We do not mean to dishearten long-term smokers. Despite smoking’s irreversible effects, it would be foolish for a smoker to conclude that, after years of smoking, quitting would do him no good. Many studies prove that tobacco-related health effects decline substantially as time away from smoking increases; some of the benefits begin within months after quitting. But after years of exposure to the damaging effects of tobacco, quitting smokers must realize that they have to be realistic in their expectations of recouping their health. For our latest work on tobacco issues, please see: http://www.acsh.org/tobacco.
Therefore, the government should have the right to discourage smoking. The cost of treating these diseases is very high. The money that smokers pour into the economy with the purchase of cigarettes is very much overshadowed by the amount of money the government
He only presents one premise, that laws facilitate the segregation between smokers and nonsmokers, and consequently allow organized crimes harassing smokers to occur. The grounds for his premises are weak, as he does not provide concrete and reliable information to support his cause. Scott’s basic premise is that laws encourage the violation of smokers’ rights. He begins his argument with, “The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and a host of anti-discrimination laws notwithstanding...” With that commencement, Scott proves that he does not understand the concept of discrimination. He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility.
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.
In The News CVS Caremark‘s Management stand tobacco sales Marie C Smith BUSN_412 CVS’s management of Caremark made the decision to stop the sales of tobacco products in a move to promote health and at a cost of $2 billion annual revenue and CVS management reports it will not affect their annual report. The CEO of Caremark stated that ending the sale tobacco products at CVS/pharmacy is the right thing for the company to do for our customers to help people on their path to better health. The management of Caremark has decided that tobacco sales do not belong in the environment that CVS is striving to bring a setting to fight chronic diseases through Healthcare. Cvs plans to expand their smoking cessation through the training of
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.
Reviews, however, of findings utilizing hypnotherapy for smoking cessation indicated that it appears apparent that nominal hypnotherapies based on Spiegel’s philosophy results to titular abstinence rates estimated at 20 percent or less (Otten et al, 2011). This may be because, hypnotherapy ignores biochemical variables such as physical aspects that show the percentage of carbon monoxide in the body, in regard to the therapies aimed at smoking cessation. It is notable that biochemical substances are significant in studies that are targeted at determining the usefulness of particular treatment options. These variants can help corroborate treatment results of
1. Due to many public health campaigns warning of the dangers of tobacco smoke, in 1st July 2007, the British government ban public smoking. This decision was made due to the scientific and medical evidence claims that Smoking tobacco has been linked to a number of health problems including lung cancer, emphysema and cardiovascular disease. Therefore the government banned public smoking to “protect everyone from second-hand smoke, while making it easier for smokers to quit” as stated by Ms Hewitt. 2.
An individual’s desire to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes has led them to a new controversial device known as the electronic cigarette. The users of the E-cig do not know the long-term effects of second hand vapors, nor is it evident if it is a healthier alternative to tobacco products. According to Christensen (2014), “Smoking is still the leading cause of avoidable death in the United States. The devices are not one of the FDA-approved methods to help people quit, but many people are using them this way. A growing number of scientists are studying them to see whether they may be a way to end an epidemic.” The public is in need of this clinical research in an effort to clarify whether the vapors from these electronic devices are harmful to themselves and others.
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. We can assume by the premises that the argument would have to be true, due the subject, marijuana is a universal and cheap drug that can be used by anyone. In fact, there are laws that prevent the use of marijuana, so when the law tells society you can’t smoke marijuana, this only puts out a message of restriction and that doesn’t go well for listening. In conclusion, Blakeslee arriving on the conclusion that severe laws will only put more danger on those who use marijuana than