On one side is the smoking population who believe that he or she has the right to smoke inside public areas. On the other side is the non-smoking population who agrees with the law changes and support the ban. Both sides present strong arguments regarding why smoking should be allowed, or why it should not be allowed in public areas. The main argument that non-smokers have is that the ban of smoking eliminates secondhand smoke to the nonsmoking public. The strongest argument against the ban of public smoking comes from business owners.
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility. This is a false analogy, and where Scott uses the term “discrimination” in an inappropriate manner. Racial and ethnic discrimination is different because people do not choose to be a certain race like choosing to be a smoker. Furthermore, people do not negatively affect others in their vicinity with secondhand ethnicity. By stating that nonsmokers “force their beliefs on the rest of society,” Scott suggests that smokers are victims of violences, and are threatened with restriction of the First Amendment.
Establishing an annual Buy Nothing Day punishes everyone for the few idiots’ problems. Not everyone has a problem with consumerism. Creating a day that ‘helps’ people tackle their overconsumption problems only helps a minority of the population. And overall, it is not the governments’ job to monitor citizens’ personal problems.
I believe this first because when something negative is said in an article or news report the author does not sought out the officer who did the negative action they just simply say the name of the police force. I believe this secondly because police and political corruption feed off each other, which is a known opinion by most (http://www.coha.org,2004). The third reason I believe the negative actions seem to out weight the positive actions in most situations. I believe that when something negative is said in an article or in a news report the author or news caster does not seek out the officer who did the negative action they simply say the name of the force. Though when an officer does something positive they give that person recognition and that’s the end of it and the public never hears about it again.
Key questions for this debate are: Is it the proper role of government to legislate to protect citizens from the harmful effects of their own lifestyle decisions? Does tobacco advertising increase tobacco consumption? Do health warnings, however much of the cigarette packet they cover, reduce consumption? What would be the effects of banning smoking in all public places, or even completely Protecting smokers: Should governments restrict smoking to protect smokers? No * Governments must defend freedom of choice to smoke.
It is clear that people do not abide by the laws regarding to alcohol consumption and that shows their lack of respect for this law so what’s stopping people from loosing respect for other laws and in consequence not following them? When laws are put in place but they are difficult or near impossible to enforce it causes a loss of respect by the members of society. Albert Einstein is correct in saying that “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. In conclusion there is no point in making a law which cannot be
So why do people addicted to inhaling an insecticide, a common ingredient in organic bug sprays, believe they have a right to spew noxious, toxic, carcinogenic fumes all over the place in public?” Many arguments can be made against smoking bans, but more arguments can be made for them. For overall health concerns, smoking should be banned in all public places, benefitting both smokers and non-smokers alike. According to Leading Issues Timelines, smoking originated with the Mayans around 1,000 BCE. It was originally used for medicinal and ceremonial purposes. Smoking started being abused in 1492, in Spain and has been used ever since.
The Product and Sale of Cigarettes Should be Made Illegal The banning of smoking cigarettes is becoming a controversial social issue. Some people support the opinion of the smoking ban, but some people are against it. In my opinion, the production and sale of cigarettes should be illegal, because it is highly addictive like other illegal drugs, and second-hand smoke harms others, even if they do not smoke cigarettes. Also, smoking cigarettes is an expensive habit. Additionally, more people have died from smoking cigarettes than from car accidents, or from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
However, some people believe that smoking should not be banned in public places because it is the smoker’s choice to smoke just as it is the non-smokers choice not to smoke. President Clinton is quoted saying that “We’ve got to do more to protect people in public places and clean up the air that all of us share”. For non-smokers, inhaling someone else’s cigarette smoke can be very aggravating. It is bad enough that automobiles, processing plants, and other types of industries pollute our environment, but for a smoker to choose to smoke around a non-smoker is a violation of his or her right to clean air. An effort to change this has happened in some places to purify the air for those who do not smoke.