Proto-Miob Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Proto-Miob - Essay ExampleHerein, both sides of the parentages will be considered with the intention of proving to the reader that the removing the smoking oust is a better option than maintaining it. According to Singleton, a spokesman for Reynolds American, it should be the decision of the establishment owners to decide if they want to uphold the rules on the environment (Winslow). The anti-smoking negative group NYC Clash, Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment stated after the ban was upheld by as new york judge that these laws are vague and infringe the heaprs rights by violating the 1st and 14th amendments. It denies them the freedom to choose how they live since smoking is a personalized choice and since the smokers are aware of the risks the government has no business dictating how and when they smoke. Furthermore, according to Winslow, several thousand nonsmokers die due to conditions attributed to second hand smoke accordingly giving credence to the argument that cigarette smoking harms not just the smokers but their neighbors. Statistics show that bans on cigarette smoking have caused drastic reductions on the levels of cancer by an average 17% with the greatest drop being witnessed in nonsmokers (Winslow 2009). This is ample evidence that smoker do not only jeopardize their health but that of those who do not smoke hence the need for a ban. Notwithstanding, many people claim that smoking is their right, and any attempts to ban them from engaging are tantamount to infringing their freedom because they believe they should be able to move anywhere they want, more so in public, and restrictions on this are unconstitutional. Smokers hence claim that, banning smoking in public is an infringement on their freedom. However, proponents of the ban argue in the opposite direction they hold that it the rights of nonsmokers which will be infringed upon if they smoke bans are disallowed they will lose their right to live in a clean and healthy environ ment due to the dangerous progenys of victimised smoke. In addition, the city health officer, Thomas Friedman argued that, the Smoke Free Air Act was intended to protect the city residents health from the effect of secondhand smoke. To this effect, arguments have been made to prove that workers in bars and restaurants are vulnerable to the effects the many cigarettes being smoked in the premises. Therefore, as a potential health hazard in the workplace, the ban on public smoking is very much justified. Cigarettes pose a health threat not only because of the diseases they can cause but also as a fire hazard, since poor disposal of glowing butts can lead to fires resulting in the remainder of life and property (Dillenberger 1). On the other hand, several NYC claim that smokers personal lives are private, and the government has no right to interfere with it. Those in support of this argument state that people who are banned from public smoking are being marginalized by these bans. T hey state that it is wrong for the government to interfere with liberty and personal freedom of an individual all in the name of protecting the health of the public when many nonsmokers do even worse to their own bodies every mean solar day through other activities (Saulny 2004). In addition, the other argument against public