Less Strict Smoking Ban or Rights for Smokers

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Less Strict Smoking Ban or Rights for Smokers

1.0 Introduction

For a long time, the issue of smoking has been hailed as the most significant campaign, not only in the United States but the whole world in general. Researchers, healthcare practitioners, government, and humanitarian commissions have invested sufficiently towards changing people's way of life by advocating for free smoking nations. These efforts have adequately succeeded due to the belief that smoking is responsible for the major human ailment, cancer. When people hear that smoking will lead to cancer, most feel they need to stop the habit, even if, in most cases, these habits die hard. However, despite the success, it is critical to note that a significant number of critiques still believe that there is no direct relationship between smoking and cancer. In fact, from the perspective of people who persistently smoke, one can conclude that the issues of effects on one's health do not close smokers' minds, hence making it complicated to regulate people on what they feel they have control over. This study addresses the problem of balancing between public smoking regulation and instilling the rights of smokers, the idea that smokers are grown-ups and have the right to spend their lives the way they wish.

The solution for this traction is to allow different entities to determine whether they will give people the liberty to smoke in their vicinity, sensitize people rather than regulating them, and contextualizing smoking on a broader scale of drug abuse. Clearly, a good understanding of why people are stopped from doing something they admire should be backed-up with critical evidence and persuasion. Hence lawmakers should avoid imposing rules on people's lives, yet smokers engage in the act voluntary despite their knowledge about the consequences of their habit. The study will be guided by the thesis that "regulating smokers has become a major controversy, mostly when balancing between public health and individual rights, to solve this traction, lawmakers should delocalize the choice to smoke, sensitize people, and consider the use of other drugs to have balanced health.

2.0 Literature Review

The debate on smoking regulation is as old as the practice itself. The biggest problem is that research does not seem to align with what smoking regulators try to impose on people. For example, in a research paper published on "Journal of the National Cancer Institute,” Peres (2013) argued that preceding studies have not proven, without doubt, the existence of a link between cancer and passive smoking. This indicates that despite the effort’s government and other law-making agents have to stop people from smoking in public, Peres (2013) believed that there was no correlation between the possibilities of a smoker and a passive smoker to get a major disease such as cancer. The conflict between research and what lawmakers impose for people indicate a shred of substantial evidence that the problem exists. 

The problem faced in the case of regulating people is that the regulators have a task of safeguarding the health of the general public, but in so doing, compromises the right of individuals. Everyone has a right to enjoy and live their lives the way they want...