Do you feel that smokers should be allowed to smoke anywhere? Why or why not? I feel like smokers should not be allowed to smoke just anywhere. There needs to be designated areas in when non-smokers can avoid the exposure of smoke. Why put other people in danger when they clearly are doing well by not smoking.
Moreover, if we ban smoking in public places, we also stop the smokers from further increasing their chances of acquiring health problems for themselves (backing statement). While it can be said that not all people who smoke in public areas are always causing harm to others, it remains a fact that smoking per se is a cause of health problems (rebuttal). It is not enough to say that the size of affected people are relatively just a small fraction; plenty or few, one person put at risk is more than enough (rebuttal). It is only the case that smoking in public places, therefore, should be
Michael believes that some anti-smoker groups won’t give the product a chance because “they find it difficult, if not impossible, to endorse a behavior that looks like smoking, even though it is literally saving people’s lives”. Another point he decides to bring up is about the relationship between electronic cigarettes and second hand smoke stating “there is none”. Electronic cigarettes are “battery-powered device that converts liquid nicotine into a mist, or vapor, that the user inhales” therefor there is no smoke for the smoker or those around him to
I believe that they should remain restrictive because less restrictive drug laws are not the solution to our drug problem, and instead, less restrictive laws are an extremely dangerous idea. This essay will investigate the multitude of reasons as
It is safe to say that no amount of secondhand smoke is acceptable for a child to be around. We need to get more information out to the public and show the effects it has on not just their child but all children around. One inhale of side stream smoke can kill. Our government has banned smoking cigarettes in buildings such as restaurants so why not make a ban on smoking cigarettes in vehicles or around children
He dismisses this argument by listing other activities that could be harmful to an individual such as smoking tobacco, riding motorcycles, and having unprotected sex. This comparison makes the idea of prohibiting these activities because they are harmful to the individual participating in them seem rather ridiculous. Basically, illegal drugs CAN be harmful to a user; at the same time, smoking tobacco IS harmful to a user, yet smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal. I think Huemer’s argument effectively defeats the prohibitionists’ standpoint that drugs should be outlawed because they are harmful to the user. Second, the author addresses the prohibitionist argument that illegal drugs cause harm to people around the user as well.
The fact that I was under the age of smoking during the incident brought me fears. The fear of simply displeasing the law, which is in this case the higher authority, led me to reject the cigarette offered by my friend. Simply said, I believe that my authoritian conscience basically overrides my humanistic conscience during the
It still contains nicotine and holds other dangerous chemicals, including 28 carcinogens (Mayo). An individual who chooses smokeless tobacco has to face the consequences that go with it. That person increases their chance of acquiring tooth decay, oral cancer, and heart disease ("Smokeless"). There is another constituent in chewing tobacco other than nicotine: sugar. When any product containing high quantities of sugar that is taken through mouth, there is always a risk of tooth decay.
Maybe "marijuana recovery" should stop being hoisted as propaganda, and should be a service for those few who truly need it. How many alcoholics would go to AA if Prohibition was still in effect? There is a lot of propaganda out there about pot, and all I'm asking for those reading this is to give the argument for (and against) legalization a fair shake, and to not let beliefs founded on propaganda, someone else's moral standards, or beliefs unfounded in fact to sway you. Look at the arguments and decide for yourself. There are plenty of individuals who don't smoke marijuana (or don't smoke it anymore) and still think it should be legalized, so let the facts help you make your decision, not the propaganda.
As a society we do not consider things such as Tylenol or Aspirin a drug, but if you take too many it might just be your last headache. So I believe that if misused Cognitive Enhancers can be considered drugs. Is the use of these drugs cheating? Any good set of rules would need to distinguish today’s allowed cognitive enhancements, if they are to be banned. Before we as a society ban such drugs we would need to develop a set of rules and regulations regarding their