This document discusses the issue of banning smoking in public places. It presents arguments both for and against such a ban. The arguments for a ban include reducing smoking rates and protecting non-smokers' health from secondhand smoke. However, arguments against a ban say it infringes on personal freedom of choice and could negatively impact businesses that rely on smoking customers. The document concludes that it is a complex issue balancing the rights of smokers and non-smokers.

1. Discussion text
 What isDiscussiontext? (Itisa processinfindingthe solution between two different thoughts,
views or Opinions)
 What is the the purpose of discussion text? (It is used to present different opinions on a
particular issue or topic e.g. arguments for And against/positive and negative/good and bad)
Generic structure
 Issue (It contains the issue or problem discussed)
 Supporting Points(It provides opinion that supports the issue)
 Contrasting Points(It provides the opinion that contrasts the issue)
 Conclusionorrecommendation(Itgives conclusion or recommendation for the issue discussed
Language Features)
The Ban on Smoking in Public Places
Smokingbaninpublicplaceshasbeena hot issue these lastmonthsnotonlyinMaltabut alsoin various
countrieswhoare discussingthe effectsaban wouldhave.There have beenseveral debatesonsmoking
ban. Even though the harmful effects of smoking, both active and passive, are well known and
undeniable smoking is far from being in decline; it is spreading among young people in particular
quickly.
Most controversial debate is going on public smoking ban. The reason is simple, smoking ban affects
directly all people rapidly and we can see its effects in a short-term period. There have been a lot of
arguments brought up both in favour and against a public smoking ban. Some of the arguments in
favour are the following. Smoking ban is one of the controversial ways for reducing smoking and
recognizing non-smokers’ right to health protection. The health risks of smoking are clear. Passive
smoking does carry risks. Many leading medical and scientific organizations recognize second hand
smoke as a cause of a range of life-threatening conditions. The health situation could be drastically
improvedif one of the riskfactors - tobacco - waseliminated.People have arightto protect themselves
fromsmoke inhalation. People shouldn’t have to inhale the ill-effects of other people’s smoking. The
creationof smoke-freepublicplaces also improves air quality. Those opposing a smoking ban say that
freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking
bans damage business.A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants
and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places,
and the ban isa limitationforsmokers’rights.Businesses,smokers,publicans,tobacco industries, stars,
and some of the non-smokersoppose publicsmokingban.Smokers light a cigarette because they need
to smoke,notbecause theywantit,because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers
think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as
second-classcitizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the
ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them. Public smoking ban needs to be measured and
understoodbetter.Smokersshouldnotbe made tolooklike outcasts, but smokers should respect non-
smokers when sharing places. I agree that completely smoke-free places are the ideal, and some
businesseshave takenthe decisiontogocompletelysmoke-free.However, everyone agrees that, it is a
matter of rights - the right of smokers to smoke versus non-smokers to protect from passive smoking
and to breathe clean air.