In his argument, Charlie Bradley gives 3 reasons why smoking should not be banned in public places. He does admit upfront that he is a smoker and that what he says may be biased. He makes some valid points why smoking should not need to be banned, but he also commits some logical fallacies in his argument. He says that the biggest complaint against smoking is the health risk from secondhand smoke and he tries to provide solutions for both sides of the issue. His first reason not to ban smoking in public is because of designated smoking areas. As long as these areas are separated enough from the buildings that they belong to then there will not be a risk of secondhand smoke or cigarette smell on non-smoker’s clothes. This reason seems valid because it addresses the main concern of the opposition to smoking in public. He implies that if designated smoking areas were located and used properly then there would not be a problem of secondhand smoke unless a non-smoker was in that designated area.
The fallacy in his argument arises with the second reason that he provides. He says that most employees that smoke do so because of stressful situations at work which cause them to need a cigarette to calm down. He continues by saying that a “no smoking” policy would lead to less productivity or employees sneaking off to go smoke. This argument begs the question: Is it true that most people who smoke do so because they are stressed out? and, If they are stressed out is it because of a work-related situation? There are some people that smoke simply out of habit and stress does not factor into it. There are some people that smoke for the enjoyment of the tobacco, just the same as a person who drinks coffee because they like the flavor. That is not to say that there are not smokers that smoke because it calms them down (or coffee drinkers that do so for the caffeine), but it is not safe to assume that most smokers fit into any one category. And using work related stress as a reason to be able to smoke does not seem to be effective. There are plenty of people that are stressed because of work that do not smoke nor have they had the need to smoke to calm down. And if stress in the workplace is that big of a problem then maybe the specific causes of that stress need to be addressed in order to prevent those types of situations. He then says that smoking does not display an unprofessional image, but it is the sneaking away to smoke that looks unprofessional. The problem here is that he provides no proof to his claim of what is and what is not a professional image. If he had the results of surveys that asked the whether or not smoking gave off an unprofessional image or something of that nature then he could make his claim, but he provides nothing of the sort.
His third reason that says that smokers have rights is valid. If they want to smoke then they should be able to smoke. He brings up the secondhand smoke rebuttal and goes on to say that secondhand smoke should not be a problem as long as proper procedures are being properly followed when it comes to designated smoking areas. This is a good argument because freedom is what this country is based on. As long as smokers are not harming others (something that should be prevented with the use of proper designated smoking areas) then they have the right to smoke.
1 comment:
Feeble Attempts
Numerous states and a multitude of independent cities have already taken action in prohibiting smoking in public areas. Charlie Bradley must have missed the big picture when crafting his supposed strong arguments for allowing smoking in public. First, the idea that smoking and non-smoking areas would be utilized to segregate those who choose to destroy their lungs from those who choose the healthy decision is completely irrational. Almost all such segregation available throughout the United States is simply seating in two opposite ends of a restaurant or other such public facility. However, in order to be effective, separate smoking sections would need to be completely cut off from non-smoking sections, and the two could not share a common ventilation system. Since these sorts of accommodations are not available in the vast majority of public areas and since it would cost an unreasonable amount to renovate old buildings to comply with these accommodations, this is simply an irrational solution.
Furthermore, the idea that a smoker has the right to smoke has rationale; however, non-smokers have the right to visit public places without fearing for their health. Smokers have alternatives to choose from such as nicotine patches and nicotine gum which will fix their craving for the nicotine found in cigarettes. Both of these alternatives along with the alternatives of simply smoking outside or not smoking at all prevent second hand smoke and keep a healthy environment for everyone involved. However, the only alternative that non-smokers can choose is to not visit the public places where smoking occurs. This means that non-smokers are giving up their rights in order to compromise for smokers who could make this a much simpler feat by just choosing to smoke else where. Moreover, employees at places where smoking is allowed do not have the choice to avoid second hand smoke. Granted they do have the choice to not take the position at all, they may forego great opportunities as far as salary, experience, and other benefits if they choose to respect their future health and to avoid a working environment where smoking is permitted. Not only is it an inconvenience for these people, it compromises their future professional goals.
Finally, everyone knows the harmful effects of smoking. By making smoking in public places illegal, some smokers may be deterred from smoking at all. This would be a bonus for everyone. First, nonsmokers would not need to accommodate where they visit because second hand smoke would no longer be an issue. Employees would not have to compromise their health in order to receive the benefits of working for certain companies. Not to mention, those who quit smoking will greatly influence their future health. This in effect would influence the healthcare system which would have considerably less work if all smokers chose to quit. All of these benefits would come from smokers choosing to quit. This is a positive effect that could come from illegalizing smoking in public areas. Obviously, the feeble attempts that Charlie Bradley made for allowing smoking in public places do not match the reasons why smoking should be prohibited in public areas.
Post a Comment