What is your position on such bans and why Essay

essay B
  • Words: 1724
  • Category: APA

  • Pages: 7

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

Most businesses now say that no one can smoke cigarettes in any of their offices. Many local governments have banned smoking in all public places. What is your position on such bans and why? Pre-writing for a Thesis My older brother smokes very frequently this has perennially caused arguments and friction within the family. For one, when he smokes inside the house, the smell and the smoke circulate around and, and sometimes if I am exposed substantially, I feel nauseous. We always remind him to be more considerate of those who are non-smokers, and yet all these have been met with indifference and apathy.

He does comply rarely with our request; however, consequently days after, he goes back to the old habit rationalizing that he already has an addiction that we should be considerate about. Apparently, smoking does not have a singular benefit for both smokers and non-smokers, and in fact causes very harmful, concrete effects on people’s health. Because there is little doubt that smoking indeed is detrimental for one’s health, I agree with smoking bans in public places because this will effectually protect non smokers from second hand smoke and the debilitating effects this has on health.

Non smokers have the right to be protected and the right to a clean environment, just as smokers have the right to choose to harm themselves through smoking. It all redounds to personal choice. Another benefit of these policies is that they will help in the decline of smoking. Take Canada, who banned smoking in most offices for some years now, for instance. Every year, the number of smokers has been steadily declining in this country, presumably because of their policies (Abbott, 1).

Moreover, these bans can also help trim down substantially the demand for tobacco and/or cigarettes by creating an atmosphere where smoking becomes progressively more difficult. No policy is passed without opposition and smoking bans are no exemption. Even from government officials themselves, like the Defense Minister Antonio Martino of Italy, for whom smoking is a sacred right. He made this assertion when he was interviewed during the time when the measure was voted into law in 2002 (BBC News, 1).

According to the minister and to some smokers as well, this law defeats the concept of democracy (at least for the democratic states which voted such laws), in a way that the government is no longer serving the people and according them empowerment, but instead dictate to them what should they do, thus, diminishing ‘freedom of choice’. Moreover, they say that every individual has the right to smoke or not. Yet another argument puts forth that if the government is only thinking about the effects of smoking, why then do they not check car emissions which pollute the air heavily?

They further say that the government is not prioritizing issues relevantly and equitably. Those who defy the smoking bans say that they have the right to choose, in this case, the choice is to smoke. On the other hand, individuals who do not smoke also have the right to a healthy environment, and non smokers likewise can exercise their right not to suffer from the grave effects of second hand smoking (Abbot 1). The argument above regarding car emissions is somewhat hasty and ungrounded. There are countries which have already passed laws to protect people from car emissions.

This has already been addressed in various countries through effective legislation; smoking in public places, on the other hand, has been a long standing issue that legislators have yet to address. A large majority of smokers are youths. Let this paper be my personal advice for all of them, out of authentic concern and altruistic motives. Smoking will not give any individual any benefits, which is why the youth should cease from smoking, and not even attempt to begin with the habit. Thesis

Policies which will ban smoking in public places or in offices will be directly beneficial to those who are non-smokers and to some extent, to smokers as well. Ultimately, such policies will be good for the community as a whole. Plan of Argument My opinion is based on three main points which I can defend and explain so that the thesis would be agreeable to my readers. The first main point is that smoking in public causes harm not only to themselves but to the non smokers in their surroundings as well. The second main point is that it will help the government safeguard the whole population.

Finally, the third main point is that it will help in stopping smokers from smoking. Support Researchers, doctors and scientists have long argued that smoking has bad effects on one’s health. As of now, these experts are looking at the effects of smoking to second hand smokers or the so-called passive smokers who inhale the smoke from the smokers. In the US alone, the American Cancer Society suggested that there are 400,000 deaths each year due to tobacco (Chung 1). In the world, there are 3 million people who surrender because of smoking or to be more clearly comprehended, this translates to one individual who dies every second.

In addition, tobacco triggers asthma attacks; for instance, a friend of mine turned blue because of wheezing and lack of oxygen, when he was stood near a man who was smoking in the waiting area of a supermarket. Incidentally, my friend already has congenital asthma, and her condition is aggravated when she inhales cigarette smoke. On the other hand, critics of this argument express that if the government is alarmed by the effects of smoking on people’s health, why then have they prioritized smoking bans rather than excessive car emissions which harm everyone much more than smoking?

According to these critics, individuals allergic to smoke perennially complain to them about affecting non smokers’ health. However, these same individuals do not realize that as they walk in the streets, the emissions from vehicles cause more health damage to them (Chung 1). For them, the government has a scrambled priority list. It is only but proper that the government should ban such things in order to safeguard the well being of its entire citizenry. Taking illegal drugs and fraud of any kind harms the population that is why they are deemed illegal.

Smoking is too, that is why it is only proper to ban it. It is therefore justifiable to ban an “activity” which kills millions of people every year. And that there are more people killed on the roads due to drunk drivers and careless ones but why does smoking exclusively get banned? Why can they not remove all vehicles on the road? Moreover, critics assert that if the government does this, it now turns into authoritarian rule, because it imposes what should be done rather than letting the people exercise their freedom of choice (Ambert 1).

Those who defy such policies argue that both smokers and non smokers have their respective choices. Thus, in effect, for people who do not smoke and complain about those who do, they have all the right in the world to move to another place for their own protection and well-being. However, the serious health effects of smoking are not at all a choice. It contains the chemical nicotine, an addictive drug which blurs one’s rationality in choosing (Evans 1). And if the advocates of this argument say that they have the right to choose, non smokers have as much right not to suffer from passive smoking.

The next argument which states that such policy will help the smokers to stop smoking and will therefore lead to the decline of their number. Take for example the case of Canada which is a sound proof of such argument (Abbot 1). The number of smokers in the country fell sharply after the implementation of smoking bans. Italy also had the same outcome (Abbot 1). The other side of the coin presents that smoking bans only refrain smokers from smoking in public places, but they will continue to smoke in the privacy of their homes or places where they can do so.

Conclusion The introduction of smoking bans will benefit individuals and society as a collective. First, because it is a harmful activity, both for those who smoke and those who do not. Second, it is an effective way of helping the government in safeguarding the well-being of the society which it has sworn to protect and be accountable for. Finally, such policies will help to in the stark decrease in both the number and frequency of smokers, since it would increasingly be more difficult to find an apt place where smoking is allowed.

Final Draft of Essay I once saw a phrase ‘Fumar matar’ in a cigarette box, which means ‘smoking kills’. Yes, without a doubt, smoking really kills. In fact, kill not only smokers, but also passive smokers who inhale second hand smoke. From experience, I witnessed how smoking affected my brother’s health; it made him sickly and decreased his stamina when compared to people his age. This great evil kills more than three million people worldwide. Tobacco, in the appearance of cigarettes is one of the mainly used recreational drugs.

There are age restrictions in some countries in the consumption of cigarettes; however, more than a billion people still smoke tobacco lawfully every day (Abbott 1). Most of governments throughout the world first responded to these alarming statistics by raising the taxes on tobacco in order to depress smoking. There are three main points that I will raise with regards to this issue regarding my supportive stand on smoking bans. First, is the argument about the smoker and non smoker’s health, which experts have long argued cause no benefits but instead seriously aggravate their health condition.

In US alone, there are 400,000 deaths caused by this unproductive way of recreation (Chung 1). For a clearer picture, these statistics are tantamount to one person dying every 10 seconds. This leaves us with very minimal doubt that smoking is indeed bad for one’s health, which justifies the need for government to ban smoking. On the other side of this contention, they argue that this is a rather vague representation of lung cancer because they say that they are equally exposed to car emissions which are likewise hazardous for one’s health, than they are with cigarettes and second hand smoke (Amber 1).

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member