Words: 589
Today we know more about cigarettes and use of these than In the past. We know that smoking seriously harms you and others around you, as said on cigarette packets. But why continue the production of cigarettes and why do not the government forbid smoking if that habit is such a dangerous risk for the health? In the late fourteen century, Europeans sailed over from Spain and Portugal and started the building of their colonies In South America. The people from Europe came in contact with the Indians and watch them smoke some form of tobacco.
From this Influences the tobacco was shipped over from South America to Europe and the use of the product became very popular, and from that point the production and using of tobacco has expanded in large scale. The risks of diseases caused by smoking did not attract attention until the late 1 sass, when scientist published reports of cancer, lung diseases and premature skin aging caused by smoking. One of the consequences was to put warning texts on cigarette packets. Another consequence was to forbid advertising of tobacco products.
However, the most Important thing Is to to forbid the advertising on television, the government in Sweden should totally ban it. I would now like to express three arguments about why the government in Sweden really should forbid smoking, and the consumption of cigarettes. The very first argument is about how smoking can affect a human body, and especially the lungs. A cigarette includes tar and carbon monoxide, these highly dangerous toxins can result devastating consequences to your lungs when you Inhale the smoke etc. Of the approximately 55 million deaths that occur annually throughout the world caused 1. Million (2. 5 percent) of lung cancer according to world health organization. The corresponding figures for Sweden is about 90 000 deaths, of which about 3000 (3. 3 percent) are caused by lung cancer. This is very serious, and we must take this information really serious I will talk about my second argument from an economic perspective. It Is very expensive with tobacco product, (which is really good. ) Sweden has high taxes on tobacco, because the government wants to that the population In Sweden should consume less tobacco. But to achieve a gradual phase, he government must increase the taxes even more.
On the other hand, the high taxes contribute to the countries welfare and still this argument is not good enough, because the human life is always the most important. You can for example compare the tobacco taxes income with “blood money’, since we know that the tobacco products can result too humans death. The third and final argument Is about secondary smoking. Smoking not only harms you but also others around you. Literally harms a smoker others’ health. The Swedish government cannot just accept this, thou doing anything about it.
The government simply has to ban smoking, to ensure that everyone will get a safe and healthy environment. Anyone who smokes a cigarette breathes into more than a quarter of the smoke. The rest goes out to the environment. The people who are there and themselves may never smoke or stopped smoking become passive smokers. They are affected by nicotine and all the other period exposes those affected to the same type of health risks as smokers, although the risk increase is lower. My own conclusion of this issue is that the government just institute arrangements against smoking, which is really bad for yourself and others around you.