Some countries today have passed laws against smoking tobacco in public buildings such as offices and restaurants. Other countries have no intention of doing this. Consider the possible arguments on both sides of this debate, and reach your own conclusion on which side you favor

Nowadays, some country's government has approved the tobacco

law

that smokers shouldn't

smoke

in

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

public places namely work,

restaurant

Fix the agreement mistake

restaurants

show examples

, and

school

Fix the agreement mistake

schools

show examples

.

However

, the issue is not entirely straight forward other

countries

have not the purpose of making

this

. In the following paragraphs, I shall consider both sides of

this

very topical debate. On the one hand, some

countries

concern that the regulation will violate human rights,

also

everyone has the right to do anything that an individual prefers to do, and one of them is to

smoke

in public areas.

This

seems that these

countries

' citizens think that their right to

smoke

is more important than others' right to be healthy. Another argument is who opposite

law

that the benefit coming from the sales of cigarettes makes up most of the state budget, so if they forbade people to

smoke

, it would destroy their economy.

For instance

: Cuba has been globally famous for cigarettes and exports its product to many other

countries

;

this

results in their surges economy.

By contrast

,

countries

which adhere in anti-smoking

law

has reduced exposure to secondhand

smoke

that results in the number of health problems are decreased

such

as heart disease and lung cancer. There is some evidence that the number of heart attacks has been reduced in Singapore and Canada by adopting

smoke

-free workplace laws.

In addition

, employees who are considerably

addicted

Replace the word

addiction

show examples

to cigarettes negatively affect job productivity long-term, losing

labor

Change the spelling

labour

show examples

time due to

smoke

breaks and absenteeism.

For example

, there is universal consensus that smokers less productive than a nonsmoker.

Finally

, it appears that the restriction

also

decreases costs, that if

countries

comprehensive

smoke

-free indoor air policies, the company's cleaning, maintenance expenses would be downed. In conclusion, I agree that

this

law

can indeed be a valuable activity, with improving health, productivity and, increase company's profit.