Smoking in public places in one of the controversial topic that have in the recent past attracted the interest of some activists. While some people argue against smoking in public places due to its adverse effects on the nonsmokers and the environment, the supporters of smoking in public places argue in line with the constitutional provision that allows freedom of smoking as well as the economic impacts of banning smoking in public places ( Sullivan, 1992) . In the recent past, the government of US banned smoking in public places, and this law has been viewed as discriminative despite the fact that it is yet to be made a standard. The law has received criticism based on the fact that it focused on the non-smokers discriminating the protection of the smokers who are equal citizens and have a right to be protected by the law.
Existing literature indicates that smoking have adverse health effects on the nonsmokers and this explains why the government banned smoking in public areas. On the other hand, smoking is addictive, and this implies that smokers will often need to smoke which might include smoking in public areas ( Sullivan, 1992) . In this case, both the smokers and the nonsmokers have a right to do what is right, but again if the law protects the nonsmokers from being exposed to smoking; it will mean that the smokers will be hindered from smoking in areas that are comfortable for them. In this case, the allowing smoking in public places in an attempt to meet the smokers’ needs it will increase the risks of developing health problem associated with smoking to non-smokers ( Sullivan, 1992) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Also, the ban or allowing smoking in public places also violates the citizens' freedom of smoking. The country allows people to smoke at their liberty, and this implies that the smokers have the freedom of smoking. But on the other hand, there is passive smoking whereby a person unwillingly smokes as a result of proximity to smokers ( Sullivan, 1992) . In this case, the non-smoker is not at liberty to smoke and therefore there is a need to protect the non-smokers from side stream smoke. The side stream smoke contains toxic chemicals such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and acetaldehyde which are toxic to human and cause mild to serious health effects such as eye irritation and continuous severe headache ( Sullivan, 1992) .
Additionally, smoking has adverse effects on tourism, and this is because smoking tourist will be prohibited from accessing some of the restaurants, and other areas that have smoking restrictions. The restriction of smoking in some places such as restaurants will, in turn, affect some foreign as well as residential tourist from accessing the areas, therefore, reducing the economic activities of such public places ( Sullivan, 1992) . In this case, the ban on smoking in public places is controversial as the country will need income generating public places to pay their revenue and locking the smokers from such places will affect the rate of government revenue collection. The government is therefore divided on whether to forego the revenue or to allow the smokers to smoke in public places which will, in turn, risk the health of non-smokers. Addition, banning smoking in public places will also lead to a reduction in the number of smokers which will, in turn, affect the demand and sales of cigarettes which are a source of income for the country ( Sullivan, 1992) .
Conclusively, banning smoking in public places is a controversial debate whereby, if the government ban smoking in public places it will be acting against the constitutional provision that allows smokers to smoke freely. While on the other hand if it allows smokers to smoke in public areas it will pose health risks to none smokers arising from the toxins that exhaled by a smoking person. Due to such factors, the government should revisit the Constitution to come up with an appropriate law that protects both the smokers and nonsmokers.
Reference
Sullivan, L. W. (1992). Smoking & health in the Americas: A 1992 report of the surgeon general in collaboration with the . Place of publication not identified: Diane Pub Co.
