Rights of smokers and non-smokers We have all heard the warnings from non-smokers about the negative health and environmental effects of tobacco smoking and their anti-smoking campaigns. These campaigns offer non-smokers the opportunity to express their right to breathe clean air and protect their health and the environment. We have seen how society, business and government have taken action to promote a smoke-free society and to protect the rights of non-smokers. On the other hand, we hear smokers say that their personal rights are being violated by society, business, and government while targeting nonsmokers. Should there be a concept of smokers' rights? And which rights are most important? Another question raised in this issue is: “Do smoking bans have a negative effect on the economy and entrepreneurs?” Since choosing not to smoke has no effect on personal health, the environment, or others, and smoking will always have a negative effect on all of these things, it seems, any rights of smokers should not be placed before the rights of non-smokers. The basis of this controversy is the use of Mill's harm principle and utilitarianism by society and government. We will first examine what the concepts of rights of smokers and non-smokers are. We will start with non-smokers' rights, which began in the 1970s with the first groups formed by volunteer activists. The movement began at the grassroots level, advocating for the right to smoke-free air, and used the anti-war, civil rights, and environmental movements as inspiration (Padwa, Cunningham 274). Organizations like the Group Against Smoking and Pollution (GASP) and Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights have formed and fought for... middle of the paper... smokers and nonsmokers' rights is pretty complicated and it will more than likely always be a problem in our society. It will always be a problem because the tobacco industry, an industry full of hedonistic executives, generates too much profit to go anywhere anytime soon. Many smokers will continue to smoke, despite warnings about health risks, while non-smokers will continue to express their right to clean air and businesses will continue to address and make decisions to accommodate smokers and non-smokers in an effort not to lose revenue . As far as I am concerned and my opinion, I think that the rights of non-smokers should come first. I think that having a smoke-free environment that eliminates the potentially devastating consequences of tobacco smoking would be for the greater good of society and would outweigh any temporary, fleshly effects that nicotine gives.