Michael B. Siegel 's A Smoking Ban Too Far

707 Words3 Pages
Michael B. Siegel’s “A Smoking Ban Too Far” argues that banning smoking outdoors has no contribution to public health. States that the smoking outdoors’ ban is much weaker case than indoors, consequently it could cause a backlash that could threaten the goals of the antismoking movement. Instead antismoking organizations should focus on extending the policies that prevent smoking indoors in the 21 states that still allow it. Siegel’s article is somewhat effective, because the claim is backed up with facts that show the experience of the author on the subject, however it lacks stylistic elements that would bribe the audience to accept Siegel’s claim. The target audience Michael B. Siegel is trying to reach is middle class people with college level education, because they have the skills to formulate a stronger opinion rewarding the topic. Therefore, Siegel published his article in The New York Times because the audience can read and critically analyze the statement. Siegel intents to show the audience how antismoking organizations are being driven by unthinking hate towards tobacco instead of strong cases that require more attention. Siegel is a professor of community health science, and for 25 years was part of court proceedings in support of smoking bans in public spaces. These aspects contribute to the author expertness, good intentions and most importantly reader identification. Anti-smokers as part of the audience could disagree, seeing the ban as necessary and an important step towards smoke free places, however some could reflect that smoking outdoors does not have enough evidence that sets it as a major health treat. Siegel effectively uses emotional appeals to strength his statement and lets the audience know the import... ... middle of paper ... ...tic appeal could be stronger to draw the reader to accept the claim. There were few elements implemented from many everyday citations that could have been use in relation with smoking issues. One element used by Siegel was graphic imagery when he states that “bans like New York’s may actually increase exposure by creating smoke filled areas near park entrances that cannot be avoided.” With this the audience can picture themselves in these smoke -filled areas to cause worry and get them engaged with the important of issue. However, Siegel previously mentions in the article that people outdoors can move freely, discrediting the strongest piece of graphic imagery that describes the future consequences of antismoke current approach banning smoke outdoors. Moreover, Siegel could have used more dramatic situation to strengthen the emotional appeal towards fear even more.

    More about Michael B. Siegel 's A Smoking Ban Too Far

      Open Document