https://research.ebsco.com/c/uja3m6/search/details/cgtrolejcn?

limiters=FT:Y&q=health%20and%20smoking

Lowe, A. T., Maki, A., Figueroa, C., & Venugopal, P.D. (2024). Place-based estimates of

cigarette butt litter raise environmental justice. PLoS ONE, 19(8), 1-19.

https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308930sid=ebsco:plink

:crawler&id=ebsco:doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308930

Simpson, D. (2009). Hong Kong, China: Smoking ban boosts business. Tobacco Control, 18(1).

8-9.

https://research.ebsco.com/c/uja3m6/search/details/xixiiqt6pnlimiters=None&q=smoking

%20ban%20and%20businesses
AI Feedback on Essay Draft

1. APA 7th Edition Citations and Formatting:

 Title Page: The title page is well-structured with necessary details, although the course
instructor's name could be italicized for formality.
 In-text Citations: The citations generally follow APA 7th edition guidelines but need
slight adjustments. For example, "Butorin et al. (2024)" should have a comma before the
year: "Butorin et al., 2024." Ensure all in-text citations follow this format.
 References List: The formatting of references is generally good, but the italics on journal
titles and volume numbers should be corrected. Also, ensure there is proper spacing
between each element in the reference (authors, year, title, source). For instance, replace
"Butorin A.V. Rodkin V.P. & Shiriskii V.A." with "Butorin, A.V., Rodkin, V.P., &
Shiriskii, V.A."

2. Overall Organization:

 Introduction: The introduction clearly outlines the topic and the essay's focus on
weighing the benefits and disadvantages of banning smoking in public. However, adding
a thesis statement to directly state your position would strengthen the introduction.
 Body Paragraphs: Each paragraph discusses a unique argument supporting the ban,
which helps maintain a logical flow. However, transitions between some paragraphs
could be smoother to guide the reader from one idea to the next more naturally.
 Counterarguments: You acknowledge and refute counterarguments effectively, which
enhances the persuasiveness of the essay. This section is balanced and addresses personal
freedom and economic concerns.

 3. Development of Arguments:
 Your arguments are well-developed with relevant studies supporting
your points. For example, you cite research linking smoking bans to
public health benefits and reductions in cigarette consumption.
However, some arguments could be further strengthened by providing
more details or examples. For instance, when discussing
environmental impacts, expanding on how cigarette waste impacts
wildlife or ecosystems would provide additional weight to your
argument.
 The use of data (e.g., cigarette litter statistics and smoking reduction
rates) is effective, though you could further discuss the implications of
this data.
  4. Effectiveness of the Conclusion:
 Your conclusion effectively summarizes the main points and reiterates
the advantages of banning smoking in public places. However, it could
be more assertive. You could strengthen it by ending with a call to
action or a final thought on the importance of prioritizing public health
over individual freedoms in shared spaces.

 Overall Evaluation:
 Strengths: Well-organized, good use of evidence, and balanced
treatment of counterarguments.
 Areas for Improvement: Refining APA formatting, enhancing the
introduction with a thesis, adding smoother transitions, and
strengthening the conclusion.

My reflection:

APA citations and references: After carefully reflecting the feedback, it is clear that my essay
has strong arguments and counterarguments. However, there are many mistakes in my draft
essay that I should improve to get higher scores in my final essay. There are minimum mistakes
in my APA 7 formatting that should be addressed while writing final essay. In the title page, I
should use italics for the name of instructor. By improving my formatting, I can write an
effective final essay.

Overall organization: My overall organization is quite well as I structured essay effectively.

Development of arguments: My points are well supported by providing evidences but I should
explain the examples deeply to elaborate the environment impacts of banning so that my
arguments would be strong. Moreover, I should discuss the implications of the data that I used to
explain cigarette litter and reduce in smoke consumption.

Effectiveness of the Conclusion: I summarized the main points of the essay in conclusion.
However, I should include call to action in my conclusion so that it can be more impactful.
Overall Evaluation: I can improve my final essay by looking at APA formatting, a thesis
statement in introduction, by adding transitions. Moreover, I should make a strong conclusion.
By improving the negative points of my draft that put limitations on it to score better grades, I
can write an effective final essay that will be helpful for me to get better grades.