A Smoking Ban Too Far Tobacco cigarettes have been one of the most important industries through history. Native Americans started cultivating this plant since the 1st Century. In the same way, tobacco’s market has played diverse roles in America’s economy. Although many investigations had proved the bad effects of tobacco, this industry has a strong influence in America’s society. In addition, this is an unsolved issue in today’s society. The article “A Smoking Ban Too Far” by Michael B. Siegel, analyzes the ban on smoking in the New York City’s parks.
The author’s main claim is that this new proposal would not be enough to protect the community against secondhand smoke. In addition, he claims that the government should implement rules for closed places where workers are exposing to secondhand smoke. In my view, the author states a clear position against smoking areas. Siegel supports the fact that the exposure to tobacco smoke cause severe diseases. Moreover, he argues that should be implemented concrete laws that could solve secondhand smoke’s issue.
First, Siegel supports his main claim saying that form a public-health perspective banning smoking indoors is more important than bagging smoking outdoors. He explains that there is scientific evidence of the chronic exposure to secondhand smoke, but not enough evidence of the health effects in outside places. Siegel explains that inside exposure in restaurants, casinos, and workplaces of secondhand smoke has a longer duration; as a result, this repeated exposure cause severe effects. In sum, the author supports his main claim providing logical facts.
Second, the author states that bans like New York’s could cause a second phenomenon which is smoke-filled areas near park entrances. Therefore, the author believes that the real problem is not solved because every person who wanted go to the park should cross these intersections. People tend to find different ways to continue smoking. In addition, we can see that this is a typical consequence that authorities do not contemplate. Thus, Siegel reaffirms his main claim based on the experiences that he has faced, and thinking about the possible repercussions of this smoking ban.
Then, Siegel presents an example in which explains “ last year the surgeon general’s office claimed that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger accurate cardiac events such as heart attack”. In this case, the author uses the ethical appeal because this is a trustworthy source. In other words, Siegel increases the credibility of his argument presenting an authority expert in cancer and smoke tobacco risks.
These doctors are experts on diagnose, and treat lung cancer, also they know the factors that favor the appearance of cancer. Thus, Siegel states a strong argument using scientific information, and citing the authority. Furthermore, the author relates that, “For 25 years I have testified before court proceedings, city council meeting and Congressional hearings in support of smoking bans in workplaces, including restaurants, bars and casinos. ” As a result, his own experience verifies that he knows very well this topic, and has been part of important meetings.
Thus, Siegel uses the logical appeal because he presents a reasonable fact for supporting his argument. To return to the main point, many people believe that secondhand smoke causes severe risks to our respiratory system. Along with this, Siegel states clear information that supports this claim; therefore, the author’s main argument is convincing. Thus, his main claim is supported by new research showing that exposure to secondhand smoke damage our respiratory system, there is cancer risk, and hearth diseases.
In the same way, Siegel declares that antismoking associations should also fight on extending these laws to people who work in closed places. Additionally, the author has a vast experience and knowledge about smoking bans because for 25 years he has intervened in Congressional hearings, and city council meetings. Therefore, all of the parts of Siegel’s argument make sense together. In conclusion, antismoking movements must demand the protection of public rights because people who don’t smoke should not suffer these consequences.
Secondhand smoke causes almost the same diseases than the people who smoke. Equally important, workers in restaurants or casinos have the right to work without having to breathe cigarette smoke. There are benefits for both sides if the government does not allow to cigarette companies sell this product. The public system will spend less money in heart diseases, and the population will be free of the secondhand smoke. Siegel counters the following logical fallacy presented by his opponents.
He states that smoking opponents do not believe in the scientific facts. Thus, they don’t give credibility to these sources. The author explains that, “New York’s ban on outdoor smoking seems to fulfill its opponents’ charge that the movement is being driven instead by an unthinking hatred of tobacco smoke”. For instance, the smoking opponents are not using a reasonable argument because they try to persuade the audience using emotional response to this issue. In my view, this is one of the fallacies called appeal to ignorance and makes their argument weaker.