Restaurants and other places have tried to deal with the smoking issue by assigning certain sections where smoking is allowed and other sections where it is prohibited. All this does is allow people to eat freely without smoke in their face. The smell is still there, the harmful agents are still there, and the workers still have to come directly in contact with it. Also, the tobacco industry has tried to convince people that ventilation systems would take care of the problem (Safework 1). However, this solution isn’t one that solves the problem either. This is why we shouldn’t allow smoking to continue in enclosed public places. If someone wants to smoke, there should be outside seating areas for their use. However, the smoking and nonsmoking sections should still be an option. The reason for this is because someone who just came from outside smoking would still have the scent of it on them, and that bothers some people, especially if they are getting ready to eat. These areas should also be an appropriate distance from all doors leading into buildings so that no smoke can reach the inside of the facility.

Tobacco industries try to get us to think that ventilation systems’ is the solution to the harmful exposure of secondhand smoke. However, they don’t give all the facts of the situation. Basically, ventilation systems are made to remove the smell from the air, and that’s it. Many of the harmful chemicals in smoke, such as carcinogenic gases, can’t be filtered and they are odorless, tasteless and can’t be seen. Even if this system would work and take away all the harmful agents from the room, the smoke would reach restaurant waitresses before it got to the ventilation system. All the tobacco industry wants is to protect its own interest, even if it is harming many lives. This is why they fight smoking bans and promote ventilation as a solution to the problem (SafeWork 1).

Banning smoking in public places is a very controversial topic. Clive Bates, director of the anti-tobacco campaign group for ASH, said “If something as toxic as cigarette smoke was leaking out of a machine of a pipe, then the authorities would have banned it years ago” (Hope 2). Here’s a statement made by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company: “We believe that business owners know best how to satisfy their customers, and they, rather than the government, should be allowed to decide whether to allow, restrict or ban smoking in their establishment” (Secondhand 2). They are trying to avoid the harm of smoking on others by using this as an argument. This just says the government shouldn’t be able to tell owners how to satisfy their customers, but the real concern is the health of people, and that’s why the government should be able to intervene. R.J. Reynolds also said, “We also believe that, given the extensive smoking bans and restrictions that have already been enacted, nonsmokers can easily avoid exposure to secondhand smoke, and can certainly avoid exposure to high concentrations of a cigarette smoke” (Secondhand 2). This is true in some ca

Some topics in this essay:
Heart Associations, Barbara Evans, Disabilities Act, Ottawa Canada, Public Health, RJ Reynolds, San Francisco, Parris Glendening, Tobacco Company, Public America, secondhand smoke, banning smoking, smoking banned, smoking bans, truth 1, smoking banned public, people smoke, san francisco, restaurant owners, banned smoking, banned public, exposure secondhand smoke, owners satisfy customers, businesses lose money, nonsmokers smoking spouses,