One of these factors is the laws and regulations that govern any country. The writer needs to read extensively relevant materials that explain what the law of the land is regarding smoking. Some countries allow smokers and nonsmokers to mix without any problem, regardless of whether one is smoking in congested areas or not. In such countries, smokers are expected make ethical decisions and think about the effect of their smoke on the people who do not smoke.
Another point the argumentative essay should explain is whether there is any law that forbids smokers from using cigarettes in public. In such countries, the law explains where smoking zones are located, if any, and the punishment that smokers should face if they break the law by smoking in non-smoking zones. In any argumentative essay, the writer should be able to show the contradicting views of people. For instance, in the argumentative essay on smoking in public places, the writer should explain what the consequences are for not setting up smoking zones.
The reason is that some people may argue that smoking in public places has no negative effects that warrant its ban, while others may argue out that smoking in public places is so bad and dangerous that governments should ban it completely in towns.
The writer should not present just the legislation, or desired future legislation. This does not get to the root of the argument, it rather illustrates that there is an argument.
What are needed are the clear roots of the argument to be exposed and debated. These roots are primarily based in health concerns.
The claims that second hand smoke leads to serious health problems must be the strong focus. Voices for and against this position must be clearly presented. In addition, you must back legal arguments using the legal framework in existence in good detail.
Generalizations of the laws and their background will not be strong enough. The essay should not consider only one side of the debate, as this is a major clash between millions of people and governments worldwide. If people interact less then society begins to stagnate. Secondly, smoking is a drain on the National Health Service, through the cost arising from treating smokers and also those who suffer from the effects of passive smoking.
Patients who smoke are unnecessary because they could have decided not to smoke and thus prevented the disease. Also, patients with passive smoking diseases are totally unnecessary as they did nothing to increase their health risks. On the whole smoking is bad for the NHS which has a knock on effect on society because if people are ill then they cannot interact as much as when they are fit. The time and money spent on these patients could be spent researching incurable diseases and better equipment.
This is not good for society as it means that its people do not have adequate health services and thus live shorter lives, which is no help at all to society.
I handed out a questionnaire see Appendice 1 to twenty people at random and asked them to fill it in. Out of the twenty people four smoked. This indicates that there a noticeable proportion of people who smoke in our society. Fourteen people thought that smoking should be banned in all public places and a further four though it should be banned completely. This shows that a ban on smoking in all public places might be popular but a complete ban would be unpopular.
This indicates that a larger proportion of the population does not like smoking; indeed, one of the smokers did not like smoking. Overall, these results indicate that a partial on smoking would be more popular than a complete one. The results also indicate that the majority of people do not like smoking; I consider this to be a good thing for society.
People have the right to do as they please so long as they do not break the law. By that reasoning people should be allowed to smoke in public. This is a fair argument so long as there is no law against smoking.
My questionnaire indicates that many people think that there should be a partial ban on smoking. This therefore nullifies the libertarian argument as it is debatable whether people should have the right to smoke.
Against this, however, some would argue that banning smoking would be a detraction from people's rights and therefore morally wrong. Thus we should not ban smoking in public places. Also, if other people don't like smoking, they should leave the vicinity of the smoker; it is the individual's choice whether or not they smoke, therefore it should also be the individual's choice whether or not to leave.
However this begs the question, why should the person doing the damage have priority? Smoking generates large amounts of money through taxation, admittedly smoking cost the National Health Service, yet the NHS is not a business run for profit. The purpose of the NHS is to keep the nation healthy, not to intrude upon the rights of the individual. There can be no argument against the NHS persuading people not to smoke, yet it is still the right of the individual to decide whether or not they wish to smoke.
Some groups argue that there is no definitive proof that smoking causes cancer. This is strictly true. However this begs the question, is it worth the risk just because the proof is not concrete?
This argument is, to some extent, nullified by epidemiological research.
This essay is well organized and presented. The introduction is clear - note how it follows the ban smoking in public places essay question - it paraphrases the information in order to introduce the topic and the argument. The argument against a ban on smoking in public places is presented first.
If smoking is banned in public places it safeguards the life of the smoker as well as that of the public. Studies have shown that second hand smoke kills. Second hand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections and .
Smoking Ban Essay. Smoking should be banned from public places. Studies show that smoking can lead to cancer. Not only does this put the smoker’s life at risk, it also affects the lives of non-smokers, including pregnant women. Smoking all . Smoking In Public Places Should Be Banned Essay - Smoking In Public Places Should Be Banned There should be rules enforced for smoking in public places. Smokers just do not know the negative influence they are spreading. A puff of cigarette can harm a smokers health. When I go to a restaurant I do not like to leave smelling like smoke.
For instance, in the argumentative essay on smoking in public places, the writer should explain what the consequences are for not setting up smoking zones. The reason is that some people may argue that smoking in public places has no negative effects that warrant its ban, while others may argue out that smoking in public places is so bad and . places should remain since it is their right, smoking in public places should be banned because second-hand smoke will endanger non-smokers health and it pollutes the enviroment Smokers feel they have had the right to smoke in a public place for so long that it should not be taken away. Resturants and businesses should be allowed to set .