Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reasons why smoking should not be banned on college campuses
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Do you think college student’s rights are equally treated when it comes down to smoking on campus? Some people disagree, the non-smokers argue against the controversy about the rights of smoking on campus. While the non-smokers think that the students are infringing on the rights of fresh air. The smokers want to be able to smoke anywhere on campus. While completely putting a smoke free environment in front of the people who smoke is wrong. There needs to be a way to have policies, procedures and organizational groups to find a common ground for the two groups. The debate regarding smoke-free campuses is contentious at many colleges. In support of the non-smokers who are for the ban on college campuses. One problem that non-smokers have to deal with when they are around smokers is second hand smoke. I personally dislike when walking to class and the awfully smell from the smokers when they are right outside of the building doors. Atkins states a great personal perspective from an article published on Spring 2008,” Smokers affect the quality of life on campuses by exposing unwilling students, staff and faculty to the carcinogenic and asthma inducing effects of …show more content…
Likewise, simply because smoking on campus harms society, doesn’t mean it has to be completely banned. There are many benefits in bringing the two sides together. Atkins links both sides together in some statements. She says, ”reducing exposure to second-hand smoke can be best achieved by developing programs for people who do smoke, such as education programs and quit tobacco programs[…Reducing] exposure to second-hand smoke can be achieved by not permitting smoking within certain distances from campus buildings”(Atkins). Both of these great statements are great way to have a common ground with both
Improving smoking boxes on campus can improve overall environment on campus. Every day in our daily campus lives, we can easily see people smoking outdoors. Smokers would just go anywhere they want to smoke even when it says it is forbidden to smoke or there are no trash cans. Smokers argue that it is their rights to smoke wherever they want but for non-smokers smoking outdoors can be a source of stress. Not few non-smokers hate the smell of smoke. Some even complain that cigarette smoke give them headache. Our university built two smoking boxes on campus for smokers but they do not use them, arguing that they smell bad and that they are not well maintained. If we were to improve the current status of smoking
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.
Smoking has become a big epidemic in the United States. As a tobacco free person, I want to be able to breathe clean air anywhere I go. As we know, smoking can harm every organ in the body (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). I believe that smoking should be banned in public places such as drinking establishments, hospitals, buses, train stations, and restaurants. Not only does smoking affect the individual smoker, it also causes a number of health problems, increases death rate, and it affects not only the lives, but the health of other people around them. On the contrary, smoking should be banned in public areas for these reasons.
Though either side may they think they have the correct answer, no one can really be sure. The questions that this issue brings up will always be debated. What many people fail to realize is that the answer lies within a median which is always evolving between the smokers and nonsmokers. Failing to realize this leads many people, when faced with the question of how they feel towards smoking, to take a scrupulous stance. In the end, these outmost, grim positions do nothing to further our understanding of the issue.
Cigarette smoking is very harmful for both smoker, non- smokers and the environment. People who smoke in just show how inconsiderate they are towards others. Even the people who do not smoke in public places are selfish. They do not consider the affect smoking might have on them and how that will affect their family and the environment. Cigarettes cause hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths each year and that is why cigarettes need to be made illegal.
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).
We’ll first examine what the concepts of smokers’ and nonsmokers’ rights are considered to be. We will begin with the nonsmokers’ rights, which began with the first groups in the 1970’s and made up of volunteer activists. The movement began at the grassroots level, arguing for the right to smoke-free air and used antiwar, civil rights, and environmental movements as inspirations (Padwa, Cunningham 274). Organizations such as Group Against Smoking and Pollution (GASP) and Americans for Non-Smokers’ Rights were formed and fought for the ...
In my opinion, I think smoking in public isn’t good for non-smokers because if they breathe the smoke of smokers their health will be unhealthy a...
Many restaurant and bar owners think that the ban will decrease business, but a counter-argument to this is that only twenty percent of the city's population are smokers, and when the smoking ban is in place, the other eighty percent will go out to bars and restaurants, dramatically increasing business. There are many different opposing arguments to banning smoking, and the debate will probably never end. Smoking should be banned in public places because, although some may argue that it infringes on their freedom, smoking is replete with harmful substances. People should be able to frequent bars and restaurants without the fear of experiencing an asthma attack or developing lung disease. Everyone deserves the freedom to live and breathe without restriction.
Every year tobacco is responsible for over 480,000 deaths. That includes people who have died from secondhand smoke. When statistics like this exist it is hard to understand why tobacco is still legal. This number increases every year that passes and most people believe it isn’t shrinking anytime soon. Tobacco should be banned because it’s deadly to not only the users, it’s highly addictive, and the tobacco industry is corrupting information promoting its harmful product. Society shouldn’t have to deal with anymore premature deaths due to a lethal legal product. We should work towards getting this useless product banned everywhere.
However, by prohibiting smoking in public areas and restricting it only to a certain place prevents smokers from fair participation in their social life. The main goal of the smoking ban is to make it socially unacceptable to smoke, which helps force smokers to quit. Medical studies have been conducted and published that show the dangers of smoking and the effects of second hand smoke. The research is very vague though and never truly shows you the exact causes. People have a choice not to expose themselves to many of the same harmful materials in our everyday life, such as soda, fried foods, and car exhaust.
Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as second-class citizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them.
But unfortunately I have no choice in most public patios. One says passive smoking but I want rather call it involuntary smoking .
How this proposition will affect society. Turning to the first issue: its impact on our health. The strongest argument in favour of banning smoking in public places. is that it is harmful to people who work in that environment and those who don't smoke, however, the reality is that we still have no. conclusive evidence to suggest that passive smoking is as harmful as to health as it is made to be. The British Medical Journal is one of the most influential and well-known journals.
For example, smoking is strictly prohibited for teens, students and other younger generations. The younger population of smokers is constantly growing. This on the other hand has impacted the environment in a negative manner. Smoking on campus in schools is still a problem and imposes a health risk for students and negative environmental impacts. It is very important to protect students, faculty and staff from second hand smoke on college campuses. Many colleges and universities have become smoke free campuses. A person who smokes on the campus exposes the other nonsmokers to second hand smoke, something which can have negative effects to both their health. The worst part is that the people who do not smoke are also affected from the second hand smoke; and the effect is almost the same as being the