#154: In some countries, people are no longer allo

[Erin]

#154: In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

[tetyana]

Hi everybody. This essay was areal challenge for me. I started to write it many times and didn't know what to write. I have read a lot of information about smoking. And here is my reply. WELCOME ANY COMMENTS.

 

#154: In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

Smoking is a widespread habit all over the world. It kills 400000 people every year. Smoking has many bad effects both on smokers and people who inhale smoke. It causes serious health problem such as heart diseases and lung cancer. But the fact is that smokers affect the health of non-smokers as much as their own. Second-hand smoke is very dangerous especially for children, pregnant and people who suffers from lung diseases and allergies. Smoking in public places poses a health problem for passive smokers, sets a bad example for adolescents and children, and disturbs other people by disgusting smell. Since there are so many negative effects I think It could be a very useful rule not to allow smoking in public places.

 

Exposure to second-hand smoke is even more dangerous than inhale smoke because of a smaller size of the particles that are inhaled by people. That’s why passive smokers may have the same health problem as smokers. Moreover, second hand smoke has a very bad influence on pregnant and children. It can cause pregnancy complications and some conditions in children like cough, nausea, wheezing and even asthma.

 

People who smokes in public place is a very good advertisement of smoking especially for adolescents and children. It is common that a bad habit are easily caught. That’s why second-hand smoke influences not only people health but also their conscience.

 

Disgusting smell is another reason why smoking in public places should be forbidden. There is nothing worse than coming home and finding that your clothes smell like an ashtray. It is also very unpleasant to walk behind someone smoking a cigarette.

 

People die each year just because they have breathed other peoples’ smoke and that is something that should be taking seriously. In my opinion an outright ban on smoking in public places is the only way forward.

 

 

 

[simon]

Hi tetyana !

 

A. The introduction:

 

I think your topic is too long ...you can shorten it by using this method

 

"The introduction restates the question using different vocabulary and/or sentence structure. The introduction also includes your thesis statement…the most important sentence in your essay."

 

another mistake is that "people" is plural noun.

B. The body

 

- paragraph 1 : I think you have a good expression in this.

 

- paragraph 2 : i think something's wrong with the first sentence. I understand that you want to write about the figure of a man smoking in a public place. You should lengthen this paragraph by using an example (It's easy to give an ex in this paragraph :) )

 

- paragraph 3 : too short

 

C. The conclusion

why don't you use transition words like "in conclusion"

 

Just my 2 cents

 

[tetyana]

Thank you Simon. Your 2 cents are gratefully accepted. It is true.I am always confused about word 'people'.

[LokeshRay]

Originally posted by Erin Billy

 

#154: In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

 

 

Here is my essay.

 

Smoking in public places is banned in many countries. This implies that those caught smoking in a public place such as a movie theatre, public park or place of work would face legal action. Though, being strongly in favor of this ban, I doubt its effectiveness. The tobacco industry is a multi-billion dollar business. A ban on smoking will result in heavy losses to the tobacco industry resulting in unemployment and deficit. In several countries, tobacco products are heavily taxed. Such a ban would result in loss of revenue to the government.

 

There is no doubt that smoking is hazardous to health. Tobacco is the main ingredient of cigarettes. It contains nicotine which causes the addiction. It has been proved that if a healthy person is given five milligrams of nicotine, it would lead to paralysis of his respiratory system resulting in instant death. The combustion of tobacco produces tar and carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is an extremely posionous gas. Tar is carcinogenic. Regular smokers are known to be afflicted by cancerrs of the mouth, tongue, lungs , throat and nose. There is no confirmed cure for cancer. Though, chemotherapy is preferred nowadays, its success rate is extremely low. Chemotherapy has several undesirable side effects like loss of hair, severe nausea and loss of immunity. Loss of immunity is a serious side effect because of which even a minor disease like common cold could prove fatal. The biggest example of the harmful effect of smoking comes from a research, where scientists proved that smoking one cigarette takes away five minutes from a person's life. Hence, it would be a crime to underestimate the harm caused by smoking.

 

Smoking is injurious to people in the immediate vicinity of a smoker. Secondary smoke is lethal and is capable of causing cancer. Infants, pregnant mothers, senior citizens and animals are most susceptible. Secondary smoke is known to trigger an attack in a person afflicted by asthma. It has been proven that pregnant mothers coming in contact with cigarette smoke give birth to offspring who are highly likely to take up smoking when they reach adulthood. There is a high risk that smokers may experiment with narcotics resulting in a lifetime addiction.

Thus, one must always be aware of the risk posed by secondary smoke.

 

Banning smoking in public places is not the best soultion. It has several flaws. People will continue to smoke in their homes inspite of the fact that infants may be present. If people cannot smoke in offices, they will find some other place to smoke. Smoking is a bane on humanity. But substance abuse is another bigger bane. If steps are take to curb smoking then use of narcotics should not be left out. To avoid losses to the tobacco industry resulting from a ban, a long term soultion must be implemented. Tobacco industries should be encouraged to increase their area of expertise and explore other sources of revenue. In my opinion, a more holistic approach should be used wherein the production of cigarettes should be completely banned. Thus, there exist solutions other than banning smoking in public places.

 

That smoking is hazardous to health is undebatable. Secondary smoke is responsible for trigering syptoms in people afflicted by respiratory disorders. To curb the ill-effects of smoking a holisitc approach is necessary.

[miwa]

Hi, everyone.[dance]

Please evaluete and if some good alternatives to replace my phrases are conceivable, also please tell me them.[heartbeat]

Thanks a lot in advance.

 

#154: In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

I am a too heavy smoker, inhaling a huge amount of smoke every day. I know this is a bad habit since much medical evidence against smoking has been presented. I have talked myself many times, "I must quit smoking, if not, I will suffer lung cancer." But the conclusion has invariably been the same. I have failed the same times. Also, I have had a twinge of conscience to people around me because I have known the smoke exhailed is very bad for others. Thus, I am for this statement. I'll expand on my thesis below.

 

First of all, plenty of medical evidence against smoking has been found almost everyday. Each time a new evidence has been discovered, the truth of the evidence previously published has been affirmed. Though it must be unnecessary to take an example, in a most recent report, California scientists have discovered that a byproduct of nicotine, the substance that makes cigarettes so addictive, causes a type of chemical reaction in the body thought to play a role in diabetes, cancer and other diseases.

 

Second, smoke from smokers does harm to people around them badly as much as or more than themselves. I read an article in a newspaper that a Canadian waitress who spent 40 years inhaling second-hand smoke at work will receive worker's compensation for her terminal lung cancer in a ruling that could prompt a province-wide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. It tells how bad effect indirect smoking has on people, and shows a good reason for banning smoking in public areas.

 

Third, I think it necessary that in what can be called "public" places , the public interests should precede the taste of each individual. as the evidence I mentioned above shows, since smoking in public places are all against the public interests, we should refrain from smoking in public. In Thiyoda ward in Japan, pedestrians smoking on the public roads were to be fined by the municipal from this 1st March. I think of it as an all right regulation.

 

In conclusion, So far, large amounts of medical evidence against smoking have been shown that it affect the health of people, whether or not they smoke, and public places should be regarded as where the public interests have more priority than any other interest. Thus, I agree to prohibit people from smoking in public places or office buildings.

 

[miwa]

I have made a trivial but a crucial mistake!!

I have revised my essay as below.

 

am a too heavy smoker, inhaling a huge amount of smoke every day. I know this is a bad habit since much medical evidence against smoking has been presented. I have talked myself many times, "I must quit smoking, if not, I will suffer lung cancer." But the results have invariably been the same. I have failed the same times. Also, I have had a twinge of conscience to people around me because I have known the smoke going off in the air is very bad for everyone. Thus, I believe this rule will be good for people. I'll expand on my thesis below.

 

[ciquita0]

Hello Miwa,

 

The TOEFL is a beutiful memory for me now...Isn't that hard and you'll enjoy it for sure. From my experience: are you sure you tape it in a half an hour time? Pls note that you should be on one side or another right from the beginning. Than , you have to sustain your opinion as good as you can. The question is addressed to you: I think, I know, I found out, I do that I don't do that - YOUR opinion.

 

As I am at work I don't very much time. Anyway, be specific and clear.

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

[hoper]

Hey all, this is my second article. Again, I am out of time since I always look up the dictionary. Anyway, please give comments on following. Thanks:D

 

154: In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

Smoking becomes a usual habit of people nowadays and there is a trend that more and more teenagers become smokers. It is quite interesting that people, which certainly include the tobacco companies, still continue to strive for smoking even they know that it is insalubrious, if not fatal. On one hand, a female smoker who contracted lung cancer sued the tobacco company for not indicating the deleterious effects of smoking and was compensated for about millions of US dollars. On the other hand, the smokers fight for their rights to smoke. Human right becomes the battlefield of these two camps. If human rights for the smokers should not be ignored, how about the human rights of the non-smokers?

 

Not only direct smoking can contract fatal diseases, but also second hand smoking can have side effects, for instances, lung cancer, asthma, and bronchitis. Shopping in the malls, having lunch and dinner in the restaurants, watching moves in the cinemas, working in the offices are the usual habits of human beings, that is, we spend at lease one-third of our time outside. If our government does not have the rule to protect the non-smokers, we can easily inhale and accumulate the toxic materials which will shorten our life-span. Since smoking is detrimental to our health, human rights of the non-smokers should prevail.

 

Nowadays, the designs of most of the commercial buildings are always blamed for their closed window and centralized ventilation system. These two structures increase the possibility of dissemination of contagion diseases. If people are allowed to smoke in the office buildings, other workers, even their workplaces are on different floors, can smell, through the ventilation system, and, consequently, contract some smoking related diseases. As a result, for the betterment of the majority, it is wise to prohibit the smokers to choose other airy places to smoke.

 

Not all places should be banned from smoking because it is just a culture of those places. Should most of the clients of the places, especially pubs, be smokers, it is absolutely a disturbing and meaningless rule to prevent them from smoking. Nonetheless, the definition of public places should be carefully discussed in order to balance the voices from both sides.

 

Smoking has been proved to be unhealthy. Banning it from public places and official buildings is certainly a welcomed policy. Whether the rule will be adopted widely depends on the lobbying ability and the promotional effect of the government officials. If they can give a positive image to the policy and successfully mitigate the discontents of the opponents, the rule will certainly accepted by the public.

 

 

[harbinger]

No doubt, LokeshRay's writing is very nice. However I feel that his essay above is rather off-topic. With this type of topic, you should stand on one side and write about its advantages only.

In his essay, he disagrees with the ban on smoking in public places he therefore should leave out two first body paragraphs since they are supporting the opinion that agrees with the ban. Additionally, the conlusion is a little bit short.

 

[Wanee]

Hello everyone:

Here is my essay. How many score I can get,Mr Erin Billy? Wnat do you and other friends think about it. I will appreciate any advice.

 

#154. In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

 

I think that more people will agree that smoking not allowed in public places is a good rule, especially for those non-smokers. This rule can not only help people to improve their health but also help them to decrease the unnecessary expense.

 

First, Smoking in public places can threaten more people’s health. For instance, when a boy works in a club where most of the customers smoke. Even though he does not intend to do so, he may have higher opportunity to have disease relevant lung than those direct smokers. Moreover, it is unfair that his rights are violated just because his work place’s atmosphere is polluted by the smokers who do not know that they also have duty to respect other’s rights while they do whatever they want.

 

Otherwise, the rule above can properly protect the people like the boy. Especially, smoking is more dangerous to children, patients as well as pregnant women.

 

Second, smoking can also hurt the smokers themselves. Even thought there are still not obvious evidence that after someone smokes, he will soon has lung cancer. However, among the lung cancer patients, smokers occupy more. Therefore, the rule also can help smokers to reduce smoking.

 

Third, everyone knows well that cigarettes are not the kind of necessary consuming goods. Much money is wasted for it. The rule can help people to save more revenues. Although it may render more people lose their jobs relevant to cigarettes. However, the saved incomes can be absorbed to invest to other businesses such as athletic apparatus to help people increase their health rather then decease it.

 

In conclusion, the rule above can provide more opportunity for people to increase the quality of their life and live in a purer environment.

 

[boogieman]

Hi guys & gals,

here is another from me.Perhaps a few more of these and i will be ready to take my test later in the week.:D:D

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. I strongly support this policy of a ban on smoking in public places because it will reduce the dangers of passive smoking, it will set a good example for the younger generation and it will help in changing social habits harmful to health.

 

According to medical research passive smoking is said to be a major cause for lung cancer and other respiratory related ailments. Man is a social animal and humans cannot avoid social contact, this obviously leads to a serious problem when a non-smoker wants to socialise. Despite making an intelligent decision not to smoke, a non-smoker is forced to contend with the harmful effects of inhaling smoke from smokers in public places and office buildings. It is the job of a responsible government to take care of public health for obvious social benefits.

 

Medical research again suggests that majority of smokers develop the habit at a young age either in their teens or late in their teens. Public places, are the places most often visited by young people. It is likely that young people pick up this habit by observing others in public places or watching them in movies, etc. By prohibiting smoking in public places it can be ensured that there would one place lesser which will influence the young minds. Thus it can be inferred that if people do not pick up the habit at a young age, they would do so at a later stage.

 

Lastly banning smoking in a public place or office buildings is just the beginning of a good policy by governments who want to promote social habits which will benefit the health of the population. If smoking is restricted in public places,people would be forced to change their habits, which would be harmful for society or atleast they would forced to think about their ill habits. This would set a trend amongst people in society to think and be more careful about their health.

 

In conclusion, I think that more countries around the world should start implementing the policy of not allowing smoking in pubic places, thus changing bad habits of men and women across nations.

[Millosh]

TOPIC 154: Should smoking in public places and office buildings be allowed?

 

I think that smoking in public places and office buildings shouldn't be allowed. There are several important reasons.

 

We all know that smoking is fatal for our health. The most poisonous substances in cigarette's smoke are nicotine and carbon monoxide. That can cause cancer of lungs, diseases of heart and many others.

All those can happen to a smoker, but also to a non-smoker when it has contact with a smoker. And that happens very often in cafés, restaurants or streets.

 

It is very ugly when we enter an indoor café and can't see anything because of the smoke.

It is also bad when we want to drink a juice, but we can't because of the terrible smell of cigarettes' smoke. Many people get headache from it.

But waiters might be harmed the most. They are constantly next to the smokers, which is extremely dangerous.

 

If smoking in public places was forbidden children would have less examples to follow when they grow up.

 

In office buildings smoking should be forbidden, too. Would you like to go into a company and when you come out you smell like you were smoking and not your colleges.

 

Environment is also hurt. Cigarette-papers are being thrown on the streets.

 

By forbidding smoking in public places and office buildings we will not only help non-smokers, but smokers, too. They will smoke less and hurt themselves less.

 

This is hard for a country to do, but it is essential.

 

 

 

Please everyone tell your comments. Thanks.

 

 

 

[iuli]

Hi! everybody please review this essay..

 

It is a very good thing that people are not allowed anymore to smoke in public places. Smoking is a very bad habit that does not affects only the person that smokes but also the persons in his presence.

 

I work in a small firm and because of the limited place, all our clients enter and share the same room with us until they are well guided. Because all my colleagues are smokers there was such smoke inside the firm that we couldn’t see each other. Some clients expressed their worries and also said that is too much smoke and they can not work in such conditions. Basically the smoke in the firm, believe it or not, drives away the clients.

 

I am not a smoker and it is really a tragedy for me to accept going in a public place and have to share the same room or space with people that smoke, because I am ill and my doctor prohibited me to even consider smoking. In my town , because most of the people are smokers, almost all restaurants and clubs do not have a section for nonsmokers, so I came to the conclusion that I can not go out and enjoy my free time in the way that I want. This does not seem fair to me or any other people that do not smoke.

 

My case is a special one because my doctor forbids me to smoke or spend time in the presence of people that smoke. Still, it does not mean that other persons that are not ill have to inhale the smoke if they do not want too, even if this does not seem to bother them for the moment, there are medical studies that show that the smoke seem to affect more the people that smoke in a passive manner than the people that smoke actively.

 

Medically speaking, smoking affects the lung’s activity, the brain activity and produces many other disorders that most people do not even consider them. What I think it is worse about smoking is that is a slow death, and people that are smoking do not realize this. I think is our duty , of the non-smokers, to raise their conscience and make them wonder about what are they doing, and one good step in this direction is not letting them share the same space with us when they are smoking.

 

In conclusion, smoking in public places is unacceptable. The people that don’t have any consideration for their health should not impose other people accept their bad habits. I think is mostly a matter of consideration or respect towards people surrounding them.

 

[hello1]

#154: In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

It will be the best thing if people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings.I strongly support this idea Because of a person's health who smokes as well as people's health (passive smokers) who surounds him while smoking. It reduces the harmful effects on health.

 

As everyone knows smoking is very bad habit.The man, smoking himself knows that it is very harmful to his health. Still he smokes because of his habit of smoking. According to me it just the slow poison and once it will take the man's life forever. It mainly affects lungs, heart. Slowly lungs will be spoiled and he can not breath very easily. That time it will be very difficult for him to breath. Smoking is equally harmful to active smokers as well as passive smokers. If passive smokers breath the smoke it is harmful to their lungs also. If the pregnant woman takes this smoke continuously it will be hazardous to the foetus. Foetus may born with disabilities or it may die too during bad conditions. Thus if 20% people are smoking it is affecting the 80%of passive smokers also.

 

Long run smoking may block the blood vessels.My Uncle is suffering from this problem. Blood vessels have blocked. So there is no enough supply of blood to his both legs. He can not walk for long distances and he feels very tired even if he takes 20 steps. Physicians have suggested for surgery. But surgery is too risky as well. And one more bad thing is my Aunty's baby is born with disability. She can not speak. This is because my Aunty used to breath the same air when my uncle used to smoke. Smoking has ruined my Uncle's family. Now he quit his smoking but now it can not bring back his good health as well as his daughter's. Thus it is harmful to the smoker as well as to passive smokers.

 

Thus to have good health for smoker as well as for passive smokers it is very necessary to ban the smoking in public places.

[Millosh]

HI, please rate my essay.

 

Thanks

[nu_nam2001]

Hi Millosh; I have read your essay..

 

I think that smoking in public places and office buildings shouldn't be allowed. There are several important reasons.

You should mention all reasons you want to explain shortly in your introduction part.

 

We all know that smoking is fatal for our health. The most poisonous substances in cigarette's smoke are nicotine and carbon monoxide. That can cause cancer of lungs, diseases of heart and many others.

All those can not only happen to a smoker, but also to a non-smoker when it has contact with a smoker. And that happens very often in cafés, restaurants or streets.

the first body is okay.

 

It is very ugly when we enter an indoor café and can't see anything because of the smoke.

It is also bad when we want to drink a juice, but we can't because of the terrible smell of cigarettes' smoke. Many people get headache from it.

But waiters might be harmed the most. They are constantly next to the smokers, which is extremely dangerous.

These 2 paragraphs lack main idea, I think.

 

If smoking in public places was forbidden children would have less examples to follow when they grow up.

This paragraph has no examples.

 

In office buildings smoking should be forbidden, too. Would you like to go into a company and when you come out you smell like you were smoking and not your colleges. (I got confused)

 

Environment is also hurtharmed. Cigarette-papers are being thrown on the streets.

I think an example is not strong enough. You should find some more examples to support your main idea.

 

By forbidding smoking in public places and office buildings we will not only help non-smokers, but smokers, too. They will smoke less and hurt themselves less.

I think this is out of topic.

 

This is hard for a country to do, but it is essential.

Your conclusion is not strong enough.

[rajsari]

HI,

Please comment on my eassy. Your welcome with any comments. :cool:

 

 

#154: In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. In my view point, I think it is a good rule because its not good for the health, passive smokers will be effected with second hand diseases and it is not professional to smoke in office buildings.

 

"Smoking is injurious to health", we see this statement on newspapers, TV channels, subways and buses. We also listen on radio. Smoking causes serious health problems such as lung cancer, throat cancer, heart diseases, and so on. People who do not smoke are also affected by these diseases because of inhaling the smoke of cigar or cigarette. For example, if my roommate smokes everyday, I will be inhaling the dangerous smoke, which will affect my health. If I continue passive smoking, I will end up with some disease.

 

Passive smoking is more dangerous than smoking because the person is indirectly smoking the nicotine, which is not good for health this may not lead to throat cancer but this will lead to other diseases like heart disease or lung cancers. For example, my friend suffered from lung disease. All the time, he was around the friend who smoked, he was one to get effected first with smoking disease.

 

Smoking in office vicinity is not professional. Even though, it is considered from ages that smoking is the way of social gathering for male pupil. But still smoking will pollute the air around the building and that will irritate the people who are allergic to smoking smell.

 

In conclusion, considering the above reasons, It is a good idea to not to allow smoking in many public places and office buildings that would help people who do not smoke and we can find fresh air in public places.

 

[rajsari]

hi,

i am again confused with AFFECT and Effect. Can u please tell me the difference.

thanks

 

 

[Wanee]

Hi rajsari:

The difference between affect and effect:

 

"Affect" is usually used for verb -- influent.

 

"Effect" is often used for noun -- result. If it is used for verb, it is similar to bring about.

 

[pinay_meeh]

Originally posted by Erin Billy

 

#154: In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

Based on the statement given above, In my opinion, I think that banning people from smoking in many public places and office builidings is a good rule. We all know that cigarrettes are made from tobacco. During the old times, people smoke just tobacco leaves, but in our modern generation, different brands of cigarettes are being advertised with their different ways of selling their own products and different techniques on how to which these cigarrette companies could grab the public's attention. There are many disadvantages why banning people from smoking in public places and office buildings.

 

First of all, we all know that smoking is hazardous to everyone's health. Not only smoking the cigarrete itself, but inhaling the smoke itself or passive smoking, I would say. Smoking can cause cancer, and can bring other respiratory illnesses to our body. Not only that but the nicotine which is found on cigarrettes is addictive and therefore, should be avoided. Smoking is also addictive, not only physiologically, but also mentally. People think that they can not avoid smoking once they had started to smoke. Sometimes people tend to rely on smoking once they get tensed or whenever they would like to relax. They think that smoking relaxes their mind and helps them concentrate more. Ofcourse, these facts are not supported enough because no one has proved that smoking has a good side effect to our body.

 

Secondly, if the law would allow people from smoking in public places and offices bulildings, it can encourage people to smoke more even teenagers who are still curious in smoking might also want to try and start smoking. Therefore, the only way to discourage teenagers and people of all ages from smoking is to stop allowing smoking in public.

 

Thirdly, smoking can create polution to atmosphere, and cigarrettes can cause flood because people have a tendency to throw their cigarrettes in public places, not thinking that these waste products can cause flooding to our drainage systems. Smoking can also can people to start littering in public places also. Smoking in office buildings can also start fires. The only way to prevent these fires is from preventing people from smoking in inside the buildings. That is why most public buildings like shopping malls, airports, hospitals, schools, and some restaurants, smoking is not allowed which I think that it is a good law that we need to follow.

 

Lastly, if people will not be allowed to smoke in public places and office buildings, we can promote health awareness and earth awareness. These can create a better place to live in, thinking that we need to take care of ourselves, not only the place we live in. Moreover, if we believe that the law for banning smoking in public places, we could create a safe, healthy environment, not only for ourselves, but also to the next generations to come.

[ditoman]

Topic #154:

 

In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public

places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule?

Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

People sometimes talk about the bad influences of smoking. Although I am

a smoker, I have the opinion that no smoking in many public places and office

buildings is good rule for the health of many people and helping an

antismoking campaign.

 

More than anything else, it could benefit many people in public places and

office building. It is true that a cigarette has many poisonous materials

and passive smoking produces a bad influence on many people. To illustrate

this, I have read a book that shows that 7000 poisons are included in a

cigarette. The most detrimental components are nicotine and tar. In addition

to this, passive smoking of smokers make bad contributions to non-smokers.

In this respect, smoking in public places and office building that can

produce a harmful influence on innocent people as well as smoker himself must

be banned.

 

The next thing i'd like to mention here is that it can help the antismokers.

Many people in modern time try to stop smoking and to help these people can

be also beneficial to non-smokers. It can be sufficiently inferred by the

bad influences of passive smoking. In this manner, even for non-smokers' own

health, helping smokers is essential and no-smoking in many public places and

office buildings can be one of small actions helping them.

 

In conclusion, if any chances to choose whether no-smoking in many public

places and office buildings or not, I would not hesitate to select

no-smoking. It can provide many people with health and antismokers with

helpings. Although being a smoker, I have a affirmation that cigarettes has

no beneficial points and enemy to humans.