Should cigarettes be banned, or should people
be allowed to make their own choices? (public health)
☆Let’s Think
Notes:
1)
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 that was non-smoking till about 20
years ago. In 2003, a law obligating public organizations to prevent passive
smoking started, and spaces for non-smokers or those for smokers were made. Since
then, the number of smokers has gradually decreased, and smoking in public
areas was banned in 2020.
2)
Ban on cigarettes means that
production, sales, and purchase of cigarettes are prohibited by law.
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?
☆Hints
for Points
Smoking cigarette should be banned:
1.
Smoking is
toxic and causes cancer and other serious 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 disease caused by their smoking.
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 what has
happened to cannabis.
☆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 it has little immediate effect on the
health of the user. Actually, substances that are as harmful as or could be more
harmful than cigarettes such as alcohol and sugar are not banned, either. These
products have been around as part of people’s lives for a long time, and they
are closely intertwined with sense of happiness. Banning their use will take away
the pleasure and other vices 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. Thus, the
government is not authorized to intervene an individual’s habit of smoking.
【Counterargument-treatment】Of course, education on adverse
effects, regulation of excessive advertising, and ban on public smoking must be
ensured. However, other than the reason I wrote above, total ban on smoking
will make it go underground, and lives of those who are heavily addicted to
smoking will be affected as they will get illegal products just as users of illegal
drug do. Smokers without cigarettes may also start other bad habits like heavy
drinking, and this is a retrogression in health promotion.
【Conclusion】Therefore, smoking in private
spaces should be at the discretion of individuals.
(258 words)
DRAFT
