The confidence intervals all straddle 1. Any claim after this point is a display of incredible chutzpah.
Brodish Nonsmokers often question the rationality of smoking at public places in light of these enormous health risks: Why engage in an activity that will ruin your health and perhaps eventually kill you? This is a controversial issue, one that has immediate implications for public policy regarding smoking.
This paper demonstrates that smokers generally do not have the right to smoke in public places, in a wide variety of cases, because it is inconsistent with their duty to respect the right of others to be free from harm. Then a variety of arguments for smoking in public places presented.
The underlying aim of this paper is to provide a moral guide to the formation of a public policy toward smoking behavior. The paper will at the end explore several policy considerations that might lead to the elimination of exposure to secondhand smoke.
The focus of paper, is on the so-called right to smoke, and what role it should play in the development of a just public policy regarding smoking, whatever that policy may be. Background It is important that this distinction between activity and passivity not be confused with the more controversial distinction between doing something to another and letting something happen to another.
The relevance of this distinction is often debated in the context of euthanasia. The right to be free from harm is in some sense more basic than the rights one may have to perform certain activities. Goodin Suppose there is a public room, say a bar, populated by smokers and nonsmokers, and individuals of both groups have the right to The ban of smoking in public places essay present in the room.
The air in the room is filled with smoke, and it is clear that the cause of this is the activity of the smokers. Since the nonsmokers have to breathe the smoky air they had no part in producing, the smokers are doing something to the non-smokers. Since both the smokers and the nonsmokers have equal right to be present in the room, the nonsmokers stand to smokers as victims stand to those who shoot them.
The non-smokers have actively placed themselves in the room, presumably, but they have not actively done anything to the smokers in the way that the smokers have actively done something to them. Nor have they actively sought to place themselves in a smoky environment, that responsibility belongs to the smokers.
If the nonsmokers are harmed by the presence of the smoke, then the smokers have violated the harm principle. The right to smoke persists only so long as the act of smoking does not conflict with the more basic right of nonsmokers to be free from harm. On the condition that they are causing harm, the smokers are obliged to refrain from smoking, and this remains true even if those doing the harm are unaware of the harm they are causing.
Feinberg This places a burden on smokers to change their behavior to comply with the rights of nonsmokers. This inconvenience to smokers, which is often viewed as a harm to smokers, is asymmetrically related to the harm caused to nonsmokers; it is the smokers who are doing something to the nonsmokers, while the reverse is not true.
This point is crucial in determining an appropriate policy when the interests of smokers and nonsmokers conflict. If harm is indeed being caused, public policy should prevent the smoker from smoking in this room.
The issue now turns on whether the smokers are harming the nonsmokers. There are at least three levels on which smoking may harm nonsmokers. The first involves the distasteful odor of cigarette smoke, in the air and in the clothes and hair of even nonsmokers, who are in the same room as a smoker, let us call this the level of annoyance.
The second involves the short-term physiological irritation of the eyes, nose, mouth, throat, and lungs caused by the inhalation of smoke; let us call this the level of irritation. The third involves the long-term risk of disease caused by repeated exposure to secondhand smoke; let us call this the level of disease.
At each of these three levels we must determine whether the harm is sufficiently significant and determine if the right to smoke should be curtailed. Smoke is annoying when one would simply prefer not to breathe it.
This is an offense to, or intrusion upon, the nonsmoker, rather than an obvious harm, so it is unlikely that we are going to get a straightforward application of the harm principle. We must therefore be very careful to examine specific features of the situations in which this offense arises; only in this way will we be able to determine if annoyance is sufficient to militate against the moral right to smoke.
Consider a nonsmoker in his own home.
But suppose that the smoker is a friend, a business associate, or a superior.if a public e-cigarette ban reduces the number of smokers who switch to e-cigarettes by 2%. That is an inherently ambiguous phrasing. Percentages are proportion. 2% is 2 out of what?
Smoking In Public Places - The Smoking Ban Backlash Essay Words | 7 Pages. Smoking Ban Backlash Walking down Boston’s Boylston Street at the late hours of the evening, the sidewalks are crowded with smokers taking their last hauls before entering the bars for a night of drinking.
Here you can find a collection of band 9 essay samples. Keep in mind that none of these essays have been rated by an IELTS examiner. All band score predictions are approximate. Smoking Ban - Smoking In Public Places Essay - Smoking Ban Argument Have you ever been in your favorite restaurant and just as you are about to take a bite of your favorite dish, your lungs are filled with a cloud of smoke which has drifted to your table from the smoking section just a few feet away.
This is a common complaint of many patrons. Essay on Nationwide Smoking Ban: Smoking Should be Banned in All Public Places - The effects of second-hand smoke have been well-known for decades; in fact, the Surgeon General warned the public about its dangers in (Schick & Glantz, ).
In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas. In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places.
This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.