Do you smoke? Such a question has been asked to most people at one time or another. The topic of smoking certainly requires a thorough analysis, whether you smoke or not. It’s also an issue which seems to polarize people. In this reading we’ll compare contrasting viewpoints by two different individuals. As I present the arguments, I’ll dissect them to truly understand their inner-workings. Both Dr. Haviland and King touch on many subjects yet seem to ignore others. I think a balance must be struck when it comes to smoking, both through individual rights and a social responsibility. “I’d Rather Smoke than Kiss.” is Florence King’s very astute retort to anti-smokers. In this writing she advocates for smoking as a simple enjoyable thing to do. To emphasize this she recalls her first smoking experience, which is for the most part very normal and unexciting. However, this inconsequential account is not indicative of the rest of the story. King quickly switches gears as she goes on the attack. In the first section she labels hatred of smokers as a form of misanthropy which she goes on to say is “the most popular form of closet misanthropy in America today” (King 32). This perspective is further augmented by the fact that she considers second-hand smoke an invention; a means for the “Passive Americans” (King 32), to justify prejudice towards smokers. As she moves into the second section, she begins to document the hostility shown to smokers. Through her own personal interactions or through examples she views in newspaper articles. King really focuses on the subject of public perception, and while some of the examples validate her perspective, others do not. We see this in her response to a Washington Post article, i... ... middle of paper ... ...r someone to quit. Instead of creating ads with the intent purpose to ostracize smokers, we should instead make ads to inform them. The smoking issue is very complicated and some of the arguments are beyond the scope of this essay. Still, we can obtain a balanced outlook if we consider the following: the facts of smoking, individual right, societal responsibility, and the stigma of smoking. Haviland and King write essays which contain very important points, but seem to contain a bias which may alienate some people. To truly reach a consensus on the smoking issue, we must be willing to meet each other halfway. We must strike equilibrium between individual right and societal responsibility. Works Cited King, Martin Luther, Jr. “I Have a Dream.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Adam Whitehurst. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. 687-690. Print.
In the 1990 article "I’d Rather Kiss than Smoke" in the National Review, Florence King tries to persuade her readers to look through a smoker’s eyes in a smokist world. King has been around people smoking even before she was born. Her mother started smoking when she was twelve and she started this habit when she was twenty-six. Since she started smoking, she has been analyzing how non-smokers discriminate against them. Florence King expects everyone to be okay with smoking because it is what she was brought up in and it was okay in her family.
In the essay “Letting Go” David Sedaris, writes about his involvements with smoking. Throughout the essay Sedaris expresses his views and experiences with the teairble habit of smoking. Sedaris grew up in the 1960s and 70s when smoking was a common thing to do, so much so that grade school students in his native North Carolina would have field trips to tobacco factories where they were given packs of cigarettes to give to their parents. Sedaris describes views about smoking that changed throughout his lifetime. At one stage in his life he was against smoking and was even bothered by the smell of cigarettes. Then Sedaris himself in a different stage of his life became a smoker. Sedaris’s own mother had health problems due to her smoking habit,
Tobacco companies started making collection cards, with photographs of models and baseball players, in cigarette packages to encourage new smokers. In 1964, the United States Surgeon General released a report stating that cigarette smoking was causing health hazards. As to American people that abused of cigarettes thought that consuming it wouldn’t cause any harm even when medical statistics were coming out to light. Smoking cigarettes has been part of American Culture for centuries and no body is about to stop this consumption because of several statistics. Many people that knew about this controversy didn’t know a way to stop it, only that it would continue to be part of an american’s life.
Kings tone was serious, but she used humor and sarcasm to entertain the reader. I think her tone undercuts her argument because she is using too much sarcasm and is portraying smoking as a good thing. She comes of as very disrespectful and arrogant person. Everyone has the free will to choose how they live their own live, but they not have the right to harm or disrespect others. She crosses the line with some of her comments; and therefore, she looses the value of the article. Smoker or non smoker everyone deserves a
In A Silence That Kills, author Lyndon Haviland expresses concern for the lack of awareness around smoking. She explains how deadly smoking is, citing examples from the Center of Disease Control and prominent members of the Medical Field about Tobacco disease, secondary smoke deaths, and lung cancer rates caused by smoking. She laments the lack of action surrounding the problem and
I went on the Internet and started surfing around until I found this web-site called www.no-smoker.org. This site is About Americans for Nonsmoker's Rights. The article I read was called "Things are changing". The issue is secondhand smoke is bad for your health. The argument here is that tobacco companies are saying that secondhand smoke is not bad for your health. In this essay I will talk about this controversial issue.
In the essay “Letting Go” by David Sedaris, he writes about his experiences with smoking. Throughout the essay Sedaris expresses his views and experiences with smoking. Sedaris grew up in the 1960’s and 70’s when smoking was a common thing to do, so much so that grade school students in his native North Carolina, would have field trips to tobacco factories where they were given packs of cigarettes to give to their parents. Sedaris describes views about smoking that changed throughout his life-time. At one stage in his life he was against smoking, and was even bothered by the smell of cigarettes. Then Sedaris himself, in a different stage of his life became a smoker. Smoking caused Sedaris’s mother to gain some health problems due to her smoking
The central point the author drives home is that at the turn of the twentieth century, cigarette smoking was not deemed an acceptable practice for middle or upper class men in the United States. The author states that there were numerous factors, each seemingly more extreme than the last, that lead to the acceptance
Recently, the House of Representatives approved a bill which stated that smoking should be banned in the private clubs and bars of Vermont. The bill was approved by the House and sent to the Senate for further approval. Ultimately, it seems that the bill was accepted in the House in part because of an emotional plea made by Rep. William Aswad, and also due to the argument that it covered a serious health issue. Rep. Aswad told the group that when his wife had died six year, three months, and fourteen days earlier that the official reported cause of death was simply cigarettes. He said, “I stand before this body is strong support of this bill. I respectfully ask this body to do likewise.”
People throughout the time have been worried about some acts that people make; these acts are sometimes performed unconsciously or without realizing these are affecting they negatively affect others. Some reasons why this happens, they do not realize they are making someone uncomfortable, or they simply do not care about it. Smoking is one of these activities. For a long time, smoking in public places has been extremely popular regardless of age or gender. Many smokers believe they are free to smoke wherever and whenever they. Even if they realize the damage they are causing to themselves, which is a personal decision, when they smoke in public places they ignore the collective damage they are causing others. It has been claimed that despite not engaging in the activity themselves, “passive smokers suffer the same horrifying bad consequences as active smokers” in the form of second-hand smoke (Ecobichon & Wu, 1990, p. 43). Smoking is thus a dangerous activity that is becoming more and more popular in campus every day and is becoming a social and educational problem. Schools should ban smoking from their campus, and those that have should implement stricter methods of enforcing such rules.
The article “Smoke Signals”, by the New York Times and the New Jersey Sunday edition, presented an overview of for the state of New Jersey’s recent decline in cigarettes bought in the last year. The article starts off by explaining to the reader how smokers took a financial beating at the cash register every time they went to a convenience store to buy cigarettes. In a smokers reduction movement the state of New Jersey doubled the sales tax on cigarettes forcing smokers to spend an extra forty cents on every pack they bought. Len Fishman, the state commissioner of Health and Senior services, stated that the tax increase was meant to drive down the consumption entirely. As Mr. Fishman traveled around the state he discovered that many people were already trying to quite smoking, they just never had the right physical motivation to pursue their goal. These people explained that the dramatic increase on tax was the finale straw that broke the camels back, and provided the right motivation for them to quite smoking. The tax increase put New Jersey behind only Hawaii and Alaska at $1 a pack, and Washington state at 82.5 cents a pack. Over a six month period the revenue collected from cigarette sales had dropped by 12 percent. For 1998 the revenue earned by cigarette sales should have been roughly 54.2 million cartons, but with the tax increase that number had been dropped to 47.4 million cartons. This gap represents a 6.8 million carton difference, an outstanding decrease in cigarette sales.
We have all heard the warnings of the negative effects on health and on the environment caused by tobacco smoke from nonsmokers and their anti-smoking campaigns. These campaigns give nonsmokers a way to voice their right to breathe clean air and to protect their health and the environment. We have seen how society, businesses, and government have taken action to promote a smoke free society and to accommodate the nonsmokers’ rights. On the other hand, we hear from smokers that claim that their personal rights are being infringed upon by society, businesses and government while they cater to nonsmokers. Should a concept of smokers’ rights be recognized? And whose rights are more important? Another question being raised in this issue is, “do smoking bans have a negative effect on the economy/business owners?” Since choosing not to smoke has no effect on personal health, the environment or others, and smoking will always negatively affect all of those things, any rights that smokers have should not be placed before the rights of nonsmokers, it seems. The basis of this controversy is the use of Mill’s Harm Principle and Utilitarianism by society and government.
This essay will evaluate the way smokers are viewed in the 21st century; arguments that support the denial of free medical care for smokers and counterarguments compare smoking restrictions in Great Britain and Nigeria and discuss the effectiveness of several steps taken to control smoking.
Limiting smoking in public areas is necessary to prevent exposing others to smoke, however it is not worth restricting the freedom of people who want to smoke. Those that smoke should be free to enjoy the same rights as the rest of the human beings around them. Opponents of this topic would say it is difficult to avoid being exposed to smokers that are in doorways or in a main public area. They are under the impression that even if smokers smoke in a designated area that it still affects them and causes them harm. Their opinion is that it is unfair to expose anyone to this danger and should be banned no matter if it violates the smoker’s freedom to choose.
Smoking is a simple process of inhaling and exhaling the fumes of burning tobacco, but it has deadly consequences. According to the American Cancer Society, smoking is the most preventable cause of death in America today (Encarta, 2002). Until the 1940?s, smoking was considered harmless. It was at this time that epidemiologists noticed a dramatic increase in the cases of lung cancer. A study was then conducted between smokers and nonsmokers to determine if cigarettes were the cause of this increase. This study, conducted by the American Cancer Society, found increased mortality among smokers. Yet it was not until 1964 that the Surgeon General put out a report acknowledging the danger of cigarettes. The first action to curb smoking was the mandate of a warning on cigarette packages by the Federal Trade Commission (Encarta, 2002). In 1971, all cigarette advertising was banned from radio and television, and cities and states passed laws requiring nonsmoking sections in public places and workplaces (Encarta, 2002). Now in some cities smoking is being completely banned from public places and workplaces and various people are striving for more of these laws against smoking.