1
7
Should smoking be banned or not?
Smoking is world’s most habitual thing to do these days. Smoking tobacco products has existed for a long time. As the world becomes more developed and urbanized smoking in close proximity becomes more of a problem. Therefore, this becomes one of the great social issues of today. Many states have passed legislation banning smoking in public places. It is the opinion of most people that the risks of smoking in public are too high. The controversy on whether to allow smoking in public has been widely reported. Those who don’t want smoking in public appear to be more justified than those who want smoking in public. The issue of second-hand smoke has been studied by experts, and the experts have concluded that second-hand smoke is harmful to non-smokers. Non-smokers should not be subjected to harmful second-hand smoke in a public environment. Nor to feel subjected in an uncomfortable situation. So that’s why smoking should be banned in public places.
Just imagine yourself sitting in a restaurant, and not enjoying your dinner, because a puff of smoke or smell is near you. Not only the smell and smoke surrounds you, but you are disappointed, because you paid to have a decent meal and space, and it is being violated. Well I think the problem is that there was not a certain area for a smoker too smoke. A smoker does not have the right to violate a non-smokers right to have clean air wherever they go. The smoker also puts other peoples’ health at risk. Tobacco industries believe that cutting smoke-free ordinances will affect the businesses of restaurants and bars, but the truth is that it will not. It is the restaurant owner’s choice to make it a smoke-free environment. Benjamin C. Alamar and Stanton A. Glantz, who wrote “Smoke free Ordinances’”, said that a hundred and fifty communities in America have already cut off smoking societies, like California (1994), and Utah (1995). Through Glantz and Alamar studies, it has been said that “this law of a smoke-free environment would actually increase the profits and the values of the restaurant and bars and would be good for these businesses” (Alamar and Glantz 6). So, that shows to that a process has already begun to eliminate smoking in public places.
The other reason that smoking should be banned in public places is that it is unhealthy for the smoker and the non-smoker, especially children, ill people, and the elderly. Second-hand smoke is even more dangerous than an actual smoker. “Second-hand smoke is a toxic cocktail consisting of poisons and carcinogens, which are substances that can cause or aggravate cancer. There are over four thousand chemical compounds in second-hand smoke; two hundred of which are known to be poisonous, and upward of sixty have been identified as carcinogens” (Martin 1). Second-hand smokers who are exposed to develop the same ailments, including chronic throat and mouth irritation, emphysema and other lung problems as the addicted smoker (Sherman 1). To be able to avoid these disasters, we must support a smoke-free environment. Non-smokers have the right to clean air and not second-hand smoking.
However, opponents of my opinion say that smoking should not be banned in public places, because the United States of America is a free country, which means that a person can decide whether they want to smoke or not. Smokers know the consequences of smoking. For example, whenever my mother wants to relax, she goes to a restaurant or bar to have a meal and smoke a cigarette. No one could take that right from stopping my mother from smoking; because that is the only way she can distress herself. Many people decide to smoke, because that is the only way they can relax, and no one can take that right from what decision they make. This is the same situation of a non-smoker; no one can violate their right to have a smoke-free environment. The only solution that I see for this situation is that there should be designated places for a smoker and a non-smoker, because a non-smoker has the right to clean air in all public places, as well as a smoker has the right to smoke in all public places.
Another important reason that opponents say smoking should not be banned in public places is, because from buying cigarettes, tobacco industries provide employment to poor countries, for example, countries like India and Zimbabwe. It not only helps people with employment, but also by buying tobacco, this helps build schools and hospitals. “In recent years, increases in Federal and State excise taxes, restrictions on smoking in public places, price increases resulting from legal settlements, and falling cigarette exports have impacted the tobacco industry. Most of the jobs and income affected by a reduction in cigarette demand are beyond the farm gate in manufacturing, wholesale, and retail businesses, but some tobacco farms and their communities may have difficulty adjusting to declining demand for tobacco. This is because many tobacco farmers lack good alternatives to tobacco, and they have specialized tobacco-specific equipment, buildings, and human capital” (Gale, Foreman, Capehart iii). On the other hand when tobacco industries provide employment in poor countries for young people, they feel motivated to smoke, because they have easy access to tobacco.
However, I have explained how some opponents’ believe that smoking should not be banned in public places; because America is a free country, and a smoker has the choice to smoke as well as a non-smoker has the choice to have clean air. Another, reason that opponents’ believe that smoking should not be banned in public places is, because tobacco industries provide employment for poor countries, and help build schools and hospitals. Therefore, I have shown that when tobacco industries provide employment, it makes the employers, especially young ones to smoke. But, as in my argument, I have shown why smoking should be banned, because it is bad for the smoker, as well for the non-smoker.
7
Should smoking be banned or not?Smoking is world’s most habitual thing to do these days. Smoking tobacco products has existed for a long time. As the world becomes more developed and urbanized smoking in close proximity becomes more of a problem. Therefore, this becomes one of the great social issues of today. Many states have passed legislation banning smoking in public places. It is the opinion of most people that the risks of smoking in public are too high. The controversy on whether to allow smoking in public has been widely reported. Those who don’t want smoking in public appear to be more justified than those who want smoking in public. The issue of second-hand smoke has been studied by experts, and the experts have concluded that second-hand smoke is harmful to non-smokers. Non-smokers should not be subjected to harmful second-hand smoke in a public environment. Nor to feel subjected in an uncomfortable situation. So that’s why smoking should be banned in public places.
Just imagine yourself sitting in a restaurant, and not enjoying your dinner, because a puff of smoke or smell is near you. Not only the smell and smoke surrounds you, but you are disappointed, because you paid to have a decent meal and space, and it is being violated. Well I think the problem is that there was not a certain area for a smoker too smoke. A smoker does not have the right to violate a non-smokers right to have clean air wherever they go. The smoker also puts other peoples’ health at risk. Tobacco industries believe that cutting smoke-free ordinances will affect the businesses of restaurants and bars, but the truth is that it will not. It is the restaurant owner’s choice to make it a smoke-free environment. Benjamin C. Alamar and Stanton A. Glantz, who wrote “Smoke free Ordinances’”, said that a hundred and fifty communities in America have already cut off smoking societies, like California (1994), and Utah (1995). Through Glantz and Alamar studies, it has been said that “this law of a smoke-free environment would actually increase the profits and the values of the restaurant and bars and would be good for these businesses” (Alamar and Glantz 6). So, that shows to that a process has already begun to eliminate smoking in public places.
The other reason that smoking should be banned in public places is that it is unhealthy for the smoker and the non-smoker, especially children, ill people, and the elderly. Second-hand smoke is even more dangerous than an actual smoker. “Second-hand smoke is a toxic cocktail consisting of poisons and carcinogens, which are substances that can cause or aggravate cancer. There are over four thousand chemical compounds in second-hand smoke; two hundred of which are known to be poisonous, and upward of sixty have been identified as carcinogens” (Martin 1). Second-hand smokers who are exposed to develop the same ailments, including chronic throat and mouth irritation, emphysema and other lung problems as the addicted smoker (Sherman 1). To be able to avoid these disasters, we must support a smoke-free environment. Non-smokers have the right to clean air and not second-hand smoking.
However, opponents of my opinion say that smoking should not be banned in public places, because the United States of America is a free country, which means that a person can decide whether they want to smoke or not. Smokers know the consequences of smoking. For example, whenever my mother wants to relax, she goes to a restaurant or bar to have a meal and smoke a cigarette. No one could take that right from stopping my mother from smoking; because that is the only way she can distress herself. Many people decide to smoke, because that is the only way they can relax, and no one can take that right from what decision they make. This is the same situation of a non-smoker; no one can violate their right to have a smoke-free environment. The only solution that I see for this situation is that there should be designated places for a smoker and a non-smoker, because a non-smoker has the right to clean air in all public places, as well as a smoker has the right to smoke in all public places.
Another important reason that opponents say smoking should not be banned in public places is, because from buying cigarettes, tobacco industries provide employment to poor countries, for example, countries like India and Zimbabwe. It not only helps people with employment, but also by buying tobacco, this helps build schools and hospitals. “In recent years, increases in Federal and State excise taxes, restrictions on smoking in public places, price increases resulting from legal settlements, and falling cigarette exports have impacted the tobacco industry. Most of the jobs and income affected by a reduction in cigarette demand are beyond the farm gate in manufacturing, wholesale, and retail businesses, but some tobacco farms and their communities may have difficulty adjusting to declining demand for tobacco. This is because many tobacco farmers lack good alternatives to tobacco, and they have specialized tobacco-specific equipment, buildings, and human capital” (Gale, Foreman, Capehart iii). On the other hand when tobacco industries provide employment in poor countries for young people, they feel motivated to smoke, because they have easy access to tobacco.
However, I have explained how some opponents’ believe that smoking should not be banned in public places; because America is a free country, and a smoker has the choice to smoke as well as a non-smoker has the choice to have clean air. Another, reason that opponents’ believe that smoking should not be banned in public places is, because tobacco industries provide employment for poor countries, and help build schools and hospitals. Therefore, I have shown that when tobacco industries provide employment, it makes the employers, especially young ones to smoke. But, as in my argument, I have shown why smoking should be banned, because it is bad for the smoker, as well for the non-smoker.
I hate how some restaurants have smoking areas and non smoking areas but they are right by each other and you can still smell the smoke! I do not want to die because of someone elses habits. I agree with you, it should be banned and there should be betther restrictions.
I agree with you. Smoking is your personal choice and when other people have the choice to do it or not, they shouldn’t have to be around it everywhere they go. Second-hand smoke can be dangerous and some people can barely tolerate it and if that’s the case, how are people and children ever going to be able to go out to public places with smokers everywhere? But your right, smoking should be banned.
I really dislike when i go out to eat and as my family and I are laughing but at the same time we are getting choked on the smoke. It just turns my stomach up side down. I believe restaurants should at least have two different buildings one for smoking and one for non smoking. I truly agree with you, they should ban smoking.
I agree that smoking should be banned in all public places. Second hand smoke is dangerous and basically if im near a person that lights a cigarette, they not only made the dicision to smoke and harm their bodies but the also decided for me to smoke (second hand) and harm mine as well. Its kind of like cursing in a crowded place. Not only is your mouth fowl bout innocent children around you hear it and they start to do it also. In other words your hurting other people by your actions whether you touch them or not.
I seriously dislike smoking. My father smokes and it worries me but i worry about my health as much as his. he smokes around me and when i enhale the smoke, it gets hard for me to breath
I like going to eat food without having the smoke smell in the area. I don’t date people who smoke. But smoking is already banned in some restaurants but I wish that other restaurents would to the same.
In your second paragraph, third sentence, you said certain area for a smoker too smoke. That should be to. But the whole paper, i agree. I do not understand how so many people disagree with smoking, yet we still have to deal wth it.
I am against smoking fags also. I think that it is disguisting. But many places like Bayou la Batre have already made this a law. You arent allowed to smoke in any public places. Your stance on this subject is well thought out. Also, your imagery will help the reader trully get into your paper.
Great job!
Second paragraph: In the sentence that begins “Well I think the problem is…” try taking out “Well I think” and the sentence is stronger. The next sentence has an appostrophe error. “A” non-smoker is not “they.” You need to watch for simple grammatical errors throughout. The title “Smoke free Ordinances” should have a capital f. Give this essay another really close reading.