Cover Letter for Rogerian Essay
March 25, 2013
The purpose of this essay is to make my readers aware of the harm cigarettes can do to a person’s body. I also want to make my reader aware that without second hand smoke a person body can be healthier. Smokers should take inconsideration that not everyone wants to smell the smoke or suffer the consequences from second-hand smoke. What I have learned that second-hand smoke can do more damage to your body then I was aware of. I felt like smoking should be completely banned in public places but after researching this assignment I changed my view. I changed and said it should be banned in some places ...view middle of the document...
Exposure to second hand smoke could risk exposure to cancer or even heart disease. Exposure to second hand smoke for a short period of time may cause breathing difficulties, headaches and even nausea. Due to the possibilities of these health risk smoking should be banned in public places.
Research has shown that smoking cigarettes and contact to second hand smoke can cause serious health issues. When you’re in public places people smoke their cigarettes and innocent bystanders has contact to that smoke which can be harmful to their health. In 1972, the surgeon general released a report The Consequence of Smoking that discussed the potential effects of second hand smoke. The first kind of smoking bans came around in the 1970s. Restrictions were implemented on smoking in public places like government buildings and some airlines. The full ban of smoking on all airlines went into effect in June 1996. (Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events) According to the “American Non-smokers Right Foundation’s U.S. Tobacco Control Laws Database, as January 4, 2009, “a total of 30 states, along with Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have laws in effect that require 100% smoke free workplace and or restaurants and/or bars.” (Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events)
Researchers have raised a reliable and valid argument not to ban smoking in public places. Thomas A. Lambert from the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law says, “Does a smoker have the right to fill the air with his or her smoke, or do non-smokers have the right to smoke-free air? In other words, who “owns” the air? A smoking ban effectively gives non-smoking patrons the right to the air.” (Lambert,40) Lambert is voicing the many emotions smokers feel. Smokers feel that the smoking ban is unfair and is favouring the rights of smokers. Mr Lambert has suggested a laissez-faire approach. This approach allows the establishment to determine if a smoke free environment is what the business wants. If this policy were implemented then there would be some “winners” who’s preferred policy is adopted and whose happiness is therefore increased, and some “losers” whose preferred policy is rejected and whose happiness is therefore diminished. Adoption of a smoking-permitted policy harms non-smokers, but adoption of a no-smoking policy harms smokers (Lambert, 7). The scenarios that Mr. Lambert has introduced to the audience is a clear reason why a laissez-faire approach of permitting establishment owners to set their own smoking policies will be more fair to the public and the business owner the just ban smoking. Under the laissez-faire approach, a business owner, seeking to maximize his or her profits, will set the establishment’s smoking policy to accommodate the patrons who most value their preferred. This will result in a variety of smoking policies at different establishments, as business owners respond to the...