argumentative essay on smoking in public places should be banned

Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places? Essay

Introduction, thesis statement, reasons for the ban of smoking in public places, the opposing views, economic point of view, social point of view, works cited.

Many governments across the globe have moved to ban smocking in public places. Whether the action is justified or not, is a matter of fierce debate. Often, the proponents of the proposition carry the day arguing that smoke from cigarette inhaled by non-smokers poses health risks.

Thus, the banning action is based on the premise that non-smokers should be protected from risks associated with proximity to cigarette smoke (Warner 71). The other premise is that effects of smoke whether directly inhaled or partially taken in proximity with smokers are the same. However, little attention has been given to the opposing views which have always been dismissed as baseless.

Most academic studies and researches have cited individual rights as the basis for smocking in public ignoring other factors such as economy, social as well as other individualistic reasons (Viscusi 31). Moreover, much attention has also been given to dangers posed by cigarette smoking specifically health problems while ignoring the opponent side of view.

Further, little research has also been conducted to ascertain some of the issues that support public smoking or smoking in general (Viscusi 31). This does not necessarily mean that smoking should be allowed. However, other factors should be considered. Besides, various options should be explored before imposing a ban on smoking cigarette in public.

Smoking in public places poses health risks to non smokers and should be banned. This paper will be discussing whether cigarette smoking should not be allowed in public places. First the paper will explore dangers associated with smoking in public and not on those who smoke, but on non-smokers.

The paper will then examine these propositions and ascertain whether they hold and establish counter arguments against the propositions. It is concluded that even though smoking poses health risks among the individuals, economic, social and individual values must be taken into consideration before a blanket ban on the practice is imposed (Abedian et al. 71).

The proponents of this rule have several arguments majorly based on scientific studies and results from health institutions. These arguments cannot be disputed, but over reliance on them is what makes the arguments a bit absurd (Warner 71).

However, various researches have always pointed health risks associated with smoking. Besides, smoking is an environmental hazard as much of the content in the cigarette contains chemicals and hydrocarbons that are considered to be dangerous to both life and environment (Lott and Richard 102).

Biologists and epidemiologists point out passive smoking is harmful to health. In other words, those who come in contact with second-hand smoke risk their health statuses (Lott and Richard 102). Several risks are associated with second-hand smoke that majority come in contact with in public places.

In most cases, partial smokers suffer from cardiac arrests, lung cancers, central nervous system impairments as well as other diseases caused by carcinogenic chemicals from cigarette smoke (Viscusi 35).

Other health conditions caused by smoking include asthma and other respiratory infections resulting from hydrocarbons and ammonia present in the second-hand smoke. Partial smokers also suffer from eye irritations, headaches and flu as a result of smoke particles (Viscusi and Joseph 10).

Findings from other scientific studies indicate that smoking reduces individual lifespan by a minimum of ten percent. The discovery also indicates that women are likely to suffer eleven years off their life expectancy. Moreover, people who smoke are more susceptible to certain forms of cancer that would have been avoided without smoking (Viscusi and Joseph 10). Smoking is injurious to health.

Those who have opposed the view on smoking ban in public places have been accused of citing individual rights to support their actions. In as much as they might be true, the weak point in this argument is that the rule applies to both smokers and non-smokers (Abedian et al. 71). Every one has a right to smoke and also not to smoke. Therefore, the argument based on the legal rights of an individual remains ambiguous.

From the economic point of view, smoking is an individual choice. Like any other product these individuals may be willing to buy, cigarette is a commodity that its consumers would want and willing to purchase. Indeed, people make everyday choices founded on their preferences, and these choices are often associated with hazards and reservations (Warner 71).

All social interactions that individuals are involved in could be associated with risks which, in most cases are greater than risks related to smoke that smokers’ exhale. The reason is that the expected outcomes of the social interactions are greater than the risks as well as the costs involved (Viscusi 40).

Therefore, it would be ridiculous to make a conclusion that smoking in public should be prohibited simply because it presents a number of risks.

Based on this argument, the number of fatalities from other causes such as accidents, sexual relations, other diseases such as flu and pneumonia which are communicable and easily spread in public places are by far numerous than the fatalities caused by the second-hand smoke.

In other words, the risk of contracting other diseases, dying from AIDS as a result of sexual relations as well as dying from accidents are five times higher than the risk of dying from a second-hand smoke (Abedian et al. 71).

The other attribute of the economic proposition is that it examines the method through which individual choices can be reconciled based on their preferences (Viscusi and Joseph 44).

That is, individuals who smoke and those who tend to avoid second-hand smoke. According to the economic studies, primary institutes such as contractual freedom and property rights offer an effectual solution more than formal regulations in fulfilling personal preference (Viscusi and Joseph 44).

Another factor that should also be taken into consideration is the degree to which a place is considered public (Warner 71). It should be understood that most of the public places were previously private places. The difference is that owners allow the public to access them purely for commercial purposes.

As such, the role of property rights should be implemented to stop public smoking. In this regard, much of the places considered public are private such as the work places, restaurants, buses and bars. These places are opened for all manner of customers’ smokers as well as non smokers. The owner should specify the target customers who are purely non-smokers.

Therefore, any smoker who enters in these establishments is held liable for any risk of second hand smoking. On the other hand, an establishment may require that only smokers enter its establishment. In such a situation, any establishment will not be held responsible for any risks associated with second hand –smoke in a case non smoker enters the establishment.

In both scenarios, there is economic efficiency for all the parties concerned based on their preferences. However, in the circumstances that there is no specificity and the definition of the public, the whole process becomes chaotic (Warner 71).

Socially, smoking has been perceived as being fashionable and stylist. This perception has been carried over from generations to generations. Smoking is not something new rather it has been practiced for centuries. In a critical examination as to why people have been smoking for centuries, the reason is because they derived pleasure that was closely related to fashion and style.

That is why people still smoke and younger generations find themselves to be smoking despite health warnings or knowledge of health risks associated with the practice (Lott and Richard 102). This value should not be undermined as scientists could not explain why some smokers stay longer than those who smoke. Moreover, smoking is not the only cause of all health related diseases.

The best possible strategy to control tobacco consumption should be put in place. This will uphold individual’s self-esteem and appreciate society preferences. Scientists and other health proponents argue that people should not be guaranteed to smoke openly.

However, the economical approach stipulates that the management should not impose a ban on some individuals’ day to day choices. In fact, people’s preferences are highly regarded in the general public. Banning public smoking could favor certain communities while offend the treaty-liberty and material goods privileges.

Abedian, Iraj, Merwe Rowena, Nick Wilkins and Prabhat Jha. The Economics of Tobacco Control: Towards an Optimal Policy Mix . Cape Town: University of Cape Town, 1998. Print. p. 71.

Lott, John and Richard Manning. “Have Changing Liability Rules Compensated Workers Twice for Occupational Hazards? Earning Premiums and Cancer Risks.” Journal of Legal Studies , 29.1 (2000): 99-128. Print.

Viscusi, Kip and Joseph Aldy. “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 27.1 (2003): 5-76. Print.

Viscusi, Kip. “The Value of Life: Estimates with Risks by Occupation and Industry.” Economic Inquiry , 42.1 (2004): 29-48. Print.

Warner, Kenneth. The Economics of Tobacco and Health . Cape Town: University of Cape Town, 1998. Print. p. 71.

• The Smoking Ban: Arguments Comparison
• Smoking Ban in the United States of America
• Ethical Problem of Smoking
• Rural Health Workforce Profile
• Health Care Costs for Smokers
• Organizational Behavior in Health Care
• Quality in Health Care
• Keys to leadership in HCA
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 15). Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places? https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/

"Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?" IvyPanda , 15 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places'. 15 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?" April 15, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?" April 15, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?" April 15, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places/.

Top Streams

• Data Science Courses in USA
• Business Analytics Courses in USA
• Engineering Courses in USA
• Tax Courses in USA
• Healthcare Courses in USA
• Language Courses in USA
• Insurance Courses in USA
• Digital Marketing Courses in USA

Top Specialization

• Masters in Data Analytics in USA
• Masters in Mechanical Engineering in USA
• Masters in Supply Chain Management in USA
• Masters in Computer Science in USA
• MBA in Finance in USA
• Masters in Architecture in USA

Top Universities

• Cornell University
• Yale University
• Princeton University
• University of California Los Angeles
• University of Harvard
• Stanford University
• Arizona State University
• Northeastern University
• Project Management Courses in Australia
• Accounting Courses in Australia
• Medical Courses in Australia
• Psychology Courses in Australia
• Interior Designing Courses in Australia
• Pharmacy Courses in Australia
• Social Work Courses in Australia
• MBA in Australia
• Masters in Education in Australia
• Masters in Pharmacy in Australia
• Masters in Information Technology in Australia
• BBA in Australia
• Masters in Teaching in Australia
• Masters in Psychology in Australia
• University of Melbourne
• Deakin University
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Monash University
• University of Sydney
• University of Queensland
• RMIT University
• Macquarie University
• Data Science Courses in Canada
• Business Management Courses in Canada
• Supply Chain Management Courses in Canada
• Project Management Courses in Canada
• Business Analytics Courses in Canada
• Hotel Management Courses in Canada
• MBA in Canada
• MS in Canada
• Masters in Computer Science in Canada
• Masters in Management in Canada
• Masters in Psychology in Canada
• Masters in Education in Canada
• MBA in Finance in Canada
• Masters in Business Analytics in Canada
• University of Toronto
• University of British Columbia
• McGill University
• University of Alberta
• York University
• University of Calgary
• Algoma University
• University Canada West
• Project Management Courses in UK
• Data Science Courses in UK
• Public Health Courses in UK
• Digital Marketing Courses in UK
• Hotel Management Courses in UK
• Nursing Courses in UK
• Medicine Courses in UK
• Interior Designing Courses in UK
• Masters in Computer Science in UK
• Masters in Psychology in UK
• MBA in Finance in UK

MBA in Healthcare Management in UK

• Masters in Education in UK
• Masters in Marketing in UK
• MBA in HR in UK
• University of Oxford
• University of Cambridge
• Coventry University
• University of East London
• University of Hertfordshire
• University of Birmingham
• Imperial College London
• University of Glasgow

Top Resources

• Universities in Germany
• Study in Germany
• Masters in Germany
• Courses in Germany
• Bachelors in Germany
• Germany Job Seeker Visa
• Cost of Living in Germany

Best Universities in Germany

Top courses.

• Masters in Data Science in Germany
• MS in Computer Science in Germany
• Marine Engineering in Germany
• MS Courses in Germany
• Masters in Psychology in Germany
• Hotel Management Courses in Germany
• Masters in Economics in Germany
• Paramedical Courses in Germany
• Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
• University of Bonn
• University of Freiburg
• University of Hamburg
• University of Stuttgart
• Saarland University
• Mannheim University
• MBA in Ireland
• Phd in Ireland
• Masters in Computer Science Ireland
• Cyber Security in Ireland
• Masters in Data Analytics Ireland
• Ms in Data Science in Ireland
• Pharmacy courses in ireland
• Business Analytics Course in Ireland
• Universities in Ireland
• Study in Ireland
• Masters in Ireland
• Courses in Ireland
• Bachelors in Ireland
• Cost of Living in Ireland
• Ireland Student Visa
• Part Time Jobs in Ireland
• Trinity College Dublin
• University College Dublin
• Dublin City University
• University of Limerick
• Dublin Business School
• Maynooth University
• University College Cork
• National College of Ireland

Colleges & Courses

• Masters in France
• Phd in France
• Study Medicine in France
• Best Universities in Frankfurt
• Best Architecture Colleges in France
• ESIGELEC France
• Study in France for Indian Students
• Intakes in France
• SOP for France Visa
• Study in France from India
• Reasons to Study in France
• How to Settle in France

More About France

• Cost of Living in France
• France Study Visa
• Cost of Living in Frankfurt
• France Scholarship for Indian Students
• Part Time Jobs in France
• Stay Back in France After Masters

About Finland

• Universities in Finland
• Study in Finland
• Courses in Finland
• Bachelor Courses in Finland
• Masters Courses in Finland
• Cost of Living in Finland
• MS in Finland
• Average Fees in Finland Universities
• PhD in Finland
• Bachelor Degree in Medicine & Surgery
• MBBS Courses in Georgia
• MBBS Courses in Russia
• Alte University
• Caucasus University
• Georgian National University SEU
• David Tvildiani Medical University
• Caspian International School Of Medicine
• Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University
• Kyrgyz State Medical Academy
• Cremeia Federal University
• Bashkir State Medical University
• Kursk State Medical University
• Andijan State Medical Institute
• IELTS Syllabus
• IELTS Prepration
• IELTS Eligibility
• IELTS Test Format
• IELTS Band Descriptors
• IELTS Speaking test
• IELTS Writing Task 1
• IELTS score validity
• IELTS Cue Card

IELTS Reading Answers Sample

• Animal Camouflage
• Types Of Societies
• Australia Convict Colonies
• A Spark A Flint
• Emigration To The Us
• The History Of Salt
• Zoo Conservation Programmes
• The Robots Are Coming
• The Development Of Plastic

IELTS Speaking Cue Card Sample

• Describe A Puzzle You Have Played
• Describe A Long Walk You Ever Had
• Describe Your Favourite Movie
• Describe A Difficult Thing You did
• Describe A Businessman You Admire
• Memorable Day in My Life
• Describe Your Dream House
• Describe A Bag You Want to Own
• Describe a Famous Athlete You Know
• Aquatic Animal

IELTS Essay Sample Sample

• Best Education System
• IELTS Opinion Essay
• Agree or Disagree Essay
• Problem Solution Essays
• Essay on Space Exploration
• Essay On Historical Places
• Essay Writing Samples
• Tourism Essay
• Global Warming Essay
• GRE Exam Fees
• GRE Exam Syllabus
• GRE Exam Eligibility
• Sections in GRE Exam
• GRE Exam Benefits
• GRE Exam Results
• GRE Cutoff for US Universities
• GRE Preparation
• Send GRE scores to Universities

GRE Exam Study Material

• GRE Verbal Preparation
• GRE Study Material
• GRE AWA Essays
• GRE Sample Issue Essays
• Stanford University GRE Cutoff
• Harvard University GRE Cutoff
• GRE Quantitative Reasoning
• GRE Verbal Reasoning
• GRE Reading Comprehension
• Prepare for GRE in 2 months

Other Resources

• Documents Required For Gre Exam
• GRE Exam Duration
• GRE at Home
• GRE vs GMAT
• Improve GRE Verbal Scores

Free GRE Ebooks

• GRE Preparation Guide (Free PDF)
• GRE Syllabus (Free PDF)
• GMAT Eligibility
• GMAT Syllabus
• GMAT Exam Dates
• GMAT Registration
• GMAT Exam Fees
• GMAT Sections
• GMAT Purpose

GMAT Exam Study Material

• How to prepare for GMAT?
• GMAT Score Validity
• GMAT Preparation Books
• GMAT Preparation
• GMAT Exam Duration
• GMAT Score for Harvard
• GMAT Reading Comprehension
• GMAT Retake Strategy

Free GMAT Ebooks

• GMAT Guide PDF
• Download GMAT Syllabus PDF
• TOEFL Exam Registration
• TOEFL Exam Eligibility
• TOEFL Exam Pattern
• TOEFL Exam Preparation
• TOEFL Exam Tips
• TOEFL Exam Dates
• Documents for TOEFL Exam
• TOEFL Exam Fee

TOEFL Exam Study Material

• TOEFL Preparation Books
• TOEFL Speaking Section
• TOEFL Score and Results
• TOEFL Writing Section
• TOEFL Reading Section
• TOEFL Listening Section
• TOEFL Vocabulary
• Types of Essays in TOEFL

Free TOEFL Ebooks

• TOEFL Exam Guide (Free PDF)
• PTE Exam Dates
• PTE Exam Syllabus
• PTE Exam Eligibility Criteria
• PTE Test Centers in India
• PTE Exam Pattern
• PTE Exam Fees
• PTE Exam Duration
• PTE Exam Registration

PTE Exam Study Material

• PTE Exam Preparation
• PTE Speaking Test
• PTE Reading Test
• PTE Listening Test
• PTE Writing Test
• PTE Essay Writing
• PTE exam for Australia

Free PTE Ebooks

• PTE Syllabus (Free PDF)
• Duolingo Exam
• Duolingo Test Eligibility
• Duolingo Exam Pattern
• Duolingo Exam Fees
• Duolingo Test Validity
• Duolingo Syllabus
• Duolingo Preparation

Duolingo Exam Study Material

• Duolingo Exam Dates
• Duolingo Test Score
• Duolingo Test Results
• Duolingo Test Booking

Free Duolingo Ebooks

• Duolingo Guide (Free PDF)
• Duolingo Test Pattern (Free PDF)

NEET & MCAT Exam

• NEET Study Material
• NEET Preparation
• MCAT Eligibility
• MCAT Preparation

SAT & ACT Exam

• ACT Eligibility
• ACT Exam Dates
• SAT Syllabus
• SAT Exam Pattern
• SAT Exam Eligibility

USMLE & OET Exam

• USMLE Syllabus
• USMLE Preparation
• USMLE Step 1
• OET Syllabus
• OET Eligibility
• OET Prepration

PLAB & LSAT Exam

• PLAB Exam Syllabus
• PLAB Exam Fees
• LSAT Eligibility
• LSAT Registration
• TOEIC Result
• Study Guide

Application Process

• LOR for Masters
• SOP Samples for MS
• LOR for Phd
• SOP for Internship
• SOP for Phd
• Check Visa Status
• Motivation Letter Format
• Motivation Letter for Internship
• F1 Visa Documents Checklist

Career Prospects

• Popular Courses after Bcom in Abroad
• Part Time Jobs in Australia
• Part Time Jobs in USA
• Salary after MS in Germany
• Salary after MBA in Canada
• Average Salary in Singapore
• Higher Studies after MBA in Abroad
• Study in Canada after 12th

Trending Topics

• Best Education System in World
• Best Flying Schools in World
• Top Free Education Countries
• Best Countries to Migrate from India
• 1 Year PG Diploma Courses in Canada
• Canada Vs India
• Germany Post Study Work Visa
• Post Study Visa in USA
• Data Science Vs Data Analytics
• Public Vs Private Universities in Germany
• Universities Vs Colleges
• Difference Between GPA and CGPA
• Undergraduate Vs Graduate
• MBA in UK Vs MBA in USA
• Degree Vs Diploma in Canada
• IELTS vs TOEFL
• Duolingo English Test vs. IELTS
• Why Study in Canada
• Cost of Living in Canada
• Education System in Canada
• SOP for Canada
• Summer Intake in Canada
• Spring Intake in Canada
• Winter Intake in Canada
• Accommodation in Canada for Students
• Average Salary in Canada
• Fully Funded Scholarships in Canada
• Why Study in USA
• Cost of Studying in USA
• Spring Intake in USA
• Winter Intake in USA
• Summer Intake in USA
• STEM Courses in USA
• Scholarships for MS in USA
• Acceptable Study Gap in USA
• Interesting Facts about USA
• Free USA course
• Why Study in UK
• Cost of Living in UK
• Cost of Studying in UK
• Education System in UK
• Summer Intake in UK
• Spring Intake in UK
• Student Visa for UK
• Accommodation in UK for Students
• Scholarships in UK
• Why Study in Germany
• Cost of Studying in Germany
• Education System in Germany
• SOP for Germany
• Summer Intake in Germany
• Winter Intake in Germany
• Study Visa for Germany
• Accommodation in Germany for Students
• Free Education in Germany

Country Guides

• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in USA
• Study in Australia
• SOP Samples for Canada Student Visa
• US F1 Visa Guide for Aspirants

Exams Guides

• Duolingo Test Pattern

Recommended Reads

• Fully Funded Masters Guide
• SOP Samples For Australia
• Scholarships for Canada
• Data Science Guide
• SOP for MS in Computer Science
• Study Abroad Exams
• Alumni Connect
• Booster Program
• Scholarship

GPA CALCULATOR Convert percentage marks to GPA effortlessly with our calculator!

Expense calculator plan your study abroad expenses with our comprehensive calculator, ielts band calculator estimate your ielts band score with our accurate calculator, education loan calculator discover your eligible loan amount limit with our education calculator, university partner explore growth and opportunities with our university partnership, accommodation discover your perfect study abroad accommodation here, experience-center discover our offline centers for a personalized experience, our offices visit us for expert study abroad counseling..

• 18002102030
• Study Abroad

Should Smoking Be Banned In Public Places Essay - Samples and Tips for IELTS

• IELTS Preparation
• IELTS E-Books
• IELTS Registration
• IELTS Exam Fee
• IELTS Exam Dates 2024
• Documents Required
• IELTS Test Centers
• Test Format
• Band Descriptors
• IELTS Speaking Test
• General Reading Test
• General Writing Task
• IELTS Coaching
• Types of Essays
• IELTS for Australia
• IELTS Results
• Generation Gap Essay
• GPA Calculator
• Study Abroad Consultant In India
• Study Visa Consultants in India

Updated on 23 May, 2024

Anupriya Mukherjee

Sr. content writer.

If studying abroad is next on your list, then knowing about popular English proficiency tests would be prudent. IELTS, or the International English Language Language Testing System, is one of the most popular and standardized tests for measuring non-native English speakers' English language proficiency.  The IELTS writing section has two tasks, and Task 2 is an essay writing question

Here, an essay topic will be given and you need to write an essay in response. So, you should know about the popular essays that have come in the past. Should smoking be banned in public places? An essay has been asked multiple times in the IELTS writing test over the years.

Banning smoking in public places is an issue that must be taken up with the utmost urgency. With the increasing risks of passive smoking, the prohibition of smoking with regard to public health benefits is the need of the hour. Thus, you should practice common topics related to general and controversial issues. The relevant essay questions may change, but the main topic often remains the same. 

You must develop ideas and provide relevant examples to write a winning essay on whether smoking should be banned in public places. The essay writing module is a challenging task and needs thorough preparation. Let us take a look at some of the ways smoking should be banned in public places: IELTS essay samples and some tips to ace the task.

Table of Contents

Sample essay:, download e-books for ielts preparation, download ielts sample papers.

• Tips to Write a Winning IELTS Essay on 'Should Smoking be Banned in Public Places'

Health Implications

Banning of smoking in public places, learn more about study abroad, popular study abroad destinations, sample 1 on should smoking be banned in public places essay.

Some say 'smoking in public areas should be banned' while others go against the ban. Discuss both sides and give your opinion. 

Tip : It is an opinion-based topic. Here, both sides need to be discussed, and finally, the opinion of the test-taker should be discussed. 

Smoking is quite common among the younger generations today. But it has detrimental health impacts on both the smoker and any other person who inhales the smoke. The idea that 'smoking in public should be banned, is supported as well as opposed by many people. I believe smoking in public cannot be completely banned, but there can be a middle path. 

There are convincing arguments in favor of the ban because smoking ultimately leads to serious health crises. Supporters of the ban have various reasons to state. 

Firstly, smoking is injurious to health. The main cause of lung cancer is smoking tobacco. Active smokers also suffer from other diseases like tuberculosis and heart problems. The symptoms may take time to show up, but it eventually leads to a major crisis. It does not affect only the smoker but also the people around the smoker. Both active and passive smokers can fall ill, and this calls for huge support for a blanket ban on smoking in public places. 

Secondly, smoking is an addiction that influences non-smokers, too. Anything that becomes an addiction is not at all safe, and it tends to spread quickly. Peer and colleague group influences are very common in forming smoking habits. It is very easy to pick up smoking when one stays among smokers for long. People spend plenty of time in public areas. Hence, smoking should be banned in public areas to avoid such negative influences. 

Lastly, non-smokers feel very stressed when among smokers. It becomes difficult for pregnant women, senior citizens, and children, to adjust to an environment that is filled with cigarette smoke. It irritates non-smokers of various age groups. Smoking in public should be banned as it leads to annoyance to a large extent.  

Nevertheless, some people oppose this ban too.

Firstly, they are unhappy about giving away their rights to smoke. They believe that such a ban would make them feel deprived of their individual rights. 

Secondly, people against the ban on smoking in public areas say that cigarettes are sold and advertised publicly, and banning them will not make any difference. “Why can’t the government ban cigarettes completely if smoking in public is not allowed?”

Thirdly, they argue on terms like it becomes difficult to give up due to addiction. There are many incidents where severe health conditions are reported by active smokers, due to nicotine withdrawal. It is not easy to give up on smoking if someone does it regularly. 

Fourthly, it will be an expensive affair to ban public smoking and impose new rules. Hence, they feel that the best solution is to keep active smokers separated from the general public. 

Considering both sides of the argument, I feel there should be designated smoking zones in public areas. The bus stands, shopping malls, restaurants, and offices must have separate smoking zones so that addicted smokers are not affected or deprived. 

Important Resources to Read:

Sample 2 on  ‘Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places IELTS Essay’

Some businesses restrict smoking inside office spaces. Do you agree or disagree with this step taken by the businesses? Give reasons for your opinion.

Tip: It is an opinion-based topic. Here, both sides need to be discussed, and finally, the opinion of the test-taker should be discussed. 

Sample essay: 

Corporate offices often see groups of individuals discussing issues while smoking. Is it a habit, or does smoking help you brainstorm? Well, for non-smokers, it should be banned, and for smokers, it is almost office culture.

Many companies, firms, and government offices have restricted smoking inside office spaces. I feel it can be addressed with some other effective measures. 

There are certain seemingly positive sides to smoking during work hours. It is believed that smoking improves concentration and helps employees relax after long meetings or completion of projects. There is constant stress regarding deadlines, appraisal, and targets at work. In such a scenario, smoking is supposed to reduce stress.

Nicotine is a stimulant and smoking during office hours might keep employees in an active and elevated mood. Some projects may demand employees to stay awake late at night and work. In such a situation, employees don't feel drowsy and sleepy due to the nicotine boost. 

Despite all these positive sides, there are alarming negative aspects too. 

Firstly, smoking is harmful to health. It is one of the main reasons behind the increasing number of lung cancer cases globally. Diseases like tuberculosis and various cardiovascular health issues are caused by prolonged smoking habits. It does not only affect the smoker but also the people who spend time around smokers. Passive smokers face detrimental impacts too when they come in contact with smokers. 

Secondly, the non-smokers feel uncomfortable in public spaces filled with cigarette smoke. It causes them stress. It is also very annoying, particularly for pregnant women and senior citizens in the office areas.

The debate between smokers and non-smokers can stop only when the authorities plan something fruitful. A strict ban on smoking will do no good. It will instill a sense of anger and disappointment among smokers if their rights are taken away suddenly. Similarly, the health impact of passive smokers cannot be ignored. In my opinion, office spaces and public areas should have separate smoking zones. This way, non-smokers will not have any problems and smokers can also relax.

You Can Also Read Sample Questions and Answers For The IELTS Passage: G reen Wave Washes Over Mainstream Shopping

Recommended Reads:

Tips to Write a Winning IELTS Essay on 'Should Smoking be Banned in Public Places'

• The time allotted for the task 2 essay is 40 minutes and no extra time is allowed.
• The minimum word limit for an essay is 250 words but there is no upper word limit. It is recommended to write a little more than the prescribed limit. 
• Organize the entire essay in 3 parts, introduction, body, and conclusion. In the introduction is a clear overview of the entire topic. The body analyzes facts, and the conclusion should contain opinions and sum up points.
• Paraphrasing is important. It increases the readability of the essay.
• Write short, crisp, and to-the-point sentences. Refrain from writing complicated and lengthy sentences.
• Answer all the parts of the questions. Refer to the first sample below, which has three parts - 

1. Agree in favor of why smoking should be banned 

2. Disagree in context to why smoking should not be banned 

3. Your own opinion.

• If you are using any facts or statistical data, you need to be sure about them.
• Idioms make your write-up colorful and accurate. You need to know them well before you use them.
• Use collocations wherever needed. Use connectors and linking words but do not stuff them unnecessarily. 
• Be careful about the punctuation.
• Present all your ideas in the right flow. The ideas, concepts, and experiences should be relevant to the topic.
• Maintain a semi-formal tone. Do not use any informal and personal phrases.
• Proofread your essay once you are done with the writing. This will help you scan mistakes in your essay.
• When you practice a particular topic, you must focus on learning all the vocabulary related to it.
• Check spellings, you should not make spelling errors. Use only those words that you are 100% sure of. 
• Practice all kinds of essays. You can get pattern questions like advantages, disadvantages, opinions, causes and effects, causes and solutions, and direct questions. 
• The conclusion is very important. The way you sum up your opinion will matter in boosting your IELTS band. 
• Get your practice essays checked by an expert or any IELTS experienced professional you might know.

Bonus Essay Topic

Smoking has been a primary source of dopamine release for humans for a very long time. As the decades passed, the harmful effects of smoking became a concern for people. A major issue that arose was related to the health of passive smokers.

This became a reason for stirring debates on public health, individual rights, and societal welfare. Hence, “should smoking be banned in public places” - raises a great question mark among groups of smokers and non-smokers. This essay delves deep into finding the solutions behind this question, concluding what might be best for mankind.

Firstly, it cannot be denied that smoking poses a great risk to human life. Creating serious health issues and leading to major illnesses like cancer is not at all beneficial. Despite knowing its drawbacks, people prefer smoking for various reasons. However, smoking in public places often affects the health of those who do not indulge in it.

Passive smoking is a process through which non-smokers are exposed to serious health risks when they inhale smoke unknowingly from a person smoking nearby. This raises concerns regarding their individual rights and health issues.

The unwanted inhalation of harmful smoke by non-smokers due to individuals smoking in public areas raises various concerns. However, various proponents of personal freedom argue against the banning of smoking in public places. The concern raised is whether people are not free enough to make their own choices and decisions related to smoking.

This makes banning smoking in public places a more complex issue. However, if closely looked at, putting a ban on smoking in public places has a lot of advantages. Smoke-free environments promote social cohesion and make a space accessible to all. Moreover, it can also reduce the normalization of smoking in various sectors.

The ban on smoking in public places will also discourage youth from indulging in such harmful habits. Therefore, banning smoking in public places comes with a lot of advantages.

However, opponents believe that banning smoking will ultimately affect the economy of the country. Since tobacco consumption generates a major chunk of revenue in various countries, discouraging it might lead to less revenue.

Despite the multiple views of people regarding the banning of smoking, various countries have already started implementing smoking bans in public places. In countries like Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, smoke-free legislation has been established to control tobacco consumption in the country.

Therefore, banning smoking can be a major consideration on a global level for various countries. It will not only reduce health risks but also encourage individuals to quit smoking.  

It is important to practice and prepare for a winning IELTS essay. The IELTS writing task is very important as it measures the writing skills of non-native English speakers. Go through all the samples and tips on  should smoking be banned in public places essay to write well. For any assistance regarding the IELTS essays, applicants can get in touch with academic counselors of upGrad Abroad.

Also Reads:

Frequently Asked Questions

How does smoking in public places affect the environment.

Smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products in public has an adverse effect upon the environment. It leads to pollution and releases toxic air and polluting agents into the atmosphere. The cigarette butts also pile up, littering several areas and the chemicals contained in the same are toxic. When they leach into water and soil, they end up contaminating the entire ecosystem, leading to pollution of the water and soil alike. Smoking is also an irritant for others if done in public.

How does smoking affect the society & community?

Smoking has a widespread impact on the community and society at large. Smoking in public releases toxic and harmful air into the atmosphere while also contributing towards increasing the pollutant counts in the air. It also leads to contamination of the soil and water through the littering of cigarette butts.

Exposure to second-hand smoke is also physically harmful for others in public. Smoking contributes towards respiratory disorders and air pollution as well. It also enhances the risks of various ailments and fatalities in society at large.

What are the arguments for and against banning smoking in all public places?

The arguments for banning smoking in public places are the following:

• Smoking leads to air pollution and releases toxic air into the atmosphere. 
• Littering of cigarette butts leads to widespread soil and water contamination. 
• Smoking leads to serious diseases and respiratory illnesses for others owing to their exposure to second-hand smoke. 
• Smoking leads to a higher incidence of heart attacks, lung cancer and other disease which de-stabilize major chunks of communities, leading to higher healthcare costs for Governments and more strain on healthcare resources.

The arguments against banning smoking in public places are the following:

• Smoking bans do not usually have the intended effect, i.e. getting people to cut down or give up smoking.
•  It may be perceived as an infringement of the freedom and rights of citizens. 
• It will lead to lower tax revenues for Governments, limiting their public spending as a result. 
• It will not be good for several businesses either, especially in the food and beverage sector.  

Why smoking should be banned in public places ielts essay?

Smoking is a social evil that is greatly impacting the society and community at large. At the individual and organizational levels, much more needs to be done to combat the harmful incidence of rising smoking levels amongst people in multiple age groups. Smoking causes innumerable ailments and diseases, while exposing people to harmful passive smoke and pollutes the air considerably. It also contributes towards soil and air pollution. I feel that smoking should be banned in public places owing to its negative effects on entire communities.

Smoking should be banned in public places because of the pollution it creates. Firstly, it leads to the release of toxic smoke and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Secondly, littering of cigarette butts leads to soil and water contamination alike. Thirdly, people who are non-smokers, are exposed to passive smoke for no fault of theirs and contract respiratory ailments in turn. Fourthly, banning public smoking will lower the incidence of fatalities and serious disease, lowering the strain on Governmental healthcare resources and costs of the same.

Banning public smoking will also set a more positive example for the younger generations who will be less likely to pick up the habit. Hence, I firmly believe that Governments should set examples by banning public smoking and setting the tone for a healthier tomorrow.

Here are few of the trending IELTS Reading Answers:

• The Life And Work Of Marie Curie Reading Answers
• Why Pagodas Don't Fall Down
• Spoken Corpus Comes To Life Reading Answers
• Striking Back At Lightning With Lasers IELTS Reading Answers
• The Context Meaning And Scope Of Tourism Reading Answers
• A Spark A Flint IELTS Reading Answers
• The Concept Of Role Theory Reading Answers
• Micro Enterprise Credit For Street Youth Reading Answers
• When Evolution Runs Backwards IELTS
• The Impact Of Wilderness Tourism IELTS Reading Answers
• The Truth About The Environment Reading Answers
• The Politics Of Pessimism Reading Answer
• The Rocket From East To West Reading Answers
• Glass Capturing The Dance Of Light
• Population Movements And Genetics Reading Answers
• The Megafires Of California Reading Answers

What is Scholarship

Learn all about the scholarships like types of scholarships and how to get a one

Provincial Nominee Program Canada

Learn all about Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) Canada

Fulbright Scholarship

Learn about the eligibility, benefits, procedure etc about Fulbright Scholarships

Education Loan for Study Abroad

Learn about educational loans, types, amount, eligibility & more in this article.

Best Universities in Australia

Learn about best universities in Australia along with other information

SEVIS Fees for F1 Visa

Learn about SEVIS fees amount & how to pay SEVIS fee here.

Learn more about the best universities in Germany for higher education

Learn all about USMLE exam here including USMLE steps, process & more

Letter of Recommendation (LOR)

Find our all about an LOR and also how to effectively write an LOR

Best Courses After 12th Commerce in USA

Know about the best courses to study in the USA after 12th commerce.

MBA Jobs in Australia for Indians

Know about the best-paying jobs after an MBA in Australia

Best Courses After 12th Arts in USA

Know the study options in USA for Indian students after completing 12th from Arts

Narotam Sekhsaria Scholarship

Narotam Sekhsaria scholarships are available for Indian students to apply for

What is SDS and Non SDS Visa

Difference between SDS and Non-SDS visa applications, their requirements & more.

MBA in healthcare management in the UK and the scope of work after graduating.

PR in Canada

How to get Canada PR from India along with the key factors, process and cost

CRS Score Calculator

Learn more about CRS of Canada’s Express Entry program.

MBA Fees in Canada

Learn about all the costs involved in pursuing an MBA in Canada.

What to Do After BCom

Popular courses after BCom abroad that you can opt for. Read to know!

Vidya Lakshmi Education Loan

Study abroad by applying for a student loan at the Vidya Lakshmi Portal.

Study in Canada & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in Australia & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in the USA & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in Germany & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in Ireland & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in UK & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Anupriya Mukherjee is a passion-driven professional working as a Content Marketer and earlier worked as a Digital Marketeer. With around 6 years of work experience, she has experience creating high-quality, engaging content for websites, blogs, news articles, video scripts, brochures, and ebooks.

Important Exams

Important resources for ielts, free study abroad counselling.

Refer Your Friend & Earn upto ₹15000

Help your friend upgrade to a Global Career and earn rewards together.

TRENDING SEARCHES

Editor's pick, other countries.

• Masters in Accounting
• MA in Communication
• Bachelors in Aviation
• BSc in Nursing
• Universities in Australia
• Masters in Australia
• La Trobe University
• MS in Australia
• University of Adelaide
• University of Melbourne Courses
• Courses in Australia
• Masters in Business Analytics in Australia
• Masters in Public Health in Australia
• Nursing Courses in Australia
• University of Windsor
• University of Manitoba
• University of Victoria
• Masters in Data Science in Canada
• Universities in Canada
• Trent University
• Masters in Canada
• Courses in Canada
• Thompson Rivers University
• Concordia University
• University of Saskatchewan
• University of West London Ranking
• Liverpool John Moores University Ranking
• Universities in UK
• Bachelors in UK
• University of Strathclyde Ranking
• University of Bristol
• Masters in UK
• De Montfort University
• Courses in UK
• University of Cambridge Courses
• University of Sussex Ranking
• University of Leicester
• University of Leicester Ranking
• Northumbria University Ranking
• Manchester Metropolitan University Ranking
• Kings College London
• University of Oxford Courses
• Queen Mary University of London
• Birmingham City University
• Queen Mary University of London Ranking
• Purdue University
• Purdue University ranking
• Saint Louis University Ranking
• Bachelors in USA
• Columbia University Ranking
• masters in computer science in usa
• DePaul University Ranking
• George Mason University ranking
• DePaul University
• Northeastern University ranking
• University of Dayton ranking
• Courses in USA
• University of South Florida ranking
• Saint Louis University
• New York University Ranking
• Masters in USA
• Universities in USA
• Pace University
• University at Buffalo
• Columbia University Acceptance Rate
• Drexel University Ranking
• University of Texas at Dallas ranking
• George Mason University
• New York University
• University of Texas at Arlington ranking
• Northeastern University acceptance rate
• Duolingo Exam Fee
• MBA In UK Without Gmat
• SAT Exam Syllabus
• CEFR Level in IELTS
• Duolingo Accepted Universities In Australia
• Usmle Test Centers In India
• Duolingo Accepted Universities In Canada
• Gre Exam Fee in India
• Minimum IELTS Score For Canada
• IELTS Speaking Scores
• IELTS Introduction Sample
• GRE Waived University In Usa
• IELTS Common Speaking Topics
• Universities in Canada Without IELTS
• 22 July IELTS Exam
• How to download IELTS Scorecard
• IELTS Band Score Chart
• Duolingo Certificate
• Gmat Syllabus
• IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics
• Duolingo vs IELTS
• Top Phrases for IELTS Speaking Test
• Universities in Netherlands
• Business Courses in Ireland
• Maynooth University Courses
• Courses in Netherlands
• Masters Courses in Netherlands
• Technological University Dublin
• University of Limerick Courses
• University of Europe for Applied Sciences Acceptance Rate
• Study in Netherlands
• Dublin City University Courses
• Dundalk Institute of Technology Courses
• Technological University Dublin Courses
• National University of Ireland Galway Courses
• Dundalk Institute of Technology

The above tips are the Author's experiences. upGrad does not guarantee scores or admissions.

Call us to clear your doubts at:

Download our App

• Grievance Redressal
• Experience Centers
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• University Partner
• Accommodation
• IELTS Band Calculator
• Download Study Abroad App
• Education Loan Calculator
• upGrad Abroad Office
• Expense Calculator
• Knowledge Base
• Business Partner

Top Destinations

Masters programs.

• MBA in Germany, IU
• MIM in Germany, IU
• MS in CS in Germany, IU
• MS in Data Analytics in USA, Clark University
• MS in Project Management in USA, Clark University
• MS in IT in USA, Clark University
• MS in Data Analytics & Visualization in USA, Yeshiva University
• MS in Artificial Intelligence in USA, Yeshiva University
• MS in Cybersecurity, Yeshiva University

Study Abroad Important Blogs

• Cost of Study:
• Cost of Studying in Canada
• Cost of Studying in Ireland
• Cost of Studying in Australia
• Cost of living:
• Cost of living in UK
• Cost of living in Australia
• Cost of living in Germany
• Cost of living in Ireland
• Cost of living in Canada
• Career Opportunities:
• Career Opportunities in Australia
• Career Opportunities in Germany
• Job Opportunities in After MS in Canada
• Job Opportunities After MBA in Australia
• Job Opportunities After MS in UK
• IELTS Exam Resources:
• Academic IELTS
• IELTS Band Score
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• IELTS Slot Booking
• IELTS Score for UK
• IELTS Score for USA
• Validity of IELTS Score
• IELTS Speaking Topics
• IELTS Reading Tips
• How to Prepare for IELTS at Home Without Coaching
• IELTS Preparation Books
• Types of IELTS Exam
• IELTS Academic vs General
• IELTS Exam Pattern
• IELTS Essay
• IELTS Exam Dates
• Top Streams:
• Fashion Designing Courses in Australia
• Accounting Courses in Canada
• Management Courses in Canada

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Smoking

Smoking Should Be Banned In Public Areas Argumentative Essays Examples

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Smoking , Smoke , Smokers , People , Public , Public Areas , Health , Tobacco

Published: 03/08/2023

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Today the problem of smoking is very actual. There is a great number of people, that smoke everywhere. That is why, non smokers are hostage of the situation. In this case, the non smokers cannot be a side of this global disaster of society. Also, people smoke in public areas, which is not acceptable, because there are a lot of people and children that do not smoke. It is dangerous for their health. They have to defend their own rights. The smoking is a bad habit and million of people suffer from this dependence, but nevertheless it is not justification. So, what can we do to decrease a number of smokers and how can we fight this disease? I think that we have to forbid smoking in public areas and it will be the first step in order to make our world healthier. Why should we do it? Firstly, we can persuade persons not to smoke. We can tell smokers that smoking is very bad habit and it is dangerous for their life. When we forbid the smoking is public areas, there will be less situations when a small child can see a man or woman that smoke. It is very important, because if you smoke in the public place, around you there can be children who can imitate adults. Children do not understand that smoking is a bad habit and smoke does harm to health, they only see the uncle or the aunty, who dashingly start up a smoke. Of course, almost each child will want to be influenced by this doubtful pleasure. Secondly, nowadays there are two types of smoking: direct smoking and passive smoking. There are many people, who cannot tolerate the smell of tobacco. Those people go to the park, to breath the fresh air, but it is already polluted with the smell of cigarettes. Non smokers can not go to restaurants or cafes, where other people smoke, because they inhale the smoke together with smokers. It is called passive smoking. After every meeting with smoker your hair, clothes are full of this terrible smell of tobacco. Moreover, the influence of passive smoking is the same like after direct smoking. It means that you get the same dose of the tobacco into your lungs. That`s why, it is unacceptable to allow smoking in public areas. A lot of smokers can say, that it is their choice to smoke, but I think, that they should remember, that their freedom of the choice ends where starts the freedom of another person. Thirdly, I think that the government should encourage the leading of a healthier way of life through making the smoking forbidden in public areas. The state should take care of the citizens, because without health there will be no prosperity of the nation in future. The government should promote electronic cigarette and psychological help for free. Thanks to these actions, the smokers will be able to smoke a simple steam, which does not contain nicotine and will be able to rehabilitate after cigarette addiction. The government also has to forbid the advertising of smoking on TV, in restaurants and cafes and also in public areas. It will decrease the number of smokers in public areas itself. The smoking in public areas should be banned, as it is one of the best ways to make people healthier and encourage a healthy way of life. The 31st of May is the international no tobacco day. In this day you can learn more about the bad influence of smoking, but we have to do ourselves some steps to decrease the number of smokers in our city, in our country and in our world, because due to this bad habit people die. Please, choose the long and healthy life without nicotine and cigarettes. It is better than suicide by tobacco.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 402

This paper is created by writer with

ID 270496217

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Free essay on sampling, characters literature review, transcription landscape essay, free essay on americas industrial revolution, example of health fitness critical thinking, good research paper on brief background, example of research paper on praxis paper, following reasons were there which caused the failure of establishment of any joint essay samples, example of understanding becker using four part framework essay, nonverbal functions essay examples, good example of civil war essay, free self evaluation course work example, example of essay on scientific communication paper, free research paper on project and portfolio management historical current and future practices, example of sungmin cho research paper, example of an analysis of the three characters in poe 039 s stories including an analysis research paper, good world religion essay example, dear sir or madam essay example, violence essay sample, good research paper on united farm workers of america, free political violence essay example, environmental and urban economics research paper example, exubera essays, fern essays, ezrin essays, diclofenac essays, biliary essays, alkaline essays, chromatograph essays, biopsychology essays, consumer behavior argumentative essays, the chosen argumentative essays, the canterbury tales argumentative essays, elephant argumentative essays, search engine argumentative essays, common law argumentative essays, pearl harbor argumentative essays, balance sheet argumentative essays, george washington argumentative essays, precision argumentative essays, legend argumentative essays, regeneration argumentative essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Should Smoking Be Illegal?

Should smoking be banned? What are the pros and cons of banning cigarettes in public places? If you’re writing an argumentative essay or persuasive speech on why smoking should be banned, check out this sample.

Smoking Should Be Banned: Essay Introduction

Reasons why smoking should be banned, why smoking should not be banned: essay arguments, why smoking should be banned essay conclusion.

Smoking involves burning a substance to take in its smoke into the lungs. These substances are commonly tobacco or cannabis. Combustion releases the active substances in them, like nicotine, which are absorbed through the lungs.

A widespread technique through which this is done is via smoking manufactured cigarettes or hand-rolling the tobacco ready for smoking. Almost 1 billion people in the majority of all human societies practice smoking. Complications directly associated with smoking claim the lives of half of all the persons involved in smoking tobacco or marijuana for a long time.

Smoking is an addiction because tobacco contains nicotine, which is very addictive. The nicotine makes it difficult for a smoker to quit. Therefore, a person will become used to nicotine such that he/she has to smoke to feel normal. Consequently, I think smoking should be banned for some reason.

One reason why smoking should be banned is that it has got several health effects. It harms almost every organ of the body. Cigarette smoking causes 87% of lung cancer deaths and is also responsible for many other cancer and health problems. 

Apart from this, infant deaths that occur in pregnant women are attributed to smoking. Similarly, people who stay near smokers become secondary smokers, who may breathe in the smoke and get the same health problems as smokers. Although not widely smoked, cannabis also has health problems, and withdrawal symptoms include depression, insomnia, frustration, anger, anxiety, concentration difficulties, and restlessness.

Besides causing emphysema, smoking also affects the digestive organs and the blood circulatory systems, especially heart arteries. Women have a higher risk of heart attack than men, exacerbating with time as one smokes. Smoking also affects the mouth, whereby the teeth become discolored, the lips blacken and always stay dry, and the breath smells bad.

Cigarette and tobacco products are costly. People who smoke are therefore forced to spend their money on these products, which badly wastes the income they would have otherwise spent on other things. Therefore, I think that smoking should be forbidden to reduce the costs of treating diseases related to smoking and the number of deaths caused by smoking-related illnesses.

However, tobacco and cigarette manufacturing nations would lose a lot if smoking was to be banned. I, therefore, think that it should not be banned. Some nations largely depend on exporting cigarettes and tobacco products to get revenue.

This revenue typically boosts the economy of such nations. If smoking were banned, they would incur significant losses since tobacco companies are multi-billion organizations. Apart from these, millions of people will be jobless due to the ban.

The process by which tobacco and cigarette products reach consumers is very complex, and it involves a chain process with several people involved in it. Banning smoking, therefore, means these people will lose their jobs, which most may depend on for their livelihoods.

In conclusion, the ban on smoking is a tough step to be undertaken, especially when the number of worldwide users is billions. Although it burdens nations enormously in treating smoking-related diseases, it may take a long time before a ban can work. Attempts by some nations to do this have often been met with failures.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 12). Should Smoking Be Illegal? https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/

"Should Smoking Be Illegal?" StudyCorgi , 12 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Should Smoking Be Illegal'. 12 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Should Smoking Be Illegal?" January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Should Smoking Be Illegal?" January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Should Smoking Be Illegal?" January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

This paper, “Should Smoking Be Illegal?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 8, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Should smoking in...

Should smoking in outside public spaces be banned? Yes

• Related content
• Peer review
• George Thomson , senior research fellow 1 ,
• Nick Wilson , senior lecturer 1 ,
• Richard Edwards , associate professor 1 ,
• Alistair Woodward , professor 2
• 1 University of Otago, Wellington, Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand
• 2 University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
• Correspondence to: G Thompson george.thomson{at}otago.ac.nz

After success in stopping smoking in public buildings, campaigns are turning outdoors. George Thomson and colleagues argue that a ban will help to stop children becoming smokers but Simon Chapman (doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2804 ) believes that it infringes personal freedom

Legislation to ban smoking indoors in public places is now commonplace, driven mainly by the need to protect non-smokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. A new domain for tobacco control policy is outdoor settings, where secondhand smoke is usually less of a problem. However, the ethical justification for outdoor smoking bans is compelling and is supported by international law. The central argument is that outdoor bans will reduce smoking being modelled to children as normal behaviour and thus cut the uptake of smoking. Outdoor smoke-free policies may in some circumstances (such as crowded locations like sports stadiums) reduce the health effects of secondhand smoke 1 ; will reduce fires and litter 2 ; and are likely to help smokers’ attempts at quitting.

Need to reduce modelling

There is no simple answer to the question of what causes children to take up smoking. 3 4 We know, however, that children tend to copy what they observe and are influenced by the normality and extent of smoking around them. 5 6 7 Many smokers recognise that their smoking affects children’s behaviour. 8

The primary strategy for tobacco control is reducing the prevalence of smoking, and such reduction will in itself mean that smoking is less visible in society. But the modelling of smoking can also be reduced by policies to restrict smoking in the presence of children. The entrenched nature of tobacco use in most societies, and its highly addictive qualities, require that such policies are far reaching. Smoking bans in many outdoor public areas are therefore an important additional approach to tobacco control.

The need for outdoor smoking restrictions is increasingly recognised. Finland, five Canadian provinces, two US states, and New Zealand use law to require smoke-free school grounds. Other jurisdictions (such as Australian states) use administrative policies. California has banned smoking within 25 feet (7.6 metres) of outdoor playgrounds. United Kingdom, Scottish, Australian, and New Zealand authorities have been explicit about the need to reduce the modelling of smoking to children as a justification for this type of outdoor smoking restrictions. 9 10 11 12 Policies encouraging or requiring other outdoor smoke-free areas have been introduced in the past 10 years in North America, Australasia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and elsewhere. 13 Reducing the modelling of smoking to children has often been given as a justification for introducing these restrictions.

Are outdoor smoke-free policies practical?

How best to reduce the visibility of smoking? Media campaigns can promote not smoking in the presence of children as a social norm. 14 Legislation and other uses of law can expand smoke-free policies to ensure the inclusion of all public areas where children predominate. These areas include schools, parks and playgrounds, swimming pool complexes, sports grounds, and parts of beaches. The success of outdoor bans depends on the size of the areas covered, the ways the policy is communicated (for example, signage), and the extent of public support. 15

Reports from Britain, New Zealand, and parts of Australia and the United States indicate majority support for restricting or banning smoking in outdoor areas where there are children. 15 16 17 18 19 20 We are aware of no evidence that outdoor smoke-free policies have resulted in a public backlash against other advances in tobacco control.

Ethical and international treaty considerations

Children are a highly vulnerable population, susceptible to the influences of adult behaviours. Protection from addiction can be considered to enhance overall freedom, given that most smokers regret ever starting. 21

We may not yet be certain that outdoor smoke-free areas reduce smoking uptake; the necessary studies have not been carried out. However, where there is uncertainty in policy making, any assessment of the balance of benefit and harm should put the protection of children first. 22 This is because of the extent and severity of the hazard that taking up smoking poses to children and the theoretical and empirical evidence for a role modelling effect on smoking uptake. The principle of giving primacy to the protection of children is also underpinned by international treaty obligations. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that in making policy, children’s rights must be put first, and governments “shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights.” 23

Adverse effects from outdoor smoke-free areas are largely restricted to the possible loss of amenities for some smokers.

We argue that society has an ethical duty to minimise the risk of children becoming nicotine dependent smokers. A reasonable step is banning smoking in selected outdoor areas frequented by children. Children need smoke-free outdoor places now, to help normalise a smoke-free society.

Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2806

Competing interests: All authors have done contract work for health non-governmental organisations, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, or WHO on tobacco control research.

• ↵ Repace J. Benefits of smoke-free regulations in outdoor settings : beaches, golf courses, parks, patios, and in motor vehicles. William Mitchell Law 2008 ; 34 : 1621 -38. OpenUrl
• ↵ Mackay J, Erikson M, Shafet O. The tobacco atlas . Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2006 .
• ↵ Milton B, Cook PA, Dugdill L, Porcellato L, Springett J, Woods SE. Why do primary school children smoke? A longitudinal analysis of predictors of smoking uptake during pre-adolescence. Public Health 2004 ; 118 : 247 -55. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Stewart-Knox BJ, Sittlington J, Rugkasa J, Harrisson S, Treacy M, Abaunza PS. Smoking and peer groups: results from a longitudinal qualitative study of young people in Northern Ireland. Br J Soc Psychol 2005 ; 44 : 397 -414. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Kobus K. Peers and adolescent smoking. Addiction 2003 ; 98 (suppl 1): 37 -55. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Tyas SL, Pederson LL. Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature. Tob Control 1998 ; 7 : 409 -20. OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Wakefield M, Chaloupka F, Kaufman N, Orleans C, Barker D, Ruel E. Effect of restrictions on smoking at home, at school, and in public places on teenage smoking: cross sectional study. BMJ 2000 ; 321 : 333 -7. OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ McCaul KD, Hockemeyer JR, Johnson RJ, Zetocha K, Quinlan K, Glasgow RE. Motivation to quit using cigarettes: a review. Addict Behav 2006 ; 31 : 42 -56. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Department for Education. Drug prevention and schools: annex 8—sample smoking policies in schools . London: Department for Children, Schools and Families, 1995 .
• ↵ Griffiths J. Smoke-free Scotland: guidance on smoking policies for the NHS, local authorities and care service providers . Edinburgh: Scottish Executive and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, 2005 .
• ↵ National Childcare Accreditation Council. Smoke free environment policy . Sydney: NCAC, 2006 .
• ↵ Smoke-free environments amendment act . Wellington: New Zealand Government, 2003 .
• ↵ Wilson N, Thomson G, Edwards R. Lessons from Hong Kong and other countries for outdoor smokefree areas in New Zealand? N Z Med J 2007 ; 120 : U2624 . OpenUrl PubMed
• ↵ Levy DT, Romano E, Mumford EA. Recent trends in home and work smoking bans. Tob Control 2004 ; 13 : 258 -63. OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Klein EG, Forster JL, McFadden B, Outley CW. Minnesota tobacco-free park policies: attitudes of the general public and park officials. Nicotine Tob Res 2007 ; 9 (suppl 1): S49 -55. OpenUrl Abstract
• ↵ Alesci NL, Forster JL, Blaine T. Smoking visibility, perceived acceptability, and frequency in various locations among youth and adults. Prev Med 2003 ; 36 : 272 -81. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Gilpin EA, Lee L, Pierce JP, Tang H, Lloyd J. Support for protection from secondhand smoke: California 2002. Tob Control 2004 ; 13 : 96 . OpenUrl FREE Full Text
• ↵ Health Sponsorship Council. Acceptability of smoking in outdoor public places . Wellington: Health Sponsorship Council, 2008 .
• ↵ Populus. BBC Daily Politics Show poll [smoking related questions] . London: BBC, 2007 .
• ↵ Quit Victoria. Quit gets behind smokefree playgrounds . Melbourne: Quit Victoria, 2007 .
• ↵ Fong GT, Hammond D, Laux FL, Zanna MP, Cummings KM, Borland R, et al. The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control policy evaluation survey. Nicotine Tob Res 2004 ;6 (suppl 3):S341-51.
• ↵ Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: ethical issues . London: NCB, 2007 .
• ↵ United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. Convention on the rights of the child . Geneva: UN, 1990 .

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Smoking — Should Smoking Be Made Illegal: Argumentative

Should Smoking Be Made Illegal: Argumentative

• Categories: Smoking Smoking Ban Tobacco

About this sample

Words: 674 |

Updated: 8 December, 2023

Words: 674 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Works Cited

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm
• Chatterjee, K., & Chatterjee, K. (2014). Secondhand Smoke: Are We Protecting Our Children? Lung India, 31(4), 369–377.
• Foulds, J., Ramstrom, L., Burke, M., & Fagerström, K. (2003). Effect of Smokeless Tobacco (Snus) on Smoking and Public Health in Sweden. Tobacco Control, 12(4), 349–359.
• Hatsukami, D. K., & Stead, L. F. (2020). Tobacco Use: Prevention, Cessation, and Control. Oxford University Press.
• Hu, T.-W., Lee, A. H.-Y., Mao, Z., & Ong, M. (2016). China at the Crossroads: The Economics of Tobacco and Health. World Scientific Publishing.
• National Cancer Institute. (2020). Harms of Cigarette Smoking and Health Benefits of Quitting. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/cessation-fact-sheet
• Peto, R., Lopez, A. D., Boreham, J., Thun, M., & Heath, C. Jr. (2016). Mortality from Smoking in Developed Countries 1950-2010: Indirect Estimates from National Vital Statistics. Oxford University Press.
• Schick, S., & Glantz, S. (2005). Philip Morris Toxicological Experiments with Fresh Sidestream Smoke: More Toxic than Mainstream Smoke. Tobacco Control, 14(6), 396–404.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
• World Health Organization. (2019). WHO Global Report on Trends in Prevalence of Tobacco Smoking 2000-2025, Second Edition. World Health Organization.

Video Version

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 789 words

2 pages / 783 words

1 pages / 611 words

3 pages / 1162 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Smoking

Smoking has numerous health effects, both short-term and long-term. Some of the short-term effects include bad breath, yellow teeth, and decreased sense of taste and smell. The long-term effects, however, are much more severe. [...]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today, I would like to talk to you about the dangers of smoking and the impact it has on individuals and society as a whole. Smoking is a prevalent habit that has been around for centuries, [...]

Vaping, once hailed as a safer alternative to traditional smoking, has now come under scrutiny due to its potential health risks and widespread usage among young people. This essay explores the various dangers associated with [...]

Vaping, the act of inhaling and exhaling aerosol produced by electronic cigarettes or vape pens, has become a subject of intense debate in recent years. Proponents argue that it offers several advantages over traditional [...]

For years there has been conflicting research whether smoking should be banned or not and it is a significant issue today. Many people have given up smoking while others still continue to smoke. Smoking is the inhalation and [...]

Vaping is not a traditional smoking. Many of us don’t even consider it as a substitute of smoking. That’s why a large chunk of non-smokers get attracted towards vaping because it’s harmless, flavored, aromatic and obviously [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Should smoking be banned in public places, even in outdoor areas?

Source: Composite by G_marius based on a Kenji Aryan´s image

We discuss if smoking should be further restricted. Should smoking be banned in public spaces? What about in outdoor areas? Check out our poll and find out what is the dominant view among our users. Vote and join the debate!

Should smoking be banned in public places?

Tobacco is a legal drug and one of the main public health issues: the World Health Organization claims that tobacco is the single greatest cause of preventable death globally. Many governments have introduced smoking bans . In particular governments have restricted the consumption of tobacco on public spaces (such as restaurants, work places, sports arenas, etc.). One of the most commented-upon cases is the prohibition of smoking in any indoor public space in Beijing  introduced in 2015. The purpose of restricting smoking is not only to reduce tobacco consumption by smokers but also to protect people from the effects of second-hand smoke. However, legal restrictions on smoking have also raised concerns about  personal liberty . 

Restrictions to smoking in outdoor areas - such as those introduced in  New York City  in 2014 - are usually the most controversial of all. Should smoking be restricted in parks, beaches, and streets? On the one side people claim that smokes bothers non-smokers, even if it is outdoors. It sets a bad example for children who may internalize this habit as something normal and may become more prone to become smokers in the future. Moreover smokers tend to throw the cigarette butts to the floor. Conversely those opposing to further restrictions claim that the harm caused by smokers in public spaces is minimal, in particular if compared with the smoke produced by vehicles. Wouldn't it be logical then to ban non-environmental friendly cars in cities? This could be the first of a series of other prohibitions that could make people's lives look similar to those in Orwell's 1984. Are we also going to ban other habits that may be considered annoying  such as chewing gum, drinking in public spaces, shouting or even singing?

Next, we list the main advantages and disadvantages of prohibiting smoking in public areas. Think about them, make up your mind, vote in our poll and comment on our discussion forum below .

Pros and cons of smoking bans

Pros of banning smoking in public places:

• Health and rights of passive smokers: those who do not smoke will not have to inhale the smoke from the cigarettes of smokers. Passive smoking is an important health issue that has caused the death of millions of people worldwide. Moreover, non smokers have the right to stay away of smoke if that is their decision. In this case the freedom to smoke in public area clashes with the individual right of those who don't want to be exposed to smoke.
• Smell: tobacco smell displeases most people. Even smokers complaint of how bad their clothing smells after spending time in close places with a lot of smoke. Banning smoking in public spaces would contribute to reduce tobacco odor. No need to wash pullovers, dresses, trousers, as often as before.
• Set a good example for children: smokers have been historically driven to the habit by imitation of other people. Actors, politicians, parents and other figures we admired used to smoke. Somehow kids would try to imitate the demeanor of those they like or find role models in their lives and aspirations. The less children see other people smoking, the less prone they will be to smoke.
• Reduce tobacco consumption: the benefits of stopping smoking are evident. If smokers cannot smoke cigarretes in public spaces they will likely smoke less. This wil be good for their health and for their finances. Tobacco has become very expensive in many countries. Tobacco users also claim that the banning smoking in public places may help them with quitting. In particular social smokers are vulnerable when they see other people smoking around them.
• Reduce public spending: the prohibition of smoking in public places would help governments save a large amount of money in heathcare . The US government spends more than $10 billion every year in heath care costs associated to tobacco consumption. With a ban, air quality would improve and public health systems would spend less in treatements for cancer and respiratory diseases. Moreover, cleaning costs would be reduced. Today cigarette butts force local authorities to intensify the frequency of street cleaning. 

Cons of banning smoking in public places:

• Demonization of smokers: prohibiting smoking cigarettes contributes to the stigmatization of smokers. Smokers are normal people, some of them smoke because they really enjoy the habit other because the fail to quit. Forcing them to smoke in private or only in smokers designated areas is a way to stigmatize them in society. 
• Comparative disadvantage: there are other annoying or potentially dangerous habits for which regulation is not so strict. For instance, in many countries it is allowed to drink alcohol in public places. Alcohol consumption is another great threat for public health. We often see people very drunk in public spaces. They may provoke fights and set a poor example for children. If we want to be fair, shouldn't we also ban drinking in public places? In some states carrying guns is allowed in public places. Aren't firearms more dangerous than cigarettes?
• Taxes: tobacco is a great source of income for governments. Cigarettes are heavily taxed and the money collected from tobacco consumption can be used to fund research projects against the diseases caused by it or even education programs to raise awareness about the dangers of tobacco.
• Pleasure: smoking has been considered a pleasure for centuries. Humans are often willing to undertake some risks for their health for the sake of enjoyment. It is accepted that people drink alcohol because the fun they may get from it, despite its obvious risks. Similarly, extreme sports are practiced by an increasing number of people regardless of the dangers they entail. If we want to ban tobacco because is bad for health, following the same logic, shouldn't we also ban fast food or sodas? 
• Freedom: public spaces belong to us all. Banning smoking in public areas means limiting individual liberties . Government regulation can become increasingly intrusive if we allow it. What is the boundary between the collective good and the individual freedom? There is a delicate trade-off and it is not clear where the red lines should be placed. What if after banning smoking in public places they decide to ban speaking loud, cracking jokes, or wearing a certain type of clothing? Can we objectively define what is necessary to ban or not?

Do you think we should further restrict smoking in public spaces? Is current regulation too enough or too much? Should smoking be illegal?

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 21 January 2021

The effects of tobacco control policies on global smoking prevalence

• Luisa S. Flor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6888-512X 1 ,
• Marissa B. Reitsma 1 ,
• Vinay Gupta 1 ,
• Marie Ng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8243-4096 2 &
• Emmanuela Gakidou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8992-591X 1  

Nature Medicine volume  27 ,  pages 239–243 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

112 Citations

364 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Risk factors

Substantial global effort has been devoted to curtailing the tobacco epidemic over the past two decades, especially after the adoption of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 1 by the World Health Organization in 2003. In 2015, in recognition of the burden resulting from tobacco use, strengthened tobacco control was included as a global development target in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 2 . Here we show that comprehensive tobacco control policies—including smoking bans, health warnings, advertising bans and tobacco taxes—are effective in reducing smoking prevalence; amplified positive effects are seen when these policies are implemented simultaneously within a given country. We find that if all 155 countries included in our counterfactual analysis had adopted smoking bans, health warnings and advertising bans at the strictest level and raised cigarette prices to at least 7.73 international dollars in 2009, there would have been about 100 million fewer smokers in the world in 2017. These findings highlight the urgent need for countries to move toward an accelerated implementation of a set of strong tobacco control practices, thus curbing the burden of smoking-attributable diseases and deaths.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reductions in smoking due to ratification of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control in 171 countries

Accelerating tobacco control at the national level with the Smoke-free Generation movement in the Netherlands

A dynamic modelling analysis of the impact of tobacco control programs on population-level nicotine dependence

Decades after its ill effects on human health were first documented, tobacco smoking remains one of the major global drivers of premature death and disability. In 2017, smoking was responsible for 7.1 (95% uncertainty interval (UI), 6.8–7.4) million deaths worldwide and 7.3% (95% UI, 6.8%–7.8%) of total disability-adjusted life years 3 . In addition to the health impacts, economic harms resulting from lost productivity and increased healthcare expenditures are also well-documented negative effects of tobacco use 4 , 5 . These consequences highlight the importance of strengthening tobacco control, a critical and timely step as countries work toward the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals 2 .

In 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) led the development of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the first global health treaty intended to bolster tobacco use curtailment efforts among signatory member states 1 . Later, in 2008, to assist the implementation of tobacco control policies by countries, the WHO introduced the MPOWER package, an acronym representing six evidence-based control measures (Table 1 ) (ref. 6 ). While accelerated adoption of some of these demand reduction policies was observed among FCTC parties in the past decade 7 , many challenges remain to further decrease population-level tobacco use. Given the differing stages of the tobacco epidemic and tobacco control across countries, consolidating the evidence base on the effectiveness of policies in reducing smoking is necessary as countries plan on how to do better. In this study, we evaluated the association between varying levels of tobacco control measures and age- and sex-specific smoking prevalence using data from 175 countries and highlighted missed opportunities to decrease smoking rates by predicting the global smoking prevalence under alternative unrealized policy scenarios.

Despite the enhanced global commitment to control tobacco use, the pace of progress in reducing smoking prevalence has been heterogeneous across geographies, development status, sex and age 8 ; in 2017, there were still 1.1 billion smokers across the 195 countries and territories assessed by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study. Global smoking prevalence in 2017 among men and women aged 15 and older, 15–29 years, 30–49 years and 50 years and older are shown in Extended Data Figs. 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 , respectively. We found that, between 2009 and 2017, current smoking prevalence declined by 7.7% for men (36.3% (95% UI, 35.9–36.6%) to 33.5% (95% UI, 32.9–34.1%)) and by 15.2% for women globally (7.9% (95% UI, 7.8–8.1%) to 6.7% (95% UI, 6.5–6.9%)). The highest relative decreases were observed among men and women aged 15–29 years, at 10% and 20%, respectively. Conversely, prevalence decreased less intensively for those aged over 50, at 2% for men and 9.5% for women. While some countries have shown an important reduction in smoking prevalence between 2009 and 2017, such as Brazil, suggesting sustained progress in tobacco control, a handful of countries and territories have shown considerable increases in smoking rates among men (for example, Albania) and women (for example, Portugal) over this time period.

In an effort to counteract the harmful lifelong consequences of smoking, countries have, overall, implemented stronger demand reduction measures after the FCTC ratification. To assess national-level legislation quality, the WHO attributes a score to each of the MPOWER measures that ranges from 1 to 4 for the monitoring component (M) and 1–5 for the other components. A score of 1 represents no known data, while scores 2–5 characterize the overall strength of each measure, from the lowest level of achievement (weakest policy) to the highest level of achievement (strongest policy) 6 . Between 2008 and 2016, although very little progress was made in treatment provision (O) 7 , 9 , the share of the total population covered by best practice (score = 5) P, W and E measures increased (Fig. 1 ). Notably, however, a massive portion of the global population is still not covered by comprehensive laws. As an example, less than 15% of the global population is protected by strongly regulated tobacco advertising (E) and the number of people (2.1 billion) living in countries where none or very limited smoke-free policies (P) are in place (score = 2) is still nearly twice as high as the population (1.1 billion) living in locations with national bans on smoking in all public places (score = 5).

To assess national-level legislation quality, the WHO attributes a score to each MPOWER component that ranges from 1 to 5 for smoke-free (P), health warning (W) and advertising (E) policies. A score of 1 represents no known data or no recent data, while scores 2–5 characterize the overall strength of each policy, from 2 representing the lowest level of achievement (weakest policy), to 5 representing the highest level of achievement (strongest policy).

Source data

In terms of fiscal policies (R), the population-weighted average price, adjusted for inflation, of a pack of cigarettes across 175 countries with available data increased from I$3.10 (where I$ represents international dollars) in 2008 to I$5.38 in 2016. However, from an economic perspective, for prices to affect purchasing decisions, they need to be evaluated relative to income. The relative income price (RIP) of cigarettes is a measure of affordability that reflects, in this study, what proportion of the country-specific per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is needed to purchase half a pack of cigarettes a day for a year. Over time, cigarettes have become less affordable (RIP 2016 > RIP 2008) in about 75% of the analyzed countries, with relatively more affordable cigarettes concentrated across high-income countries.

Our adjusted analysis indicates that greater levels of achievement on key measures across the P, W and E policy categories and higher RIP values were significantly associated with reduced smoking prevalence from 2009 to 2017 (Table 2 ). Among men aged 15 and older, each 1-unit increment in achievement scores for smoking bans (P) was independently associated with a 1.1% (95% UI, −1.7 to −0.5, P  < 0.0001) decrease in smoking prevalence. Similarly, an increase of 1 point in W and E scores was associated with a decrease in prevalence of 2.1% (95% UI, −2.7 to −1.6, P  < 0.0001) and 1.9% (95% UI, −2.6 to −1.1, P  < 0.0001), respectively. Furthermore, a 10 percentage point increase in RIP was associated with a 9% (95% UI, −12.6 to −5.0, P  < 0.0001) decrease in overall smoking prevalence. Results were similar for men from other age ranges.

Among women, the magnitude of effect of different policy indicators varied across age groups. For those aged over 15, each 1-point increment in W and E scores was independently associated with an average reduction in prevalence of 3.6% (95% UI, −4.5 to −2.9, P  < 0.0001) and 1.9% (95% UI, −2.9 to −1.8, P  = 0.002), respectively, and these findings were similar across age groups. Smoking ban (P) scores were not associated with reduced prevalence among women aged 15–29 years or over 50 years. However, a 1-unit increase in P scores was associated with a 1.3% (95% UI, −2.3 to −0.2, P  = 0.016) decline in prevalence among women aged 30–49 years. Lastly, while a 10 percentage point increase in RIP lowered women smoking prevalence by 6% overall (95% UI, −10.0 to −2.0, P = 0.014), this finding was not statistically significant when examining reductions in prevalence among those aged 50 and older (Table 2 ).

If tobacco control had remained at the level it was in 2008 for all 155 countries (with non-missing policy indicators for both 2008 and 2016; Methods ) included in the counterfactual analysis, we estimate that smoking prevalence would have been even higher than the observed 2017 rates, with 23 million more male smokers and 8 million more female smokers (age ≥ 15) worldwide (Table 3 ). Out of the counterfactual scenarios explored, the greatest progress in reducing smoking prevalence would have been observed if a combination of higher prices—resulting in reduced affordability levels—and strictest P, W and E laws had been implemented by all countries, leading to lower smoking rates among men and women from all age groups and approximately 100 million fewer smokers across all countries (Table 3 ). Under this policy scenario, the greatest relative decrease in prevalence would have been seen among those aged 15–29 for both sexes, resulting in 26.6 and 6.5 million fewer young male and female smokers worldwide in 2017, respectively.

Our findings reaffirm that a wide spectrum of tobacco demand reduction policies has been effective in reducing smoking prevalence globally; however, it also indicates that even though much progress has been achieved, there is considerable room for improvement and efforts need to be strengthened and accelerated to achieve additional gains in global health. A growing body of research points to the effectiveness of tobacco control measures 10 , 11 , 12 ; however, this study covers the largest number of countries and years so far and reveals that the observed impact has varied by type of control policy and across sexes and age groups. In high-income countries, stronger tobacco control efforts are also associated with higher cessation ratios (that is, the ratio of former smokers divided by the number of ever-smokers (current and former smokers)) and decreases in cigarette consumption 13 , 14 .

Specifically, our results suggest that men are, in general, more responsive to tobacco control interventions compared to women. Notably, with prevalence rates for women being considerably low in many locations, variations over time are more difficult to detect; thus, attributing causes to changes in outcome can be challenging. Yet, there is already evidence that certain elements of tobacco control policies that play a role in reducing overall smoking can have limited impact among girls and women, particularly those of low socioeconomic status 15 . Possible explanations include the different value judgments attached to smoking among women with respect to maintaining social relationships, improving body image and hastening weight control 16 .

Tax and price increases are recognized as the most impactful tobacco control policy among the suite of options under the MPOWER framework 10 , 14 , 17 , particularly among adolescents and young adults 18 . Previous work has also demonstrated that women are less sensitive than men to cigarette tax increases in the USA 19 . Irrespective of these demographic differences, effective tax policy is underutilized and only six countries—Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Egypt, Palau and San Marino—had adopted cigarette taxes that corresponded to the WHO-prescribed level of 70% of the price of a full pack by 2017 (ref. 20 ). Cigarettes also remain highly affordable in many countries, particularly among high-income nations, an indication that affordability-based prescriptions to countries, instead of isolated taxes and prices reforms, are possibly more useful as a tobacco control target. In addition, banning sales of single cigarettes, restricting legal cross-border shopping and fighting illicit trade are required so that countries can fully experience the positive effect of strengthened fiscal policies.

Smoke-free policies, which restrict the opportunities to smoke and decrease the social acceptability of smoking 17 , also affect population groups differently. In general, women are less likely to smoke in public places, whereas men might be more frequently influenced by smoking bans in bars, restaurants, clubs and workplaces across the globe due to higher workforce participation rates 16 . In addition to leading to reduced overall smoking rates, as indicated in this study, implementing complete smoking bans (that is, all public places completely smoke-free) at a faster pace can also play an important role in minimizing the burden of smoking-attributable diseases and deaths among nonsmokers. In 2017 alone, 2.18% (95% UI, 1.8–2.7%) of all deaths were attributable to secondhand smoke globally, with the majority of the burden concentrated among women and children 21 .

Warning individuals about the harms of tobacco use increases knowledge about the health risks of smoking and promotes changes in smoking-related behaviors, while full advertising and promotion bans—implemented by less than 20% of countries in 2017 (ref. 20 )—are associated with decreased tobacco consumption and smoking initiation rates, particularly among youth 17 , 22 , 23 . Large and rotating pictorial graphic warnings are the most effective in attracting smokers’ attention but are lacking in countries with high numbers of smokers, such as China and the USA 20 . Adding best practice health warnings to unbranded packages seems to be an effective way of informing about the negative effects of smoking while also eliminating the tobacco industry’s marketing efforts of using cigarette packages to make these products more appealing, especially for women and young people who are now the prime targets of tobacco companies 24 , 25 .

While it is clear that strong implementation and enforcement are crucial to accelerating progress in reducing smoking and its burden globally, our heterogeneous results by type of policy and demographics highlight the challenges of a one-size-fits-all approach in terms of tobacco control. The differences identified illustrate the need to consider the stages 26 of the smoking epidemics among men and women and the state of tobacco control in each country to identify the most pressing needs and evaluate the way ahead. Smoking patterns are also influenced by economic, cultural and political determinants; thus, future efforts in assessing the effectiveness of tobacco control policies under these different circumstances are of value. As tobacco control measures have been more widely implemented, tobacco industry forces have expanded and threaten to delay or reverse global progress 27 . Therefore, closing loopholes through accelerated universal adoption of the comprehensive set of interventions included in MPOWER, guaranteeing that no one is left unprotected, is an urgent requirement as efforts toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 are intensified.

This was an ecological time series analysis that aimed to estimate the effect of four key demand reduction measures on smoking rates across 175 countries. Country-year-specific achievement scores for P, W and E measures and an affordability metric measured by RIP—to capture the impact of fiscal policy (R)—were included as predictors in the model. Although the WHO also calls for monitoring (M) and tobacco cessation (O) interventions, these were not evaluated. Monitoring tobacco use is not considered a demand reduction measure, while very little progress has been made in treatment provision over the last decade 7 , 9 . Further information on research design is available in the Life Sciences Reporting Summary linked to this paper.

Smoking outcome data

The dependent variable is represented by country-specific, age-standardized estimates of current tobacco smoking prevalence, defined as individuals who currently use any smoked tobacco product on a daily or occasional basis. Complete time series estimates of smoking prevalence from 2009 to 2017 for men and women aged 15–29, 30–49, 50 years and older and 15 years and older, were taken from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study.

The GBD is a scientific effort to quantify the comparative magnitude of health loss due to diseases, injuries and risk factors by age, sex and geography for specific points in time. While full details on the estimation process for smoking prevalence have been published elsewhere, we briefly describe the main analytical steps in this article 3 . First, 2,870 nationally representative surveys meeting the inclusion criteria were systematically identified and extracted. Since case definitions vary between surveys, for example, some surveys only ask about daily smoking as opposed to current smoking that includes both daily and occasional smokers, the extracted data were adjusted to the reference case definition using a linear regression fit on surveys reporting multiple case definitions. Next, for surveys with only tabulated data available, nonstandard age groups and data reported as both sexes combined were split using observed age and sex patterns. These preprocessing steps ensured that all data used in the modeling were comparable. Finally, spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, a three-step modeling process used extensively in the GBD to estimate risk factor exposure, was used to estimate a complete time series for every country, age and sex. In the first step, estimates of tobacco consumption from supply-side data are incorporated to guide general levels and trends in prevalence estimates. In the second step, patterns observed in locations, age groups and years with smoking prevalence data are synthesized to improve the first-step estimates. This step is particularly important for countries and time periods with limited or no available prevalence data. The third step incorporates and quantifies uncertainty from sampling error, non-sampling error and the preprocessing data adjustments. For this analysis, the final age-specific estimates were age-standardized using the standard population based on GBD population estimates. Age standardization, while less important for the narrower age groups, ensured that the estimated effects of policies were not due to differences in population structure, either within or between countries.

Using GBD-modeled data is a strength of the study since nearly 3,000 surveys inform estimates and countries are not required to have complete survey coverage between 2009 and 2017 to be included in the analysis. Yet, it is important to note that these estimates have limitations. For example, in countries where a prevalence survey was not conducted after the enactment of a policy, modeled estimates may not reflect changes in prevalence resulting from that policy. Nonetheless, the prevalence estimates from the GBD used in this study are similar to those presented in the latest WHO report 28 , indicating the validity and consistency of said estimates.

MPOWER data

Summary indicators of country-specific achievements for each MPOWER measure are released by the WHO every two years and date back to 2007. Data from different iterations of the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic (2008 6 , 2009 29 , 2011 30 , 2013 31 , 2015 32 and 2017 20 ) were downloaded from the WHO Tobacco Free Initiative website ( https://www.who.int/tobacco/about/en/ ). To assess the quality of national-level legislation, the WHO attributes a score to each MPOWER component that ranges from 1 to 4 for the monitoring (M) dimension and 1–5 for the other dimensions. A score of 1 represents no known data or no recent data, while scores 2–5 characterize the overall strength of each policy, from the lowest level of achievement (weakest policy) to the highest (strongest policy).

Specifically, smoke-free legislation (P) is assessed to determine whether smoke-free laws provide for a complete indoor smoke-free environment at all times in each of the respective places: healthcare facilities; educational facilities other than universities; universities; government facilities; indoor offices and workplaces not considered in any other category; restaurants or facilities that serve mostly food; cafes, pubs and bars or facilities that serve mostly beverages; and public transport. Achievement scores are then based on the number of places where indoor smoking is completely prohibited. Regarding health warning policies (W), the size of the warnings on both the front and back of the cigarette pack are averaged to calculate the percentage of the total pack surface area covered by the warning. This information is combined with seven best practice warning characteristics to construct policy scores for the W dimension. Finally, countries achievements in banning tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (E) are assessed based on whether bans cover the following types of direct and indirect advertising: (1) direct: national television and radio; local magazines and newspapers; billboards and outdoor advertising; and point of sale (indoors); (2) indirect: free distribution of tobacco products in the mail or through other means; promotional discounts; nontobacco products identified with tobacco brand names; brand names of nontobacco products used or tobacco products; appearance of tobacco brands or products in television and/or films; and sponsorship.

P, W and E achievement scores, ranging from 2 to 5, were included as predictors into the model. The goal was to not only capture the effect of adopting policies at its highest levels but also assess the reduction in prevalence that could be achieved if countries moved into the expected direction in terms of implementing stronger measures over time. Additionally, having P, W and E scores separately, and not combined into a composite score, enabled us to capture the independent effect of different types of policies.

Although compliance is a critical factor in understanding policy effectiveness, the achievement scores incorporated in our main analysis reflect the adoption of legislation rather than degree of enforcement, representing a limitation of these indicators.

Prices in I$ for a 20-cigarette pack of the most sold brand in each of the 175 countries were also sourced from the WHO Tobacco Free Initiative website for all available years (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016). I$ standardize prices across countries and also adjust for inflation across time. This information was used to construct an affordability metric that captures the impact of cigarette prices on smoking prevalence, considering the income level of each country.

More specifically, the RIP, calculated as the percentage of per capita GDP required to purchase one half pack of cigarettes a day over the course of a year, was computed for each available country and year. Per capita GDP estimates were drawn from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation; the estimation process is detailed elsewhere 33 .

Given that the price data used in the analysis refer to the most sold brand of cigarettes only, it does not reflect the full range of prices of different types of tobacco products available in each location. This might particularly affect our power in detecting a strong effect in countries where other forms of tobacco are more popular.

Statistical analysis

Sex- and age-specific logit-transformed prevalence estimates from 2009 to 2017 were matched to one-year lagged achievement scores and RIP values using country and year identifiers 34 . The final sample consisted of 175 countries and was constrained to locations and years with non-missing indicators. A multiple linear mixed effects model fitted by restricted maximum likelihood was used to assess the independent effect of P, W and E scores and RIP values on the rates of current smoking. Specifically, a country random intercept and a country random slope on RIP were included to account for geographical heterogeneity and within-country correlation. The regression model takes the following general form:

where y c,t is the prevalence of current smoking in each country ( c ) and year ( t ), β 0 is the intercept for the model and β p , β w , β e and β r are the fixed effects for each of the policy predictors. \(\mathrm{P}_{c,\,t - 1},\,\mathrm{W}_{c,\,t - 1},\,\mathrm{E}_{c,\,t - 1}\) are the P, W and E scores and R c , t −1 is the RIP value for country c in year t  − 1. Finally, α c is the random intercept for country ( c ), while δ c represent the random slope for the country ( c ) to which the RIP value (R t − 1 ) belongs. Variance inflation factor values were calculated for all the predictor parameters to check for multicollinearity; the values found were low (<2) 35 . Bivariate models were also run and are shown in Extended Data Fig. 5 . The one-year lag introduced into the model may have led to an underestimation of effect sizes, particularly as many MPOWER policies require a greater period of time to be implemented effectively. However, due to the limited time range of our data (spanning eight years in total), introducing a longer lag period would have resulted in the loss of additional data points, thus further limiting our statistical power in detecting relevant associations between policies and smoking prevalence.

In addition to a joint model for smokers from both sexes, separate regressions were fitted for men and women and the four age groups (15–29, 30–49, ≥50 and ≥15 years old). To assess the validity of the mixed effects analyses, likelihood ratio tests comparing the models with random effects to the null models with only fixed effects were performed. Linear mixed models were fitted by maximum likelihood and t -tests used Satterthwaite approximations to degrees of freedom. P values were considered statistically significant if <0.05. All analyses were executed with RStudio v.1.1.383 using the lmer function in the R package lme4 v.1.1-21 (ref. 36 ).

A series of additional models to examine the impact of tobacco control policies were developed as part of this study. In each model, cigarette affordability (RIP) and a different set of policy metrics was used to capture the implementation, quality and compliance of tobacco control legislation. In models 1 and 2, we replaced the achievements scores by the proportion of P, W and E measures adopted by each country out of all possible measures reported by the WHO. In model 3, we used P and E (direct and indirect measures separately) compliance scores provided by the WHO to represent actual legislation implementation. Finally, an interaction term for compliance and achievement to capture the combined effect of legislation quality and performance was added to model 4. Results for men and women by age group for each of the additional models are presented in the Supplemental Information (Supplementary Tables 1–4 ).

The main model described in this study was chosen because it includes a larger number of country-year observations ( n  = 823) when compared to models including compliance scores and because it is more directly interpretable.

Counterfactual analysis

To further explore and quantify the impact of tobacco control policies on current smoking prevalence, we simulated what smoking prevalence across all countries would have been achieved in 2017 under 4 alternative policy scenarios: (1) if achievement scores and RIP remained at the level they were at in 2008; (2) if all countries had implemented each of P, W and E component at the highest level (score = 5); (3) if the price of a cigarette pack was I$7.73 or higher, a price that represents the 90th percentile of observed prices across all countries and years; and (4) if countries had implemented the P, W and E components at the highest level and higher cigarette prices. To keep our results consistent across scenarios, we restricted our analysis to 155 countries with non-missing policy-related indicators for both 2008 and 2016.

Random effects were used in model fitting but not in this prediction. Simulated prevalence rates were calculated by multiplying the estimated marginal effect of each policy by the alternative values proposed in each of the counterfactual scenarios for each country-year. The global population-weighted average was computed for status quo and counterfactual scenarios using population data sourced from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Using the predicted prevalence rates and population data, the additional reduction in the number of current smokers in 2017 was also computed. Since models were ran using age-standardized prevalence, the number of smokers was proportionally redistributed across age groups using the sex-specific numbers from the age group 15 and older as an envelope.

The UIs for predicted estimates were based on a computation of the results of each of the 1,000 draws (unbiased random samples) taken from the uncertainty distribution of each of the estimated coefficients; the lower bound of the 95% UI for the final quantity of interest is the 2.5 percentile of the distribution and the upper bound is the 97.5 percentile of the distribution.

Reporting Summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is publicly available at http://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/ihme-data/global-tobacco-control-and-smoking-prevalence-scenarios-2017 ( https://doi.org/10.6069/QAZ7-6505 ). The dataset contains all data necessary to interpret, replicate and build on the methods or findings reported in the article. Tobacco control policy data that support the findings of this study are released every two years as part of the WHO’s Global Report on Tobacco Control; these data are also directly accessible at https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/en/ . Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

All code used for these analyses is available at http://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/ihme-data/global-tobacco-control-and-smoking-prevalence-scenarios-2017 and https://github.com/ihmeuw/team/tree/effects_tobacco_policies .

World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control https://www.who.int/fctc/text_download/en/ (2003).

United Nations. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication (2015).

Stanaway, J. D. et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 392 , 1923–1994 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Jha, P. & Peto, R. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N. Engl. J. Med. 370 , 60–68 (2014).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ekpu, V. U. & Brown, A. K. The economic impact of smoking and of reducing smoking prevalence: review of evidence. Tob. Use Insights 8 , 1–35 (2015).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008: the MPOWER Package https://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/2008/en/ (2008).

Chung-Hall, J., Craig, L., Gravely, S., Sansone, N. & Fong, G. T. Impact of the WHO FCTC over the first decade: a global evidence review prepared for the Impact Assessment Expert Group. Tob. Control 28 , s119–s128 (2019).

Reitsma, M. B. et al. Smoking prevalence and attributable disease burden in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 389 , 1885–1906 (2017).

Nilan, K., Raw, M., McKeever, T. M., Murray, R. L. & McNeill, A. Progress in implementation of WHO FCTC Article 14 and its guidelines: a survey of tobacco dependence treatment provision in 142 countries. Addiction 112 , 2023–2031 (2017).

Dubray, J., Schwartz, R., Chaiton, M., O’Connor, S. & Cohen, J. E. The effect of MPOWER on smoking prevalence. Tob. Control 24 , 540–542 (2015).

Anderson, C. L., Becher, H. & Winkler, V. Tobacco control progress in low and middle income countries in comparison to high income countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13 , 1039 (2016).

Gravely, S. et al. Implementation of key demand-reduction measures of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and change in smoking prevalence in 126 countries: an association study. Lancet Public Health 2 , e166–e174 (2017).

Ngo, A., Cheng, K.-W., Chaloupka, F. J. & Shang, C. The effect of MPOWER scores on cigarette smoking prevalence and consumption. Prev. Med. 105S , S10–S14 (2017).

Feliu, A. et al. Impact of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and quit ratios in 27 European Union countries from 2006 to 2014. Tob. Control 28 , 101–109 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Greaves, L. Gender, equity and tobacco control. Health Sociol. Rev. 16 , 115–129 (2007).

Amos, A., Greaves, L., Nichter, M. & Bloch, M. Women and tobacco: a call for including gender in tobacco control research, policy and practice. Tob. Control 21 , 236–243 (2012).

Hoffman, S. J. & Tan, C. Overview of systematic reviews on the health-related effects of government tobacco control policies. BMC Public Health 15 , 744 (2015).

Chaloupka, F. J., Straif, K. & Leon, M. E. Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control. Tob. Control 20 , 235–238 (2011).

Rice, N., Godfrey, C., Slack, R., Sowden, A. & Worthy, G. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Price on the Smoking Behaviour of Young People (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2009); https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12013060057&LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12013060057

World Health Organizaion. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2017: Monitoring Tobacco Use and Prevention Policies https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2017/en/ (2017).

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. GBD Compare https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/ (2017).

Saffer, H. & Chaloupka, F. The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. J. Health Econ. 19 , 1117–1137 (2000).

Noar, S. M. et al. The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. Soc. Sci. Med. 164 , 118–129 (2016).

Moodie, C., Brose, L. S., Lee, H. S., Power, E. & Bauld, L. How did smokers respond to standardised cigarette packaging with new, larger health warnings in the United Kingdom during the transition period? A cross-sectional online survey. Addict. Res. Theory 28 , 53–61 (2020).

Wakefield, M. et al. Australian adult smokers’ responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey. Tob. Control 24 , ii17–ii25 (2015).

Thun, M., Peto, R., Boreham, J. & Lopez, A. D. Stages of the cigarette epidemic on entering its second century. Tob. Control 21 , 96–101 (2012).

Bialous, S. A. Impact of implementation of the WHO FCTC on the tobacco industry’s behaviour. Tob. Control 28 , s94–s96 (2019).

World Health Organization. Global Report on Trends in Prevalence of Tobacco Smoking 2000–2025 http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/surveillance/trends-tobacco-smoking-second-edition/en/ (2018).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2009: Implementing Smoke-Free Environments https://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/2009/en/ (2009).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2011: Warning About the Dangers of Tobacco https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2011/en/ (2011).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2013: Enforcing Bans on Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2013/en/ (2013).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2015: Raising Taxes on Tobacco https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2015/en/ (2015).

James, S. L., Gubbins, P., Murray, C. J. & Gakidou, E. Developing a comprehensive time series of GDP per capita for 210 countries from 1950 to 2015. Popul. Health Metr. 10 , 12 (2012).

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Global Tobacco Control and Smoking Prevalence Scenarios 2017 (dataset) (Global Health Data Exchange, 2020).

Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1 , 3–14 (2010).

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies (grant 47386, Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use). We thank the support of the Tobacco Metrics Team Advisory Group, which provided valuable comments and suggestions over several iterations of this manuscript. We also thank the Tobacco Free Initiative team at the WHO and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for making the tobacco control legislation data available and providing clarifications when necessary. We thank A. Tapp, E. Mullany and J. Whisnant for assisting in the management and execution of this study. We thank the team who worked in a previous iteration of this project, especially A. Reynolds, C. Margono, E. Dansereau, K. Bolt, M. Subart and X. Dai. Lastly, we thank all GBD 2017 Tobacco collaborators for their valuable work in providing feedback to our smoking prevalence estimates throughout the GBD 2017 cycle.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Luisa S. Flor, Marissa B. Reitsma, Vinay Gupta & Emmanuela Gakidou

IBM Watson Health, San Jose, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

L.S.F., M.N. and E.G. conceptualized the study and designed the analytical framework. M.B.R. and V.G. provided input on data, results and interpretation. L.S.F. and E.G. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuela Gakidou .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Jennifer Sargent was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 15 years and older (age-standardized) in 2017..

Age-standardized smoking prevalence (%) estimates from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study for men (a) and women (b) aged 15 years and older for 195 countries. Smoking is defined as current use of any type of smoked tobacco product. Details on the estimation process can be found in the Methods section and elsewhere 3 .

Extended Data Fig. 2 Prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 15 to 29 years old (age-standardized) in 2017.

Age-standardized smoking prevalence (%) estimates from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study for men (a) and women (b) aged 15–29 years old for 195 countries. Smoking is defined as current use of any type of smoked tobacco product. Details on the estimation process can be found in the Methods section and elsewhere 3 .

Extended Data Fig. 3 Prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 30 to 49 years old (age-standardized) in 2017.

Age-standardized smoking prevalence (%) estimates from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study for men (a) and women (b) aged 30–49 years old for 195 countries. Smoking is defined as current use of any type of smoked tobacco product. Details on the estimation process can be found in the Methods section and elsewhere 3 .

Extended Data Fig. 4 Prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 50 years and older (age-standardized) in 2017.

Age-standardized smoking prevalence (%) estimates from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study for men (a) and women (b) aged 50 years and older for 195 countries. Smoking is defined as current use of any type of smoked tobacco product. Details on the estimation process can be found in the Methods section and elsewhere 3 .

Extended Data Fig. 5 Percentage changes in current smoking prevalence based on fixed effect coefficients from bivariate mixed effect linear regression models, by policy component, sex and age group.

Bivariate models examined the unadjusted association between smoke-free (P), health warnings (W), and advertising (E) achievement scores, and cigarette’s affordability (RIP) and current smoking prevalence, from 2009 to 2017, across 175 countries (n = 823 country-years). Linear mixed models were fit by maximum likelihood and t-tests used Satterthwaite approximations to degrees of freedom. P values were considered statistically significant if lower than 0.05.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Tables 1–4: additional models results.

Source Data Fig. 1

Input data for Fig. 1 replication.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Input data for Extended Data 1 replication.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Input data for Extended Data 2 replication.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Input data for Extended Data 3 replication.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Input data for Extended Data 4 replication.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Flor, L.S., Reitsma, M.B., Gupta, V. et al. The effects of tobacco control policies on global smoking prevalence. Nat Med 27 , 239–243 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01210-8

Download citation

Received : 28 May 2020

Accepted : 10 December 2020

Published : 21 January 2021

Issue Date : February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01210-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Marketing claims, promotional strategies, and product information on malaysian e-cigarette retailer websites-a content analysis.

• Sameeha Misriya Shroff
• Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2024)

Challenges in legitimizing further measures against smoking in jurisdictions with robust infrastructure for tobacco control: how far can the authorities allow themselves to go?

• Karl Erik Lund
• Gunnar Saebo

Harm Reduction Journal (2024)

Global smoking-related deaths averted due to MPOWER policies implemented at the highest level between 2007 and 2020

• Delia Hendrie

Globalization and Health (2024)

Health effects associated with exposure to secondhand smoke: a Burden of Proof study

• Luisa S. Flor
• Jason A. Anderson
• Emmanuela Gakidou

Nature Medicine (2024)

Predictors of quitting smoking behavior: evidence from Pakistan

• Assad Ullah Khan
• Sareer Ahmad

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays
• Ban Smoking Essay

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay

This is a  ban smoking in public places  essay. It is an example of an essay where you have to give your opinion as to whether you agree or disagree.

The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

It is always a good idea to present a balanced essay which presents both sides of the argument, but you must always make it very clear what your opinion is and which side of the argument you support.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer:

Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.

Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, 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. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke where they wish.

However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, 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. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas.

In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.

(290 words)

This essay is well organized and presented.

The introduction is clear - note how it follows the ban smoking in public places essay question - it paraphrases the information in order to introduce the topic and the argument.

The argument against a ban on smoking in public places is presented first. It is made clear that it is not the authors opinion by the topic sentence:

• "Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons".

And also by the use of the word 'they' to refer to the opponents.

The writer then clearly shows they are moving on to the other argument which is their own (and it has clearly been stated in the thesis that this is their argument):

• "However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban".

In this paragraph, 'they' is dropped because it is now the writers opinion.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Human Cloning Essay: Should we be scared of cloning humans?

Human cloning essay - this is on the topic of cloning humans to use their body parts. You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts, and what reservations (concerns) you have.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay: Should we all be vegetarian to be healthy?

Vegetarianism Essay for IELTS: In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Key Phrases for IELTS Speaking: Fluency and Coherence

May 26, 24 06:52 AM

Useful Language for IELTS Graphs

May 16, 24 04:44 AM

Taking a Gap Year

May 14, 24 03:00 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Smoking should be banned in public places IELTS Essay

IELTS ESSAY TOPIC

Smoking should be banned in public places. Do you agree or disagree?

Sample Answer

Smoking should be banned by higher authorities in all public places, although this would restrict some other people’s freedom. I completely agree with this statement because, firstly, it affects other people’s health, and secondly, it sets a good precedent for society and communities.

To begin with, smoking in all public places should be banned by the government because it affects not only active smokers who are addicted to it but also others who do not smoke. Moreover, when a person smokes in a public place, the smoke contains different hazardous gases. It deteriorates the environment as well as the health of the people who stand behind him. Moreover, smoking is a veiled threat to the health of passive smokers. If the central focus of the government is a restriction of smoking in public places, that would help people improve their health, and their lives would lead towards an impressive growth trajectory . For example, a study has revealed that the number of smokers has declined due to proper restrictions on smoking.

Moreover, the government should go beyond the conventional domain to ban smoking in public places. Due to this, more people will be aware of the consequences of smoking, and they will avoid active smoking. Moreover, if the government organizes stringent rules and regulations , people will think twice before smoking. It also sets a good precedent for others, and when they avoid smoking, it will help them develop their holistic growth . For instance, in the United States, a paradigm shift was seen in the number of people aware of the consequences of smoking because they followed stringent rules and regulations set by the higher authorities.

 To conclude, smoking should be banned in public places, and I agree with this statement because it not only affects other people but also it is a prudent approach for society and communities.

• Writing Correction
• Online Prep Platform
• Online Course
• Speaking Assessment
• Ace The IELTS
• Target Band 7
• Practice Tests Downloads
• IELTS Success Formula
• Essays Band 9 IELTS Writing Task 2 samples – IELTS Band 9 essays
• Essays Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 8
• Essays Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 7
• Essays Band 6 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 6
• Essays Band 5 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 5
• Reports Band 9 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 9 (Academic Writing Task 1)
• Reports Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 8
• Reports Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 7
• Letters Band 9 IELTS Writing Task 1 – samples of IELTS letters of Band 9
• Letters Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS letters of Band 8
• Letters Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS letters of Band 7
• Speaking Samples
• Tests Samples
• 2023, 2024 IELTS questions
• 2022 IELTS questions
• 2021 IELTS questions
• 2020 IELTS questions
• High Scorer’s Advice IELTS high achievers share their secrets
• IELTS Results Competition
• IELTS-Blog App

IELTS Essay, topic: Smoking in public places

• 12 Comments
• IELTS Essays - Band 7

Some businesses prohibit smoking in any of their offices. Some governments have banned smoking in all public places. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right course of action? Give reasons for your opinion.

Allow me to present the three positive sides of smoking. Firstly, smoking certainly helps many people to relax. For some, it even improves concentration. If someone is upset or they have , to smoke to reduce the pressure or tension. people like to smoke when they are relaxing with friends. Secondly, governments throughout the world make huge profits from taxes on cigarettes. The income obtained through taxes provides funds which are used for building and public places such as parks, gardens, sports ground and foot paths. Thirdly, tobacco industry also employs tens of thousands of people all over the world, particularly in poorer countries such as Zimbabwe or the Philippines. Without cigarettes, these people would have no jobs.

Despite these positive are lots of negative effects to smoking too. Initially, smoking has been proven to be very dangerous for health. cigarette contains more than 4000 chemical substances, therefore, it dangerous diseases such as heart attacks, asthma, bronchitis or lung cancer. According to a recent report in Britain close to 3,500 people are killed each year in road accidents and 120,000 are killed by smoking. Furthermore, smoking costs governments millions of dollars because of the large number of people who need treatment in hospitals for smoking-related problems. Moreover, passive smoking is also a major concern today. Recent research shows that non-smokers can suffer from health problems if they spend long periods of time among people who do smoke. In the UK children whose parents are are three times as likely to start smoking themselves .

In short, I think the world would be a better place without cigarettes. However, the decision of whether smoke or not to smoke should be for each individual to make. I suggest that people should not smoke in a room or a place where there are non smokers, however they should be free to smoke elsewhere.

This is a very good essay, you have made your arguments well and set out the paragraphs as required. However, pay attention to your use of assertive statements e.g. ‘Without cigarettes, these people would have no jobs’. Perhaps they would gain employment in another industry – we cannot be sure. Over all, well done!

Related posts:

• IELTS essay, topic: Some argue that governments should create nutrition and food choice laws to improve public health (discuss + opinion) This essay topic was seen in a recent IELTS test...
• IELTS Report, topic: Table and pie chart describing day and overnight stays in public and private hospitals in Australia (from IELTS High Scorer’s Choice series, Academic Set 2) This is a model response to a Writing Task 1...
• IELTS essay, topic: Should school children be given homework (opinion)? This is a model response to a Writing Task 2...
• IELTS essay, topic: Having a salaried job is better than being self-employed (agree/disagree) This is a model response to a Writing Task 2...

12 thoughts on “IELTS Essay, topic: Smoking in public places”

Pingback:  IELTS Essay Samples of Band 7 | IELTS-Blog

Is comparison important in IELTS essay? My former tutor said you had to have comparison between two things related to the topic in each body paragraph; otherwise, the essay will go below band 6. please advise.Thank you

Hi ccavute, my guess is that your tutor meant a balanced discussion. If the task asks whether you agree or disagree with a certain statement, you should discuss both sides of it – the one you do agree with and the one you don’t agree with. If you leave one of them out of your essay it won’t look objective and the task won’t be completely covered, which may affect the score.

I am surprised the test taker can remember the approximate number of people killed by cigarettes and road accident, how if the number we mentioned just a guess or just a random number, could it make the writing looks unreliable? is it ok?

Hi Yenni, you don’t have to mention any numbers at all for your essay to appear genuine and trustworthy. You can just say ‘hundreds’ or ‘thousands’ or ‘a large number’ and it will still be fine. Concentrate on your ideas and arguments, and how you express them. Numbers aren’t the only thing you can use to support your arguments – examples are good as well.

Hi, Please correct me if I am wrong in the following points. 1 ESSAY should not be personalised. Research or survey data should not mentioned. 2. Directing the content on UK parents might be targetting a particular set of people. 3 Aren’t we supposed to pick one side in suchlike questions? i.e. either agree or disagree.

Hi Neetu, in this essay the mentions of data explain or support the writer’s claims, which makes them appropriate. UK data is no exception, it is used for the same purpose of substantiating the writer’s claim. You can agree or disagree, but it doesn’t mean you don’t have to consider the opposite side of the argument – in fact, when you write about both sides, your essay looks more balanced.

Hello. In do you agree or disagree essay. We should write both of sides or not?.please explain.thank you

The most important thing is to make your position clear, you should say whether you agree or disagree. If the essay question is “To what extent do you agree or disagree”, you can say that you partially or fully agree (or disagree). If you only partially agree, then make sure you discuss both sides. If you agree with just one side, you can write only about that, but if you are running out of ideas then you can discuss both sides. The added benefit of this is that it will make your essay more balanced. I hope this helps.

But if we write on both sides sometimes we might contradict our own points like if we are writing more on positive side and then if we write less on negative we may contradict some of our positive points? Correct me if m wrong

You don’t have to contradict yourself, there are arguments for and against, you support only one side, but you still are aware why people might support the other side and you are pointing it out in your essay. It’s absolutely fine.

Smoking is banned in offices and public areas because it is harmful to the public. I agree with this on the ground that it is a really wise decision made by the authorities, I think it is because of reasons like an unhealthy environment for people and it can influence children to perform it. To begin, smoking is dangerous due to health issues it causes like lung cancer and asthma yet it is way more harmful to people who are near the smoking person. To explain, scientists have researched smoking and what problems it can cause to individuals who breathe the exhaled smoke of smokers. Research shows the person near the smoker has a higher chance of getting cancer than the performer itself and that is the reason governments banned smoking in public areas to keep citizens safe from its deadly consequences. Another reason for prohibiting smoking is its bad influence on children. To justify, children are always curiously seeing the world, to learn something new daily, and this is the nature of every juvenile. Therefore, if children see someone smoking, which mostly will be possible if people do it in public areas, that can influence them to try it and maybe get addicted to it if they do it multiple times. Hence, it will be better to not let them see this deed for their safety. To conclude, smoking is harmful and there is no denial to it so I believe it should stay banned and should performed in isolated places so no one can inhale the bad substances that get released while doing it, so everyone can be safe and children can also not get encouraged to do it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The pros and cons of a total smoking ban

Plans to phase out the sale of tobacco completely have won cross-party support

• Newsletter sign up Newsletter

Pro: saving lives

Con: black markets, pro: avoiding poverty, con: risk to civil liberties, pro: environmental protection, con: losing tax revenue.

Rishi Sunak's plans to phase out the sale of cigarettes appears to have gained cross-party backing, making a total smoking ban in the UK a real possibility.

The prime minister used his Conservative Party conference speech to announce plans to raise the age at which people can buy tobacco in England year by year until it applies to the whole population. This would mean a 14-year-old today will never legally be able to buy a cigarette, putting England on a par with the likes of New Zealand, which introduced a similar law last year, in having "some of the strictest smoking laws in the world", Sky News reported.

While an outright ban – even one introduced over several decades – may prove controversial, its chances of coming into law have received a boost after it won support from Labour, as well as Welsh and Scottish governments, where laws on smoking are devolved.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

"Political instincts on this issue are coalescing around a similar position," said BBC political editor Chris Mason, meaning the plan could be both "profound and long-lasting".

Almost six million people in England smoke, and tobacco remains the single biggest cause of preventable illness and death. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, stroke and heart disease, with smoking-related illnesses costing the NHS £17 billion a year, according to campaign group  Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

An independent government-commissioned review , which last year recommended proposals similar to those announced by Sunak, argued that tackling tobacco use and supporting smokers to quit would help prevent 15 types of cancer – including lung cancer, throat cancer and acute myeloid leukaemia. Recent data showed that one in four deaths from all cancers were estimated to be from smoking.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4 's "Today" programme, the prime minister said his proposals represented the "biggest public health intervention in a generation", a claim backed up by England's chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, who stressed how beneficial the health improvements would be.

Simon Clark, of smokers' lobby group Forest, told the BBC that "creeping prohibition won't stop young adults smoking" but it will "simply drive the sale of tobacco underground and consumers will buy cigarettes on the black market where no-one pays tax and products are completely unregulated".

The illicit trade in tobacco products "poses major health, economic and security concerns around the world", according to the World Health Organization , which estimates 1 in every 10 cigarettes and tobacco products consumed globally is illicit.

Writing for The Conversation , Dr Brendan Gogarty, of the University of Tasmania, argued that "laws that rely on prohibition to reduce the prevalence and harm from drugs generally fail to achieve their aims".

Smoking causes a disproportionate burden on the most disadvantaged families and communities, last year's independent review found. The average smoker in the North East of England spends over 10% of their income on tobacco, compared to just over 6% in the South East.

This mirrors research from 2015 conducted by University of Nottingham, which found parents who smoke were "plunging nearly half a million children into poverty", The Independent reported.

As smokers quit, said Sudyumna Dahal for The Conversation , household budgets "become easier, facilitating what a study in the British Medical Journal describes as an income transfer from male smokers to females and other family members".

Therefore, argue anti-smoking campaigners, banning smoking would bring greater benefits to the less well-off.

Smokers and the groups who advocate on their behalf argue that their habit is a civil right, even if it kills the smoker. In a report published in 2019, the smokers’ group Forest argued that "smokers are the canaries for civil liberties".

It added that the call for a ban "directly violates the harm principle that assumes a person has autonomy over their own life and body as long as they do not hurt other people".

As The Spectator editor Fraser Nelson pointed out on Twitter , plans to phase out the sale of cigarettes could lead to the absurd situation where pensioners will have to produce ID to prove which side of the ever-moving line of legality they are on.

"I'd love to live in a smoke-free world," wrote Rachael Bletchly in the Daily Mirror . "I wish people would stop wrecking their health with cigarettes. But I don't think it's the job of politicians to police other grown-ups' filthy habits. And I fear that Rishi Sunak's new smoking ban is just well-meaning, populist puff."

Cigarette smoking has several negative environmental impacts and banning smoking would bring these to an end. Smokers release pollution into the atmosphere, cigarette butts litter the environment, and the toxic chemicals in the residues cause soil and water pollution.

Tobacco is commonly planted in rainforest areas and has contributed to major deforestation, said Conserve Energy Future .

A 2013 report in the journal Tobacco Control found that cigarette manufacturing “consumes scarce resources in growing, curing, rolling, flavouring, packaging, transport, advertising and legal defence” and “also causes harms from massive pesticide use”.

Taxation on smoking raises more than £8.8 billion per year for the Treasury, noted Politics.co.uk . The TaxPayers’ Alliance rejected the argument that smokers also cost the taxman more due to their health burden, arguing that smokers who suffer major health problems are more likely to die prematurely, reducing expenditure on state pensions and other age-related benefits.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

Talking Points The practice is barely tracked or regulated in the US and can easily conceal abuse

By Anya Jaremko-Greenwold, The Week US Published 28 May 24

Under the Radar The Facebook group that offers a look inside the crisis in higher education

By David Faris Published 28 May 24

The Week's daily crossword

By The Week Staff Published 28 May 24

Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day

By Harold Maass, The Week US Published 20 May 24

In Depth The former president is planning to fundamentally flip America's civil rights protections if he wins a second term in office

By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published 9 April 24

Today's Big Question US, UK and Australia seek to expand 'game-changer' defence partnership ahead of Republican's possible return to White House

By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published 22 March 24

By Harold Maass, The Week US Published 21 March 24

Today's Big Question PM's pledge to deliver economic growth is 'in tatters' as stagnation and falling living standards threaten Tory election wipeout

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 16 February 24

By Harold Maass, The Week US Published 1 February 24

The Explainer Across England, local councils are suffering from grave financial problems

By The Week UK Published 28 January 24

Talking Point The Telegraph launches 'assault' on PM just as many Tory MPs are contemplating losing their seats

By Keumars Afifi-Sabet, The Week UK Published 26 January 24

• Contact Future's experts
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

• JEE Advanced
• NCERT Solutions
• NCERT Exemplar
• NCERT Books
• Previous Year Paper
• CBSE Sample Paper
• CBSE Syllabus
• Scholarship
• Counselling
• States of India
• The Greatest Indian
• Intelligence Agency
• International Personality
• Science and Environment
• Personality Development
• Health & Fitness

Smoking Ban: Smoking In Public Places Should Be Banned

Smoking in public places will lead to many hazardous health issues for smokers and non-smokers. when people smoke, the dangerous fumes from cigarettes will go to the respiratory tract and causes cancer..

Smoking Ban: Smoking must be restricted in public areas. I strongly agree with these because many people show interest to smoke even though it causes a detrimental effect on public health as well as the environment.

Smoking in public places will lead to many hazardous health issues for smokers and non-smokers. When people smoke, the dangerous fumes from cigarettes will go to the respiratory tract and causes cancer. For instance, if a person smokes in a park or a person surrounded by smokers inhales that fumes so the restriction on smoking will reduce health issues for the public. Moreover, public smoking can affect young people to addict to it. Children and youth perceive smoking as one of the factors to enjoy thus they may practice and addict to it. Recent studies have shown that the Young generation is prone to smoking addiction when they see smokers very often.

Another reason to use smoking is the deleterious effect on the environment because it can cause air pollution . The overwhelming number of smokers in public spaces will generate harmful fumes from cigarettes which contribute to air pollution. For example, it was already revealed in his reports smoking can lead to air pollution. Besides, smoking creates very discomfort in nonsmokers If they smoke in public. Because of order generates from cigarettes while smoking, sometimes it causes nausea, headache, irritation, and discomfort to those who stand next to the smokers.

Table of Contents

Why smoking in public places should be banned?

No Smoking must be implemented in public areas. I strongly agree with these because many people show interest to smoke even though it causes a detrimental effect on public health as well as the environment.

Smoking in public places will lead to many hazardous health issues for smokers and non-smokers. When people smoke, the dangerous fumes from cigarettes will go to the respiratory tract and causes cancer. For instance, if a person smokes in a park or people who surround by smokers inhale that fumes so the restriction on smoking will reduce health issues for the public. Moreover, public smoking can affect young people to addict to it. Children and youth perceive smoking as one of the factors to enjoy thus they may practice and addict to it. Recent studies have shown that the Young generation is prone to smoking addiction when they see smokers very often.

Another reason to use smoking is the deleterious effect on the environment because these can cause air pollution . The overwhelming number of smokers in public spaces will generate harmful fumes from cigarettes which contribute to air pollution. For example, it was already revealed by who in his reports smoking can lead to air pollution. Besides, smoking creates very discomfort in nonsmokers If anyone smokes in public. Because of order generates from cigarettes while smoke, sometimes it causes nausea, headache, irritation, and discomfort to those who stand next to the smokers.

Pros and Cons of Smoking Bans

The pros and cons of smoking bans in public places are:

Pros of Smoking Bans in Public Places

• Place a good example for children: smokers have been historically driven to the habit by imitation of other people. Parents, artists, politicians, and other personalities we admired used to smoke. Anyhow, kids would try to follow the behavior of those they like or find role models in their lives and ambitions. The fewer children see other people smoking, the less prone they will be to smoke.
• Health and rights of non-smokers: those who do not smoke will not have to inhale the smoke from the cigarettes of smokers. Passive smoking is a major health concern that has caused the death of millions of people worldwide. Moreover, non-smokers have the right to stay away from smoke if that is their decision. In this case, the freedom to smoke in public areas clashes with the individual right of those who don’t want to be exposed to smoke.
• Smell: Tobacco smell displeases most people. Even smokers complain of how bad their clothing smells after spending time in close places with a lot of smoke. Banning smoking in public spaces would contribute to reducing tobacco odor. No need to wash pullovers, dresses, or trousers, as often as before.
• Diminish smoking consumption: the benefits of stopping smoking are evident. If smokers cannot smoke cigarettes in public spaces they will likely be smokeless. This will be good for their health and their finances. Tobacco has become very expensive in many countries. Tobacco users also claim that banning smoking in public places may help them with quitting.
• Reduce public spending: the prohibition of smoking in public places would help governments save a large amount of money on healthcare. With a ban, air quality would improve and public health systems would spend less on treatments for cancer and respiratory diseases. Moreover, cleaning costs would be reduced. Today cigarette butts force local authorities to intensify the frequency of street cleaning.

Cons of Smoking Bans in Public Places

• The demonization of smokers: prohibiting smoking cigarettes contributes to the stigmatization of smokers. Smokers are normal people, some of them smoke because they really enjoy the habit others because they fail to quit. Forcing them to smoke in private or only in smokers’ designated areas is a way to stigmatize them in society.
• Comparative disadvantage: there are other annoying or potentially dangerous habits for which regulation is not so strict. For instance, in many countries, it is allowed to drink alcohol in public places. Alcohol consumption is another great threat to public health. We often see people very drunk in public spaces. They may provoke fights and set a poor example for children.
• Less tax revenue for governments: tobacco is a great source of income for governments. Cigarettes are heavily taxed and the money collected from tobacco consumption can be used to fund research projects against the diseases caused by it or even education programs to raise awareness about the dangers of tobacco. In this way, governments make a lot of money. If smoking bans lead to fewer cigarette sales, that could mean that governments have reduced revenues fro.
• Pleasure: smoking has been acknowledged as a pleasure for centuries. Humans are often willing to undertake some risks for their health for the sake of enjoyment. It is accepted that people drink alcohol because of the fun they may get from it, despite its obvious risks. Similarly, extreme sports are practised by an increasing number of people regardless of the dangers they entail. If we want to ban tobacco because is bad for health, following the same logic, we should also ban fast food, etc.
• Freedom: public spaces belong to us all. Banning smoking in public areas means limiting individual liberties. Government regulation can become increasingly intrusive if we allow it. What is the boundary between the collective good and individual freedom? There is a delicate trade-off and it is not clear where the red lines should be placed. Banning smoking in public places they decide to ban speaking loud, cracking jokes, or wearing a certain type of clothing. We objectively define what is required to ban or not.

Reasons Why Smoking Should be Banned

List of main reasons why smoking in public places should be banned are:

1. No Smoking Will Help Controlling Pollution

Smoking adds to pollution every day as people smoke them and release toxins into the air. Our air is already wanting in good quality. This is only increasing the problem. Global warming has become the main problem because of the solid inflow of toxins into our air. We also want plants to help filter our air and produce purified clean air to breathe. The air around us is also needed by plants to breathe. Crops grown by farmers in contaminated air, do not give the top nourishment for our bodies. Polluted air and soil are the root cause of these issues.

2. Smoking ban will reduce the chance of lung cancer

Cancer is a common problem for those that smoke for many years. The probabilities of escaping cancer are better instantly after giving up the habit. However, the damage to the lungs can be substantial. Many losses turn around to advanced lung cancer. The lungs of these patients are frequently studied to understand how much damage has happened. They are mostly found to be totally black in color, like the inside of a fireplace.

The rise of cancer is in many forms. Lung cancer can also befall after one stop smoking . It takes time for the cells to heal themselves once they have been mutilated. Smokers very usually regret the decision to try cigarettes when cancer is diagnosed. Others may be angry after being exposed to unprotected second-hand smoke.

3. It will help children grow healthy

Children are in great danger from cigarette smoking. Those children whose parents smoke regularly are susceptible to this poison, every day. Young kids that are still growing can be mainly vulnerable to the bad effects of smoking. Children can also without difficulty become addicted when they live in a home with a smoker.

The most effective way to quit smoking

Smoking is an addictive habit that can commence to a number of health problems. That is ranging from various types of cancer to high blood pressure and heart disease. It’s also difficult to quit. Fortunately, there are several options to try if you’re looking to stop smoking as soon as possible.

1. Counseling

One method many people find to be helpful when they quit smoking is counselling or therapy. According to the American Cancer Society, it’s one of the more successful methods, especially when combined with one of the others. Fortunately, there are many options when it comes to counselling. Doctors and other medical professionals can meet with you to discuss your options and help keep you on track. Therapists can also help you come up with a plan, recognize your triggers and come up with ways to stop yourself from picking up a cigarette. You can receive counselling via phone through organizations like the American Cancer Society or the American Lung Association. You may even find support groups for smokers in your area where you can attend meetings once a week or several times a month.

2. Medication

Another option is to talk to your doctor about medications you can take to help you stop smoking. According to the American Cancer Society , medications may also help block the impact of nicotine on the brain. These are prescription medications, however, so you’ll need to talk to your doctor first.

3. Nicotine Replacement

Speaking of nicotine, some people quit by using nicotine replacement products, like gums and patches. Many of them are available over the counter at your local pharmacy. You can talk to your doctor or pharmacist about how to use them if you have questions, and when used properly, they may help you fight nicotine withdrawal symptoms, according to the American Cancer Society. There are also inhalers and nasal sprays made with nicotine that are available via prescription.

4. Combination Plan

Because smoking is highly addictive, you may find that just one way of quitting doesn’t help. In this case, talk to your doctor or counsellor about trying multiple options at once. You might choose to chew nicotine gum, attend counselling and take medication. Just make sure your combination methods won’t interfere with each other; that’s why talking with your doctor is important.

Smoking should be totally banned in a public places because of its severe health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. The health risks are much more to non-smokers because they may double up mainly to those who already suffer from other diseases such as heart and lung problems. Banning smoking in public places will solve a lot of problems especially in public health as well environmental issues.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. what are the possible problems that can arise while smoking in public places.

Ans. Tobacco causes cancer and it affects the people around the smoker as well. Smoking leads to air pollution and smoking in public places can lead to side effects for children also. 

Q2. What are measures taken by the government to stop smoking in public places?

Ans. The government is taking action to stop people from smoking in public places. In many places, smokers are fined if caught smoking and the government also conducts campaigns informing people about the ill effects of smoking.

Read Also:  Types of Pollution and Its Effects

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Most Popular

Notice writing: a comprehensive guide, 5 useful tips to clear upsc ias prelims, all you should know about pillars of ashoka, indian birds – types, name and images, recent comments, editor picks, popular posts, popular category.

• Study Tips 156
• Education 129
• Knowledge 48
• Scholarship 43
• Know India 36
• States of India 26

Newspaper is your news, entertainment, music fashion website. We provide you with the latest breaking news and videos straight from the entertainment industry.

Contact us: [email protected]

© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv

• Study Material