Notoman
Apr 19, 2010
Writing Feedback / Argument essay, Smoking in public [7]
Please don't feel like I am picking on you or that I am trying to start an argument. English is such a tricky language with so many nuances. I am picking apart your sentences looking for potential fallacies. Here are a few more potential issues ...
You might need to define this more precisely. Many countries (Great Britain, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, and India, to name a few) have banned or restricted smoking in the workplace and in indoor public places and even in outdoor public spaces and privately-owned automobiles. Most states also have restrictions on public smoking; in fact, only ELEVEN states do not have statewide restrictions and only one of those eleven states does not allow local governments to enact their own smoking regulations (making Oklahoma the only state without some bans on smoking).
Are smokers dying from smoking? Not really. They may die from smoking-related diseases. They may die in house fires when they fall asleep while smoking. They may die when their cigarettes ignite flammable substances in the air. They may die when their parents catch them filching cigarettes and beat them to death. Smoking, in and of itself, is not a cause of death. Likewise, cigarette smoke doesn't kill nonsmokers.
But, but (butt, butt)... cigarette butts are so small--in the literal sense at least. Wouldn't abandoned cars and mattresses be a "bigger" contributor?
Watch your wording! Carelessly thrown cigarette butts DO NOT reduce the amount of fires.
Again, watch the wording. "Constantly" implies, well, constantly. No, nonsmokers are not constantly exposed to secondhand smoke. They are only exposed to secondhand smoke when they are in the presence of someone who is smoking.
Nope. Nothing about a healthy environment in the Constitution. We have 26 amendments in effect and none of them have to do with the environment. Smokers could claim that the ninth amendment, assuring the recognition of rights that people may have but are not listed in the Constitution, applies to the right to smoke, but nonsmokers don't have a claim to a healthy environment--at least Constitutionally.
A ban has potential to harm tobacco companies, their employees, and their investors as well as vendors of tobacco products. Bans could financially harm establishments, bars and pubs for instance, where a large percentage of patrons are smokers. A ban also has potential to harm, in the legal sense at least, people who face consequences for violating the ban.
Please don't feel like I am picking on you or that I am trying to start an argument. English is such a tricky language with so many nuances. I am picking apart your sentences looking for potential fallacies. Here are a few more potential issues ...
Smoking is currently allowed in most public places
You might need to define this more precisely. Many countries (Great Britain, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, and India, to name a few) have banned or restricted smoking in the workplace and in indoor public places and even in outdoor public spaces and privately-owned automobiles. Most states also have restrictions on public smoking; in fact, only ELEVEN states do not have statewide restrictions and only one of those eleven states does not allow local governments to enact their own smoking regulations (making Oklahoma the only state without some bans on smoking).
for every seven smokers who die from smoking, at least one non-smoker dies from cigarette smoke.
Are smokers dying from smoking? Not really. They may die from smoking-related diseases. They may die in house fires when they fall asleep while smoking. They may die when their cigarettes ignite flammable substances in the air. They may die when their parents catch them filching cigarettes and beat them to death. Smoking, in and of itself, is not a cause of death. Likewise, cigarette smoke doesn't kill nonsmokers.
One of the biggest contributors to littering is cigarettes butts.
But, but (butt, butt)... cigarette butts are so small--in the literal sense at least. Wouldn't abandoned cars and mattresses be a "bigger" contributor?
Not to mention the amount of fires that would be reduced by carelessly thrown cigarette butts.
Watch your wording! Carelessly thrown cigarette butts DO NOT reduce the amount of fires.
Non-smokers are constantly exposed to secondhand smoke and shouldn't have to be if they don't want to.
Again, watch the wording. "Constantly" implies, well, constantly. No, nonsmokers are not constantly exposed to secondhand smoke. They are only exposed to secondhand smoke when they are in the presence of someone who is smoking.
they have a constitutional right to a healthy environment.
Nope. Nothing about a healthy environment in the Constitution. We have 26 amendments in effect and none of them have to do with the environment. Smokers could claim that the ninth amendment, assuring the recognition of rights that people may have but are not listed in the Constitution, applies to the right to smoke, but nonsmokers don't have a claim to a healthy environment--at least Constitutionally.
A ban wouldn't harm anyone in anyway shape or form
A ban has potential to harm tobacco companies, their employees, and their investors as well as vendors of tobacco products. Bans could financially harm establishments, bars and pubs for instance, where a large percentage of patrons are smokers. A ban also has potential to harm, in the legal sense at least, people who face consequences for violating the ban.