Exemplar Discursive Essay

Imagine this scene: you are walking through a crowded club, searching desperately for a familiar face when you are halted in your search by a mysterious murky cloud, consisting of drugs and tar and 400 other toxic substances, which you unwillingly inhale. Gasping for breath and spluttering relentlessly, you ask yourself: should smoking in public places be banned? This topic has evoked strong emotions from many in recent years and one which has still not been resolved. Many groups of people argue that they are addicted to smoking and must have the right to smoke in public, whilst others claim that they do not wish to inhale others’ smoke and that this sort of passive smoking could be avoided. In my essay, I will examine both sides of this topic and attempt to decide whether, in today’s health conscious society, precautions for the prevention of disease through passive smoking need to be taken in the near future.

Those who smoke maintain that if they were not allowed to smoke cigarettes in public places, that this would be an infringement of their civil liberties, as they are theoretically being ostracised from society. By not allowing them to continue with their habit in public places and forcing them to leave the establishment to smoke is, in effect, segregating them from society. However, they would be no more segregated from the public if a new law were introduced than how those who suffer from respiratory diseases are now. These people cannot go to many public places, as the smoke inhalation is more than likely to be detrimental to their condition. Therefore, as the law stands currently, it is the ill that are isolated whilst those who cause diseases are still allowed to aid the spread of diseases through their smoking. In my opinion, this is as good as reason as any to lead to a change in the current laws.

A further significant point is that in places where a ban on smoking in public places has been introduced, there have been no major problems. For example, in New York, all restaurants and bars and other public places have an all-out ban on smoking and anyone who wishes to smoke only has to go outside to do so. Most if not all do agree with such legislation, as a compromise has been reached between both smokers and non-smokers. If this law seems to be working in large cities throughout the world, there should be no reason why a similar law would not be just as effective in Britain.

However, smokers claim that their addiction to cigarettes and other tobacco-based substances is too great for them to be asked to stop smoking. Most do understand the inherent dangers of smoking, yet continue to do so because of they addictive chemicals inside cigarettes, such as nicotine, a major factor stopping people from quitting smoking altogether. However, those in opposition to the introduction of a new law would need to be made aware that they are not being asked to stop smoking in public, but only to leave the place and smoke outside, in the absence of others who do not wish to suffer the effects of passive smoking. To many, this seems a reasonable request that is in the interest of public health and would be extremely beneficial, as the advantages far outweigh the drawbacks.

The main advantage of a ban on smoking in public places comes from a recent study by the British Medical Association. It claims that second-hand smoke is “the main source of indoor air pollution.” Intensive studies discovered that in adults, passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by some 20-30 per cent and the risk of coronary heart disease by 25-35 per cent. In children, exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of lower respiratory tract illnesses, asthma, middle-ear infection and sudden infant death syndrome. When it is taken into account that, for the majority of the population, public places are by far the main source of exposure, the benefits of a ban of smoking in public places would be immeasurable. The BMA also claimed that “three million people are still exposed to tobacco smoke in the course of their work showing that the UK is rapidly falling behind other countries in its provisions to protect non-smokers.” The study concluded that even a low level of exposure to smoke has been proven to cause adverse effects, and that something needs to be done soon to combat the rising cases of lung disease caused by passive smoking. It would seem only reasonable that after a group of highly qualified doctors and scientists determine the major dangers that passive smoking has on non-smokers, that steps should be taken to enforce new restrictions for the well-being of the general public.

In conclusion, the health of the general public could be greatly improved by a single piece of legislation, which merely asks for a compromise from the smokers of the country. From changing the location of where they smoke, not only would many more people feel safer to go to public places without risk of disease, but also many diseases could be prevented in the process. Maybe in the future legislation may be introduced, but, as one anonymous protestor to the introduction of a new law said, “As long as there is addiction to tobacco, smoking in public can never be banned.”

Bibliography: www.bma.org.uk

www.weeklygripe.co.uk