It is often brought to debate as to how the public responds to smoking in public places. But little do people know that in the arguments volumes and volumes of facts are present from research and documented evidence. It is someone’s right to have a smoke if he or she wishes but the smoke should not pose a threat to the society. Considering the disadvantages posed by smokers in public places it is passive of us just to turn a blind eye. Consequently any health specialist would give a negative opinion due to the myriad of risks posed since the smokers pose a great risk to the surrounding people and any chance of avoidance would be a plus. However, smokers also feel they have a right enjoy their smoke. In view of this debate, this article will address the question whether smoking should be banned in public places.

The smoker is the person directly linked with the risk of diseases in the act of smoking. However the smoker exposes the other people around him or her to the same diseases that may affect him or her. The persons who are found close around the smoker are known as passive smokers. The smoke produced by the smoker is called second hand smoke or passive smoke (Fong, 2007). In researches conducted by the National research council in the U.S the passive smoke is regarded a stronger pollutant than the direct smoke. Part of the carcinogens such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and 4-aminophenyl are more in passive smoke than in mainstream smoke (Fong, 2007).

The research sought to identify the components present in exuded smoke considering that the smoke is an excretion of the primary smoke at first. It is well recognized that 80-90% of all lung cancers are caused by cigarette smoking only 15% of smokers develop this disease and 10% of patients diagnosed do not smoke (Fong, 2007). It could be that the smokers are more of infectors or merchants of doom more than they are losers in the picture they paint.

The human genome project was successfully conducted in the early 2000’s and now serves to tell the genes polymorphism brought about by smoke carcinogens. These markers include K-ras(Meyers), CYPIA 1, and CYPIA 2 they are more susceptible to second hand carcinogens than they are to mainstream smoke (Karen et al. 2009). The genes tested were mainly restricted to the Caucasian population and as a result, current tests are being done to involve a wider scope of races since their genetic make-up have variances. The genes are able to mutate in the presence of environmental smoke and can be attributed to the cause of cancer in non-smokers (Karen et al. 2009). It is this exposure that compromises such people. As a way to protect such people the government should ban smoking in public.

Tobacco smoke is able to act as a mutagen in most people and to others it is a potent allergen. This means that the exposure to tobacco smoke from secondary smoke causes the patient to experience asthmatic attacks (Fong, 2007). The person can have bronchiolar hyperactivity due to the allergen and this can lead to blockage and death. Considering that it is not easy to determine the hyperactive individual in a group it is necessary for the legal structures to ensure that such events do not happen and in light of this ban public smoking.

About 30% of the smokers in a population are of reproductive age. The reproductiveness of the persons involved in direct smoking is similar to those who take in passive smoke. Cigarette smoking and the inhalation of its smoke has been associated with delay of pregnancy this means that female smokers take a longer time to attain conception and their hormonal stimulation if required should be stronger (Fong, 2007). The toxicants that cause these defects have been isolated in passive smoke. The toxicants are common in smoke and are found in serum and follicular tissue thus meaning that they affect the maturation of the ovary. Paternal smoking was associated with malformation of DNA in the sperm cell and this led to poor attachment and implantation (Fong, 2007). Moreover, even if a lady smoker conceives and delivers successfully there is the risk of the infant succumbing to death. This is normally referred to as ‘sudden infant death syndrome’ (SIDS) and it occurs due to exposure of the infant to tobacco smoke (Adgent, 2006).

A toxicant known as cotinine which is present in smoke has been shown to cause sperm infertility. The alteration of the delicate germ cell metabolism is able to bring about drastic changes in future development and in some cases it leads to sub-infertility (Karen et al. 2009). The result of this effect is devastating for would be mothers and fathers especially if the condition was induced indirectly by someone who is a complete stranger. The effects are common in a spouse of a smoker if the person is not a smoker and most individuals continue to cohabit without knowing this (Fong, 2007). The effects of infertility are being investigated on whether they cause germ cell neoplasms. In view of the matters stated the infertility caused could be inherited from off springs of the affected parents.

The use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is revealing that the reproductive health is affected by the toxicants of smoke. It is shown in research that the users of cigarettes and those affected by cigarette smoke require hormonal stimulation to respond to bodily reproductive mechanisms (Fong, 2007). Worse off the assisted hormonal stimulation fails in some and this could only mean that they are unresponsive to reproductive hormonal changes due to smoking.

The second hand smoke causes many types of lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and cardiac diseases (Sciencedaily LLC, 200). The diseases are caused by the accumulation of nicotine in blood and as a result the blood becomes more coaguable (Owing, 2005). The effect of this is that there is formation of flakes in blood and this cause occlusion of blood vessels and may cause ischemia, if this occurs to cardiac tissue the person affected may get a cardiac failure and he may die (Owing, 2005). Atherosclerosis also leads to the hardening of the vascular walls due to smoke constituents like nicotine and tobacco. The hardening causes failure in pumping of blood and the blood pressure is heightened it is also associated with hypercholesterolemia and has the same pathological conditions.

The product of second hand smoke is also associated with minor headaches and migraines especially if the person being exposed to the smoke is very sensitive to smell. Persons affected by the odor of perfumes and spices are more than offended if the person around them is smoking (Owing, 2005). The smoke causes irritation and has adverse effects on people with bacterial or fungal infection of the lungs.

The exposure of children to smoke causes them to take up smoking in future according to research done by the National research council. The test revealed that 18% of children who lived with smoking family members were more likely to take up smoking than children from a smoke free home. The research went further to test that once the exposed individuals took up smoking more than 55% of the individuals would be tobacco dependent (Fong, 2007). Not only are the children exposed to a higher risk of the toxicant but they are being caused to follow on the path of addiction.

The same risks of addiction and tobacco dependency are also posed by the pregnant smoking mothers to be. The pregnant individuals who smoke cause their children to be dependent on tobacco so if at all the children become smokers they are likely to go down the long winding path of addiction (Karen et al. 2009). Of all the pregnant smoking mothers 17% conceive children that exhibit signs of tobacco dependency (Karen et al. 2009). The mothers in some cases are not direct smokers but are exposed to secondary passive smoking. It would be right to say that most smoking societies induce a chain of drug abusers who are sucked into the chain and sometimes the society is guilty of this.

The legal rights of smokers are well known they can have a smoke if at all the smoke cannot and does not affect the individuals around them. The use of smoking zones that are restricted to be used by smokers is a solution to them. However, it is debatable whether a direct smoker would be okay inhaling second hand smoke from another smoker. Smoking is banned in most institutions of civility such as schools, offices and hotels. Some public gatherings like meetings, clubs and restaurants do not enforce such laws and the people affected are not complaining.

The whole society can be triggered to health defects and drug abuse habits indirectly just by influence, observation and in some instances by pre-disposition mechanisms such as genetics. It would be in the best interest if authorities would protect non-smokers from joining them out of their own will and in sharing the health problems of smokers.