Smoking Bans C2

  In 2011 the government decided to ban smoking in public places such as bars and restaurants.  This law has been put in affect to protect non-smokers from second-hand-smoke.  This has led to some controversy between smokers and non-smokers.

  On one side, the smokers feel entitled to smoke where and when they want.  They spend a lot of money on cigarettes every week and they want to smoke them comfortably inside a bar, not outside.  Another argument is that some establishments are suffering because they now have less clients because they rather smoke than go inside and eat.

  On the other hand non-smokers don't want to have to breathe in the toxic fumes from the cigarette of someone else.  They made a conscious decision to not smoke and if they're breathing in the smoke from others, what's the point?

  In my opinion this law should have been passed a long time ago, other countries have had them for years and it's led to healthier work environments.  Smoking inside forces non-smokers to inhale smoke they don't want and can lead to diseases like lung cancer.  Smoking is a personal choice that shouldn't be forced onto others.

Alejandro Carbajal 2º A

Smoking ban (Final Version)

In January 2011 the government implanted a new law which bans smoking in public places like restaurants, schools, playgrounds, high schools, bars… and says that publicity or movies mustn’t show any scenes in which people are smoking. This law was implanted in order to reduce the number of diseases caused by smoking.

People who are in favor have lots of arguments to support the law. Firstly all the people, who before this law were affected by the smokers and consequently were passive smokers, can go to public places like restaurants or other places, without worrying to be passive smokers, as a result, not only people who go to the restaurants or other places but also the employers who work in public places, will decrease the risk of diseases produced by the smoke of tobacco. Secondly, everybody who smokes wants to stop smoking, because nobody in this planet likes to die, and this law helps people to stop smoking. Thirdly, the government will save money because of the decrease of diseases caused by the smoke, and maybe they will invest in other things like education, but now a day, this money would go to a secret count in Switzerland, but this is another topic. 


But some people are opposed to this law, because they think that this law restricts their freedom. Along with these people, are the industries which export, prepare and sell the tobacco. These industries are the real losers, because they will reduce a lot their profits, and consequently they  will be  angry and say to the smoker that “this law is banning their freedom”. 


Personally, I think that this law is good for everybody, because tobacco is a drug which kills you; and, smoking can’t be banned because people spend a lot of money on tobacco, the people who don’t smoke don’t have to suffer because of the smokers, because if you are a passive smoker, you have a lot of possibilities to have cancer or breathing problems.

Smoking ban (Final version)

The Smoking ban has generated a lot of discussion. It's true that smoking is unhealthy and can create a big range of health promblems like lung cancer, breathing problems, reduce your life expectancy... But some people consider smoking as a right.

People who agree with this ban say that smoking is unhealthy, that people who smoke spend a lot of money uselessly on  addictions that may kill you. Another argument they use is that people who don't smoke and are near people who smoke make nonsmoking people into passive smokers  that is in risk of suffering smoke related problems like lung cancer, breathing problems...

People who are against the smoking ban argue that smoking is a right, they say that they can spend the money they earn on what they want and the smoking ban reduces their rights. Another argument is that the tobacco industry  creates a lot of workplaces and forbidding tobacco, lots of workplaces will be destroyed.

In my opinion, I agree with the smoking ban because I think that tobacco creates a big addiction  is unhealthy and makes people who smoke waste their money in som_thing that probably may kill them.

                                                                                                                              Pau Vidal Gomila  2n A

Smoking ban (FINAL VERSION)

The decision of banning smoking is being a subject of great controversy. Some people believe that smoking is bad for health and others think that if they want to, they have the right to smoke.

Supporters of  the smoking ban present four main arguments. Firstly, they say smoking is bad for health and it can make you be more likely to have some kind of disease, such as lung cancer. Secondly, people who have chosen not to smoke are passive smokers if there’s people smoking near them, affecting their health. Thirdly, it has nicotine, a very addictive organic compound that makes you smoke more and more. Finally, it’s been demonstrated that CO intoxicates people who breathe that chemical substance.

Opponents of the smoking ban offer four counterarguments. Firstly, they claim their freedom of choice, they think that if they want to smoke, they have the right to. Secondly, smoking generates many working places that may disappear, such as tobacco farmers. Thirdly,  the high taxes on cigarettes wouldn't be paid if smoking was banned. Finally, there’s a big business around cigarettes that moves a lot of money and if banned, the cigarettes industry will disappear.

In my opinion, I’m in favour of the smoking ban, because it’s very unhealthy and it affects not only those who smoke but also the people around them. However, I believe that tobacco farmers are going to lose their jobs , a thing that nowadays it’s tragic, and they don’t even have any responsibility of what cigarette industries add to tobacco in order to make it more addictive or gain higher profits. 

Leo González 2A