Marlboro Man - Essay Example

Essay. The days when the ‘Marlboro Man’ was accepted as the embodiment of rugged masculinity are long past. A growing social awareness about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, advances in medical research in this field and the proactive stand adopted by many governments, has changed traditional thinking about smoking. In the present day, cigarettes are no longer associated with masculinity, but with dry coughs and cancers, and smokers are perceived to be weaklings who cannot break an addictive habit and selfishly put others health at risk by lighting up in public. The benefits of a healthy diet and exercise and the adverse effects of tobacco smoke are well-documented scientific facts, and are now universally acknowledged. In line with this acceptance, many businesses have prohibited smoking on their premises and many local governments have banned smoking in all public places. I strongly feel that this is a step in the right direction, considering that it is not only smoking which is injurious to the health of the smoker, but also that the inhalation of second hand smoke has adverse effects on non-smokers in the vicinity. The Environmental Protection Agency has widely publicized its findings on the dangers of the inhalation of second hand smoke. I feel that smoking should be completely banned in the workplace and all public areas, as secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, smoking infringes on the freedom of others, and this ban will encourage business interests in the long run. The adverse effects of inhaling second hand smoke have been scientifically researched and well documented in the recent past. Second hand smoke refers to the smoke emanating from the burning tips of cigarettes and the smoke which is exhaled by smokers. Exposure to this ‘second hand smoke’ is also called involuntary or passive smoking. Growing scientific evidence indicates that second hand smoke is the proven cause of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disorders and childhood ailments. Proven statistics show that second hand smoke doubles the risk of heart attacks, increases the incidence of lung cancer by 25% and causes harmful physical effects, such as asthma attacks, bronchitis and pneumonia in children, whose developing respiratory systems make them particularly vulnerable to the toxins present in second hand smoke. Opponents to the ban on smoking often boast that many smokers are healthier and live longer than non-smokers. It seems to me that these claims are more anecdotal than real, always relate to some distant cousin or uncle, and are never corroborated by scientific evidence or systematic study. I prefer to believe the proof offered by my grandfather, a smoker who died an excruciatingly painful death from lung cancer last year. We are long past the point of debating whether tobacco smoke has adverse effects on the health. The addictive properties of nicotine and the irrefutable identification of known carcinogens in tobacco smoke are just a Google search away, and make any further debate on this issue redundant. Cigarette manufacturers themselves concede the injurious effects of tobacco with the statutory warning that “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease and May Complicate Pregnancy.” Smoking in public places is a blatant violation of the rights of others. Every individual has the right to a hazard-free work environment and pollution public spaces for leisure and recreation. When the health hazards of inhaling second hand smoke are universally acknowledged, smoking in public places may be considered the height of selfishness. If second hand smoke can kill, then those who light up in public places may be considered potential murderers. The designation of ‘smoking’ and ‘non-smoking’ areas in public places can only be termed a farce, as smoke is all-pervasive and generally spreads through the ventilation system. After a recent dinner with my brother in the so-called ‘non-smoking’ area of a sports’ bar, I left the restaurant with my clothes saturated with the odor of cigarette smoke and a splitting headache, which persisted throughout the night. Let me tell you, tobacco smoke is no enhancer of appetite or flavor! Of course, the supporters of free choice may claim that bans on smoking violate individual freedom and may set the precedent for various other bans, ranging from pet dogs to perfumes, on the basis that these cause allergies in some people. I contend that any individual has the right to choose the path to a slow death, but does not have the right to forcibly drag other people along with him. If an individual is determined to exercise his or her free choice in this matter, let him do it in the solitude of his or her home – out of reach of other family members, especially infants and toddlers, who cannot move away from the killer fumes. The right to smoke can on no account be allowed to infringe on another’s right to live. The ban on smoking in public places will have long term commercial benefits. The prohibition of smoking in the workplace has gained widespread acceptance and is being commonly linked to increased productivity. However, many commercial establishments, particularly restaurants and sports bars, oppose any anti-smoking ordinances, fearing that this will result in a drop in customers. This is an unsubstantiated fear, as the choice of a place to dine out is based on a host of factors, such as the quality of the food and service, and the ambience. Not many people consider a toxic tobacco haze as the preferred ambience for dinner or conversation. In fact, restaurants which permit smoking are increasingly being shunned by families. Growing public awareness about the health hazards of second hand tobacco smoke will definitely discourage people from frequenting places where smoking is permitted. In such a scenario, smoke-free establishments will generate more revenue in the long run. In any case, public health is of primary importance and cannot be held ransom to commercial interests, particularly as the economic costs of treating the health disorders related to smoking and second hand smoke, far outweigh private revenue. The health benefits will create large savings in medical costs. In the light of such clear evidence on the toxic effects of second hand smoke, a total ban on smoking in the workplace and in all public places is the need of the hour. Any civilized society should give first priority to the health of its members. The vast majority of society, which desires a healthy lifestyle, should not be held hostage to the selfish indulgences of smokers. Short term commercial interests should not be allowed to take precedence over life and death matters of health. Nobody has the right to harm others. Currently, only a few states in the U.S.A. have strong anti-smoking legislation. Smoking in public can only be considered a selfish violation of the basic rights of all individuals to a healthy life and a smoke-free environment. The maintenance of a hazard-free environment is surely the obligation of every employer and government. Only if smoking is completely banned in all public places can a safe, healthy environment for all society become a reality. I firmly believe that government ordinances protecting customers and employees from exposure to second hand smoke must be passed and strictly enforced throughout America. Penn Foster College Mechanical Engineering Technology Course Student Name: Chi Wa Ho Student ID: Exam Number: 05068301 (Persuasive Writing) Date: 06/04/2008 Topic: Most businesses now say that no one can smoke cigarettes in any of their offices. Many local governments have banned smoking in all public places. What is your position on such bans and why? Prewriting for a Thesis: A. In three to five sentences, describe one specific experience you’ve had that helped to produce your opinion. One night I dined out with my brother in a sport bar. Although we sat in the non-smoking area, we could still smell the cigarette smoke. The cigarette stink was all over our clothes when we left the restaurant. The smell lingered inside the vehicle and wouldn’t go away for a few days after we drove home that night. I had a bad headache the whole night long. B. List at least four reasons or specific examples in supporting of your belief about your issue. 1. There is nothing worse than trying to enjoy a meal while inhaling someone else’s cigarette smoke. 2. I had the headache because I inhaled second hand smoke. The chemicals in a cigarette reduce the amount of Oxygen carried in my blood when I inhale the smoke. 3. It doesn’t really matter where we sit, because the cigarette smoke can come through the ventilation system and cover the whole restaurant. 4. No tobacco advertisements are allowed in public places because governments know smoking is hazardous to health. 5. Tobacco manufacturers put the statutory warning “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, And May Complicate Pregnancy” on each pack of cigarette. Obviously they admit smoking is hazardous to health. 6. Medical studies state that tobacco and its various components increase the risk of cancer. 7. For my understanding, all the components carried in a cigarette are toxic. Nothing is good for health. C. Identify at least two opposing viewpoints on this issue (which person or groups might disagree with your position). 1. America is a free country. People have the right to do anything they want as long as they are not harming others. 2. Commercial establishments will argue for the business lost. 3. Many chemicals other than cigarette smoke can kill people in a restaurant. Smoke from cooking out on a grill, overcooked meat, air fresheners, and even floor cleansers are all toxic. D. List at least one reason to support each opposing viewpoint from C. 1. We have the freedom to make our own choice. Airports, restaurants, and public places have a designed area for smokers. That’s means smoking is not an illegal activity. 2. Businesses may think it will have a negative impact on their customers, especially in a bar or restaurant. Smoker will not go out for dinner because they are no longer allowed to smoke cigarettes in public places. Usually people don’t like to have any restriction while spending their money. 3. In any case, people are living in an air polluted atmosphere, we all inhale exhaust fumes every day. 4. There are so many reasons people die besides smoking. People can get killed in car accidents, hurricanes, volcano eruptions and robberies. 5. Many smokers live much longer than people who don’t smoke. 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? First, I will tell people smoking is not a crime, there is no rigid law to ban people from smoking so far, but I strongly believe that the government should ban smoking in all public places. Then I will explain to them why it is not a good idea to smoke, especially in public areas, and how it affects others. I am not expecting smokers to quit smoking but I am expecting them to be more considerate. Thesis This is murder - secondhand smoke can kill! Plan of argument 1. Smoking in public places is selfish. I feel people have the right to smoke but shouldn’t make others breathe their secondhand smoke. 2. Ordinances against smoking in public can protect employees and customers from secondhand smoke exposure, which is associated with increased risks for heart attacks and lung cancer in adults and respiratory disease in children. 3. People may start going to some public places like sport bars or clubs where they usually don’t, because they know there’s no more smoking allowed. Support 1. Smoking in public places is selfish. I feel people have the right to smoke but shouldn’t make others breathe their secondhand smoke. (Supporting evidence and explanation) a. My father is a smoker, but he still doesn’t like to inhale secondhand smoke. b. I cough a lot and feel pain or burning in my throat and lungs after I inhale cigarette smoke. (Opposing claim to this point) a. What happens if people are allergic to perfume? Should the government pass ordinances against wearing perfume as well? (Supporting evidence reputing that opposing claim and explanation) a. By law no cigarette advertisement are allowed in public places, because the government discourages people from smoking. But perfume advertisements are all over the place. b. Smelling cigarette smoke can kill but not smelling perfume. 2. Ordinances banning smoking in public places can protect employees and customers from secondhand smoke exposure, which is associated with increased risks of heart attacks and lung cancer in adults and respiratory disease in children. (Supporting evidence and explanation) a. Over 438,000 Americans (18.1 % of all deaths) die because of smoking each year. Secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 of them. b. Almost 60% of U.S. children (22 millions) aged 3-11 years old are exposed to secondhand smoke. c. My grandfather was a smoker. He died of lung cancer, after great suffering. (Opposing claim to this point) a. There are many smokers who are healthier and live much longer than people who don’t smoke. (Supporting evidence reputing that opposing claim and explanation) a. Tobacco manufacturers put “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart disease, And May Complicate Pregnancy” on each pack of cigarettes. This proves the manufacturers admit smoking is hazardous to health. 3. People may start going to some public places like sport bars or clubs where they usually don’t, because they know there’s no more smoking allowed. (Supporting evidence and explanation) a. I will consider the quality of the food and service when I am choosing a restaurant; smoking is not the only consideration. b. It is a positive influence. Banning smoking in public would help restaurant get better business, because most customers like sitting at the bar chatting and eating, without somebody sitting next to them smoking. (Opposing claim to this point) a. Smells from deep fried oil, smoking from the grills, overcooking meat, sanitary chemicals may also cause potential hazards to people. (Supporting evidence refuting that opposing claim and explanation) a. Although air is polluted from the smell of cooking oil or burning meat, it still can’t compare with Nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive and highly toxic chemical. b. If we handle the cleaning chemicals in a proper way, it shouldn’t be harmful. Conclusion Restatement of thesis: (one sentence) This is murder - secondhand smoke can kill! Review of main points: (three to five sentences) Ordinances banning smoking in public places can protect employees and customers from secondhand smoke exposure, which is associated with increased risks of heart attacks and lung cancer in adults and respiratory disease in children. Final Statement: In my opinion, smoking should be banned from all public places. Read More