essay about smoking in public places

Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places? Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

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/.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Your email will not be published or shared.

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

All 4 Writing eBooks for just $25.86 30% Discount Find out more >>

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

Referencing in IELTS Reading: Comprehending the Text

Jun 08, 24 05:30 AM

IELTS Bundle Writing eBooks: 30% Off

Jun 01, 24 09:55 AM

House Sitting

May 31, 24 03:59 AM

Important pages

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

Connect with us

Before you go...

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

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.

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
Scholarships to Study in USA
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
PR Courses in Australia
SOP for Australia Student Visa
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
IELTS requirement for Canada Student Visa
Canada Visa Interview
Top cities in Canada for International Students
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
Jobs 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
PLAB Accepted Countries
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
Most Demanding Engineering Fields

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

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 30 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.

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

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.

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
Cost of Living in Singapore
Cost of Living in Netherlands
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

Our Writers
How to Order
Assignment Writing Service
Report Writing Service
Buy Coursework
Dissertation Writing Service
Research Paper Writing Service
All Essay Services
Buy Research Paper
Buy Term Paper
Buy Dissertation
Buy Case study
Buy Presentation
Buy Personal statement

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay

A persuasive essay is a type of writing that aims to convince its readers to take a certain stance or action. It often uses logical arguments and evidence to back up its argument in order to persuade readers.

It also utilizes rhetorical techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make the argument more convincing. In other words, persuasive essays use facts and evidence as well as emotion to make their points.

A persuasive essay about smoking would use these techniques to convince its readers about any point about smoking. Check out an example below:

Simple persuasive essay about smoking

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. It leads to adverse health effects, including lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the respiratory tract. However, the number of people who smoke cigarettes has been on the rise globally.

A lot has been written on topics related to the effects of smoking. Reading essays about it can help you get an idea of what makes a good persuasive essay.

Here are some sample persuasive essays about smoking that you can use as inspiration for your own writing:

Persuasive speech on smoking outline

Persuasive essay about smoking should be banned

Persuasive essay about smoking pdf

Persuasive essay about smoking cannot relieve stress

Persuasive essay about smoking in public places

Speech about smoking is dangerous

Persuasive Essay About Smoking Introduction

Persuasive Essay About Stop Smoking

Short Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Stop Smoking Persuasive Speech

Check out some more persuasive essay examples on various other topics.

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that uses facts and logical arguments to back up a point. It is similar to a persuasive essay but differs in that it utilizes more evidence than emotion.

If you’re looking to write an argumentative essay about smoking, here are some examples to get you started on the arguments of why you should not smoke.

Argumentative essay about smoking pdf

Argumentative essay about smoking in public places

Argumentative essay about smoking introduction

Check out the video below to find useful arguments against smoking:

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

You have read some examples of persuasive and argumentative essays about smoking. Now here are some tips that will help you craft a powerful essay on this topic.

Choose a Specific Angle

Select a particular perspective on the issue that you can use to form your argument. When talking about smoking, you can focus on any aspect such as the health risks, economic costs, or environmental impact.

Think about how you want to approach the topic. For instance, you could write about why smoking should be banned.

Check out the list of persuasive essay topics to help you while you are thinking of an angle to choose!

Research the Facts

Before writing your essay, make sure to research the facts about smoking. This will give you reliable information to use in your arguments and evidence for why people should avoid smoking.

You can find and use credible data and information from reputable sources such as government websites, health organizations, and scientific studies.

For instance, you should gather facts about health issues and negative effects of tobacco if arguing against smoking. Moreover, you should use and cite sources carefully.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Make an Outline

The next step is to create an outline for your essay. This will help you organize your thoughts and make sure that all the points in your essay flow together logically.

Your outline should include the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. This will help ensure that your essay has a clear structure and argument.

Use Persuasive Language

When writing your essay, make sure to use persuasive language such as “it is necessary” or “people must be aware”. This will help you convey your message more effectively and emphasize the importance of your point.

Also, don’t forget to use rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make your arguments more convincing. That is, you should incorporate emotion, personal experience, and logic into your arguments.

Introduce Opposing Arguments

Another important tip when writing a persuasive essay on smoking is to introduce opposing arguments. It will show that you are aware of the counterarguments and can provide evidence to refute them. This will help you strengthen your argument.

By doing this, your essay will come off as more balanced and objective, making it more convincing.

Finish Strong

Finally, make sure to finish your essay with a powerful conclusion. This will help you leave a lasting impression on your readers and reinforce the main points of your argument. You can end by summarizing the key points or giving some advice to the reader.

A powerful conclusion could either include food for thought or a call to action. So be sure to use persuasive language and make your conclusion strong.

To conclude,

By following these tips, you can write an effective and persuasive essay on smoking. Remember to research the facts, make an outline, and use persuasive language.

However, don't stress if you need expert help to write your essay! Our professional essay writing service is here for you!

Our persuasive essay writing service is fast, affordable, and trustworthy.

Try it out today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Leave your feedback

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/the-real-reasons-behind-public-smoking-bans

The Real Reason Behind Public Smoking Bans

Summer has officially begun and for many, it’s time for sun, sand and swimming. But don’t count on lighting up a cigarette while you’re at the beach.

Over the last few years, you may have noticed more “no smoking” signs have cropped up on parks and beaches. They’re part of a larger trend banning smoking at outside, public areas. In fact, smoking has been banned in 843 parks and more than 150 beaches in the last two decades.

What beachgoers probably aren’t thinking about is the ethics behind these bans, which began taking hold in the early 1990s.

Public health officials have long argued the bans are meant to eliminate dangers from secondhand, or “sidestream smoke,” reduce the environmental impact of cigarette butts and to keep young, impressionable children from picking up on bad habits. Makes sense, right? But a new article in this month’s Health Affairs looks at the shockingly slim evidence behind these bans.

“I discovered the evidence was really weak,” explained lead author Ronald Bayer, a professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The evidence of harm to non-smokers on the beach or in a park from someone smoking is virtually non-existent.”

Bayer is points out that there is, however, an important public health benefit from such bans. “They make it more difficult for smokers to smoke,” Bayer told us, “and contribute in an important way to the ‘denormalization’ of smoking.”

Bayer joined PBS NewsHour late last week to discuss the new study and the potential risks the rationale behind these bans have on future public health initiatives.

PBS NEWSHOUR: Ronald Bayer, thank you for joining us. This is an interesting ethical question to look into. What started you down this road?

RONALD BAYER, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MAILMAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: I noticed when my students of public health talked about illicit drugs like heroin or cocaine or marijuana, they adopted a libertarian point of view — emphasizing how the government has no business intruding on people’s choices and all those negative consequences. But when I raised the issue of tobacco, they all became in a way, authoritarian. “We have to limit smoking, we have to limit where people smoke, we have to protect people from themselves, we have to protect their children.” I was struck by the difference. And I asked my students, “How come when you talk about the other drugs, you adopt sort of a hands-off position, but when you talk about tobacco, you believe the government should intrude more?” I listened to them, and I took their lead in a way, and I said, this was very interesting — what explains this?

PBS NEWSHOUR: Let’s a step back: why, and when, did these bans start taking effect?

BAYER: They really began in earnest in the early 1990s, so it’s part in parcel of the tightening of the tobacco control movement, the recognition that we have to do more because several hundred people die each year from tobacco-related diseases. I looked at the arguments for why we had to ban smoking in parks and beaches, and there were three — and they were really very striking.

One was that smoking is dangerous to people around the smoker. So, it’s one thing if a smoker wants to smoke, it’s his or her business, but as one tobacco control advocate said, if you can smell it, it may be killing you. We’re familiar with the second hand smoke argument — that’s what happens if you ban smoking in a bar, or a restaurant. But the beach or a park is a very different location. It’s open, the air is open. So what is the risk? And the public health people said, we don’t know the exact risk, but there is a risk, and it’s unacceptable.

The second argument was that tobacco butts endanger wildlife, because they get washed into the sea and fish and birds consume these butts and it kills them. Or, cigarette butts represent the kind of revolting kind of litter on beaches, and to prove that, people involved in environmental control would actually count the number of cigarette butts they found on a beach and there are billions and billions of those, as you can imagine.

The third argument, and the most interesting argument to me, was that parents and families have the right to take their kids to the beach, or a park, without seeing anyone smoke. It’s like bad behavior, just the way we want to protect our kids from hearing people curse, or get drunk; we don’t want them to see smokers because maybe they’ll emulate it.

PBS NewsHour: And do these arguments pan out?

I discovered the evidence was really weak. The evidence of harm to non-smokers on the beach or in a park from someone smoking is virtually non-existent. The evidence that fish and birds are dying because of cigarette butts is virtually non-existent. And even the evidence that seeing someone in a park or beach will encourage kids to smoke is extremely weak.

So I said to myself, what’s going on here? What’s the public health impulse that’s involved that leads to these bans if the evidence is so weak? Because everyone in public health believes that what we do should be evidence-based.

As I thought about it, it became very clear that what was involved wasn’t that we were trying to protect non-smokers from sidestream smoke on parks and beaches. We weren’t really concerned about birds and fish. There wasn’t really evidence that we were going to protect kids by disallowing smoking in parks and beaches.

What was involved was that we really wanted to make it less and less possible for people to smoke, because it’s bad for them and we’re trying to protect smokers themselves from a behavior that’s going to increase the risk of disease and death.

PBS NEWSHOUR: So, why did public health officials base their case on this weak evidence?

BAYER: The question now is, how come public health officials can’t come out straight and say the reason we’re banning smoking on parks and beaches is we want to protect smokers. We want to get them to give it up, we want them to smoke less and we want to make it more difficult for people to begin smoking.

I think it’s because public health officials don’t want to be tarred with the brush of the “nanny state,” of “Big Brother.” In the United States, it’s the same story of the motorcycle helmets. When we tried to impose motorcycle helmet laws in the United States, we made all kinds of arguments about how when a person gets into an accident, they really cost us all money because they have to go to emergency rooms and we have to pay for it. That’s not why we wanted motorcycle helmet laws. We wanted motorcycle helmet laws because we wanted to protect motorcyclists against their stupid behavior. We couldn’t say it, because that sounds like we’re finger wagging.

PBS NEWSHOUR: So are these cigarette bans that same type of finger wagging?

BAYER: I actually think these bans on parks and beaches represent, I think, a kind of paternalism, a kind of nanny state. The question is, is the nanny state so wrong? If we could eliminate 400,000 deaths a year over time because fewer and fewer people smoke, would that be so bad? And I think not. But I think public health officials are afraid to make the case that directly, so they get caught in making a case that, I think, is easily picked apart.

PBS NEWSHOUR: Have these bans proven effective? Is there any link between more of these bans and lower smoking rates, or healthier populations?

BAYER: That’s a good question, and actually, the evidence is still weak. It’s not clear. But it is clear that the general process of denormalizing smoking has an effect. It has an effect on quit rates and it has an effect on start rates. So that as part of a broader campaign to denormalize — to take something that was normal, social behavior, and to turn it into something a little weird, a little off — (it) does in fact have an impact, as do taxing tobacco products.

PBS NEWSHOUR: In your conclusion, you state, “Public health must, in the end, rely on public trust.” Was there a risk that public health officials took justifying these bans the way they did?

BAYER: Well, I actually do think there’s a risk. My concern is that when public health officials make claims that can’t be backed by the evidence, they run the risk of people saying, “We can’t trust you.” I understand it is probably more effective to say the reason we’re banning smoking in parks and beaches is that we’re protecting you from sidestream smoke, or your kids from looking at something very bad for them or that we’re protecting wildlife. That might be more effective way in the short run of getting these statutes or regulations passed and put into place.

But in the long run, I think, that if people begin to feel that they’re being toyed with, that the evidence is not being presented in a straightforward way, it’s going to backfire. I think the evidence in the arguments made to implement these bans is absent, and in some of the cases, very weak.

PBS NEWSHOUR: So, public health officials should just be more honest?

BAYER: In a crude way, honesty may be a more difficult policy, but I think it is in fact the best policy for public health.

PBS NEWSHOUR: Ronald Bayer, thanks for joining us.

BAYER: Thanks for having me.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

- 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 .

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!

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.

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.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

Impacts of Local Public Smoking Bans on Smoking Behaviors and Tobacco Smoke Exposure

Michael a. catalano.

Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hofstra University

Donna B. Gilleskie

Department of Economics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Associated Data

This paper examines the immediate and long-term effects of public smoking bans on smoking prevalence, smoking regularity, smoking intensity, and secondhand tobacco smoke exposure. We supplement the extensive literature on the effects of various types of tobacco control legislation on smoking behavior in developed countries by studying the provincial smoking bans and more recent national ban of a middle-income country, Argentina. We focus on the difference between full and partial smoking bans, and take advantage of the time and province variation in ban implementation in order to determine the causal effects of each type of ban. We find that full bans reduce national smoking prevalence over time, especially among younger demographic groups, but have no significant impact on intensity of smoking among smokers. Full bans also benefit nonsmokers, as they are associated with a significant reduction in environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Partial bans do not significantly impact smoking prevalence, and are found to increase smoking intensity among individuals who smoke every day. These findings provide support for ratification of full bans by all provinces according to the National Tobacco Control Law of 2011.

1. Introduction

Tobacco consumption represents the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide and one of the most significant global public health concerns, accounting for almost eight million deaths annually ( World Health Organization WHO, 2019) . Guided by strong international evidence of the detrimental short- and long-term health impacts of tobacco consumption and secondhand smoke, many developed nations have passed legislation in recent decades aimed at discouraging smoking initiation, reducing consumption among smokers, and reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The policy mechanisms include increased taxation, restrictions on advertising and distribution, the introduction of educational programs, and bans on smoking in public places. It is important to analyze the potential impacts of each of these various policy changes on both short- and long-term smoking behavior and health in order to determine the most effective methods of reducing consumption ( DeCicca et al., 2018 ).

This paper focuses on the effects of sub-national and national public smoking bans on tobacco consumption behavior in Argentina. While many nations have seen declines in smoking prevalence, rates of tobacco consumption have remained particularly high in Argentina, with over 30 percent of the population smoking in 2005 (Ministerio de Salud [Ministry of Health]). The only South American nations with greater smoking prevalence are Chile and Bolivia. This prevalence is largely attributed to the low tobacco prices and recent economic growth that have made cigarettes more affordable ( Rodríguez-Iglesias et al., 2015 ). Despite the health and financial burden associated with high smoking rates, Argentina has lagged behind its neighbors in tobacco control; as of February 2021, it remains the only nation in South America that has not ratified the 2003 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), an international treaty that establishes guidelines and principles of tobacco control. However, between 2004 and 2010, thirteen of Argentina’s 23 provinces passed province-level legislation that restricted public smoking to varying degrees. It was not until 2011 that Argentina passed its first national tobacco control law, which extended a comprehensive public smoking ban to all 23 provinces ( O’Neill Institute et al., 2011 ). By 2017, national smoking rates among Argentinians 15 years of age and older had fallen to nearly 16 percent ( WHO, 2019 ).

Policy evaluation of public smoking bans is complicated because of the competing incentive mechanisms a ban places on individual decision making. While bans are aimed at protecting the health of nonsmokers by limiting exposure, their short- and long-term impacts on individual smoking behavior are not, theoretically, straightforward. In fact, recent literature in economics has explored the policy impact within different countries, and results have varied greatly. This paper extends the analysis to Argentina and is the first to analyze the impact of provincial bans and provincial ratification of its 2011 National Tobacco Control Law. Previous studies in Argentina have predicted the effects of the policy implementation, but our work is the first to use recently released survey data on cigarette consumption and health-related behaviors to quantify the observed effects. We conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the national and province-level policies by examining smoking prevalence, smoking regularity, smoking intensity, and secondhand smoke exposure. We uncover causal policy effects using variation in the implementation of smoking bans by provinces across different years. Because cigarettes can be addictive, individuals may not reduce consumption immediately after smoking is restricted in public places. By accounting for the years elapsed since implementation in a particular province, we quantify the immediate and long-term effects of the policy on habitual smoking behavior.

While many studies observe large declines in both smoking prevalence and intensity among specific demographic groups after the implementation of bans, we attribute to the bans only slight reductions in consumption on average, and even an increase among some individuals. While full and partial smoking bans have no immediate effect on smoking prevalence among the general population, a reduction in prevalence is associated with a full ban that has been in place for several years. One may attribute this finding to the slow responsiveness to incentives among individuals engaged in addictive consumption behaviors.

It is also possible that the observed smoking reduction the longer a ban has been in place is the result of community- rather than individual-level behaviors. That is, individuals in a community might be impacted by improvements in enforcement of the ban over time or by changes in attitudes toward smoking that develop over time. The pattern of reduction is especially pronounced among young and wealthy males. Additionally, the reduction in prevalence is associated with a decline in the number of individuals starting to smoke, rather than an increase in the number of individuals quitting smoking. Hence, these findings suggest that the smoking bans gradually discourage take up of smoking, which generally occurs at younger ages. An observed reduction in smoking among high-income individuals suggests that the constraints placed on smoking locations may reduce the allure or prestige of smoking. In estimation, we control for permanent differences in provinces but we cannot account for province-specific time trends that could capture such community changes or enforcement. 1

Interestingly, there is evidence that the way a ban is implemented can influence smoking behaviors. While we find that a full provincial ban has no significant effect on the quantity of cigarettes smoked by individual smokers, a partial provincial ban that allows smoking in designated areas increases smoking intensity among everyday smokers. We conjecture that this increase may be partially due to reinforced peer effects as the concentration of smokers in designated smoking area increases ( Fowler and Christakis, 2008 ; Gilleskie and Li, 2018 ). We do not have the data to test this hypothesis about peer effects, yet we encourage future researchers to explore these concerns based on our findings from Argentina’s experience.

The high prevalence of tobacco consumption and the lack of smokefree legislation in some jurisdictions ranked Argentina among the highest in the region for indoor public place air pollution in the early 2000s ( Navas-Acien, et al., 2004 ). We find pronounced positive effects of public smoking bans on self-reported ETS exposure as bans were implemented in the first decade of the 21 st century. Full public smoking bans are associated with a significant decline in nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke, especially among young, wealthy males. Similar to early studies of the ban effectiveness using measured concentrations of particulate matter ( Schoj et al., 2010 ), our findings provide empirical evidence of the benefits associated with full public smoking bans and the potential harm caused by partial smoking bans, and suggest that provincial policymakers should work to implement the full smoking bans outlined in the National Tobacco Control Law.

In Section 2, we discuss the relevant literature in economics on the impact of public smoking bans, both globally and within Argentina. This section includes information on recent tobacco legislation in Argentina. Section 3 presents our empirical framework for analyzing smoking behaviors based on a theoretical model of smoking decision making (described in Appendix B ). In Section 4 we introduce the repeated cross-sectional data source and summarize the dependent variables, individual-specific explanatory variables, and province-specific policy variables. The results of empirical analyses are discussed in Section 5, and Section 6 concludes.

2. Review of Relevant Smoking Literature

2.1. economic analyses of tobacco control policies.

Over the past few decades, there have been a number of theoretical and empirical analyses of the impacts of various types of tobacco control policies on smoking behavior. Several researchers have attempted to quantify the price elasticity of demand for cigarettes in order to predict the potential impact of cigarette tax increases. An early analysis by Lewit and Coate (1982) determined that the price elasticity of demand in the United States in the mid-1970s ranged from −0.40 to −1.30. This study was one of the first to provide strong evidence that the passage of excise taxes could significantly reduce smoking levels. Later studies modified Lewit and Coate’s approach and analyzed how other factors affect the price elasticity of demand of cigarettes, and therefore the potential effectiveness of taxation. Wasserman et al. (1991) examined price changes and demand shifts in the context of other tobacco control regulations and determined that previous analyses may have overestimated the price elasticity of demand. Their more robust analysis found a price elasticity of demand ranging from −0.02 in 1974 to −0.23 in 1985.

Subsequent studies incorporated the effects of addiction on demand. Becker and Murphy (1988) developed the first dynamic rational addiction model, a now widely referenced model based on the idea that past consumption is very strongly correlated with current consumption. Their model and empirical work indicate that addicts do not respond strongly to temporary and short-term price changes. Gilleskie and Strumpf (2005) found evidence that adolescents with a recent history of cigarette consumption are likely to be less sensitive to cigarette price changes in the short-run than those who have never smoked. 2 They showed that price increases through taxation have a greater aggregate effect in the long run than in the short run as individuals reduce consumption and move to the nonsmoking, price-sensitive group.

While much of the literature consistently predicts that pecuniary mechanisms such as cigarette prices and taxes reduce cigarette demand with differential effects on smokers and non-smokers, the economics literature on non-pecuniary mechanisms (such as restrictions on smoking in particular locations) is less definitive and underexplored. The vacillating findings on the effects of smoking bans, for example, are based on data from a number of countries in which public smoking bans have been implemented, including the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United States (US). The difference-in-difference model is a popular method of empirical analysis, for it allows the researcher to mimic an experimental study by comparing the effect of a treatment (i.e., a smoking ban) in an “experimental” group to a “control” group that does not face the treatment. When there is time and location variation in the implementation of tobacco control policies, difference-in-difference models allow the comparison of individuals within the states under legislation to those in the “control” states over time. Jones et al. (2015) estimated several difference-in-difference fixed effects models using panel data on tobacco consumption in the UK, and found no significant change in smoking prevalence or cigarette consumption on an aggregate level after a public smoking ban was implemented, although significant changes were found amongst specific demographic groups. Anger et al. (2011) also used a difference-in-difference model to determine that public smoking bans did not have a significant effect on overall tobacco consumption in Germany; however, the bans significantly reduced consumption among those who frequent bars and pubs. Boes et al. (2015) conducted a similar analysis on smoking bans in Switzerland and concluded that they did significantly reduce smoking rates, but these reductions only began to emerge one year after the ban. This finding indicates the importance of accounting for time since the passage of the law.

In some of the earliest work on this subject, Chaloupka (1992) , using instrumental variable procedures to account for the endogeneity of past and future consumption, finds that the passage of basic public smoking bans (i.e., clean indoor air laws) significantly reduced average cigarette consumption among males in the US, but it had no significant effect on women’s consumption. Tauras’s (2006) examination of the effects of smoke-free air laws and cigarette prices on adult cigarette consumption used cross-sectional data collected by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) where smoking bans are characterized by a three-point scale representing varying strengths of enforcement. Separately modeling smoking prevalence and smoking intensity, Tauras estimates a negative ban elasticity of demand of −0.072, implying that bans could significantly reduce consumption. Although public smoking bans reduced average smoking intensity by up to 5.18 percent, he found that they had very little impact on smoking prevalence. Carton et al. (2016) find that indoor smoking bans imposed between 2002 and 2010 in the US contribute a two- to three-percent reduction in smoking prevalence. Using longitudinal data and a dynamic model of behavior, Matsumoto (2017) finds that indoor smoking bans in the US reduce smoking initiation but have little effect on the quitting behavior of smokers. Additionally, Matsumoto provides evidence that individuals may anticipate passage of such local restrictions based on other, within-state ban introductions and, consequently, alter their smoking behavior prior to local implementation.

Other recent studies have analyzed the effects of public smoking bans on nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke. Kuehnle and Wunder (2017) , for example, studied public smoking bans passed in Germany between 2007 and 2008 and examined the effects of these bans on the self-reported health of both smokers and nonsmokers. They found improvements in self-reported health among nonsmokers in the presence of smoking bans, but deteriorations in the health of smokers. Goodman et al. (2007) investigated the concentrations of particulate matter in bars and restaurants in Dublin and conducted pulmonary function studies on workers in these venues before and after the passing of Ireland’s national public smoking ban. They found an 83 percent reduction in particulate matter in these locations and a 71 percent reduction in exhaled carbon monoxide by the workers after passage. Adda and Cornaglia (2010) , conversely, found that public smoking bans not only have no significant effect on overall adult secondhand smoke exposure, but they may actually increase the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke by displacing smokers to private places. By analyzing cotinine levels to indicate exposure to cigarette smoke, they found that young children experienced greater exposure to ETS after the implementation of the public smoking ban. Perhaps related to secondhand smoke exposure, Kvasnicka et al. (2018) find that smoking bans in bars and restaurants in Germany reduced hospital admissions associated with cardiovascular health and asthma.

Despite strong international interest, there has been limited economic analysis of tobacco consumption and control in Argentina. Konfino et al. (2014) published a public health analysis that predicted the long-term health impact of Argentina’s national tobacco control law, but the prediction was based on data available before the law and did not make use of data collected after the law was passed. Guindon et al. (2018) examined the impact of real cigarette prices on smoking initiation using individual reports of age of smoking onset from cross-sectional national surveys in 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2011 (including two of the ENFR surveys we employ) and component consumer price indices to construct prices from 1980 to 2011. They find that the smoking onset hazard (i.e., likelihood of taking up smoking) among Argentinians is sensitive to price variation, but less so in periods of hyperinflation. Although not the focus of their work, they find some evidence that tobacco control policies (i.e., bans) may have reduced smoking initiation.

While individual smoking behaviors, in developed countries as well as in Argentina, appear to respond to cigarette pricing and taxation policies, there is evidence from the US of avoidance of such pecuniary pressures through cross-border purchasing, tax avoidance (through internet or Native American reservation purchases), and illegal markets in the US (e.g., Harding et al., 2012 ; DeCicca et al., 2013a , 2013b , 2015 ; and summarized thoroughly in DeCicca et al., 2018 ). Developing countries, perhaps at greater risk of such informal markets due to reduced regulation, may find traditional abatement methods (e.g., Pigouvian taxes) less effective. We suspect no cross-province purchasing in Argentina due to little price and tax variation in cigarettes across the region. Additionally, the market for cigarettes is almost completely supplied by two manufacturers, so tax avoidance is not common. Threats to price sensitivity are more likely to come from hyperinflation and rising incomes, which reduce the effects of taxes and increase affordability of cigarettes, respectively. As such, non-pecuniary efforts, such as smoke-free air laws that ban smoking in specific locations (e.g., workplaces, restaurants, bars and casinos) have been introduced to reduce individual smoking by making smoking inconvenient. 3

2.2. Public Smoking Bans in Argentina

Prior to the implementation of Argentina’s National Tobacco Control Law of 2011, 13 of the nation’s 23 provinces and the capital city of Buenos Aires had implemented subnational tobacco control policies to restrict or ban smoking in public places. While three of these subnational policies imposed a full ban on smoking in all public places, the majority did not. Instead, these provinces implemented a limited set of restrictions, which we refer to throughout this paper as partial bans. In a province with a partial ban, smoking is permitted in particular settings among public places (e.g., in casinos but not in bars and restaurants) or in specific rooms or open-air areas within venues. It is important to acknowledge the varying levels of restrictions and clearly differentiate between partial bans and full bans, for they may affect smokers and nonsmokers differently. For example, if smoking is prohibited in the main room of a bar or restaurant but there is a designated room for smokers, it is much less likely that an individual will refrain from smoking than if there is no place to smoke (i.e., the loss of utility faced by an individual smoker attending a venue where there is no place to smoke is higher than it would be if there is a designated place). There is also the potential for peer effects that may influence smokers to smoke more by grouping them together and making the practice appear more socially acceptable. Section 4 (and Appendix B ) offers more discussion of these concepts and the decisions that smokers face in the presence of smoking bans.

The National Tobacco Control Law was passed in 2011 with the intention of imposing a comprehensive public smoking ban nationally; however, the implementation of the law did not actually require that all remaining provinces enact and enforce these bans. Rather, the policy was strongly encouraged, and it was enforced only if ratified by the individual provinces. Nonetheless, the policy represents a strong change in national attitudes towards smoking, and these attitudes may have encouraged some bars and restaurants across the country to ban smoking independently. Yet, after its passage in 2011, only four provinces ratified it (and four additional provinces passed their own public smoking bans). 4 A major reason for such a limited number of ratifying provinces is the fact that many already had strong policies in place; however, seven provinces with regulations weaker than those imposed by the national law and five provinces that were completely lacking regulations have yet to ratify the law. By 2013, between the subnational laws and the ratifications, 18 provinces and the capital city of Buenos Aires were covered by some level of smoking restrictions. 5 Figure 1 depicts the gradual implementation of bans in Argentina (at the years of our individual-level survey data). The levels of public smoking restrictions and a description of exceptions to the law in various provinces are outlined in Appendix Table A1 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1703077-f0001.jpg

Public Smoking Bans in Argentina, by province and year

3. Empirical Framework

To motive our empirical analysis of public smoking bans on smoking behavior, we first considered the individual’s decision-making process conceptualized in the economics literature. ( Appendix A provides an example of a dynamic optimization problem with regard to smoking behaviors in the presence of smoking bans.) Theory, as well as evidence from data, defines the roles of reinforcement, tolerance, and withdrawal and the dynamic nature of smoking decisions ( Becker and Murphy, 1988 ; Matsumoto, 2014 ; Darden, Gilleskie and Strumpf, 2018 ). Theory also suggests that the presence of a public smoking ban reduces the utility an individual receives from the consumption of cigarettes. The implementation of a ban imposes both a time cost and a discomfort cost on smokers. The policy reduces the locations where, and consequently time of day when, an individual can smoke. It may relegate a smoker to areas where he gets less enjoyment from smoking. Alternatively, because smoking is often a social behavior, many individuals may receive higher utility from smoking in a social setting than they would smoking at home or alone ( Fowler and Christakis, 2008 ; Gilleskie and Li, 2018 ).

The individual’s decision problem is to select an optimal level, c, of cigarette consumption today, C t = c , to maximize his expected lifetime utility, V c ( S t , ε t ), where S t is the smoking stock (or summary of past smoking behavior). We can use the theoretical model in Appendix B that defines the time t lifetime value of each smoking alternative, V c ( S t , ε t ) to derive the demand for cigarettes as a function of the information available to an individual at the time of decision making. That is, the probability of smoking level c is

where X t represents individual demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics (such as gender, age, education, household size, employment, household income, health insurance, and health). His observed smoking behavior is also influenced by cigarette prices ( P t C ) and the presence of smoking bans in his province ( B t ), among other things. In turn, his behavior influences the utility and health of nonsmokers (and smokers) who spend time in proximity to the individual.

Our data and empirical framework provide a means of quantifying these demand and exposure determinants. As mentioned previously, bans may impose time and discomfort costs that lower the utility of cigarette consumption. Hence, optimal behavior suggests that the demand for a particular quantity of cigarettes, c , falls when bans are imposed (i.e., ∂ P ( C t = c ) ∂ B t < 0 ). We test this demand assumption as well as the conjecture that a reduction in consumption will persist over time after the passage of a ban. While a reduction persistence may be explained by a declining addictive stock (which we are unable to measure in our cross-sectional data), it is important to document differential ban effects over time. Similarly, if smoking bans alter the composition of people around the individual smoker, the disutility of the restrictions may evolve over time.

Specifically, we summarize the demand function for the number of cigarettes smoked per day and its arguments as

where C t indicates the number of cigarettes consumed per period t. 6 We include time-varying indicators of adoption of full and partial bans ( B t = [ B t f , B t p ] ) by particular provinces in Argentina to identify policy effects. In addition to indicators for the presence of both full and partial smoking bans, we include variables that quantify the number of years since full or partial ban implementation (summarized in the vector of variables, B t ). The coefficients on these variables allow for estimation of the immediate effects of the policy implementation and the effects of that policy over time. 7

Fixed province effects ( σ p ) account for variation in unobserved smoking sentiment or enforcement and other potential province-level differences that impact smoking behavior (i.e., prices of other goods). We also control for aggregate unobservables that vary over time using time fixed effects ( σ t ). As mentioned previously, due to the lack of province-level variation in cigarette prices and only three cross-sectional data points, price data ( P t C ) are perfectly collinear with our year indicators. These indicators, therefore, measure the effects of price variation, along with numerous other countrywide factors that may influence cigarette consumption over time. 8

Theory suggests that one’s history of smoking, or the addictive stock ( S t ), impacts current smoking behavior. The Argentina data are cross sectional and, by design, do not record smoking behavior of the same individual at multiple points in time. Hence, we cannot control for (or empirically model) past smoking behavior. Fortunately, the data do include information on whether an individual has ever smoked in the past. We use this variable to separate current nonsmokers into never smokers and former smokers. To estimate the marginal effects of the theoretical determinants of current smoking behavior, we use the full sample (which includes those with no history of smoking) as well as restrict our sample to those individuals who have smoked at some point in the past. We also know the age at which an individual began smoking, and we control for the age of initiation when explaining the level of consumption conditional on being a current smoker. Among current smokers of the same age, those who began smoking at a younger age are likely to have more years of smoking experience (i.e., a larger addictive stock). 9

The point-in-time survey also asks individuals to report their general pattern of smoking (i.e., frequency). We denote the regularity of smoking by the indicator R t and assume that the same vector of determinants that explain demand also explain regularity of smoking. That is,

where regularity of smoking is never ( j = 0), occasionally ( j = 1), and every day ( j = 2). We explore the differential impact of bans on these different types of smokers, as well as condition on these types when analyzing the bans’ effects on consumption quantities.

Because smoking bans are often implemented to reduce secondhand smoke exposure in public places, we estimate the effects of smoking bans on ETS exposure. Individual reports of regular exposure to ETS in public places ( O t ) is modeled as

We assume exposure depends on a similar set of variables as demand: demographic, socioeconomic and health characteristics, cigarette prices, and smoking policies. Although addictive stock is not included as a determinant, we do expect that individuals who smoke will experience more ETS than nonsmokers as the former are more likely to associate with others who smoke. Therefore, we estimate the effect of public smoking bans on secondhand smoke exposure using the full sample (i.e., the general population) and the sample of nonsmokers separately.

4.1. National Risk Factor Survey

To empirically evaluate the effects of smoking bans on individual smoking behaviors in Argentina, we use the National Risk Factor Survey (ENFR – Encuesta Nacional de los Factores de Riesgo), a stratified random survey distributed by Argentina’s National Ministry of Health in 2005, 2009, and 2013 (Ministerio de Salud). 10 The ENFR project was initiated in 2005 due to a lack of national-level information on the risk factors for cardiovascular disease, a leading cause of death in Argentina. The survey is based on a questionnaire proposed by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), and it has been received well by the Argentinian population with response rates of 86.7, 79.8, and 70.7 percent in the first three survey distributions, respectively. By collecting these data, the Ministry of Health desires to develop effective new health policies and improve health promotion and preventative care strategies on a national level ( Ferrante et al., 2007 ). The questionnaires and codebooks are available for each year and contain sufficiently consistent wording of questions across survey years (with the addition of some new questions in later survey years).

The survey questions inquire about cigarette consumption behavior, including whether an individual has ever smoked, whether he or she currently smokes, age of smoking initiation, how often he or she smokes, and how many cigarettes he or she smokes per day. Using these data we construct dependent variables that describe current extensive and intensive margins of smoking (i.e., prevalence, regularity, and quantity). We also examine a binary indication of exposure to ETS. Each survey wave contains demographic, socioeconomic, and health information, including gender, age, education, household size, employment, household income, health insurance, and body mass, on over 32,000 individuals aged 18 and over from general urban areas (i.e., cities with greater than 5000 inhabitants) in all 23 provinces and the capital city of Buenos Aires.

We acknowledge some limitations of these data. First, as with many individual surveys, information is self-reported, which presents the possibility of response bias (e.g., underreported cigarette consumption). Second, the surveyed sample is repeated cross-sections of individuals in the population rather than a panel of the same individuals, making it difficult to account for the addictive and dynamic nature of cigarette consumption and to follow the same individuals through different stages of policy implementation. Third, while national data sources provide aggregated prices of cigarettes over time, province-level prices are not available (yet have been reported to vary little across regions). Additionally, the country’s reporting of consumer price index components changed in 2008. The lack of price variation at the province level and the inability to accurately deflate nominal prices prevent us from including both the price of cigarettes and a time trend in our regressions, as they would be perfectly collinear and potentially capture changes in measurement. Additionally, due to the unavailability of accurate inflation data to calculate real income, we use deviations from the mean of nominal income each year as our measure of income variation.

Despite these limitations, the ENFR presents unique advantages. Because it contains individual-level smoking data from a nationally-representative sample, we use the cross-province and cross-time variation in smoking bans to measure their impact. Furthermore, it is the most extensive and reliable dataset on health characteristics and behavior in Argentina and yields 108,489 observations over three years. The ENFR provides the best data available to make reliable estimates of the impact of public smoking bans in Argentina.

4.2. Descriptive Analysis and Construction of Key Variables

The dependent variables – smoking prevalence, smoking regularity, quantity of cigarettes smoked, and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure – are summarized in Table 1 for all individuals in all provinces and by ban status within the provinces. Approximately 52 percent of all individuals surveyed responded that they ever smoked. On average, 28 percent of individuals in any survey wave report currently smoking, and 53 percent of the individuals who report smoking in the past are current smokers. Nationally, smoking rates have declined over time: 29.91, 27.65, and 25.70 percent in 2005, 2009, and 2013, respectively.

Summary Statistics: Dependent Variables

Notes: Column 2 denotes the form of the dependent variable in the estimating equation (Section 3). Column 3 specifies the size of the sample used in estimation (Section 5).

Surveyed individuals report how often they smoke (i.e., occasionally or every day) and how many cigarettes they smoke per day. Over 70 percent of smokers in Argentina are heavy users (i.e., smoke every day). The distribution of smoking quantity per day for occasional smokers is concentrated at smaller levels than that of everyday smokers with means of 4.2 and 13.1 cigarettes per day, respectively ( Figure 2 ). 11 The data also reveal that male smokers smoke more cigarettes per day than female smokers, and older smokers smoke more than younger smokers.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1703077-f0002.jpg

Daily smoking quantity, by smoking regularity

Finally, all individuals report whether they are regularly exposed to tobacco smoke at home and in public places (i.e., secondhand smoke). 12 Approximately 46.9 percent of the population reports being regularly exposed to ETS; however, only 38.2 percent of nonsmokers report regular ETS exposure. This difference ( Figure 3 ) may suggest that smokers spend more time around other smokers than nonsmokers do. A higher proportion of younger individuals report ETS exposure than older individuals, which may be reflect differences in propensity to frequent restaurants, bars, and other venues where smoking is most prevalent.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1703077-f0003.jpg

ETS Exposure, by age and smoking status

Men comprise a significantly larger proportion of smokers than nonsmokers. In fact, over a third of men currently smoke while less than a quarter of women currently smoke. Smokers also tend to be younger; the average age of smokers in the sample is 39.5, while the average age of nonsmokers is 46.2. Smokers are less likely to have completed university-level education than are nonsmokers. Although a smaller proportion are employed, nonsmokers are more likely than smokers to be female, older, and non-employed. They are also less likely to be unemployed than smokers. Indeed, the household income of nonsmokers is larger than that of smokers, and nonsmokers are more likely to have health insurance. Summary statistics for the main demographic, socioeconomic, and health variables are displayed in Table 2 for the full research sample, for current nonsmokers, and for current smokers.

Summary Statistics: Independent Variables

For the regression analyses, we normalize the values of the independent variables such that the constant term in each regression represents the expected smoking behavior (i.e., smoking prevalence, smoking regularity, smoking quantity, ETS exposure) of a 40 year-old woman living in a household with four people in the province of Buenos Aires in 2005. She has completed secondary education, is employed, has the mean national income 13 for each year (AR$858 in 2005, AR$2255 in 2009, and AR$2536 in 2013), has health insurance, and has a body mass index (BMI) of 26. Sample proportions by province and year are provided in Appendix Table A2 .

4.3. Construction of Policy Variables

For each province and each year, our policy variable indicates whether the province has a full or partial smoking ban in place during the year. Ratification of bans took place at variable times over the years 2003 to 2013. 14 We also create a variable measuring the number of years that a ban has been in place in a province. For example, the province of Buenos Aires initiated a partial smoking ban in 2008. Individuals living in this province and surveyed in 2005 experience no smoking ban. By the time of the 2009 survey, the ban had been in place one year. In 2013, the ban had existed for five years. The EFNR does not allow us to determine the survey respondent’s length of residency in a particular province; hence, we cannot measure the number of years that a particular individual has faced a local ban.

A concern that is often raised with the implementation of state-level tobacco control policies is the possibility of selection into tobacco control based on specific state (or voter) characteristics. That is, states with a strong (unobserved) anti-tobacco sentiment may, consequently, be observed to have low levels of tobacco consumption. Moreover, these states may be the first to implement anti-smoking policies. (California is often cited as an example in the US.) On the other hand, states may decide to pass strong tobacco control legislation in order to reduce high levels of tobacco consumption. If specific provinces in Argentina followed such trends, it is possible that those that passed legislation earlier are those that had the lowest (or highest) initial levels of consumption or exposure. To test this theory of endogenous program placement, we aggregate the individual-level Argentina data to the province level for each year and create various province-level demographic variables that may explain the presence of a partial (or full) ban. Our empirical findings, presented in Appendix Table A3 , suggest that initial smoking levels and tobacco exposure rates did not influence the implementation of province-level policies.

Additionally, analyses of the type we undertake to identify policy impacts often conduct event studies depicting trends in smoking behavior pre- and post-policy implementation or test differences in average smoking prevalence across the control and treatment groups during the pre-treatment era. Recall that our smoking data comprise three points in time (2005, 2009, and 2013) and some provinces imposed bans in or prior to 2005. Nonetheless, we conduct a t-test comparing means of smoking prevalence in provinces during pre-treatment periods (i.e., during periods in which a ban did not exist within a province) across those who never imposed a smoking ban (full or partial) and those who adopted any type of ban at some point during our survey period. We cannot reject the null hypothesis with 95 percent confidence: that is, there is no evidence that the smoking rates in provinces that never adopted a smoking ban are different from those that did (t-stat = −1.435; p-value = 0.16). If we condition on looking only at adoption of full bans, we find that smoking rates are higher in provinces who eventually impose a full ban.

We depict the results from the event study in Figure 4 below. The graphs depict province-level smoking prevalence rates (top), quantities (middle), and exposure rates (bottom) by years to and from both full (solid line) and partial (dashed lines) bans. These analyses indicate that the implementation of a partial smoking ban does not impact prevalence, but both partial and full bans change the trajectory of smoking quantities and exposure. In all cases, there is a downward trend in smoking that continues (and abates slightly, but not significantly) as the bans are implemented. However, we observe a statistically significant (at the 6 percent level) effect of the bans on smoking quantity conditional on smoking (depicted in the middle graph). Average quantities of cigarettes consumed are larger in provinces that implement public smoking bans than in provinces that do not have a ban. To explore pre-policy trends, these smoking statistics are displayed for provinces that never impose a ban (dotted line). 15 For smoking prevalence and smoke exposure, trends in provinces that never adopt are similar to those who eventually adopt (either the full or partial ban). The impact of the bans is explored more deeply in the rest of the paper.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1703077-f0004.jpg

Event Study Analyses, of smoking prevalence and quantity

Note: The top graph depicts the results of an event study analysis of smoking prevalence prior to and after (partial and full) ban implementation. The middle graph explores each ban’s effect on smoking quantities conditional on smoking, while the bottom graph shows these effects on ETS exposure.

5.1. Smoking Prevalence

Our analysis begins by examining the effects of public smoking bans at the extensive margin (i.e., current smoking prevalence, or whether or not an individual currently smokes). We measure impacts of determinants on smoking prevalence using the full sample (to reflect the general population) and the sample of those individuals with any smoking history prior to the survey. The estimated regressions follow a standard logit model with two-way fixed effects and are detailed in Table 3 . In order to investigate heterogeneous effects of the smoking bans, we estimate average ban and year since implementation effects (Specification 1) and then add ban/demographics interaction terms (Specification 2). 16

Parameter Estimates: Smoking Prevalence, Logit

Note: Specification 1 measures full and partial ban effects, on average. Specification 2 allows for heterogeneous ban effects by gender, age, and income. Each specification controls for education, household size, employment, health insurance, body mass, missing indicators (for income, health insurance, body mass) and province indicators. Standard errors (in parentheses) are clustered at the province level and account for any additional heterogeneity in ban effects.

A full or partial ban does not significantly affect average smoking prevalence in Argentina in the first year that it is implemented. However, there is a significant (at the 5 percent level) reduction in smoking each year after the first year of implementation of a full ban. Simulated marginal effects suggest an overall reduction in smoking prevalence of about 0.7 percent one year after the implementation of a full ban and 2.0 percent five years after the implementation of a full ban. Results from specification 2, which allows for heterogeneous effects of the bans, suggest that individuals with above-average income or who are younger than 40 years of age are less likely to smoke in a province with a full or a partial ban. 17 Additionally, men are significantly less likely to smoke in provinces imposing a partial ban.

Recognizing that there are individuals who have never smoked and who may be indifferent to the ban (with regard to own smoking behavior), we estimate the impact of the bans on those individuals with some history of smoking. Table 3 indicates that, in general, the bans have no immediate or long-term effect on current smoking probabilities of individuals who have ever smoked (Specification 1). However, the partial ban reduces the probability of smoking among men and both the full and partial ban deter smoking as income rises. 18

While the public smoking ban variables provide the greatest insight into the effects of tobacco control policies over time, the time indicator variables also have important implications. For all four regressions presented in Table 3 , the coefficients on the indicators for the year 2009 and the year 2013 are negative and significant, and the value of the coefficient on the 2013 indicator is significantly greater than the 2009 indicator. Generally, the negative coefficients on these variables imply that unobserved aggregate factors influence smoking prevalence of all individuals over time. Because smoking prevalence is observed only three times, we are limited in the functional form specification of this aggregate impact. Nonetheless, signs and relative sizes of these coefficients suggest that there may have been a cultural shift or a change in national attitudes towards smoking, both preceding and continuing after the passage of the National Tobacco Control Act of 2011, which contributed to a reduction in prevalence. While only five of the provinces ratified national legislation of 2011 (and we have no data on enforcement of the national law), there may have been venues and cities that independently implemented bans. It is possible that the 2013 indicator accounts for some of these indirect effects of the legislation.

5.2. Smoking Regularity

After determining the effects of smoking bans on the proportion of the population that smokes, we look more closely at intensive margins of smoking. We use a multinomial logit approach (with two-way fixed effects) to capture regularity (or frequency) of smoking where the base outcome is nonsmoking and the two alternative outcomes are smoking occasionally and smoking every day. The multinomial logit estimator allows for different marginal effects of explanatory variables on each regularity outcome. Parameter estimates are provided in Table 4 .

Parameter Estimates: Smoking Regularity, Multinomial Logit

Note: Base case among the multinomial logit outcomes is nonsmoker. Each regression controls for education, household size, employment, health insurance, body mass, missing indicators (for income, health insurance, body mass) and province indicators. Standard errors (in parentheses) are clustered at the province level and account for any additional heterogeneity in ban effects.

While the findings presented in Section 5.1 indicate a reduction in smoking prevalence several years after the implementation of a full ban, we explore whether the reduction varies by smoking regularity (i.e., occasional smoking or everyday smoking). Unconditional on a smoking history, there is a reduction (significant at the p<0.05 level) in everyday smoking behavior several years after the implementation of a full smoking ban, yet a slight increase in provinces with partial bans. The reduction is 0.7 percentage points one year after the implementation of a provincial full ban, and 1.4 percentage points five years after implementation. The reduction in everyday smoking, along with the (non-significant) reduction in occasional smoking behavior, corresponds to an increase in the proportion of nonsmokers by 1.9 percentage points. 19 The results also suggest that individuals below age 40 and those with above-average incomes are more likely to respond to a full smoking ban, for the full sample and among those who smoke regularly.

While the full sample results presented in Table 4 indicate that a full ban is associated with a reduction in everyday smoking prevalence, they also reveal an increase in the probability of being an everyday smoker a number of years after the passage of a partial ban (e.g., 1.5 percentage points five years after the implementation). Partial bans are also associated with a 0.2 percentage point decline in the proportion of the population who smoke occasionally and a 1.3 percentage point decline in the proportion of nonsmokers five years after implementation (with the estimated coefficients being jointly, but not individually, significant). A possible explanation for this finding, though not testable in our data, is peer effects that arise when smokers are congregated in designated smoking rooms where smoking is socially acceptable and reinforced. Interactions that allow for heterogeneous partial ban impacts suggest a relative decrease in everyday smoking among men and wealthy individuals. These heterogeneous ban effects on smoking regularity are similar if we use the full sample or if we condition on those individuals with a history of smoking.

5.3. Smoking Quantity

In addition to participation and regularity, we observe the smoking intensity (i.e., quantity of cigarettes smoked per day) of those individuals who currently smoke. 20 We explore whether partial or full bans impact amount smoked conditional on any use. Because those who smoke occasionally and those who smoke every day exhibit differences in behavior and addictive stock, we also examine the effects of restricted smoking policies on smoking quantity for these two groups of smokers separately. We use ordinary least squares (OLS) on the integer-valued outcome and OLS on its natural log to account for skewness in the outcome. To explore the sensitivity of the estimated marginal effects of the ban to distributional assumptions, we also use a generalized linear model (GLM) with a gamma distribution. We select a gamma distribution over a negative binomial distribution and Poisson distribution due to the nature of the data and the fit of each distribution. 21 Lastly, we examine whether public smoking bans have had different effects at different levels of smoking intensity using a quantile regression. The results from these estimators (each with two-way fixed effects) are presented in Tables 5a and and5b, 5b , respectively. 22

Parameter Estimates: Smoking Quantity, OLS and GLM

Note: Quantity is modeled as a continuous variable using different estimators. Among the 30,303 smokers in the sample, only 30,289 reported their smoking quantity. Each regression controls for gender, age, age of initiation, income, education, household size, employment, health insurance, body mass, missing indicators (for income, health insurance, body mass) and province indicators. Standard errors (in parentheses) are clustered at the province level.

Parameter Estimates: Smoking Quantity, Quantile Regression

Note: The quantity of cigarettes smoked per day is modeled using a quantile regression. Among the 30,303 smokers in the sample, only 30,289 reported their smoking quantity. Each regression controls for gender, age, age of initiation, income, education, household size, employment, health insurance, body mass, missing indicators (for income, health insurance, body mass) and province indicators. Standard errors (in parentheses) are clustered at the province level.

While we found that full smoking bans are associated with a decline in smoking prevalence (Section 5.1), we observe no significant association between full bans and smoking quantity conditional on smoking. After implementation of a partial policy, however, there is a significant increase in smoking intensity among everyday smokers and, more specifically, the everyday smokers who smoke at an intensity in the top quartile of all smokers. Recall that smokers smoke about 10.6 cigarettes per day on average, with occasional smokers consuming 4.2 per day and everyday smokers consuming 13.1. The OLS estimator on levels indicates that, among all smokers, the implementation of a partial smoking ban (i.e., immediate effect) is associated with a significant increase in smoking quantity of approximately 0.874 cigarettes per day. OLS on the natural log of smoking quantity and the GLM also estimate positive and significant coefficients that correspond to similar marginal effects. 23 Smoking intensity increases as the number of years since the passage of a partial ban increases, but the effect is not significant, indicating that these partial policies have strong (perverse) immediate effects on consumption but these effects do not accumulate and grow over time.

Occasional smokers are, on average, younger than everyday smokers and may be more likely to smoke in social settings with friends; as such, one might expect larger effects of public smoking bans on the smoking intensity of these individuals. 24 Yet, we do not see any significant effect of either a full or partial smoking ban on smoking intensity among occasional smokers. The reason that we observe a significant increase in smoking intensity among the entire population of smokers after the implementation of a partial ban stems from the fact that everyday smokers significantly increase their consumption in the presence of such bans, and this increase drives up the unconditional (on regularity) statistic. The OLS model predicts an average increase of 1.030 cigarettes smoked per day by everyday smokers after the implementation of a partial ban. Although the utility preference-ordering in our theoretical framework ( Appendix B ) predicts that a partial ban would lower the utility of smoking for an individual relative to no ban (potentially through reduced opportunities to smoke), it is important to consider the compensatory incentive of addicted smokers to smoke more in settings where and when they are able to do so. Additionally, although untestable with our data, if an everyday smoker increases his time spent with other everyday smokers in designated smoking areas (due to partial bans), he may smoke more cigarettes per day than he would with non-regulated smoking location options because of the reinforcing influence of peer effects on smoking behavior. Our findings suggest that the strategy of restricting smoking locations, while perhaps meant to be a gradual way of implementing positive change, has had a contradictory effect on the smoking behavior of everyday smokers.

In addition to establishing that everyday smokers increase their smoking intensity under partial public smoking bans, we find that individuals who smoke the largest quantities of cigarettes are impacted most strongly by the partial bans (based on the quantile regression results in Table 5b where the 75 th percentile corresponds to a smoking intensity of 16 cigarettes per day). The model predicts that a partial ban is associated with an increase in consumption (by about 1.108 cigarettes per day) among smokers at this level of smoking intensity. Another interesting difference highlighted by prevalence and intensity comparisons is that smoking intensity has not steadily declined over time as prevalence has. This lack of a significant aggregate time impact has important implications for smoking behavior in Argentina. As stated previously, there may have been unobserved aggregate factors over time or a general cultural shift in attitudes toward smoking that contributed to a reduction in prevalence, yet those same factors do not appear to have influenced smoking intensity, or they were offset by some other change over time that increased intensity while having a minimal effect on prevalence.

One such aggregate change could be the affordability of cigarettes over time. Due to a lack of province-level variation and a corresponding perfect multicollinearity with the time indicator variables, the price of cigarettes is not included as an explanatory variable. Additionally, due to inaccurate inflation data reporting since 2007 in Argentina, it is difficult to calculate the real price of goods. However, using quarterly household income data from Argentina’s Personal Household Survey (EPH- Encuesta Permanente de Hogares) and monthly cigarette price data from the Ministry of Agriculture, we can calculate the quarterly average number of packs of cigarettes that can be purchased (i.e., a relative measure of the affordability of cigarettes). 25 This information (depicted in Figure 5 ) suggests that cigarettes have become more affordable over time. It is possible that this increase in affordability offsets the general downward trend in smoking behavior over time. Our conjecture presents an exciting opportunity for future studies and, potentially, important implications for policymakers in Argentina, where tobacco prices remain low and very few tobacco taxes have been implemented. 26

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1703077-f0005.jpg

Average cigarette affordability, by income level

5.4. ETS Exposure

We conclude our investigation of the effects of public smoking bans by examining individual reports of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure, a public health concern that presents significant, and often underestimated, health risks. 27 An indicator of whether or not an individual reports being regularly exposed (O t ) to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is the dependent variable of a standard logit model with two-way fixed effects, estimated on all individuals regardless of own smoking behavior and on current nonsmokers only. Coefficient results are presented in Table 6 .

Parameter Estimates: Smoke Exposure, Logit

Note: Each regression controls for gender, age, income, education, household size, employment, health insurance, body mass, missing indicators (for income, health insurance, body mass) and province indicators. Standard errors (in parentheses) are clustered at the province level.

Implementation of a full smoking ban significantly reduces exposure for all individuals (unconditional on own smoking behavior) and for nonsmokers. The full ban rapidly reduces the general exposure to secondhand smoke, as there appears to be no incremental impact in the years following implementation. It is estimated that nonsmokers are approximately 4.9 percentage points less likely to be exposed to ETS in the year that a full ban is imposed. Partial bans are not found to be significantly associated with any change in ETS exposure. These findings provide support for the benefits of full public smoking bans in Argentina. 28

The aggregate time trends indicate a reduction in ETS exposure over time, with a greater reduction between 2009 and 2013 than between 2005 and 2009. This finding provides further support of the presence of unobserved cultural shifts and changes in attitudes towards smoking that likely developed during and after the passage of the National Tobacco Control Law.

6. Conclusions

This study examines the effects of public smoking bans on levels of smoking prevalence, smoking regularity, and smoking intensity in Argentina. While the investigated smoking behaviors are analyzed separately, the conditional relationships between them are explored. Furthermore, we determine the effects of smoking bans on environmental tobacco smoke exposure.

One of the key findings of our analyses is that full public smoking bans significantly reduce the prevalence of smoking over time. This reduction is associated with a decline in the number of individuals taking up smoking rather than an increase in the number of individuals who are quitting. The reduction is also associated with a decrease in the proportion of everyday smokers relative to the proportion of nonsmokers. These effects are greater among male, younger and wealthier individuals. Full bans do not have a significant impact on smoking intensity, which implies that smokers are finding other places and times to smoke. However, they do present benefits to nonsmokers, as they are associated with a significant decline in ETS exposure.

On the other hand, partial smoking bans appear to have negative effects that outweigh any benefits that they present. They do not significantly affect smoking prevalence or ETS exposure, and it is found that everyday smokers consume more cigarettes after the implementation of partial bans. These results provide evidence to support the ratification and implementation of the full bans dictated by Argentina’s National Tobacco Control Law of 2011. A conclusive analysis of the roles of peer effects and enforcement effects, in combination with this study, would provide additional evidence for stronger action (e.g., full versus partial bans) among policymakers.

Supplementary Material

We appreciate useful comments from David Guilkey, Klara Peter, Valentin Verdier, two editors and three anonymous referees, as well as support from the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Additional comments are welcome at moc.liamg@49latacm or ude.cnu@eiksellig_annod .

1 There was widespread support for smoking legislation in Argentina as early as 2005, but manufacturers – two multinational tobacco companies (Massalin Particulares (Philip Morris) and Nobleza-Piccardo (British-American Tobacco) who controlled the market – continued to promote and advertise its products until 2011. The national law implemented in 2011 prohibited advertising and sponsoring of tobacco. The fine for breaking the law is equivalent to 250 and 1,000,000 packets of the most expensive cigarettes on the market. ( “Argentine law targets smoking in enclosed public spaces”. BBC News. 2 June 2011 Link ). Schoj et al. (2010) provide the most convincing evidence of enforcement of provincial bans by measuring particulate matter in public venues.

2 Adolescence is the predominant age range at which smoking initiation occurs; 90 percent of smokers first tried cigarettes before age 19 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Youth and Tobacco Use.” http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm ).

3 Burton (2020) explores the effects of local smoking bans on cigarette consumption as well as alcohol consumption, since individuals may substitute restricted behaviors with allowed behaviors, especially in bars and restaurants. She finds that bans lead to differential increases in drinking behavior by type of smoker.

4 Two of the four provinces that ratified the national law actually had their own provincial smoking bans in place at the time of ratification; the national law simply imposed stronger restrictions.

5 The progression of province-level smoking bans between 2004 and 2011 was similar to the experience at city- and state-levels in the US beginning in the 1970s ( Institute of Medicine, 2010 ; American Lung Association). In 1973, Arizona became the first state to restrict smoking in several public places; Connecticut followed in 1974 by passing the first state law to restrict smoking in restaurants. Other states and individual cities followed suit over the next two decades, and San Luis Obispo, California became the first city in the world to ban smoking in all public buildings in 1990. By 2009, 30 states and the District of Columbia had passed comprehensive smoke-free legislation (Institute of Medicine). A number of studies have been conducted on smoke-free legislation within the US, which can serve as a useful and interesting comparison and potential check for external validity of the Argentinian results.

6 Cigarette consumption is skewed right and a large proportion of our sample reports zero consumption. (Section 4 provides detail from our estimation sample.) We explore how the determinants in Equation (2) explain the probability of any cigarette consumption (i.e., P ( C t > 0)), as well as the level (quantity) of cigarettes consumed conditional on having non-zero consumption (i.e., C t | C t > 0).

7 Although the National Tobacco Control Law was implemented and strongly encouraged nationally beginning in 2011, only four provinces ratified it. These four provinces are recorded as having full bans, yet any changes in national attitudes towards smoking, as well as the changes in cities and venues that followed the recommended law informally, are not picked up by the ban indicator. Rather, these unofficial effects are captured by the time indicators. This potential influence is important to consider in interpretation of the findings.

8 We acknowledge that we are unable to account for time-varying unobserved heterogeneity at the provincial level. We did interact the time indicators with several demographic characteristics, and find no significant differential effects of time in these dimensions.

9 To consider possible correlation between one’s smoking history and current smoking behavior, we estimated a Heckman selection model without an exclusion restriction (because our data do not contain one that is theoretically-justified) to jointly estimate the probability of ever smoking and the probability of currently smoking. Although the standard errors are inconsistent, we find that the correlation coefficient, which measures the correlation between the errors of the two equations, is not significantly different from zero. A similar maximum likelihood strategy to estimate the correlation between the smoking history, current smoking participation, and the level of smoking conditional on any smoking did not converge.

10 The 2005 survey information was collected between March and June; the 2009 survey, between October and December; and the 2013 survey, between November and December. These survey periods postdate periods of high inflation as well as an ad valorem emergency tax on cigarettes, and they conveniently span years of provincial implementation of partial and full indoor smoking bans.

11 Like many self-reported sources of smoking consumption, individual responses are clustered at intervals of 5 and 10 cigarettes per day. To account for this clustering, we considered mixture models of count data (e.g., heapreg in Stata) and did not find appreciably different results from those reported in Section 5.

12 Specifically, we measure exposure by responses of surveyed individuals to the question: “Do people regularly smoke near you?”. While there is a question about exposure to smoke in one’s home, the non-response rate to this question does not allow us to “subtract” the home exposure response from exposure generally so as to construct a measure of exposure in public places, which is what the bans address.

13 We do not convert the Argentine peso (ARS) to US dollars (USD) due to Argentina’s frequent exchange rate fluctuations and the existence of an unofficial exchange rate (fueled by the difficulty for locals to acquire dollars through traditional means) known as the “blue” rate. In 2005, the official exchange rate was 2.9 ARS per USD and the blue rate was 3.2 ARS per USD; in July of 2015, the official exchange rate was 8.0 ARS per USD and the blue rate was 14.0 ARS per USD. Instead, we measure deviations from the mean nominal income in each survey year.

14 Recall that almost two-thirds of the sampled individuals were interviewed in the last quarter of the calendar year (spring in Argentina), while the 2005 survey was conducted between March and June (autumn in Argentina). It has been suggested that season of the year may affect reported smoking through weather conditions (but we expect spring and autumn to be similar), taxing variation (but we see little variation in prices of cigarettes across provinces), and timing of quitting (e.g., New Year’s day).

15 We assign the average smoking rate (or quantity smoked if any or ETS exposure) of those provinces that never implemented a ban throughout our survey period in the year that corresponds to the years to/since ban in provinces that do. That is, for every “dot” in the figure (i.e., every province/year data point), we record the average smoking rate in non-ban provinces. We then regress this average on the years to/since variable to indicate the trend in smoking rates among those provinces that never implement a ban.

16 We estimate specifications of the models that allow for polynomials of the explanatory variables and interactions of the policy variables with individual characteristics. We simulate marginal effects (available from the authors) in order to properly account for the non-linear effects of squared or cubed variables and interactions between variables. Standard errors are clustered at the province level. The small number of provinces (23) suggests using alternative calculation of standard errors, such as wild bootstrapping. This procedure did not produce qualitatively different results.

17 The interactions of the ban with normalized and linear age and income variables suggest that individuals who are older or have lower income (than average) may be more likely to smoke when smoking in public places is restricted. Note, however, that older individuals are significantly less likely to smoke unconditionally. Similarly, men are more likely to smoke than women, unconditionally.

18 Selection, in this case into having a history of smoking, causes concern about measurement of biased impacts. That is, permanent or time-varying unobservables that may be correlated with previous smoking behavior may also explain current smoking behavior. Unfortunately, we have little information on smoking policy variation in Argentina prior to 2003 and, hence, cannot jointly model whether or not an individual ever smoked nor the age of initiation.

19 This estimate aligns closely with the 2.0 percentage point reduction in smoking prevalence predicted by the logit model in Section 5.1.

20 While studies have focused on the health risks associated with duration of smoking rather than intensity of smoking (e.g., Darden, Gilleskie, and Strumpf, 2018 ), researchers have shown a positive and significant correlation between smoking intensity and risk for smoking-related illnesses. Shields and Wilkins (2013) , for example, found such a relationship in their study of smoking intensity and heart disease in Canada.

21 Figure A1 of the Appendix presents a visualization of each of these three distributions fit to the actual smoking intensity data (conditional on being a current smoker) and plotted against these data; the gamma distribution fits most closely.

22 Heterogeneous ban effects were insignificant so we report results for average ban effects only.

23 The marginal effect with OLS on the ln(quantity) is a 5.8 percent increase in the quantity smoked; the marginal effect using GLM with the gamma assumption is an increase of 0.734 cigarettes per day.

24 The mean age of occasional smokers in Argentina is 36.4 years and, of everyday smokers, is 40.7 years.

25 The EPH, distributed quarterly since 2003, is a rotating panel dataset that contains household-level data on employment, income, and other general economic indicators.

26 Guindon et al. (2018) study the effect of tobacco prices on the decision to start smoking in Argentina using individual-level data, noting that periods of high inflation alter the real price impacts.

27 Barnoya and Glantz (2005) found that the cardiovascular health risks presented by ETS exposure are, on average, 80 to 90 percent as large as those from active smoking.

28 Recent work suggests that outdoor smoking bans similarly reduce exposure in Korea, with little change in prevalence of smoking (e.g., Ko, 2020 ).

Contributor Information

Michael A. Catalano, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hofstra University.

Donna B. Gilleskie, Department of Economics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Adda J and Cornaglia F 2010. “ The effect of bans and taxes on passive smoking .” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2 ( 1 ): 1–32. [ Google Scholar ]
American Lung Association. “ Tobacco Control Milestones .” Accessed April 15, 2021. https://www.lung.org/research/sotc/tobacco-timeline
Anger S, Kvasnicka M, and Siedler T 2011. “ One last puff? Public smoking bans and smoking behavior .” Journal of Health Economics 30 ( 3 ): 591–601. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barnoya J and Glantz S 2005. “ Cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke, nearly as large as smoking .” Circulation 111 ( 20 ): 2684–98. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Becker GS and Murphy KM 1988. “ A theory of rational addiction .” The Journal of Political Economy 96 ( 4 ): 675–700. [ Google Scholar ]
Boes S, Marti J, and Maclean JC 2015. “ The impact of smoking bans on smoking and consumer behavior: quasi-experimental evidence from Switzerland .” Health Economics 24 ( 11 ): 1502–1516. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Burton A 2020. “ The Impact of Smoking Bans in Bars and Restaurants on Alcohol Consumption, Smoking, and Alcohol-Related Externalities .” Working paper . [ Google Scholar ]
Carton T, Darden M, Levendix J, Lee S, and Ricket I (2016). “ Comprehensive indoor smoking bans and smoking prevalence: Evidence from the BRFSS .” American Journal of Health Economics 2 ( 4 ): 535–556. [ Google Scholar ]
Chaloupka FJ 1992. “ Clean indoor air laws, addiction and cigarette smoking .” Applied Economics 24 ( 2 ): 193–205. [ Google Scholar ]
Darden M, Gilleskie D, and Strumpf K 2018. “ Smoking and Mortality: New Evidence from a Long Panel .” International Economic Review 59 ( 2 ): 1571–1619. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
DeCicca P, Kenkel D, and Liu F 2013a. “ Who pays cigarette taxes? The impact of consumer price search .” Review of Economics and Statistics 95 ( 2 ):516–529. [ Google Scholar ]
DeCicca P, Kenkel D, and Liu F 2013b. “ Excise tax avoidance: The case of state cigarette taxes .” Journal of Health Economics 32 ( 6 ): 1130–1141. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
DeCicca P, Kenkel D, and Liu F 2015. “ Reservation prices: An economic analysis of cigarette purchases on Indian reservations .” National Tax Journal 68 ( 1 ):93–120. [ Google Scholar ]
DeCicca P, Kenkel D, Lovenheim M, and Nesson E 2018. “The Economics of Smoking Prevention.” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance . Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Ferrante D and Virgolini M 2007. National Risk Factor Survey 2005: main results . Revista Argentina de Cardiología 75 ( 1 ): 20–29. [ Google Scholar ]
Fowler J and Christakis N 2008. “ Estimating peer effects on health in social networks .” Journal of Health Economics 27 ( 5 ): 1400–1405. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gilleskie D and Strumpf K 2005. “ The behavioral dynamics of youth smoking .” The Journal of Human Resources 40 ( 4 ): 822–866. [ Google Scholar ]
Goodman P, Agnew M, McCaffrey M, Paul G, and Clancy L 2007. “ Effects of the Irish smoking ban on respiratory health of bar workers and air quality in Dublin pubs .” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 175 ( 8 ): 840–845. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gordon B and Sun B 2015. “ A dynamic model of rational addiction: evaluating cigarette taxes .” Marketing Science 34 ( 3 ): 452–470. [ Google Scholar ]
Guindon GE, Paraje GR and Chávez R 2018. “ Prices, Inflation, and Smoking Onset: The Case of Argentina .” Economic Inquiry 56 ( 1 ): 424–445. [ Google Scholar ]
Harding M, Leibtag E, and Lovenheim M 2012. “ The heterogeneous geographic and socioeconomic incidence of cigarette taxes: Evidence from Nielsen Homescan data .” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 4 ( 4 ): 169–198. [ Google Scholar ]
Institute of Medicine. Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jones AM, Laporte A, Rice N, Zucchelli E, 2015. “ Do public smoking bans have an impact on active smoking? Evidence from the UK .” Health Economics 24 ( 2 ): 175–192. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ko Hansoo. 2020. “ The effect of outdoor smoking ban: Evidence from Korea .” Health Economics 29 ( 3 ): 278–293. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Konfino J, Ferrante D, Mejia R, Coxson S, Moran A, Goldman L, and Pérez-Stable EJ 2014. “ Impact on cardiovascular disease events of the implementation of Argentina’s national tobacco control law .” Tobacco Control 23 ( 2 ). [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kuehnle D and Wunder C 2017. “ The effects of smoking bans on self-assessed health: evidence from Germany .” Health Economics 26 ( 3 ):321–337. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kvasnicka M, Siedler T, and Ziebarth NR. 2018. “ The health effects of smoking bans: Evidence from German hospitalization data .” Health Economics 27 ( 11 ): 1738–1753. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lewit EM and Coate D. 1982. “ The potential for using excise taxes to reduce smoking .” Journal of Health Economics 1 ( 2 ), 121–145. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Matsumoto B 2014. “ Lighting the fires: explaining youth smoking initiation and experimentation in the context of a rational addiction model with learning .” Working Paper . [ Google Scholar ]
Matsumoto B 2017. “ Estimating policy effectiveness in a dynamic context when agents anticipate policy change: the case of indoor smoking bans .” Working Paper, Bureau of Labor Statistics . [ Google Scholar ]
Ministerio de Salud de la Nación. Encuesta Nacional de Factores de Riesgo [National Risk Factor Survey] , Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Salud de la Nación; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
Ministerio de Salud de la Nación. Encuesta Permanente de Hogares [Permanent Household Survey] , Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Salud de la Nación; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
Nakajima R 2007. “ Measuring peer effects on youth smoking behaviour .” The Review of Economic Studies 74 ( 3 ), 897–935. [ Google Scholar ]
Navas-Acien A, Peruga A, Breysse P, Zavaleta A, Blanco-Marquizo A, Pitarque R, Acuña M, Jiménez-Reyes K, Colombo V, Gamarra G, Stillman F, and Samet J 2004. “ Secondhand Tobacco Smoke in Public Places in Latin America, 2002-2003 .” Journal of the American Medical Association 291 ( 22 ):2741 –2745. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Odermatt R and Stutzer A. 2015. “ Smoking bans, cigarette prices and life satisfaction .” Journal of Health Economics 44 : 176–194. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
O’Neill Institute, Fundación Interamericana del Corazón –Argentina [The InterAmerican Heart Foundation -Argentina], and The Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policy (FUNDEPS). 2011. “ Tobacco control in Argentina: advances and pending tasks .” (2011, November). Georgetown Law. [ Google Scholar ]
Powell LM, Tauras JA, and Ross H 2005. “ The importance of peer effects, cigarette prices and tobacco control policies for youth smoking behavior .” Journal of Health Economics 24 ( 5 ), 950–968. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rodríguez-Iglesias G, González-Rozada M, Champagne BM, and Schoj V. 2015. “ Real price and affordability as challenges for effective tobacco control policies: an analysis for Argentina .” Revista Panamericana de Salud Púiblica 37 ( 2 ), 98–103. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schoj V, Sebrié EM, Pizarro ME, Hyland A, and Travers MJ 2010. “ Informing effective smokefree policies in Argentina: air quality monitoring study in 15 cities (2007-2009) .” Salud publica de Mexico , 52 Suppl 2 (0 2), S157–S167. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shields M and Wilkins K 2013. “ Smoking, smoking cessation and heart disease risk: a 16-year follow-up study .” Health Reports 24 ( 2 ), 12–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tauras J 2006. “ Smoke-free air laws, cigarette prices, and adult cigarette demand .” Economic Inquiry 44 ( 2 ), 333–342. [ Google Scholar ]
Wasserman J, Manning WG, Newhouse JP, and Winkler JD 1991. “ The effect of excise taxes and regulations on cigarette smoking .” Journal of Health Economics 10 , 43–64. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
World Health Organization. 2019. “ Report on Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2019 .” Geneva: World Health Organization. [ Google Scholar ]

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.

IELTS Practice.Org

IELTS Practice Tests and Preparation Tips

Band 9 IELTS Essays

Band 9 essay sample: All governments should ban smoking in public places

by Manjusha Nambiar · Published October 12, 2015 · Updated April 21, 2024

Essay topic

Sample response

Smoking is injurious to health. It can even cause deadly diseases like cancer. Many countries have already banned smoking in public places. In my opinion, others too should follow suit and ban it.

There are several benefits to banning smoking in public places. Smoking ban will definitely improve the quality of air we breathe. Cigarette contains nicotine which is a cancerous substance. In addition to cancer, smoking causes several other health problems. In fact, statistics have shown tremendous rise in the occurrence of mouth cancer among people who smoke regularly. Some studies have also shown that people who smoke more than 3 cigarettes a day have increased chances of developing cancer. Smoking may also cause other problems like heart attack and respiratory illnesses.

The biggest problem with smoking is that in order to suffer from its ill effects, you don’t necessarily have to be a smoker. Passive smoking also kills. It is particularly harmful for young children and pregnant women. If people are allowed to smoke in crowded public places like railway stations or bus stands, its harmful effects will have to be borne by all people standing next to the smoker. Banning smoking in public places is the only way to solve this problem.

Pollution is one of the biggest problems that we face today. Smoking not only aggravates this problem but it also causes the depletion of the ozone layer which protects us from sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. It is evident that smoking plays a significant role in damaging our health and our environment.

In conclusion, I personally believe that all governments should ban smoking in public places. This might cause some inconvenience to chain smokers, but ultimately this ban will benefit them as well.

Tags: band 9 essay samples

Manjusha Nambiar

Hi, I'm Manjusha. This is my blog where I give IELTS preparation tips.

Next story Band 9 essay sample: Should subjects like mathematics and philosophy be optional at school?
Previous story Using not only/but also

Banning Smoking in Public Places, Essay Example

Pages: 1

Words: 337

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The topic of the Rogerian essay is the argument for banning smoking in public places. Bringing in scientific research results, the authors would like to address human rights and freedom issues and argue that everyone has the right for clear fresh air without 3000 different toxins. While smokers’ have the right to enjoy their habit if they choose to, the public’s interest is more important in this case than individual rights.

Background Knowledge. I have examined newspaper and academic publications regarding smoking ban in America. As a non-smoker, I understand that people with heart and respiratory conditions can be affected by cigarette smoke. With friends who are asthmatic I know that cigarette smoke can worsen several people’s condition. Indeed, if I go to a club or party where smoking is allowed, my clothes and hair immediately need to be washed, because of the smell.

Research Plan. In the first phase, I would like to review newspaper publications on the issue; argumentative articles on each side. The second phase would be to check the validity of the claims using peer-reviewed journals detailing research results on second-hand smoking and its effect on people’s health. I will use search terms “second-hand smoking” and “ban smoking in public”. Debate.org would be a good starting point, as it is a website that addresses both sides of the argument. The CDC website would provide facts and overview about the health risks of second-hand smoking on different population groups. It also provides references for future research including scientific study publications. The WHO report covering the statistics of 192 countries would also provide the author with a solid proof to back up the argument for banning smoking in public places.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (web) Smoking and Tobacco Use. <http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts> [Accessed: 12/6/13]

Debate.org Website. History and Debate of Smoking Ban . Web. <http://www.debate.org/tobacco- rights/> [Accessed: 12/6/13]

Oberg, M., Jaakkola, M., Woodward, A., Pergua, A., Pruss-Ustun, A. (2010) Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries . WHO. Web. <http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/smoking.pdf> [Accessed: 12/6/13]

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Traditions of Western Music, Essay Example

Appellee Goldberg v. Appalent Kelly, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Smoking in Public Places: Negative Effects

Introduction, supporters of public smoking, nations against public smoking.

All living things desire to have a favorable environment that supports healthy living. Even though some pollutants are caused by nature most of them are to blame due to various human activities. It is important to state the need to identify pollution caused by nature and those caused by human beings (Sullum 2009). It is also necessary to highlight the importance of reducing these pollutants or their effects in human beings. However, this essay will focus on public smoking in European countries. Few countries support public smoking while most of them have designated places for smokers.

A public place refers to an area where people have unrestricted access. These are places that are open for members of the public as well as state officials and they include schools, entertainment joints, public beaches, playgrounds, worship centers, bus stations and work places. It should be noted that even though public offices have restricted access they are public places since they are established to serve the population.

There are a handful of nations or states that support public nations and top among them is Alabama. Other states like Michigan, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. These states have come under fire for their continued stand in supporting public smoking. However, they are adamant to establish laws that restrict public smoking due to various reasons. Most European countries adopt similar policies since their citizens live similar lives. In addition, they have other similar policies that regulate consumer goods and thus must ensure their policies are similar. States that support public smoking argue that the following considerations must be observed before restricting smoking activities.

First, they argue that human beings have freedoms and rights that must be protected at all costs. This means that people must not be forced to neither do what they don’t like nor be stopped from doing what they want. People should be left to do what they want as long as they are not interfering with other people’s lives. Therefore, they argue that prohibiting public smoking is tantamount to denying them their constitutional rights and freedoms. Therefore, these states have no plans of controlling smokers and their movements since they have the rights to choose whether to smoke in public or not. There is a possibility that if individuals are forced to smoke in designated areas soon there will be laws that limit the number of cigarettes a person can buy or smoke in a day.

Secondly, proponents of public smoking have challenged many people to explain the meaning and contexts of public smoking. There are various interpretations of public places and public smoking. Many people know that a public place is anywhere where public movement is not restricted. According to them these places include churches, playgrounds, restaurants, schools, stadiums, social halls and bus stations among other places. However, they fail to define public personal space that is the most important in defining non interference in public places.

Serious controversies arise when a smoker isolates himself from the rest of the population and takes a secluded place in a public park to smoke. People fail to define this as either public or personal space. Even though, the antonym of public is private there are other definitions of human spaces like personal and interpersonal space. Therefore, the absence of clear demarcations between public and personal space are responsible for causing misunderstandings with regard to public smoking. Consequently, proponents of public smoking argue that as long as a smoker is not close to the rest of the population he or she should not be interfered with what the person is doing. This means that public smokers should be at least ten meters from the rest of the population.

Moreover, there is no difference between smoking in public and smoking in secluded places since no one can control wind directions. The opponents of public smoking argue that public smoking interferes with the rest of the population in terms of causing respiratory infections. However, this is a weak argument since there are hundreds of other communicable diseases transmitted through contaminated water, air, food or body contact. There is no need of limiting smoking to secluded areas in attempts to fight respiratory complications while there are hundreds of people walking on the streets and transmitting flu and tuberculosis. Human beings cannot control wind directions and even though smokers may be instructed to smoke from designated places the cigarette smoke will eventually spread to almost all nearby regions.

In addition, there are other smoke emitters in urban and rural areas and imposing a ban on public smoking is discriminatory. Most nations are still developing and using petroleum products to provide energy for various machines. It is evident that there can never be fuel combustion without smoke emission. This means that smokers contribute a small percentage of air pollution compared to other pollutants. The number of faulty motor vehicles emitting carbon in urban and rural areas is almost a thousand times the number of smokers. This means that other air pollutants like automobiles and industries emit more dangerous fumes compared to smokers. This is a clear indication that public smoking is not a big nuisance as is portrayed by some people. In addition, most developing countries have not achieved a full blown industrialization state and continue to rely on raw fuels for energy. The number of trees cut down every year to produce charcoal and firewood is a clear indication of how other sources pollute the air more than what smoking does.

Moreover, smoking is not as bad as drinking alcohol or using other drugs like cocaine and bhang. Most people smoke to quench their thirst and assure their senses that their bodies are ready for work. A person can smoke and work perfectly the whole day according to rules and regulations at hews work place (Glanz 2010). Therefore, smokers are not as irresponsible as alcoholics since smoking does not interfere with an individual’s mental and physical stability.

Furthermore, recent developments have led to the invention of electric cigarettes that are not harmful like the tobacco ones. These cigarettes have been modified top produce tobacco tastes but they lack nicotine and other harmful substances. Therefore, this cigarette is not harmful to the smoker or people around him. Therefore, there are sufficient reasons to support public smoking and those advocating for its ban should think twice about their stands.

Lastly, cigarettes account for a significant percentage of foreign income and domestic revenue generation. They are among the highly priced commodities in the local and international markets. In addition, cigarette companies employ directly and indirectly millions of workers world wide. Tobacco farmers earn income from selling their products and offer employment to millions of tobacco workers either in their farms or in tobacco industries. Therefore, restricting smoking to secluded regions is tantamount to bottlenecking this business. Tobacco trade is an important way of reducing the high number of unemployed people in the society; therefore, all attempts aimed at restricting the use of its products should be stopped.

Most European nations are slowly adopting the anti-public smoking campaigns by designating certain regions for smokers. In most countries there are smoking zones and times beyond which individuals are not allowed to smoke (Lemieux 2007). For instance, even though there is no specific time for smoking government workers are not supposed to be found smoking during working hours. In addition, people are not allowed to smoke while inside buses, churches, schools and cinema halls. States have established laws to punish any person found breaking this rule. Public smoking is prohibited due to the following reasons.

First smoking accounts for a significant number of respiratory infections like lung cancer and throat inflammation. Even though, there is no law that stops individuals from smoking it is advisable to ensure that only willing smokers are exposed to cigarette smoke. This means that those willing to smoke are allowed to do so but should also bear in mind the welfare of other people. All cigarette manufacturing companies have clear warnings on their products advising consumers to avoid excessive smoking. In addition, their advertisements carry strong messages that cigarette smoking is not beneficial to their health (Jones 2010). However, smokers know these instructions very well but as strange as it is they ignore them. While buying cigarette packets their eyes usually cross the many bold advertisements and rush to see the contents without giving the instructions a second thought. They ignore these instructions at their own will and later suffer their consequences. On the other hand, the government has a duty of ensuring all citizens are guaranteed safe and healthy environment. This means that smokers should not interfere with other non smokers by smoking in public. Therefore, this policy protects innocent civilians against the effects of tobacco smoke.

Secondly, smoking is just like other activities that must not be done in the presence of children. It should be noted that parents are role models to their children and the society at large. Children emulate their parents and other senior members of their societies. No parent is ready to see his school going child puffing tobacco fumes while studying. This sight is not only disgusting but also irrational. Therefore, to avoid exposing children to cigarette smoking it is necessary to regulate smoking habits. This is why most nations are adopting the anti-public smoking policy to deter children from learning this habit. It is clear that it is impossible to stop an adult from smoking but it is advisable for the person to smoke while in a designated place. These smoking zones are usually out of bounds for children and therefore they are very safe.

Thirdly, some habits are regarded as public nuisance. A public place is supposed to have order and accommodate people from various backgrounds. Even though, people have different personalities this is not an excuse to misbehave. When a couple hugs and kisses in a wedding or an entertainment joint this can be understood since the environment is suggestive of these reactions (Edberg 2009). In addition, when friends meet in public places and hug or kiss this will be understood since they may have stayed very long time before seeing each other. However, when a public kiss is prolonged or a hug is extended to a caress this becomes improper public behavior since it creates an embarrassing scene. Some people are not used to some behavior and will not feel comfortable being in the company of people with such manners. Public smoking is public nuisance just like spitting in public. Therefore, anti-public smoking policies should be reinforced if possible in all countries.

In addition, the world is struggling to control and eliminate all forms of pollution despite the need to modernize production processes. In the early years of civilization most automobiles used fuels that emitted a lot of smoke (Fritschler 2007). For instance, the trains and ships that used steam were largely dependent on firewood to boil water. Consequently, the amounts of smoke emitted by these engines were much more than the benefits achieved by these transport vessels. Pollution was at its best while the destruction of natural forests also became an issue of debate.

Even though, some critics argue that tobacco smoke is not sufficient enough to cause climate change this argument is subjective and cannot be used to justify smoking in public places. In a country where three out of ten people smoke on a regular basis the average smoke emitted in the whole country is far much more than what a truck full of corm emits (Glanz 2010). This means that the number of people smoking on a daily basis is enough to fill tons of gas cylinders. The little amount of smoke produced by each cigarette accumulates in the atmosphere and is responsible for a number of climate changes.

Moreover, public smoking is as dangerous as walking in a workshop without shoes or other protective clothes. Most public places do not have ash trays to deposit the filter or ashes produced after smoking. It is evident that most forest and domestic fires have been caused by irresponsible smokers. Most of them usually dump their left over cigarettes along foot paths or in bushes while only a few of them squeeze them between their fingers or step on them to extinguish them (Chapman 2011). The majority of the population is usually careless and leaves lighted cigarettes on the roadside or public benches. Some are ignorant enough to dump their cigarettes in public dustbins only to be shocked later by fire eruptions. However, prohibiting public smoking will ensure that all smokers dump their unfinished or finished cigarettes in designated places. These places are usually constructed with water and fire extinguishers to make sure all emergencies are handled as soon as possible.

People have the right to do what they want as long as their actions do not interfere with other people’s freedoms. However, it is also necessary to note that freedom comes with duties that must be fulfilled. Democracy allows everybody to speak and to be heard but chooses only a few preferred by the majority to lead. Similarly, this policy does not stop anyone from smoking but offers opportunities for smokers to reevaluate their habits as far as their health is concerned. Sometimes experience offers ore than enough lessons to people who hate advice from others. However, designating some places for public smokers is a step towards self realization and reversal of various habits. The fact that smokers are isolated from the rest of the population offers moral lessons to smokers and the other population. Smokers should think of possible reasons that may have contributed to their isolation. Thereafter, they will realize the effects of smoking and perhaps stop this habit.

Additionally, public smoking zones are meant to isolate smokers from the rest of the population. Some people know smoking is a bad habit but they keep on doing it inj hiding. However, when they are forced to smoke from designated places they will never accept since they fear being branded as smokers. Therefore, these zones ensure people get their real identities and stop hiding in washrooms to smoke. Moreover, some school going children smoke their parents’ cigarettes and eventually end up being chronic smokers. However, when there are regulations to control smoking patterns this will deter them from smoking until when they have grown up. Moreover, smoking zones are usually centrally located to be accessible from all neighboring regions. This ensures workers can sneak into these regions and smoke then go back to work.

However, there is a psychological twist in the location of these zones. First, they are not usually located too close to public offices, learning institutions or private establishments. This means that anyone willing to smoke must drive to these places or walk long distance s before getting to these places. This is a waste of time that should be used for other activities (Gostin 2009). Therefore, most smokers will postpone their smoking until after completing their work. Secondly, smoking zones are like prisons since no one is allowed to smoke outside these regions. Most people believe that smoking is addictive and makes an individual to become a slave of his habits. Therefore, designating smokers a smoking zone is like sentencing them to a public prison. Most people fear being seen smoking from these regions since this giver their friends an impression that the person is a tobacco addict.

Tobacco smoking has devastating health effects in the smoker and those close to him. It is estimated that over three 3,000,000 people die annually due to smoking and tobacco related complications (Friis 2011). Even though, smokers read all the instructions in the cigarette packets they have never stopped to pay attention to their meanings. It is ironical that most medical practitioners are the greatest smokers and contribute to a high number of respiratory complications victims. Moreover, it is proved that passive smokers suffer almost similar health complications to those of active smokers. Some major health complications associated with smoking include cancer (lung, skin, throat, liver and stomach), tooth decay, ineffective blood circulation and anemia.

Lastly, some people argue that smoking in public is a pastime activity and source of prestige. In addition, they claim that smoking helps calm nerves after strenuous activities. However, these arguments are selfish and uninformed since they are meant to justify the importance of public smoking (Hayden 2010). On the contrary, there are other health-friendly pastime activities like sports, watching movies, reading novels and visiting friends. In addition, public smoking lowers an individual’s status in society.

Public smoking should be banned in all public places to ensure workers perform their duties without interference. In addition, tobacco contains harmful substances that intoxicate people and make them work differently when under its influence. Therefore, smoking in public places should be restricted to promote productivity.

Chapman, S., Public Health Advocacy and Tobacco Control: Making Smoking History, Willey-Blackwell, Boston, 2011.

Edberg, M., Essentials of Health Behavior: Social and Behavioral Theory in Public Health. Essential Public Health, Jones and Bartlett, Massachusetts, 2009.

Friis, R., Essentials of Environmental Health: Essential Public Health, Jones and Bartlett, Massachusetts, 2011.

Fritschler, L., Smoking and Politics: Bureaucracy Centered Policymaking, New Jersey, Pearson, 2007.

Glanz, K., Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, Jossey-Bass, New Jersey, 2010.

Gostin, L., Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint. Milbank Books on Health and the Public, University of California Press, California, 2009.

Hayden, J., Introduction to Health Behavior Theory, Jones and Bartlett, Massachusetts, 2010.

Jones, P., Smoking In Public Places: Town and Country Planning, Jossey-Bass, New Jersey, 2011.

Lemieux, P., Smoking and Liberty: Government as a Public Health Problem, Editions Varia, Montreal, 2010.

Sullum, J., For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health, Touchstone publishers, New York, 2009.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, April 24). Smoking in Public Places: Negative Effects. https://studycorgi.com/smoking-in-public-places-negative-effects/

"Smoking in Public Places: Negative Effects." StudyCorgi , 24 Apr. 2022, studycorgi.com/smoking-in-public-places-negative-effects/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Smoking in Public Places: Negative Effects'. 24 April.

1. StudyCorgi . "Smoking in Public Places: Negative Effects." April 24, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/smoking-in-public-places-negative-effects/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Smoking in Public Places: Negative Effects." April 24, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/smoking-in-public-places-negative-effects/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Smoking in Public Places: Negative Effects." April 24, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/smoking-in-public-places-negative-effects/.

This paper, “Smoking in Public Places: Negative Effects”, 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: August 12, 2022 .

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.

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

Skip to content
Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts writing task 2 sample 740 - smoking should be banned in public places, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. therefore, smoking should be banned in public places..

IELTS Materials

IELTS Bar Graph
IELTS Line Graph
IELTS Table Chart
IELTS Flow Chart
IELTS Pie Chart
IELTS Letter Writing
IELTS Essay
Academic Reading

Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Copyright Notice
HTML Sitemap

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

June 4, 2024

PLOS ONE

An inclusive journal community working together to advance science by making all rigorous research accessible without barriers

Calling all experts!

Plos one is seeking talented individuals to join our editorial board. .

Cancer Epidemiology

Impact of aging on acute myeloid leukemia epidemiology and survival outcomes: A real-world, population-based longitudinal cohort study

Han and colleagues report an association between aging and incidence of acute myeloid leukemia diagnoses in South Korea, with recommendations to expand treatment options for older patients.

Image credit: Couple by Mabel Amber, Pixabay

Impact of aging on acute myeloid leukemia epidemiology and survival outcomes: A real-world, population-based longitudinal cohort study

Agriculture

Persistence of genetically engineered canola populations in the U.S. and the adventitious presence of transgenes in the environment

Travers and colleagues research reveal that escaped GMO canola plants persist long-term outside farms but may be losing their herbicide resistant transgenes.

Image credit: Canola field in Manitoba, Canada by Ethan Sahagun, Wikimedia Commons

Persistence of genetically engineered canola populations in the U.S. and the adventitious presence of transgenes in the environment

Climate Change

Uncertainty reduction for precipitation prediction in North America

Lou and colleagues investigated the uncertainties across 27 CMIP6 models for projecting future annual precipitation increases in North America. They captured emergent constraint relationships between annual growth rates of simulated historical temperature and future precipitation. This reduced precipitation prediction uncertainties and improved temperature trend accuracy.

Image credit: Puddle by pictures101, Pixabay

Uncertainty reduction for precipitation prediction in North America

Neuroscience

Orienteering combines vigorous-intensity exercise with navigation to improve human cognition and increase brain-derived neurotrophic factor

Waddington and colleagues report the benefits of the sport of orienteering, which combines vigorous exercise with spatial navigation, on memory and molecular markers of cognition such as BDNF.

Image credit: Fig 7 by Waddington et al., CC BY 4.0

Orienteering combines vigorous-intensity exercise with navigation to improve human cognition and increase brain-derived neurotrophic factor

Official PLOS Blog

Driving Open Science adoption with a global framework: the Open Science Monitoring Initiative

PLOS discusses the recent launch of the Open Science Monitoring Initiative.

Image credit: Lighthouse by Masami, CC BY 4.0

Editor Spotlight: Frank Kyei-Arthur

In this interview, PLOS ONE Academic Editor Dr Frank Kyei-Arthur discusses assessing reviewers' comments, his research interest in diverse populations, and the importance of Open Science in population health research.

Image credit: Dr. Frank Kyei-Arthur by Dr. Frank Kyei-Arthur, CC BY 4.0

Editor Spotlight: Bogdan Cristescu

In this interview, PLOS ONE Academic Editor Dr Bogdan Cristescu shares his experiences with PLOS ONE as author, reviewer and editor, his research in wildlife conservation ecology, and memorable places from his fieldwork.

Image credit: Dr. Bogdan Cristescu by Dr. Bogdan Cristescu, CC BY 4.0

Biochemistry

Formamide denaturation of double-stranded DNA for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) distorts nanoscale chromatin structure

Shim and colleagues compare DNA labelling methods.

Image credit: Bottoms spiral string by Qimono, Pixabay

Archaeology

Pottery spilled the beans: Patterns in the processing and consumption of dietary lipids in Central Germany from the Early Neolithic to the Bronze Age

Breu and colleagues analyzed pottery vessels to study ancient culinary traditions in Germany.

Image credit: Fig 2 by Breu et al., CC BY 4.0

Rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care-testing and antibiotic prescribing in primary care: Protocol for the RAPID-TEST randomised controlled trial

Abbs and colleagues report the protocol for the RAPID-TEST randomised controlled trial.

Image credit: Healthcare worker taking PCR test by Drazen Zigic, Freepik

Animal behaviour

Eurasian jays ( Garrulus glandarius ) show episodic-like memory through the incidental encoding of information

Davies and colleagues show how Eurasian jays can use mental time travel like humans

Image credit: Eurasian Jay (Garrulus glandarius) by Zeynel Cebeci, Wikimedia Commons

Collections

Browse the lastest collections of papers from across PLOS

Watch this space for future collections of papers in PLOS ONE

RCPSYCH International Congress 2024

Associate Editor Annesha Sil will be representing PLOS ONE at this conference in Edinburgh, UK, June 17-20, 2024.

Sunbelt 2024

Senior Editor Hanna Landenmark will be representing PLOS ONE at this conference in Edinburgh, UK, June 24-30, 2024.

UK Alliance for Disaster Reduction (UKADR) 2024 Conference

Associate Editor Joanna Tindall will be representing PLOS ONE at this conference in London, UK, June 26-27, 2024.

Publish with PLOS ONE

Submission Instructions
Submit Your Manuscript

Connect with Us

PLOS ONE on Twitter
PLOS on Facebook

Get new content from PLOS ONE in your inbox

Thank you you have successfully subscribed to the plos one newsletter., sorry, an error occurred while sending your subscription. please try again later..

IMAGES

Smoking in Public Places (500 Words)
Argumentative Essay About Smoking in Public Places In 200 Words
Topic: Should Smoking Be Banned In Public Places?
🌈 Smoking in public places speech. Persuasive Speech On Smoking In
😝 Ban smoking in public places argumentative essay. Argumentative Essay
Persuasive essay.docx

VIDEO

No Smoking 🚭 In Public Places #AnbumaniRamadoss #vjsiddhu #TamilNadu #PMK #Trending #TamilCinema
Essay on smoking in public places should be banned || Essay writing in English|| essay writing
10 lines on smoking in hindi/dhumrapan per nibandh
How India SMOKES 😯
Essay on Smoking in Urdu
smoking place #ytshorts #viral #shortfeed

COMMENTS

Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places? Essay
Thesis statement. 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.
Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay
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:
Should Smoking Be Banned In Public Places Essay
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.
Examples & Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking
Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking. Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. It leads to adverse health effects, including lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the respiratory tract. However, the number of people who smoke cigarettes has been on the rise globally. A lot has been written on topics related ...
The Real Reason Behind Public Smoking Bans
Bayer is points out that there is, however, an important public health benefit from such bans. "They make it more difficult for smokers to smoke," Bayer told us, "and contribute in an ...
Should smoking in outside public spaces be banned? Yes
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.
IELTS Essay, topic: Smoking in public places
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.
Impacts of Local Public Smoking Bans on Smoking Behaviors and Tobacco
2.2. Public Smoking Bans in Argentina. Prior to the implementation of Argentina's National Tobacco Control Law of 2011, 13 of the nation's 23 provinces and the capital city of Buenos Aires had implemented subnational tobacco control policies to restrict or ban smoking in public places.
Smoking should be banned in public places IELTS Essay
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 ...
Band 9 essay sample: All governments should ban smoking in public places
Sample response. Smoking is injurious to health. It can even cause deadly diseases like cancer. Many countries have already banned smoking in public places. In my opinion, others too should follow suit and ban it. There are several benefits to banning smoking in public places. Smoking ban will definitely improve the quality of air we breathe.
Essay On Smoking In Public Places
338 Words | 2 Pages. Smoking can cause many problems with your health including lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and the worst,early death. Most teens think smoking is cool, but it can destroy your body and your looks in a matter of years. It can take at least 10 years off of your life, and condemn you to a poor quality of life.
Banning Smoking in Public Places, Essay Example
The topic of the Rogerian essay is the argument for banning smoking in public places. Bringing in scientific research results, the authors would like to address human rights and freedom issues and argue that everyone has the right for clear fresh air without 3000 different toxins. While smokers' have the right to enjoy their habit if they ...
Smoking in Public Places: Negative Effects
Lastly, some people argue that smoking in public is a pastime activity and source of prestige. In addition, they claim that smoking helps calm nerves after strenuous activities. However, these arguments are selfish and uninformed since they are meant to justify the importance of public smoking (Hayden 2010).
Smoking should be banned in public places
Model Answer 1: The earlier we can ban smoking in public places, the better it would be for the human kind. Having foreseen the same, many offices and governing bodies imposed a strict ban on public smoking. This measure is generally applauded by the majority of mass. However, the opposing minority interrupt this ban as an act of arrest on one ...
Argumentative Essay Sample on Smoking in Public Places
Provide arguments for the thesis statement. Notably, the sample essay provides several reasons for the necessity of a smoking ban in public places. The essay's second paragraph, the first part of the main body, focuses on the health issues resulting from smoking, explaining what diseases people face when they smoke.
Essay On Smoking In Public Places
Ban Smoking in Public Places The health hazards of smoking have never been unknown. There has been enough scientific evidence to prove that smokers, on an average, have shorter life spans than non-smokers. This is caused by various lung and cardiovascular problems that are caused by cigarette smoking. However, what may go unnoticed at times is ...
Smoking in Public Places Essay
Smoking has several negative effects on people's health, not surprisingly. It is one of the major leading causes of death lead by lung diseases, cancer, and heart diseases. Furthermore, it does not only affect smokers, but also others around them, through secondhand smoking. Therefore, it is banned from numerous public places to avoid harming ...
Smoking in Public Places Essay
1923 Words. 8 Pages. 13 Works Cited. Open Document. Why Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places. His bald head rests on a pillow. His bones from his cheeks and shoulders protrude under his skin. His mouth is open, but he cannot respond to his mother, wife or three-year-old son anymore. Doctors say there is no hope for Bryan Lee Curtis, a lung ...
Essay about Smoking In Public Places Should be Banned
Smoking is one of the UK's biggest killers causing 120,000 per year, that's 330 deaths a day. Smoking is costing the NHS around £1.7 billion per year which could be used to treat and help prevent cancer. Another report stated that services to aid people quit smoking costs on average £4.1 billion which is too much money to throw away nowadays.
Plos One
International Day of Women and Girls in Science - Interview with Dr. Swetavalli Raghavan. PLOS ONE Associate Editor Dr Johanna Pruller interviews Dr Swetavalli Raghavan, full professor and founder of Scientists & Co. about mentorship, role models, and the changing landscape for women in science. Image credit: Dr Swetavalli Raghavan by ...