Should cigarettes be banned, or
should people be allowed to make their own choices? (public health)
☆Let’s Think
1.
Is there anyone who smokes
around you? Do you want them to stop smoking? Why/Why not?
2.
Marijana is now legal in most
states of the U.S., and it is legal throughout Netherland. Why?
3.
Is secondhand smoke avoidable
completely?
Notes:
1)
Ban on cigarettes means that
production, sales, and purchase of cigarettes are prohibited by law.
2)
40 years ago, smoking was not
a concern in Japan. Many people smoked. They smoked anywhere, anytime, and no
one complained. Starbucks was the only shop where smoking was not allowed. In
2003, a law obligating public organizations to prevent passive smoking started,
and businesses started to install spaces for non-smokers or those for smokers. Since
then, the number of smokers has gradually decreased, and smoking in public
areas was banned in 2020.
3)
Marijana is being legalized
in countries where the number of users is large mainly to treat users not as
criminals but as patients and to eradicate black market, which is run by
antisocial groups.
☆Hints
for Points
Smoking cigarette should be banned:
1.
Cigarettes
are toxic and cause cancer and other severe diseases.
2.
It is addictive.
3.
There is the problem of second-hand smoke/smoking.
4.
Smokers’ families lose them twice. They first lose
them when the smoker refuses to stop smoking despite their begging before the
smoker actually dies of a smoking-related disease.
Smoking cigarettes should stay legal:
1.
The government has no right
to prohibit individual habits. (infringement of freedom)
2.
Only public smoking should be
banned.
3.
Smokers will be stressed out
and resort to other harmful substances if smoking is banned.
4.
Banning will make cigarettes
go underground just like what happened in the Great Prohibition and after
cannabis ban.
☆Ideas
and Expressions
【Thesis】Although I partly agree with Sophia in that second-hand smoking must be
prevented for public health by any means necessary, I am skeptical of the
legitimacy of banning cigarette smoking.
【Supporting Details】Although the government must
protect public health and therefore must ban harmful substances like poisonous
drugs, cigarettes are not so harmful as banned substances. Specifically, it has
little immediate adverse effect on the user or those around them compared to
heavy drugs like heroin or cocaine. Cigarettes are among the non-essential
items like sugar and alcohol, which are as harmful as or more harmful than
cigarettes. These products have been around us humans as part of our lives and
culture for millennia, and they are closely intertwined with sense of happiness
and identity. For example, students in the old days learned how to smoke from
their intimate seniors, hence the habit later being associated with memories of
their youth. Ban on cigarettes will take away the virtues related to them from the
users. This is a violation of freedom to pursue happiness. Decisions on whether
to take health risks in exchange for indulgence should be left to individual
decisions. Governments are not authorized to intervene an individual’s habit of
smoking.
【Counterargument-treatment】Second-hand smoke can be avoided
by banning public smoking. Families of smokers can also avoid the smoke by
asking the smoker to smoke in the back yard or on the terrace. Education on adverse
effects of smoking and regulation of excessive advertisements will help
increase awareness.
【Conclusion】Activities, including smoking, in
private spaces are at the discretion of individuals, and therefore, total ban on
cigarettes is overregulation. (266 words)
Write your draft. Then read each other’s draft, asking questions and
making counterarguments.
DRAFT
