Introduction
Smoking has always been a contentious issue when it comes to health matters. Not only does it tend to affect first-person smokers but also secondary and tertiary smokers alike. Therefore, policies have been formulated on where and when to smoke. This has brought up heated debates with many individuals- especially smokers crying foul over their rights. Many countries have enacted laws that have banned smoking, especially in public places placing smokers under a lot of pressure to carry out their duties and responsibilities. The below discussion will discuss the arguments for and against banning smoking in public places which will lead to a comparison of the same. A critical analysis of these arguments will then follow.
The argument against banning smoking in public places
The issue of designated smoking areas should be taken with seriousness and most institutions should ensure that these areas are placed at a distance from where the nonsmokers are.
This implies that the distance should be far enough to avoid the smoke being inhaled by the nonsmokers. The nonsmokers are expected to exercise their movement but they are not supposed to blame anybody in case they wander off to the designated smoking areas and get exposed to smoke. This is a fallacy since it will be the nonsmoker’s intention to wander off into the smoking zone and these assumptions should be that the nonsmokers are aware of where they are going. It is an argument by analogy since it uses an existing ideology to pass the points across.
In the workstation, smoking should not be banned since the employees are usually forced to be unprofessional if they are construed to a nonsmoking zone. The fact that employees are expected to exercise restraint from smoking in public exposes them to delinquent behavior in which case they tend to behave like criminals hiding from the law by “sneaking for several puffs”.
The assumptions made here are that there are no-smoking zones and that the policies on smoking are not working to their full potential which exposes this argument to be a fallacy in which case it would be wrong to say that employees tend to be counterproductive when they sneak off to smoke. However, it would be true to say that smoking may calm some individuals’ nerves due to its addictive nature and reduce the withdrawal symptoms associated with addiction.
Smoking in public places should not be banned as long as smokers adhere to the modalities laid down by institutions on smoking. If they use the smoking facilities in an orderly manner, the individuals are said to be within the law hence they should not be prosecuted for smoking.
If smoking in public is banned and restrictions are implemented, the dangers are more likely to increase since individuals will tend to smoke within the confines of their own homesteads where they are not being watched. As a result secondhand smoking will be more evident within these surroundings. Thus it should be noted that an increase in secondhand smoking-related complications is likely to arise as a result of the ban of smoking in public places.
The economic side of bans on smoking cannot be overlooked either. An imposition of banning in public places would imply that the places where smoking mostly takes place among other bars would have to restructure their sales strategy since cigarettes are the major second sales from alcohol and other drinks. People would lose employment hence contributing negatively to the economy. In view of this, the ban should not be allowed.
Last but not least, a ban on public smoking would only lead to a lax in the implementation of the same since authorities are not that effective when it comes to managing minor players in the crimes especially the small businesses which do not have an impact on the community.
Arguments for banning smoking in public places
The issue of heart diseases caused by smoking has been a concern for a long time. This has been linked only to secondhand smoking which indicates that secondhand smokers are at a higher risk of getting heart diseases. At the same time, secondary smoke is also a major respiratory disease cause in which case research findings show that over 50,000 deaths arise from secondary smoking-related respiratory issues (CDC, 2011)
Smoking also affects young children in which case most children tend to suffer from Pneumonia and other lung-related complications. Research indicates that over one hundred and fifty thousand new cases of children with smoking-related complications are reported every year. This translates to a very high number of children who are hospitalized as a result of this (Gerhardt & Stuart, 2011 ).
This argument is very authoritative and is sensitive since it carries a grave figure which indicates that most infants are affected by secondhand smoking and may also lead to sudden infant death syndrome.
Passive smoking is another argument for a ban on smoking. The argument is that as much as smokers value their freedom. They tend to infringe on other people’s rights to clean air since it circulates within an enclosure affecting those within the confines. However, this argument has been based on food coloring which is not the topic of discussion although it tries to drive the point home, it is a fallacy in the argument.
Smoking can be associated with a bad smell both to the smoker and the adjacent individuals. Thus it should be banned in public. However, this argument is just aimed at the nonsmoker’s side of view since it emphasizes the issues of nonsmokers attending a diner then being caught up in smokers’ foray. The basis of this argument is that it tends to offend nonsmokers hence should be banned.
The dirt associated with smoking and at the same time being a health hazard risk in terms of fires cannot be underestimated.
This means that an individual is highly capable of causing a fire which seems to be an authoritative argument and should be taken seriously. There are no errors in the argument here and the matter should be taken to the proper authorities for assertion since arson is a serious crime. At the same time, littering is also a serious issue within a well-kept city or surrounding in which case most cigarette butts tend to be indicators of smokers’ presence.
Comparison
The essays may be compared in terms of their arguments. The first essay uses analogical arguments as opposed to the second essay which uses examples and statistical authority to pass the arguments across. In the first essay the author uses him or herself to show that smoking should not be banned, while in the second essay, smoking is shunned through the use of statistics on the negative effects of smoking while at the same time using illustrations to show the same.
Their similarities however are that they are a fallacy in which case they use revolving arguments to argue. Some arguments may be integrated into others to make the points clear. The second essay for example uses the issue of diseases associated with smoking (secondary), which has been split into two an argument for heart disease and deaths associated with respiratory disease. The first essay on the other hand uses the issue of policing and smoking at home to emphasize that confines may be ignored in the implementation of these rules laws.
Conclusion
The above discussions are said to be arguments in favor and against smoking in public places. However, it will be up to an implementing organ to decide on whether the arguments are properly raised. Research points that the deaths caused by secondary smoking are high and the complications related to the same are equally high. The regulatory bodies should consider the arguments while making smoking in public policies. However, the arguments against a smoking ban in public places may be a bit misguided hence leading to the conclusion that it should be banned altogether.
References
Bradley, C. (2007). Why ban smoking in public? arguments against. Web.
Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2011) Smoking and tobacco use: health effects of cigarette smoking. Atlanta.Web.
Gerhardt, J., and Stuart, T. L. (2011) Smoking cessation education in the elderly. Journal of nursing. Web.
Stop smoking (2008). Arguments for banning smoking in public places. Web.