General Purpose: Evaluate whether smoking in public places is justified.
Specific Purpose: Explore the arguments for and against bans on smoking in public places.
Thesis Statement: Non-smokers should be protected from the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke in public places by law or statute.
Introduction
- Attention Getter: Due to various recently highly publicized and somewhat sensationalized reports and studies of the effect of second-hand smoking, many cities in the world have placed a ban on smoking in public places.
A ban specifies places where one is forbidden to smoke (usually enclosed and public places like pubs, work spaces and restaurants) and, in some cases, places where smoking is exclusive (and usually only) allowed. These smoking bans have generated considerable debate on their appropriateness, usefulness and their restrictive nature.
- Credibility Statement: I believe it is necessary to explore both sides of the aisle before reaching a reasonable conclusion and that appropriate research is indispensable to shore up all arguments.
- Thesis Statement: Non-smokers should be protected from the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke in public places by law or statute. It is necessary to implement such a ban in order the improve air quality by limiting pollution.
Transition: First, it is of the essence to explore the point of view of non-smokers and the basis of their expectations in favor of smoking bans.
Body
- Impact on Public Health
- Dangers of Passive Smoking
- Passive smoking is the inhalation of smoke called second hand smoke.
- A non-smoker who lives with a smoker is 25 times more likely to get lung cancer than the smoker (Novak).
- It is argued that a ban on public smoking would help people want to quit smoking because they are not exposed to cigarette smoke as much as they would without the ban in place.
- Other groups that would especially benefit from such as a ban include young children, pregnant women and those with chest conditions such as asthma.
Transition: Other reasons also exist that tilt the scales in favor of smoking bans.
- Improving Air Quality: Apart from pure health concerns, banning smoking in public could significantly improve the air quality in public places, such as crowded bars and offices.
Transition: Yet, arguments against smoking bans are also put forward by the smokers.
- Tobacco Politics: Smoking also happens to be part of a larger controversial issue known colloquially as “Tobacco politics”.
- Governments the world over have earned billions of dollars of revenues from tobacco in the form of cigarettes.
- The industries that have grown up around the tobacco and cigarette industry are just as tenacious as the opponents against cigarettes, smoking in general and especially smoking in public.
- Pro-tobacco lobbyists argue that the tobacco brings in a lot of revenue for the country and is, therefore, an important asset to the economy as an industry.
- Refuting Argument:
- Infringement of Rights:
- Smokers, on the other hand, argue that it is an infringement of their rights to be forbidden to smoke in the most natural places to smoke of all, especially pubs and other places of entertainment and leisure.
- Smoking is considered to be a social expression just as much as alcohol drinking. It is also a social convenience-something done in order to facilitate conversation and companionship.
- In 2001, one in three smokers felt that that the smoking ban was discriminatory in the Unites States (Saad). This happened as the number of the American citizens who approved of the smoking ban rose to more than 50%.
- Revenue-making Machine:
- Governments the world over have earned billions of dollars of revenues from tobacco in the form of cigarettes.
- The industries that have grown up around the tobacco and cigarette industry are just as tenacious as the opponents against cigarettes, smoking in general and especially smoking in public.
- Impact Statement:
- In cases where the protection of the rights and freedoms of one group are said to infringe on the rights and freedoms on another group, the most civilized thing to do would be to consider whose behavior unduly happens to be detrimental to the other group’s well-being. It is argued that the smoke from the cigarettes unduly affects the health of non-smokers.
- Arguably, smoking in public has beneficial effects on the sales of the cigarettes and increases the number of people who are addicted every year.
- Banning or restricting public smoking would be disadvantageous to the free advertisement offered by the smokers every time someone lights up in front of a group of people.
- Anti-tobacco lobbyists push for stiffer taxation of tobacco products such as cigarettes to discourage people from buying them. The cause of opposition to cigarettes is often health-related. The anti-tobacco lobbyists also propose the placing of ever-larger banners of health warning against cigarettes on cigarette packets.
- Banning public smoking is not just a health issue but has an economic aspect to it. The pro-tobacco lobbyists are supported by the industry with a wealth of resource.
Transition: Now that both sides of the question have been given a fair crack of the whip, it is time to reach a reasonable conclusion.
Conclusion
- Summary of Main Ideas:
- Second-hand smoke poses serious health risks for non-smokers and therefore smokers should not smoke in poorly-ventilated or crowded public places like sports venues or public transport system.
- It is especially paramount that young children, pregnant women and people with health conditions that are aggravated by smoke to be protected from second-hand cigarette smoke. Banning smoking in crowded and poorly ventilated places also causes the quality of the air in some establishments to increase.
- Forbidding smoking in poorly ventilated or crowded places prevents the headache and discomforts some people report on being exposed to cigarette smoke.
- Although cigarette sale and use makes a lot of money and revenue, the health of the citizens comes first and not the money being made.
- Most Americans do not advocate a total ban of smoking, only its regulation. The health of the citizens as a priority is above that of economic significance.
2. Closing Statement: Hence, the citizens expect to see some form of regulation to discourage smoking in public places.
Works Cited
Novak, Chris. "Passive smoking: Out of the haze." Nature (2007): 1049-1051. Online. 25 October 2014. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7148/full/4471049a.html>.
Saad, Lyndia. More Smokers Feeling Harassed by Smoking Bans. 25 July 2007. 22 October 2014. <More Smokers Feeling Harassed by Smoking Bans>.
