Smoking in Public Places - Assignment Example

Stage One – Pre Writing Smoking in Public Places I am not too sure right now how I feel about the issue. I was a smoker for years and I totally getthe notion of “enjoying a cigarette”. I also know that smoking is part of the social process just like having cocktails. For me personally, it was a great stress reliever. Yes there are some that would say that smoking smells and that there are second hand smoke issues, but I don’t really see why having a smoking and non smoking section doesn’t take care of the issue. I used to be a smoker. I haven’t smoked for along time now. So I know how it feels both ways. Now I think it stinks and I hate being around people that smoke and I think it’s a great idea that these businesses put a stop to the smoking in their buildings. I also think it’s a great thing that government places also put a stop to that. Recently though I was in a hotel for a family get together and this hotel had smoking and nonsmoking floors. I found that on the smoking floors there was a terribly dank odor. Notably, the odor did not waft up to my floor. I can’t help but wonder, at what point does the constant regulation become ridiculous? Will we be mandated to not eat meat one day? Where does the regulation begin and where does it end? Also I think that rather than banning the entire establishment from smoking, perhaps those who do not smoke can decide to go elsewhere. Usually smoking is allowed outside of a building or on the sidewalk or even in a contained area. I think that the question remains though, whether or not the legislation is getting out of hand and whether I favor the legislation because I am now a non smoker and it is more convenient for me or because the legislation and decision to ban smoking in public places actually has a legitimate purpose. Pre Writing For A Thesis A. In three to five sentences, describe one specific experience you’ve had that helped to produce your opinion. You may describe a first-hand experience of yours or a related experience that happened to a close friend or family member. I decided to quit smoking a long time ago. I had always enjoyed smoking because it was a nice form of relaxation and it eased my tension. It was something that I had picked up on without giving it any thought. I personally have no problem with smoking bans in certain buildings and public places. It is clear that smoking is a hazard to the health of the smoker and those around him so I do approve of smoking bans. B. List at least four reasons or specific examples in support of your belief about your issue. 1) Smoking has been defined as a cause of cancer. 2) Second hand smoking has been established as a cause to various sicknesses including cancer. 3) I have the right to work in an environment that is not a hazard to my health. 4) People who are non smokers are highly sensitive to the stale smell of smoke and it can really affect the work place to be stuck in a building that stinks. 5) States should be looking out for the health interests of their citizens. C. Identify at least two opposing viewpoints on the issue (which person or groups might disagree with your position). 1) Certainly, those addicted to smoking would argue that they have the right to do as they please so long as they are not harming anyone. If someone is threatened by smoking they should remove themselves from the situation. 2) Legislators may argue that because smoking is not illegal, there should be no state regulation. D. List at least one reason to support each opposing viewpoint from C. 1) As someone whom smoked for years, I can appreciate being irritated by regulations upon my freedom to smoke. Why should the burden be placed on me? 2) Additionally, if something is not illegal, why should I be restrained? It is sort of like the freedom to speak. If it is legal to drop the F-bomb on a police officer, why should there be a ban on smoking? E. In two or three sentences write what you want your peers to do in response to your argument. What do you expect from them? I would want my peers to respond to my argument in a manner that is intelligent. We all know that smoking causes illness but that is not the issue. I would like to see them discuss what the smoking ban means to them and perhaps discuss alternatives that would work for smokers and non-smokers. Thesis Type your specific thesis in one complete declarative sentence. Your thesis must be written in first-person so you establish a clear, personal position. Do not use questions or commands for your thesis. Smoking bans in public buildings and certain public places are inconvenient but the interest in protecting the public outweighs a person’s right to smoke thus making the smoking bans proper. Plan of Argument Under that heading, identify your three main supporting points. Each point you list must be one that you can expand into a paragraph with further details and explanation. Think of yourself speaking to your reader, saying “You should agree with my position for these three reasons. First, because . . • Write one complete sentence stating your first main point. • Write one complete sentence stating your second main point. • Write one complete sentence stating your third main point. Although this section refers to statistics and outside sources, you aren’t allowed to use those or broad generalizations in this essay. Nonetheless, as you organize your proof, ask yourself, “Does this idea, example, or experience support my claim directly? Will it be the best choice to show the readers the different sides and convince them of my position?” You should agree with my position for these three reasons. First, it is commonly held that smoking is a direct link to death which also includes second hand smoke. Second, the public has the right to be free in society from harmful substances which have been proven to be a direct link to many illnesses including death. Third, although smoking is legal, it is something that you can enjoy in your own private residence without placing society at large at risk of illness thus the smoker is really not suffering as a result of smoking bans. Support After each main point, list at least two specific details supporting or proving that point. With each detail, also explain in two or three sentences how that detail develops and supports that particular point. One of the details must be related to your own experiences or those of close family members and friends. You should agree with my position for these three reasons. First, it is commonly held that smoking is a direct link to death which also includes second hand smoke. Each year millions of people die from cancer as a result of smoking. Additionally, second hand smoke has been found to also be harmful by triggering asthma attacks and other forms of illness. I noticed at my job that people who suffered from allergies suffered more as a result of my smoking and smoking by other co-workers. Second, the public has the right to be free in society from harmful substances which have been proven to be a direct link to many illnesses including death. Just because people choose to place their lives in danger does not mean that the rest of society should have to suffer. Before I quit smoking, I know that people at my job suffered because they were allergic to my smoke. We cannot expect to workers to produce to their highest potential when their interests are not protected in the work place so it is only logical that corporations would protect their workers from toxins in the work place such as smoke. Third, although smoking is legal, it is something that you can enjoy in your own private residence without placing society at large at risk of illness thus the smoker is really not suffering as a result of smoking bans. Additionally, the public should not have to suffer from the smell of such a vulgar habit. Common sense must prevail here, if second hand smoke kills then the public should not be forced into a slow but certain death. Conclusion Restatement of thesis: [one sentence] • Review of main points: [three to five sentences] • Anal statement: [one sentence] Smoking bans in public buildings and certain public places are inconvenient but the interest in protecting the public outweighs a person’s right to smoke thus making the smoking bans proper. It is commonly held that smoking is a direct link to death which also includes second hand smoke. The public has the right to be free in society from harmful substances which have been proven to be a direct link to many illnesses including death. Just because people choose to place their lives in danger does not mean that the rest of society should have to suffer. Although smoking is legal, it is something that you can enjoy in your own private residence without placing society at large at risk of illness thus the smoker is really not suffering as a result of smoking bans. Accordingly, smoking bans are reasonable, logical and serve the best interests of society. Essay Most businesses now mandate that they are smoke free premises and as such, nobody can smoke cigarettes in any of their offices. Many local governments have banned smoking in all public places. This ban, while at first blush appears intrusive is actually beneficial, logical and protects the public at large. Simply stated, the whole of society should not suffer second hand for the personal health risks taken by others. Society, whether they be in a building for leisure or for work should not be forced to involuntarily smoke cigarettes. It is commonly held that smoking and second hand smoke is a direct link to death. Each year millions of people die from cancer as a result of smoking. Additionally, second hand smoke has been found to also be harmful by triggering asthma attacks and other forms of illness and allergies. Those who smoke in the work place are forcing their colleagues to become ill. Only smoke-free buildings and public places truly safeguard nonsmokers from the hazards of breathing in the tobacco smoke of others. The public has the right to be free in society from harmful substances which have been proven to be a direct link to many illnesses including death. Just because people choose to place their lives in danger does not mean that the rest of society should have to suffer. In addition to the long lasting smell of smoke permeating the clothes of everyone in the area, illnesses experienced by those exposed to smoking are worse than those who do not smoke. Moreover, a company cannot expect workers to produce to their highest potential when their interests are not protected in the work place so it is only logical that corporations would protect their workers from toxins in the work place such as smoke. Smoking is legal, which means that is it is a recreation that one can enjoy in their own private residence without placing society at large at risk of illness. Thus, the smoker is really not suffering as a result of smoking bans. Indeed, the smoker is merely inconvenienced. Common sense must prevail here, if second hand smoke kills then the public should not be forced into a slow but certain death. The public has the right to be free in society from harmful substances which have been proven to be a direct link to many illnesses including death. Just because people choose to place their lives in danger does not mean that the rest of society should have to suffer. Although smoking is legal, it is something that you can enjoy in your own private residence without placing society at large at risk of illness thus the smoker is really not suffering as a result of smoking bans. Accordingly, smoking bans are reasonable, logical and serve the best interests of society. Read More