Smokers Raw Deal

668 Words3 Pages
Argument Analysis In the argument “Smokers Get a Raw Deal” by Stanley S. Scott he concludes that the Civil Right Act, the Voting rights Act and host of antidiscrimination laws are not withstanding. The author’s line of reasoning is that “smoking behavior is affecting many Americans to the extent that it could allow a fresh set of categories to encourage new forms of hostility between large groups of citizens.” and new laws can be made if we allow this type of discrimination. This argument can be unconvincing for many reasons; Scott allows himself to believe that smoking is leading to discrimination; smoking is a freedom right, and taking this freedom right away from people can lead to new laws. Scott argues that smoking in any area can lead to that person being a potential target. In reality being anywhere at any time doing anything a person can always be a potential target. How does anyone know that they aren’t a potential target? Smoking is something that someone chooses to do. Growing up everyone is taught that smoking is bad and better ways to say no to smoking because of the causes it leads to. When yet Scott says they are being discriminated as smokers; when they technically are making the choice to be discriminated. For an example being born a different race you are not allowed to choose the race you would like to be born as. More over smoking is a choice; no one is being made to smoke a cigarette. How can you argue discrimination when you are the one making the choice to be discriminated? I understand that smoking is a freedom right you have but, when coming down to the point of where and where you can not smoke the smoker needs to understand that if they are somewhere public or not. If a person is in the bus you can argue that the bus they are riding in is not there bus. Some owns those buses and it is there business, just because it can be

More about Smokers Raw Deal

Open Document