Argument For and Against Banning Smoking in Public Places - Essay Example

Argument For and Against Banning Smoking in Public Places Number Introduction Smoking is an issue that involves everyone in the country since even if one does not smoke the smoke released by the smoker gets to him. There has been an argument on whether it is right to ban smoking in public places or not. This report considers both sides of the argument for the smokers and non-smokers. It looks at the reasons why smoking in public places should be banned and those reasons against banning smoking in public places. It then compares and contracts both sides of the argument. Arguments against Banning Smoking The first article in the report gives the reasons why smoking in public places should not be banned. The article’s main argument is that every citizen including smokers has their rights which ought to be respected. One of the reasons why smoking ought not to be banned is that most public places have parts that are set apart as smoking areas (Jin, Seiber & Ferketich, 2013). These areas are usually located far from where people are so that the smoke does not have an effect on the nonsmokers. This reason applies fallacy of division to support the argument. Another reason why smoking in public places should not be banned is that some individuals like employees smoke due to stressing situation at the work place. The argument that has been applied in the article is questionable assumption. There are so many individuals going through tough times but they do not have to smoke. The third reason is that smokers like other people also have rights. This argument uses fallacy error by mistake (Jin, Seiber & Ferketich, 2013). Not everyone will be careful not to harm anyone but himself. Every individual has a right to a stable life, which is a reassurance. The forth reason is that smokers will end up smoking in their houses and it will harm people at their homes especially children (Lemke et al., 2013). This argument is applied by the fallacy by analogy extended. Moreover, it encourages buying cheap cigarettes and alcohol in the supermarket and can result to great harm. The fifth reason is that prohibiting smoking in public will result in companies that manufacture cigarettes being bankrupt (Jin, Seiber & Ferketich, 2013). In this argument, the fallacy of division had been applied. The last reason also applies the fallacy of division. It would be impossible for the government to police the ban in most of the public places. This assumption is questionable as there are also those individuals who are against smoking in public places. Argument for Banning Smoking in Public Places There is no one who is against someone being allowed to smoke. However, there is an issue that affects those around the smoker. Arguments are cited in favor of banning smoking in public places as can be seen forthwith. The first reason is that the resulting secondhand smoking is harmful to the health of people (Lemke et al., 2013). The first argument has used examples which may not be necessarily accurate. This is use of fallacy to support an argument. It has assumed use of citation from reliable sources. The second reason is that secondhand smoking is more harmful to the health of children (Lemke et al., 2013). The fallacy prominent example is a petition to authority that is unknown. There is no source of argument in the examples. There should be a valid and reliable assumption. The other reason is that in spite of having a smoking area, smoke spreads all over other places (Samet, Neta & Wang, 2008). In this reason, there is the use of analogy that is strange- the example of food coloring. The fallacy applied is the assumption in an analogy that is not correct. The other reason factors other negative effects like the smell of the smoke (Samet, Neta & Wang, 2008). There is the fallacy of quick generalization at this point. This is in the example of the clothes holding bad smell. It is assumed that when going out to several places smoke is the only thing not accepted by individuals. Smoking in public places exposes the environment into a dangerous situation. There is the fallacy of begging the question and assumption that fire can result from cigarette butts. There ought to be an explanation that is full of examples so that it helps convince people on banning smoking. The last reason is this that citizens have a right to a smoke free environment (Samet, Neta & Wang, 2008). The reason is based on the fallacy of begging the question to put the government to deal fairly with all kinds of individuals. It would be necessary to give examples so as to convince the government to prevent smoking. Comparison Both arguments agree on the need to designate a place for smokers. The argument against smoking public places proposed that these places ought to be away from buildings. The argument not supporting banning of smoking in public places states that it increases the likelihood of fire outbreaks. Both arguments considered the stance that is for the smokers and against smokers. The arguments also talked about some kinds of individuals and not all individuals. Contrast The two arguments are different in the reason that is in support of the theme. The argument against the idea of prohibiting smoking in public supports smokers and states that hard situations at the workplace lead to smoking whereas the argument for the banning of smoking in public places looks at both sides of the smokers and non-smokers. On the number of deaths given in the first argument, the exact number is used whereas in the second argument, approximations are stated. The first and the second articles apply several fallacies that are not the same. Conclusion The report has two argument articles, each giving six reasons on the thought of banning smoking in public places. Both of the articles apply fallacies that make them not convincing. Thus, the conclusion on whether smoking in public places ought to be banned or not is not satisfactorily reached. References Jin, Y., Seiber, E. E., & Ferketich, A. K. (2013). Secondhand smoke and asthma: What are the effects on healthcare utilization among children? Preventive Medicine, 57, 2, 125-128. Lemke, M., Hartert, T. V., Gebretsadik, T., & Carroll, K. N. (2013). Relationship of secondhand smoke and infant lower respiratory tract infection severity by familial atopy status. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology: Official Publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology, 110, 6, 433-7. Samet, J. M., Neta, G. I., & Wang, S. S. (2008). Secondhand Smoke. 703-755. Read More