Cigarette Smoking in Public Places

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Argument Against the Banning of Smoking
Arguments for the Ban
Comparison
Contrast
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

There are two different views which concern the issue of banning cigarette smoking in public places. These two views are held by the two separate parties that are involved. One group is composed of the smokers who are against the idea of banning smoking in public places. The other is composed of those who do not smoke and are in fear of the health hazards that the smokers expose them to. Those who smoke are not for the idea.

This is because they feel that their freedom is being infringed. The truth remains that cigarette smoking is dangerous both to the smoker and to the people around and something has to be done to minimize the risk. The report is going to cover the different opinions that are held by the two groups and the reasons behind their arguments.

Argument Against the Banning of Smoking

Those who argue against the idea of banning the smoking are of the opinion that some of them opt to smoke due to the stress that they acquire at their work places. They therefore opt to smock so as to relieve themselves of the stress. The argument is a fallacy of inadequate reason falling under the category of ‘False cause (Inch & Warnick, 2010).

It is also argued that just like other people smokers also have their own rights. They hold the opinion that provided they follow all the rules concerning smoking while at the workplace then there is no reason whatsoever to interfere in their smoking affairs as they do no harm to others and that they are responsible for their own health.

They say that heavy smokers are already in addiction and are unlikely to stop the habit. This argument is questionable because smoking has been proved to cause more harm to those around even more than the smoker because the other people take in the unfiltered smock hence putting them at a higher risk.

They also argue that the ban will only increase the possibility of smokers taking more cigarettes while at their homes and hence increase the risk of the children around them being prone to the dangers of smoking.

It is also perceived that the ban will make many bars, clubs and pubs to run out of business as the smokers will no longer visit the places and less money would be earned from the tobacco sales and hence cause many people to lose their sources of livelihoods. This is a good example of a hasty conclusion (Inch & Warnick, 2010). This argument is questionable as there are many other viable businesses that could be done in the place of selling cigarettes.

The main assumption under the above argument is that many people solely depend on the income from cigarette sells and that any law meant to upset this state will render most of these people jobless and with no source of income as well. This could as well fall under the appeal to pity as the smokers expect to be favored on this account.

It is also argued that defaulters will always get away with it as at will be hard for the police to man all the public places and even employees won’t betray each other over smoking. This portrays the fallacy of inadequate reason under the category of two wrongs making a right (Damer, 2009).

The arguments against the ban have also been characterized by false dilemma. Those against the idea also see the whole issue as an infringement of their freedom and they see nothing good in the whole issue of the ban. They seem not to have any middle ground in their arguments.

Arguments for the Ban

There are also several arguments which support the idea of banning smoking from the public areas. It is argued that smoking poses a risk to those around the smoker as compared to the smoker. The smoke from the cigarettes pause a health risk to the inhalers as it causes coronary diseases. It causes cancer as well as other respiratory complications to the victims. Children who are exposed to this kind of smoke are particularly prone to so much of these infections and even death.

It is also argued that smoke from cigarettes usually spreads to a wider area and carrying along its dangers as well, and hence necessitating the need for areas that are set aside for smoking. The smell that is associated with smocking and smokers is also unpleasant hence causing discomfort to the non-smokers. The other argument is that the habit pause a potential risk to those around as it could be a significant cause of fire outbreaks. The remains are at times thrown to the ground or floor and hence having negative effect on the environment.

Those supporting the ban have used the fallacy of false cause as witnessed in the argument that smoking has an impact of environmental pollution. It is claimed that the remains are thrown to the ground and floor hence causing environmental pollution. The truth is that there are other substances that are thrown anyhow on the ground as compared to the cigarette remains. Take for instance sweet wrappings or paper bags which never degenerate. These have more effect on the environment than cigarette remains.

The fallacy of two wrongs making a right has also been witnessed in the arguments that support the ban. It at all smoking is harmful to the victims, then I isolating them and allowing them to have smoking zones will only fuel the act and the smokers will see no need to stop or even seek help due to the addiction. This will therefore put them at a higher risk of contacting the diseases and infections that come with smoking.

Those siding the ban never seem to focus on any positive aspect or the pleasure that smokers derive from the act. Their views are therefore likely to be biased as they have no idea how he smokers benefit from the act.

Smoking has been perceived by those for the ban as a disgraceful act. They however never put into their mind the fact that some of the smokers are usually lured into smoking by the attractive advertisements that are posted by the cigarette manufacturing companies through the media and the press. They could only be dealing with the problem and not touching the cause. If smoking was that bad then it would be wiser to completely stump out the cigarette manufacturing companies.

Comparison

The two different viewpoints are all about smocking. They clearly bring out the points for or against and go ahead to defend the arguments. In both of the two arguments, they advocate for the freedom to smoke only that one’s freedom need not to interfere with the freedom of the other.

The two arguments have used the fallacy of; jumping on the bond wagon. They both present their major points and try to convince the audience to join their side as it seems to be the right thing to do.

Contrast

The two arguments seem to pull in two opposite directions with no common ground being decided upon. Each side is pulling to its own direction. The two arguments are significantly different. Most of the arguments in the fast argument seem to be defensive. They geared towards the smokers justifying their actions.

The first argument seems to have more of the inadequate reasons and misleading fallacies. The argument against the ban seems to lack facts while most of the facts in the second argument have been substantiated. In fact some of the exact figures have been quoted so as to prove the arguments.

Conclusion

The debate on banning or not banning smoking in public places is not an easy ride. Smokers do have their own freedom that needs to be safeguarded. On the other hand, the general publics most of which are non-smokers also have a reason to remain free from second hand smoke which has been proved to be a health hazard. It is difficult to come up with an idea absolutely fair to the two sides.

At the moment, the idea of smoking zones could be the only practical option of minimizing the risks of smoking particularly to the non smokers and at the same time not absolutely deny smokers their freedom of smoking.

The two essays for and against the ban both have reasons for their standpoints. Some of the arguments are substantial and with evidence to back up while others cannot be substantiated. Strong and substantial arguments from the two sides have to be looked at keenly. This will be the only viable way to come up with a lasting solution to the whole issue.

Reference List

Damer, T. E. (2009). Attacking faulty reasoning. Stamford, Mass: Cengage Learning

Inch, E. S. & Warnick, B. (2010). Critical thinking and communication: the use of reason in argument (6^th Ed). Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

Click Here To Order Now!