More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction of negative effects of cigarette smoking
Smoking should not be banned debate
Introduction of negative effects of cigarette smoking
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In current events, a huge issue among state and city lawmakers all over the country is the debate over whether or not smoking should be banned in public places. Many argue that allowing people to smoke in public places proposes serious health risks for innocent bystanders. Though the health risks are high, many still oppose the proposal of such laws. Business owners presiding over such establishments as bars and restaurants worry that the smoking bans will severely hurt their revenues if passed. While this is an understandable concern, the health of our communities citizens is much more important than the loss of a handful of customers for businesses.
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.”
At the meeting, Rep. Linda Myers argued that taking away people’s right to smoke ...
It’s widely known that it isn’t recommended to start smoking because it’s addictive, harmful for the human body and is very costly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is the leading cause of death in the United States, impacting those who smoke personally and as well as those who receive it second hand, and costs the country “$300 billion a year, including nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults and $156 billion in lost productivity (2015).” Also, according to Samantha Graff, an author representing the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, smoking isn’t a constitutional right and is prohibited many public, work and government establishments (2008). That being the case, the comparison strongly insinuates that using free speech is a poor choice and shouldn’t be protected in the bill of rights, which gives further bias to the negative side of his
By saying smokers have the “right to die,” but non-smokers have the right to “not die” puts non-smokers in the dangers of smoking as well. This says that non-smokers can also be harmed by smoke and can cause death either way. A letter to Jeremiah O’Leary said, “Smoke yourself to death, but please not me.” By the writer adding this in her article, she inserts brutality from the non-smokers. It makes the readers believe that non-smokers will use violence and harsh words to stop smokers from smoking.
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.
Renneboog, R. M. (2016). Cigarette Smoking Bans: An Overview. Canadian Points Of View: Cigarette Smoking Bans, 1.
The tobacco industry seems like a beneficial addition to our economy. It has basically been a socially acceptable business in the past because it brings jobs to our people and tax money to the government to redistribute; but consider the cost of tobacco related treatment, mortality and disability- it exceeds the benefit to the producer by two hundred billion dollars US. (4) Tobacco is a very profitable industry determined to grow despite government loss or public health. Its history has demonstrated how money can blind morals like an addiction that is never satisfied. Past lawsuits were mostly unsuccessful because the juries blamed the smoker even though the definition of criminal negligence fits the industry’s acts perfectly. Some may argue for the industry in the name of free enterprise but since they have had such a clear understanding of the dangers of their product it changes the understanding of their business tactics and motives. The success of the industry has merely been a reflection of its immoral practices. These practices have been observed through its use of the media in regards to children, the tests that used underage smokers, the use of revenue to avoid the law, the use of nicotine manipulation and the suppression of research.
"Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
...rictions, and carry out an antithesis campaign against tobacco advertising. With more adds showing teens the harms of tobacco usage and through education, this use of “counter-adding” could go a long way in terms of preventing more youth from picking up such a bad habit. In addition, I think far more legislation should be aimed towards restricting what is actually being put into cigarettes rather than advertisements, as these toxins and poisons are what responsible for the 430,000+ average deaths each year from smoking. Yet, today is today, and as long as companies like Altria and Reynolds American have the money play Washington they’ll get what they want. Now its just up to everyone else, for the sake of the health of our future, to help push legislation that will help deter the aims of companies that basically distribute cancer to hundreds of thousands each year.
There are many explicit premises in this article that I will examine. The first premise is that, Tobacco companies have been and continue to be involved in undermining scientific evidence that documents the health hazards of secondhand smoke. This is more than an hidden assumption, reference from the Los Angles Times reported in November 1999 that the major cigarette companies "are engaged in a far-reaching campaign to discredit evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health." This is my second premise. Here, there is an implied notion that the Los Angels Times conducted a study to find these findings true. The third premise states, Tobacco industry allies recycle old myths and propaganda - and continue to plant the seeds of confusion and doubt as to the economic effects of smoke free air policies - before legislatures and city councils. Here we see the strong initiative that the tobacco companies especially Philips and Morris take to attack policies that go against their business. The next premise is the fourth premise, As in the past, tobacco companies have continued to create and hide behind front groups to lobby against tobacco control and public health policies. This is another implied notion, which we can say that tobacco companies are trying to control the regulations on tobacco.
Each year 440,000 people die, in the United States alone, from the effects of cigarette smoking (American Cancer Society, 2004). As discussed by Scheraga & Calfee (1996) as early as the 1950’s the U.S. government has utilized several methods to curb the incidence of smoking, from fear advertising to published health warnings. Kao & Tremblay (1988) and Tremblay & Tremblay (1995) agreed that these early interventions by the U.S. government were instrumental in the diminution of the national demand for cigarettes in the United States. In more recent years, state governments have joined in the battle against smoking by introducing antismoking regulations.
Smoking cigarettes is a detrimental practice not only to the smoker, but also to everyone around the smoker. According to an article from the American Lung Association, “Health Effects” (n.d.), “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 438,000 deaths per year”. The umbrella term for tobacco use includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs and chewing tobacco. While tobacco causes adverse health consequences, it also has been a unifying factor for change in public health. While the tobacco industries targets specific populations, public health specifically targets smokers, possible smokers, and the public to influence cessation, policies and education.
This problem, which plagues all Americans, should have action taken on a local scale to help protect the health of the public. The Ames City Council is in the process of debating a city ordanince which whould ban smoking in all public places, with the exception of those designated as "smokng areas". A public place shall be defined by Subsection 142B.1(3) Code of IowaAmes City Council, Current Odrances, http://www.city.ames.ia.us/Whatsnew/smokingban.htm).
Smoking is one of the leading killers in North America and innocent. people shouldn't die because of it. For years people have been smoking. in public thinking, "It's my body, I can do whatever I want to do." now that it has been proven that smoking not only harms the smoker.
Should personal rights be pushed aside to please those around us that disagree with the so-called “disgusting habit”? In the paper The Washington Times an article caught my interest called”D.C. seeks bans on smoking in national parks” written by Steven Dinan. In this article he stated that “Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton wrote Park Service Regional Director Steve Whitesell saying she’s heard from constituents who fear breathing second-hand smoke while using national parks. ”(Dinan, 2013) I don’t think they should.
Smoking ban in public places has been a hot issue these last months not only in Malta but also in various countries who are discussing the effects a ban would have. There have been several debates on smoking ban. Even though the harmful effects of smoking, both active and passive, are well known and undeniable smoking is far from being in decline; it is spreading among young people in particular quickly.
As all other Americans and adults across the world should, I have always known that smoking is bad for you in a plethora of ways. Whether it is the increased risk for cancers of the mouth and lungs, the decrease in breathing capabilities which can lead to sleep apnea and a persistent hacking cough, or the unpleasant appearance side effects of yellowing teeth and prematurely wrinkled skin tobacco smoking is a problem all around. As an act of prevention laws have been passed to encourage quitting smoking and as an effort to reduce exposure to second hand smoke victims. I was in middle school when the Iowa Smoke-free Air Act was passed, which prevented smoking in public buildings, such as in restaurants and even then I saw it as a step forward. I assumed this widespread law bringing more attention to the problem that is smoking on top of what is already publicized about what smoking can do that smoking wouldn’t be as serious of a public health problem. When we began talking about the actual causes of death in the United Sates I could not have been more surprised that tobacco was still the leading culprit.