I. China is the leading consumer of tobacco in the world, with one in three cigarettes consumed in the world is in China. (this is the attention-getter)
II. Public smoking is an issue that receives equal share of attention from both non-smokers and smokers. (relationship with the audience)
III. The proponents of banning public smoking argue that it passively harms non-smokers. On the other hand, the opponents argue that the government has no right to limit their behavior provided it is legal. (this is a preview of main points)
IV. The purpose of this paper is to persuade the banning of smoking tobacco in public areas, such as restaurants and airports in China. (this is the topic)
Pro: Smoking is one of the dangerous habits
Con: Passive smokers to some extent choose to breathe the second hand smoke.
Pro: One cannot evade second hand smoke
Con: Ventilation fans can eliminate most second hand smoke rather than implementing a complete ban.
Pro: A complete ban on public smoking would encourage cigarette smokers to give up their habit or smoke less. Chinese government spends a significant amount of money on treating smoking-associated diseases.
Con: The government has no right to make people stop their legal habit of smoking. Smokers finance their healthcare by paying taxes as they buy tobacco.
Pro: Banning smoking in public places would improve productivity both at work place and at home. The financial costs decrease productivity and increased absenteeism from smokers are significant in countries such as Taiwan.
Con: Banning public smoking is likely to increase smoking at home and in cars. This is likely to affect other people at home, especially children since children are not mature enough to decide freely to smoke passively.
Banning smoking in public places will significantly help in safeguarding nonsmokers from the passive smoke, which has caused millions of death since 1964. Therefore, the Chinese government should criminalize smoking in public places.
China is the world’s leading tobacco consumer. China is aiming to ban smoking public places by the end of the year. According to the World Health Organization, about one in three cigarettes smoked in the world are in China, and about half of Chinese men are smokers. According to Park (2014), despite China’s health ministry issuing the guidelines in 2011 to prohibit smoking in public places, such as restaurants and hotels, they have not been enforced strictly. The basis for smoking bans postulates that smoking is an optional behavior, whereas breathing is not. As a result, proponents banning public smoking claim that smoking bans exist to safeguard non-smokers from the impacts of second hand smoke.
On the other hand, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) opponents claim that there is no compelling health-associated reason to ban public smoking, besides it smoking remains legal. The effects of second hand smoke have been established, though the duration and intensity of exposure matters. Public smoking is an issue that receives equal share of attention from both non-smokers and smokers. Despite smokers feeling victimized by the implementation of smoking bans, current persuasive essay goes ahead to encourage the criminalization of smoking in public areas, such as hospitals and airports.
This speech talks about public smoking and how it affects non-smokers. The paper will back up the arguments by using logos, particularly by quoting relevant statistics on the number of people suffering illnesses cause by secondhand smoke. The paper is also going to address the benefits of banning public smoking vis-à-vis the impacts of prohibiting public smoking in China. I will also use ethos to show personal opinions. Lastly, the speech will use pathos to provide expert opinions concerning the impacts of public smoking. I will use expert opinions published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and website of credible organizations such the CDC.
It is evident that smoking is one of the dangerous habits, and it does not only affect smokers, but also non-smokers. Tobacco smoke causes several illnesses such as heart disease, strokes and cancer, and it also affects nearby people, who unknowingly breathe in the smoke. According to Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), second hand smoke is combination of fine particles and gases that comprises of more than 7,000 toxic particles, and approximately 70 of these particles can cause cancer. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) has also pointed out that nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke increase their risk of getting lung cancer by 20-30%.
In addition, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) revealed that about 2.5 million passive smokers have succumbed to death from exposure to secondhand smoke since 1964. According to Halpern, Shikiarb, Rentzb, & Khanc (2001), smokers prefer smoking, though the people close to them do not prefer smoking passively. As a result, an individual should only be exposed to harm if he or she comprehends the risks and accepts them. Banning smoking in public places will significantly help in safeguarding nonsmokers from the passive smoke, which has caused millions of death since 1964.
According to Jha (2009, passive smokers to some extent choose to breathe the second hand smoke. According to Levy, Bales, Lam, & Nikolayev (2006), opponents to the ban on public smoking have countered the above argument by claiming that society allows adults to decide to harm themselves to some degree, provided they do not affect others. This is the reason proponents never argue that smokers should be banned from smoking in private places. Park (2014) pointed out that if a person does not want to breathe the second hand smoke, then he or she should not visit places where public smoking is allowed.
However, this view of public smokers has no truth since there is no scientific evidence backing it. Why would an individual prefer smoking second hand smoke when he or she can buy cigarette? Opponents are wrong to claim that individuals decide smoking passively. Tsai, Wen, Hu, Cheng, & Huang (2005) cited that, in most places, there are no restaurants or bars in which smoking is disallowed. One cannot evade second hand smoke, unless he or she refuses to visit public places. In addition, individuals working in smoky workplaces, such as bars, frequently do not voluntarily choose. In many nations, safety standards do not allow employees to be exposed to unnecessary danger, even if they agree. As a result, Thomson, Wilson, Edwards, & Woodward (2008) argued that employees need not to be exposed to second hand smoke, because they might not have voluntarily decided to do so.
Ventilation fans can eliminate most second hand smoke rather than implementing a complete ban. According to Thomson et al. (2008), the fact that there are no non-smoking bars and restaurants in several places implies that very few individuals want them. Companies and businesses would have already established them if they were in demand. Certain individuals are also contented working in smoky workplaces. In any case, people should be allowed to decide working in dangerous environments. For jobs, such as fishing, mining, and armed forces, this is accepted. People find it beneficial working in such dangerous workplaces rather having no job at all.
A complete ban on public smoking would encourage cigarette smokers to give up their habit or smoke less. According to Levy et al. (2006), smoking would no longer be regarded as a social activity if it is banned in public places, such as restaurants. As a result, smokers will have to smoke in their cars leaving their friends. A study by Jha (2009) indicated that about one third of smokers in Scotland affirmed that the ban was assisting them smoke less. Most people begin smoking as a social activity. Making smoking a less social activity, by banning it in public places, implies that fewer people would engage in smoking. In certain nations, governments spent significant amount of money on treating smoking-associated diseases. This implies that a government has the authority of discouraging public spending in order to reduce spending.
According to Park (2014), opponents have argued that a government has no right to make people stop their legal habit of smoking. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that a ban on smoking in public will encourage smokers to give up their habit. Smokers finance their own healthcare cost through high taxes paid on tobacco. In addition, the addiction to nicotine is likely make smokers continue with their habit.
Halpern et al. (2001) argued that banning smoking in public places would improve productivity both at work place and at home. Smoking in public places, especially at workplaces, decrease workplace productivity. Absenteeism represents the only indirect burden of smoking to employers. It is also likely that smokers are less productive on job besides the lost time because of illnesses. A study by Tsai et al. (2005) concluded that workplace productivity is high, and absenteeism is low, among former smokers as compared to the present smokers. The financial costs because of decrease productivity and increased absenteeism from smokers are significant in countries such as Taiwan. Based on approximations, Halpern et al. (2001) cited that the total costs linked to smoking in workplaces are about $1032 million dollars. Banning completely public smoking will cause smokers to smoke less at home.
According to Halpern et al. (2001), smokers need to maintain a specific level of nicotine in their blood in order to remain active. A complete ban would force smokers to smoke less at public places. Over time, the level of nicotine required by smokers to feel active or “high” would decrease. This is likely to reduce the frequency of smoking. As a result, they would smoke less at work and at home. Consequently, it implies reduced healthcare problems and clean environment.
According to the opposition, banning public smoking is likely to increase smoking at home and in cars. This is likely to affect other people in a house, especially children. According to Halpern et al. (2001), this is because children are not mature enough to decide freely to smoke passively. In addition, home-smokers might drink more alcohol than they would if they went to a public bar since thy can purchase more cheaply at off-license or supermarkets. Excessive drinking of alcohol might result in other health problems, which opposition thinks will be eliminated by the ban.
The bottom-line is that a complete ban helps in protecting people’s health. It is significant to safeguard people’s health than safeguarding businesses. Social pubs and clubs need to adapt, for instance by selling more food in order to earn more money. Jha (2009) revealed that, in South Wales, only 9% of restaurants, which is relatively a small portion of businesses, reported a decrease in trade after the introduction of a ban on public smoking.
Banning public smoking would drive several businesses, such as pubs, clubs and bars, out of businesses. This is because smokers would not go to such places. In addition, businesses would earn less money from the sale of tobacco. In several places, according to Jha (2009), pubs and bars serve as social places for communities. They also offer jobs for individuals with few skills. As a result, it is important that such places survive.
From the arguments above, it is evident that the pros outweigh the cons of banning public smoking in China. Banning smoking in public places will significantly help in safeguarding nonsmokers from the passive smoke, which has caused millions of death since 1964. Ventilation fans can eliminate most second hand smoke rather than implementing a complete ban. A complete ban on public smoking would encourage cigarette smokers to give up their habit or smoke less. Banning smoking in public places would also improve productivity both at work place and at home. It is significant to safeguard people’s health than safeguarding businesses.