Smoking is legal in most countries in the world but in the last couple of years there have been debates about whether or not smokers should be allowed to smoke anywhere they want.It is common knowledge that the ban of smoking in public places is majorly for the protection of non smokers from the side effects of smoking, but there are other factors which inform the decision to impose a ban on smoking in public places (Robbins 38).Tags: School Argumentative Essay TopicsHow To Write A College Admission EssayEssay Questions Macbeth Act 2Strategic Planning AssignmentAn Essay In Modal LogicPresentation AssignmentFamous Speeches On SuccessFive Paragraph Essay FormEnlightenment Essay ThesisEssay Middle School Students 2010
They also cite the health effects that second hand cigarette smoke has on the non-smokers who are fond of being around smokers.
Some radical proposers to the ban, who also support a total ban on the use of tobacco, further cite the effects that smoking has on the health of the smokers themselves.
While the argument rages over the effects of smoking on public health, the question that remains is this: “How much is society entitled to penalize smokers for their decisions because—in society’s view—those decisions are unhealthy? Smoking tobacco is not an illegal act, yet the 25 percent of Americans who do smoke are often treated as if they were criminals.
They are incessantly nagged, blamed for numerous illnesses and unpleasantries, and made to feel guilty by self-righteous nonsmokers (Bork 28).
Personal choice is a simple principle that is highly valued in American society.
Banning smoking in all public restaurants violates this principle and jeopardizes our freedom. A ban on smoking imposes unnecessary governmental interference in private business, affects business owners negatively, and discriminates against smokers. They might even choose to sit in an area sectioned off for smokers or non-smokers, but the ultimate issue is choice (Ruwart 1). When the government starts telling restaurant owners what their customers can and cannot do, the government is overstepping its boundaries. Many people who drink also tend to smoke; banning drinkers from smoking has hurt business in some bars and restaurants. since the prohibition took effect” (“Bar Owners Vow” 1). In the perfect situation, smoking policy would be set by bar or restaurant owners, and customers would patronize the establishments with the policy they prefer. Customers would decide—without the government’s help—if they want to avoid smoke-filled rooms or enter them. The last sentence in Mary’s first paragraph forms the thesis for her research paper: she takes a strong, specific stand on a fairly controversial subject. The trait of “stimulating ideas” is evident as the paper’s clear purpose is supported in the subsequent paragraphs. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that living with a smoker increases your chance of lung cancer by 19 percent. What they fail to tell you is that, in contrast, (firsthand) smoking increases your chance 1,000 percent (Buckley). Why is the act of smoking tobacco, which merely injures oneself, so scrutinized and shunned by society, while drinking alcohol, which is by far more deadly to innocent bystanders, is accepted by society and virtually unregulated? One may not wish to be seated near an extremely obese person in a restaurant, but it would certainly be unconstitutional to deny service to these patrons. In modern society, the government knows better than to discriminate against minorities, senior citizens, or the physically handicapped; it does not hesitate, however, to discriminate against smokers. “Effect of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns, and Night Clubs.”