It has become an everyday part of life, much like brushing one 's teeth or squinting when the sun gets in your eyes. The ever present aroma of cigarette smoke has been around for centuries, long before anyone was ever concerned with global warming or second hand smoke or anything related to possible health problems. But should cigarettes be banned altogether? One could argue either way, as some would consider them no better than “death sticks” while still others would argue that it would be a blatant disregard for the freedoms we all share. In the following paragraphs, a comparison of two largely contrasting documents regarding smoking & cigarettes will be executed showing both sides of the argument as well as which article best represents
…show more content…
By doing this, though, they expose the biggest weakness of the article: the lack of evidence in support of cigarettes themselves. Each point highlighted in the article avoids discussing the negative effects of cigarettes altogether by shying away from those facts in favor of a defense created to blame others for the bad reputation that hangs over the tobacco industry and it 's products. By completely avoiding the conflict at hand, the article is left looking more like a finger pointing blame than an actual defense against a ban on cigarettes. The main points the articles attempts to justify are: that smokers already pay taxes that are too high on cigarettes, that defenses offered against tobacco stem from “junk science”, that the tobacco industry is a victim of lawsuit abuse, that smoking bans hurt small businesses as well as violate private property rights, the harm caused by cigarettes can be reduced by educating smokers and pushing safer options such as e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco, the war against tobacco is not justified because of the “protect the children” defense, and that punishing smokers because of their bad habits is not legal nor should it be right. A few of these points seem to be stable & respectable ones, but too many of them tend to lend themselves to blaming another party. Another issue with the article is that is lends itself to a slight undertone of preference towards the tobacco industry, which can lead to ideas being imposed upon by potential
By doing this, though, they expose the biggest weakness of the article: the lack of evidence in support of cigarettes themselves. Each point highlighted in the article avoids discussing the negative effects of cigarettes altogether by shying away from those facts in favor of a defense created to blame others for the bad reputation that hangs over the tobacco industry and it 's products. By completely avoiding the conflict at hand, the article is left looking more like a finger pointing blame than an actual defense against a ban on cigarettes. The main points the articles attempts to justify are: that smokers already pay taxes that are too high on cigarettes, that defenses offered against tobacco stem from “junk science”, that the tobacco industry is a victim of lawsuit abuse, that smoking bans hurt small businesses as well as violate private property rights, the harm caused by cigarettes can be reduced by educating smokers and pushing safer options such as e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco, the war against tobacco is not justified because of the “protect the children” defense, and that punishing smokers because of their bad habits is not legal nor should it be right. A few of these points seem to be stable & respectable ones, but too many of them tend to lend themselves to blaming another party. Another issue with the article is that is lends itself to a slight undertone of preference towards the tobacco industry, which can lead to ideas being imposed upon by potential