An argument against the smoking ban smoking in the united states of america

Remember these lives that are being liquidated for the tobacco industry include some 41, deaths per year from second hand smoke. Page Share Cite Suggested Citation: WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, The Harm Principle proposed by John Stuart Mill states that "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

New York City has been at the head of the pack by prohibiting smoking in most city-owned outdoor spaces, such as parks, waterfronts, and monuments. Understandably, most people prefer a smoke-free environment.

Advertising billboards for tobacco are still in use in Germany, while the majority of EU member states have outlawed them. Moreover, when he does not see anybody around him smoking or smelling of cigarette, it might reduce his urge to smoke as well. Accessed March 1,from http: Clearly smoking has a demonstrable, harmful, deadly effect on others.

Thank you Tashjar for your argument. Report of the advisory committee of the surgeon general of the public health service. California's ban included a controversial restriction upon smoking in bars, extending the statewide ban enacted in Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: Another argument is that it is human tendency to do exactly those things which are forbidden.

Accessed April 1,from http: Similarly, a football player cannot complain when he gets hit by a lbs. At first, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act.

What good is a wealthy society void of justice that allows 41, people to be killed by others annually? What price is my opponent willing to accept in exchange for thousands of innocent lives lost?

Workplace bans, state bans, and country bans have all shown a decrease in smoking behavior, whether the proportion who smoke or the magnitude of use is measured IOM, Census Bureau Messer et al. No law eliminates law breakers, it does however arm the people with the ability to hold trespassers of the law accountable by law.

Comprehensive programs and voluntary actions could lead to larger decreases in smoking prevalence and a subsequent decrease in adverse health effects. The health consequences of involuntary smoking: Perhaps con could substantiate this contention by somehow demonstrating the harm compared to the harms of smoking.

Thank you Tashjar for your argument. Tobacco Control 11 Accessed March 31,from http: The Harm Principle proposed by John Stuart Mill states that "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

The study found that when the population was exposed about four times per month to antismoking advertising campaigns, smoking prevalence decreased by 0. For those reading, his argument can be found here. Consider this contention mitigated.

If those practices are adopted before a ban rather than following it, the apparent effect of the ban will be attenuated from the full effect and it can be difficult to assess how the ban itself changed exposure to secondhand smoke and to predict when a decrease in exposure might be expected to affect disease rates.

It is a personal choice that is harmful to the health of others. You have made several fallacies in your argument.Smoking, in the United States, is ruled entirely by individual state laws, as the United States Congress has not yet enacted any nationwide federal ban.

The following article debates on whether smoking should be banned in public places or not. Boston is far from alone.

Smoking Ban

New York is banning smoking in parks. California has banned it on many beaches. In much of sunny Los Angeles one can no longer smoke on restaurant patios. The entire town of Calabasas, California, is smoke-free in public places.

San Francisco suburb San Rafael has banned smoking in all multi-unit residences. Read chapter 5 The Background of Smoking Bans: Data suggest that exposure to secondhand smoke can result in heart disease in nonsmoking adults.

including a brief discussion of the history of tobacco policies that led to bans and the current status of bans in the United States and globally. it had formed as California GASP (Group Against. Smoking bans encompass a severe form of collectivism that is beyond the scope in which the American form of Democratic government is intended.

The sole purpose of the United States government is a form of collectivism that is supposed to protect the rights of each individual: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Should Smoking be Banned in Public Places?

- A Proposal to Ban Smoking in Public Areas Every year, there are oversmoking-related deaths in the United States. A large percentage of these are due. An Argument for the Smoking Ban Essay - Have you ever been in a restaurant eating your favorite food, then just when you are about to take a bite, you inhale a cloud of.

Smoking Bans in the United States Download
An argument against the smoking ban smoking in the united states of america
Rated 5/5 based on 72 review