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
…show more content…
One of the emotions Siegel uses is fear through the statement that antismoking movement keeps “trying to convince people…transient secondhand smoke is a deadly potentially hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility” this could cause a backlash that would affect the entire movement’s goals. If this event happens the bans would be questioned and even reverted, therefore smokers would be free to smoke everywhere. Siegel also incorporates good intentions to the argument stating “Instead, antismoking organizations should focus on extending workplace protections...to the 100 million Americans still denied the right to work without having to breathe in secondhand smoke.” With this Siegel shows that he is pursuing a positive change for the people. Consequently, the audience will be able to come up with a stronger opinion rewarding what the antismoke movement should be focusing on to prevent the audiences’ fears becoming a …show more content…
Besides the 25 years of experience that Siegel has with the subject, also cites information to show the flaws the outdoor ban, mentioning “Researchers at Stanford found…no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure…is long enough to cause substantial health damage.” This gives proof that the ban outdoors is not a contribution to the public health and should not be the focus of the antismoke movement. Purpose, pattern, & process defines inductive reasoning as “a general truth [being] derived from a particular instance.” (69) Siegel’s inductive reasoning concludes that banning smoke outdoors jeopardizes the goals of the antismoking moment, becoming a bigger problem than a solution. Siegel uses these elements to strengthen his position, which becomes effective in convincing the
In the article, “Smokers Get a Raw Deal” by Stanley S. Scott argued that smokers are not safe anymore to smoke publicly. One piece of evidence Scott’ utilize to back up his claim are giving examples. One type of example was a real event from a local incident in New York which gives his argument a great deal of weight which simply can’t be brushed of by the reader. The incident was a young man with his friend at restaurant was sprayed by an aerosol spray can by a man that was belonged to anti-smoker organization. This evidence really shows that smokers aren’t safe to smoke in public place anymore.
In the 1990 article "I’d Rather Kiss than Smoke" in the National Review, Florence King tries to persuade her readers to look through a smoker’s eyes in a smokist world. King has been around people smoking even before she was born. Her mother started smoking when she was twelve and she started this habit when she was twenty-six. Since she started smoking, she has been analyzing how non-smokers discriminate against them. Florence King expects everyone to be okay with smoking because it is what she was brought up in and it was okay in her family.
“I’d Rather Smoke than Kiss.” is Florence King’s very astute retort to anti-smokers. In this writing she advocates for smoking as a simple enjoyable thing to do. To emphasize this she recalls her first smoking experience, which is for the most part very normal and unexciting. However, this inconsequential account is not indicative of the rest of the story. King quickly switches gears as she goes on the attack. In the first section she labels hatred of smokers as a form of misanthropy which she goes on to say is “the most popular form of closet misanthropy in America today” (King 32). This perspective is further augmented by the fact that she considers second-hand smoke an invention; a means for the “Passive Americans” (King 32), to justify prejudice towards smokers.
Renneboog, R. M. (2016). Cigarette Smoking Bans: An Overview. Canadian Points Of View: Cigarette Smoking Bans, 1.
While the magazine advertisement does not appeal to the business sector of the world, even though it may have a few interested individuals from the business sector, the magazine advertisement still tries to rank closely to readers who are in their adulthood but are not sure of what their career is. The image also enforces an emotional appeal to the younger generation, who see glamour and professionalism as a means to gain higher social mobility in life. So this magazine advertisement also appeals to the socially active readers as well. The text is kept at a minimum while the readers are left to wonder as to what the advertisement is really about, which is another interesting tactic to use. This is because the advertisement is now bound to get far more responses just out of
Standing at one of the city’s busiest intersections, my friends and I had been waving “Let Harlingen Be Smoke Free” posters for the past three hours. I secretly wanted to go home already, as any other fourteen-year-old boy would, but I knew we had a goal to accomplish. Our mission, as members of the Harlingen Smokebusters, was to help the city pass a non-smoking ordinance.
Peter Brimelow brings to light an interesting idea in his essay “Thank You for Smoking…?” Brimelow’s purpose of his essay is to defend smoking. He provides the audience with information that is worthy of their consideration and valid enough to make them think twice about how they stand on the issue of smoking. Unfortunately, some flaws in Brimelow’s technique distract the audience from his message that smoking is not as unhealthy as it appears. A few mistakes transform his work from a well-written argumentative essay to an unsuccessful attempt to spread his beliefs. What started as an essay to rouse new views on the issue of smoking swiftly lost all merit and became a means to assail the people in opposition of the author’s views.
Walking down Boston’s Boylston Street at the late hours of the evening, the sidewalks are crowded with smokers taking their last hauls before entering the bars for a night of drinking.
Merriam-Webster defines smoking as; to inhale and exhale the fumes of burning plant material and especially tobacco; especially: to smoke tobacco habitually. The key word in that definition would be habitually. One who smokes generally is addicted or formed a habit of smoking. Although distasteful to most people, those who smoke are generally willing to quit smoking yet they're unable to "kick the habit." Smokers understand how hard it is to quit. They admire those who were able to quit. We realize the risk of smoking and the obvious side effects that could result to death. Although all the studies show the death effect of smoking many of us are still unable to quit. In the essay, Phillip brought his girlfriend to a social gathering of which she pulled out a cigarette and started to smoke. The hostess apparently was not fond of smoking when she asked her to put it out or go outside. This started a big debate over smoking of which the smokers went outside and the non-smokers stayed inside. Phillip stayed inside although he should have gone with his girlfriend. He was unsure whose side he was on. He wasn't a smoker but he wasn't fully against it. Throughout the essay he was unsure of which side he should have been on. He discussed his opinion and stories that support both arguments.
This was a pamphlet that you would probably see in a doctor’s office. It provided a lot of good facts about the harms of smoking and what it can cause to the world around the smoker. This paper seemed very professional, so I thought that it was a reliable source that provided honest facts. I used quite a few quotes from this paper and I believe it provided me with great talking points all with emphasizing the point of my paper. Definitely the best source I came across.
Today, through out the country, and even right here in Ames, Iowa, there is an enormous problem of cigarette smoke putting people?s lives in danger. By passing a ban to make smoking illegal in public places, the lives of people who have been made to suffer from second-hand smoke will be improved, and people who currently smoke will be discouraged from continuing to do so. This will help to improve the lives of all Ames citizens.
In 2006 Colorado’s Clean Indoor Air Act went into effect banning indoor smoking within restaurants, bars, and the majority of indoor facilities. The law also includes a ban on smoking within 15 feet of a public place, although according to a tobacco study by Stanford University, 25 feet is the recommended distance to avoid inhalation of second hand smoke. The Clean Indoor Air Act resulted in an estimated 100,000 fewer smokers state-wide and has protected bystanders from the danger of second-hand smoke, according to the Smoke-Free Colorado.org, a Tobacco Free Colorado Communities Initiative. Despite alteration to Colorado law, further action is necessary to fully protect nonsmokers from the harm of second-hand smoke and to prevent exposure to adolescence under the age of 18. Therefore, the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act needs to be extended to include outdoor city and state public areas.
Our principal target segment will consist of rich and upper middle class individuals who would
Imagine you 're waiting at a street light and you look over to your left and see a middle age women smoking a cigaret in her car, what you don’t see is her child in the backseat inhaling the excess smoke, slowly but surely rotting his lungs. Secondhand smoke has been a massive issue for the health of numerous U.S citizens for many years now. In past decades the smoking of tobacco was a very big part of everyday life, it was very much a social norm. The effects smoking had on one were not yet well known, so finding a place where no one was smoking was very difficult. As technology advanced, the U.S. population became aware of the effects smoking cigarettes had. Many organizations and foundations, like QuitlineNC and the American Lung Association were created to help smokers notice the terrible effects smoking had on their lives and the lives of those close to them. These groups have done a good job on informing people of the dangers and risks of smoking, now its up to the people to take into account what they are telling them.
Those opposing a smoking ban say that freedom of choice would be affected by such legislation. Some people against a ban say that smoking bans damage business. A smoking ban could lead to a significant fall in earnings from bars, restaurants and casinos. Another argument is that the smoker has a basic human right to smoke in public places, and the ban is a limitation for smokers’ rights. Businesses, smokers, publicans, tobacco industries, stars, and some of the non-smokers oppose public smoking ban. Smokers light a cigarette because they need to smoke, not because they want it, because nicotine is physically addictive. Therefore, some smokers think that the public smoking ban is oppressiveness. They see the ban as a treatment to smokers as second-class citizens. Smokers agree that the smoking ban benefits the world, but cannot support the ban, because effects of nicotine obstruct them.