The Smoking Debate Essay, Research Paper
The anti-smoking debate is one surrounded by much controversy and coverage, but with slightly lacking in relevant documentation. Although there are many smokers out there who feel that their rights are being ignored, they will not speak out due to the public outrage against Pig-headed Smokers and the like. This has meant that I have had some difficulty in finding articles that are pro-smoking.
The first article that I am analyzing is Tobacco attack smokescreen for vested interests , first published in The Times of London, but reprinted in The Australian on the eighth of March this year. This article is both anti-smoking and anti-drinking, and it uses the smoking debate to make a lengthy introduction to the second contention.
The article begins by talking about the sponsorship of Formula One racing by tobacco companies. At the start of the article, the author Simon Barnes is discussing the launch of a new tobacco sponsored motoring team, British American Tobacco. He describes the debate with the members coughing and spluttering on their own self-righteousness , a parody on the common view of smokers as sick and choking individuals. This sheds a light of comedy on the issue, and allows people from both sides to relax into the article.
The next paragraph brings the main contention of the first half of the article into the light. The most evil thing on earth is tobacco sponsorship in sport. This is a theme that has been very popular over the past few months, and it is no surprise to find it here. This sentence brings us to believe that the author is anti-smoking, but this belief is then dashed by So I have read, anyway. This sentence supports the previous sentence, by telling us that it is written, but makes the point that he does not believe it. Also, by avoiding a firm statement it keeps the article light-hearted. It is difficult to respond negatively to that statement from either view, as it is neither confirming nor denying the fact, but merely presenting an issue and editorializing it.
In the sixth paragraph the author changes his tone. By asking the question Why is tobacco sponsorship immoral? and answering with the main arguments against smoking, using words such as dangerous, drug and addicted. These are power words, designed to shock us into a fear of the product.
In the following paragraph, Mr. Barnes gives the four main arguments against smoking. Tobacco can kill you, it shortens your life, it affects other people s health, it affects the health of the unborn. This sways us against the idea of smoking, for who could argue that these effects are good?
In the eleventh paragraph, the author compares tobacco with cannabis, cocaine and LSD, in terms of the ridiculousness of sponsorship. Although in the next paragraph he dissuades us from this idea, the thought has already been planted in your mind.
The overall feel of this article is that the author is knowledgeable and well-researched into his area of writing, and that we are hearing this information from a friend: he maintains an easy and relaxed atmosphere throughout the entire piece.
The second article that I am analyzing, Welcome to nicotine nirvana is by Philip Broughton of The Daily Telegraph. This article was reprinted in the Sunday Age, on the 10th of January. This article is the closest that I have found to pro-smoking.
The opening sentence is New York s draconian anti-smoking laws bring out the anarchist in even the most mild-mannered of visitors. Most notable in this paragraph is the reference to the laws being described as draconian. This sets the scene for the rest of the article: Poor smokers being oppressed by the evil government. This setting is followed further by the description of visitors as anarchists fighting for their right to smoke.
Further down, in the fifth paragraph, the article actively promotes smoking. The message is simple: you can say what you like about the health risks of smoking, but it still has a certain glamour. This is the movie advertisement, that it is cool to smoke. This statement accepts the risks associated with smoking, but chooses to ignore them for the sake of glamour.
In the seventh paragraph, the proprietor of a smoke caf Lee Ringelheim says I wanted to create a decadent haven for the discerning smoker. This creates an image of many people sitting around having a good time, relaxing and enjoying their lives, and the smokers as being distinguished and intelligent people. Further down he comments, I always thought of New York as the most free city in the world. This sentence demonstrates the feelings which the smokers have about the laws of New York, still following the first sentence. Again it creates the impression that smokers are being downtrodden.
The third article, MCG smoking ban sets a fine example is most obviously anti-smoking. The first paragraph, to ban smoking at the MCG is welcome news for a number of reasons, shows us immediately the editors viewpoint. This statement is very strong, and has the firm conviction you would expect from the editor.
In the third paragraph, It is just as ridiculous to allow the sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies as it is to permit spectators to puff away while watching sportsmen and women perform. This sentence attacks both the sponsorship given by tobacco companies, and the right of smokers to smoke while they watch sport. The word ridiculous tells us that we should have derision for the smokers, in the same way we have for the companies who sponsor the sports. puff away sportsmen and women perform. This makes us feel that the smokers are lazy, and not honest or true-blue.
(Part A: 947 Words)
Smoking, long known to be the cause of many illnesses including cancer, is one of the biggest killers in society today. Despite this, smoking is enjoying a great boom, especially amongst the younger generation. It is my contention that public smoking should be banned. While many people wish to stop smoking altogether, both for their own and others safety, this is a very biased issue.
Many people believe that smoking in a public place is a violation of human rights. I believe that the right to a smokeless environment, part of an environment that is relatively free from health risks, is fundamental. Why should we the non smoking public suffer because of others? In many countries public smoking is taboo. In fact, in many cities in the USA public smoking has already been banned altogether, due to the immense health risks. This lack of public smoking also helps addicts kick the habit. It is the view of Dr. Segal from AMA Victoria that people who cannot smoke in a public place will soon stop smoking altogether. This is for two reasons: firstly, because it will be effectively going cold-turkey as you will have to find a smoking haven to get a fix, and secondly it will stop teen-smoking. The main drive for teen-smoking is popularity, to be seen doing something cool. If a teenager cannot smoke in front of his or her friends, then why would they start? Studies have shown that people who haven t begun smoking at the age of eighteen are very unlikely to start at all, so the tobacco companies target the younger generation to milk a continued profit. This younger generation cannot go home and light up, as most parents (even the smoking ones) disallow their children from smoking at all. Because of this they are forced to the streets, to us the predominately non-smoking public. If they learn to smoke on the streets, they learn that smoking there is acceptable behavior. It is not.
Public smoking is such a large issue because of the passive smoke inhaled. While a smoker is inhaling a majority of the smoke, he is breathing it through a filter. This filter removes the most of the more dangerous poisons in cigarettes. The problems with passive smoke are that firstly the person smoking may not want to be breathing the polluted air, and secondly that they do not have a filter. While some people may dismiss passive smoking as a scare tactic, it is in fact quite lethal. By breathing the passive smoke, you are being put at risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, bronchitis, pneumonia, irritation of the respiratory tract, and dormant asthma can surface, as well as asthma attacks being caused. In addition to this, general smoking problems can be contracted from passive smoking. Passive smokers have been shown to have less cardiovascular fitness, tar deposits in their lungs and short wind. With over seven thousand different poisons in unfiltered smoke, I think the air that I want to breathe should be much sweeter.
If public smoking is to be tolerated, then the problems associated with it should be combated at the same time. At present it is not illegal for a twelve year old to smoke, but only to attempt to purchase the cigarettes. This should be rectified, as the police are unable to charge any store owners or underage purchasers unless they witness the offence. Smoke filtration devices have been developed to clean tobacco smoke. If public smoking was restricted to certain areas, these devices would make it relatively safe for us to walk the streets.
In conclusion, banning public smoking is not only practical, but beneficial to the health of our community. The selfish murderers who are blustering I am my own master, I smoke where I want, when I want, should realize that while they do indeed have the right to smoke, the public right to good health is the most important. Many people have been campaigning for years to stop public smoking, but only now in this enlightened day are we finally beginning to achieve that goal.