Smoking has been proven to help ADHD, however there are other methods that should be used. Cigarette butts are non-biodegradable and can clog water systems if thrown recklessly.
Pro also suggests this policy would not mandate the hiring of more police, though logic tells us otherwise. In that case, I invite Pro to post one last round explaining why the government should have this kind of authority. Many people argue that smoking bans can help smokers, too.
This is barely legitimate, and as such prohibitive laws must be kept to a minimum. As much as i hate to write these things down, they are facts that cannot be ignored. They are not effective. They can destroy businesses. A lot more kids who experience second hand smoking experience asthma.
Pro has not proven that the connection is irrelevant, therefore he is responsible for answering my question about these analogies or you must consider it a dropped argument and award the point in my favor.
Heart disease is the number one killer in the United States, even more than cigarettes. It will also be harder for them to leverage since there will be more businesses that are smoke-free. They result to cleaner areas where food is prepared and manufactured.
The production and sale of cigarettes should be Government officials, business owners, and ordinary citizens should weigh them carefully to decide if smoking bans are worth implementing or not. However the pros of banning smoking immensely outweigh the cons.
However, there are also numerous people who are against these policies and consider them to be unfair. An analogy is a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based .
Pro ignored this, my analysis and other analogies from the last round, so please extend them. Supporters for smoking bans claim that cigarette smoking is also considered a status symbol and some teenagers can be influenced to smoke just to fit it.
It also improves mental function if used infrequently, provided the user does not get addicted.
On the other hand, if it is prohibited, employees can be more productive. The two stories both have their pros and cons of the society that is being portrayed in the text.
Proponents point out that not all people smoke at the office. Business owners who are not in favor of smoking bans as well as smokers who are used to smoking in public places such as restaurants and coffee shops argue that restricting smoking in these places can drive customers away and this can be harmful to businesses.
Moreover, smoking bans in workplaces and pharmaceuticals also contribute to cleaner indoor quality as well as maintaining cleanliness. Pro cannot gloss over this paramount contention.
Statistic from Ministry of health Malaysia, the number of smoker among teenagers is always increasing every year. If employees smoke less, chances are, the risk of getting sick is minimized. Also there has been an increased rate in middle ear infections. These, in turn, mean that less people would be absent at work due to these illnesses and that companies can maintain excellent productivity.
You argue from a logical standpoint which In my argument I will be addressing your first point first. The production of cigarettes is very damaging to the environment. Ergo, my examples are analogies. If smoking is allowed, non-smokers can still inhale the smoke and it can be bothersome for them to smell the smoke.
You create a solid point by stating, "Tobacco companies also generate a lot of Tax revenue each year. By following smoking bans in places that have highly flammable materials, people can prevent fires from arising, destroying properties, and taking lives.In response to criminalizing cigarettes sending more people to jail, Pro writes, "It is not the government s fault if they decide to make cigarettes illegal and people continue to smoke and they must be arrested." Active resistance to illegitimate policies is acceptable.
Consider the Civil Rights movement. 9 Pros and Cons of Smoking Bans Smoking bans are laws or policies that prevent people from smoking in workplaces, restaurants, coffee shops, and other kinds of public places. They’re put in place because of the rationale that breathing is a necessity while smoking is just an option, so smokers should give consideration to non-smokers and keep.
Many tobacco farmers lack good alternatives to tobacco, and they have tobacco-specific equipment, buildings, and experience.
Where It Stands Regardless of the arguments pro and con, a federal ban on cigarettes is a practical impossibility. Mar 19, · Cons: Tobacco farmers, those who really made this country in the beginning would be out of business.
(Although you could plant another crop there, such as marijuana for ethanol and Status: Resolved. Growing and otherwise producing tobacco products and the sale of any tobacco product was outlawed. Harsh penalties were put in place, but within a couple years things eased up a bit.
The actual use and possession of tobacco was not outlawed, just the production and sale. List of Cons of Smoking Bans. 1. They take away freedom from people. Some critics see smoking bans as a violation on one’s personal liberty. They argue that people should have the autonomy to decide on what kind of lifestyle they will have.Download