英语作文求助："Smoking should be banned in all public" Disscuss

英语作文求助："Smoking should be banned in all public" Disscuss
不用整篇都写出来,帮我想点论点什么的也可以,当然整篇写出来给我参考就更好．谢谢

For many years, governments have tried to reduce smoking by taxing tobacco, running advertising campaigns and putting warnings on packets. Recently, several countries have also restricted the areas in which people may smoke. Most bans apply only to enclosed places (meaning inside buildings, e.g. shops, restaurants, bars, offices, theatres, trains, bus shelters etc). Smoking is banned in all or most enclosed public places in South Africa, New Zealand, Italy and the Republic of Ireland. There are similar bans in the American states of California and New York. Smoking in enclosed public places was recently banned in Scotland. It will become illegal in the rest of the UK in 2007. In England and Wales, pubs that do not serve food can continue to choose to allow smoking.
Bans on smoking in public places in the open air (e.g. parks, streets) are less common. Smoking is banned in some streets in Tokyo (Japan). Smoking near the entrances of buildings is banned in some parts of Australia, Canada and the USA.
The proposition must define this motion clearly. They must state whether they would ban smoking in all public places, or only in enclosed public places. They must also make it clear if there would be any major exceptions to the ban (e.g. pubs that do not serve food, private clubs open only to members). However, this debate often works best if the proposition do not introduce lots of exceptions.
同意的：
Scientists agree that smoking is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker – it also harms people nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called “passive smoking”). Smokers choose to smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively. People should only be exposed to harm if they understand the risks and choose to accept them. A complete ban on smoking in public is needed to protect people from passive smoking.
The opposition is wrong to say that people choose to smoke passively. In many places, there are no non-smoking bars or restaurants. Unless people refuse to go out with friends, they cannot avoid passive smoking. People who work in smoky workplaces (e.g. bars) often do not freely choose this sometimes no other jobs are available. In most countries, safety standards do not allow workers to be exposed to unnecessary danger, even if they agree. Workers should not be exposed to other people’s smoke, since they may not have made a free choice to do so.
A ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up. If smoking was banned in public places, it would no longer be a social activity. Instead, smokers would have to leave their friends inside and go outside to smoke. This would be particularly unpleasant when it is cold/wet. One third of smokers in Scotland said the ban was helping them to cut down. If smoking was a less social activity, fewer people would start smoking. In many countries, governments pay all or some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. This means that governments should have a right to discourage smoking.
People will not smoke more at home. Smokers need to maintain a certain level of nicotine in their blood to remain content. A ban on smoking in public would force them to smoke less while at work. Over time, this would lower the level of nicotine they need to feel content. This would reduce how often they need to smoke. They would therefore smoke less at home, as well as less at work.
It is more important to protect people’s health than to protect businesses. Pubs and clubs should adapt, for example by trying to earn more money from selling food. After a ban was introduced in New South Wales (Australia), only 9% of restaurants reported a drop in trade.
There have been few problems with bans where they have been introduced. Heavy fines put off companies from allowing people to smoke. A survey for the Scottish Executive found that 99.4% of premises were observing the ban three months after it was introduced.
Because when I pass someone who is smoking my nose burns, my eyes sting, and I get a sinus headache. I have become hypersensitive to the smell of cigarettes and when I am in my house and someone walks out side in front of the house I can smell it and all my symptoms occur. Hey I am entitled to my opinion and reasons and smoking stinks and effects others health as well.
不同意的：
Society accepts that adults can decide to harm themselves to some extent, so long as they do not harm others. This is why the proposition is not arguing that people should be banned from smoking in private. Passive smokers do choose to breathe in other people’s smoke. If they do not want to smoke passively, they do not need to go to places where smoking is allowed. There is therefore no reason to ban smoking in public.
If enough people want to go to non-smoking bars, companies will set up non-smoking bars. If there are no non-smoking bars, this suggests that very few people want them. Some people are quite happy to work in smoky places. In any case, workers should be allowed to choose to work in dangerous conditions. This is accepted for jobs like mining, fishing and the armed forces. Individuals decide that they are better doing this work than not having a job at all. A complete ban is not necessary to protect workers anyway – ventilation fans can remove most smoke.
It is legal to smoke tobacco, so governments have no right to try to make people stop. It is therefore wrong to argue that a ban on public smoking should be introduced to encourage people to give up. Smokers fund their own healthcare through the high taxes they pay on tobacco. In any case, heavy smokers are unlikely to give up since they are addicted to nicotine
Banning smoking in public will encourage people to smoke more at home. This will harm other people in their house, particularly children. This is important, since children are not old enough to choose freely to smoke passively. Also, people smoking at home may drink more alcohol than they would if they went to a bar. This is because they can buy it more cheaply at a supermarket or off-licence. Drinking more alcohol may lead to other health problems.
A ban on smoking in public places would drive many bars, pubs and clubs out of business. Smokers would not go to these places. These businesses would also earn less money from selling tobacco. In many places, pubs and Working Men’s Clubs are important social places for communities. They also provide jobs for people with few skills in places with little other work. It is therefore important that they survive.
It would be impossible to police this ban in many public places. Small workplaces will often ignore the ban and are unlikely to be caught. Staff who do not smoke are unlikely to report smokers, in case their colleagues work out who told the authorities
Just a few points.
If consuming tobacco is a civil liberty, then it should be a civil liberty to consume heroin, cocaine, ecstasy etc.
As for your other point
(1) cars are extremely useful; tobacco doesn't do much other than kill us.
(2) a lot of road deaths are caused by people being careless or breaking rules; exposure to passive smoking is harmful anyway
(3) Sorry but passive smoking is far more likely to kill you than jaywalking or being a car passenger. Check the stats. ALL US road deaths PUT TOGETHER come to about 43,000 annually. Passive smoking kills 53,000 US adults (plus a lot of children, don't know the exact fiigure) a year. Passive smoking deaths against jaywalking or passenger deaths? No contest.
众说纷纭的：
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1920811.stm
完整文章：
There are many reasons why smoking should be banned in all public places. The most obvious is that it is unhealthy for the smoker, as well as everyone else near the smoker, especially in closed areas. Undisputed scientific studies emphasize that second-hand smoke is almost as medically hazardous to exposed non-smokers as it is to the smoker. Smoking is more than a habit; it is an addiction, and every step should be taken to discourage people, especially the young, from becoming addicted.
Children, chronically-ill people and the elderly are the most vulnerable to second-hand. It just takes a little longer for non-smokers who are exposed to develop the same ailments, including chronic throat and mouth irritation, emphysema and other lung problems as the addicted smoker.
Another reason smoking should be banned in all public spaces is that it is unpleasant to non-smokers. Where it is permitted in restaurants, bars, casinos, theaters, transportation and other places, it is simply that the inconsiderate smoker is imposing his/her addiction to the discomfort of others. If those persons must indulge in smoking, they should do it in designated indoor and outdoor areas where it will not annoy and/or sicken others.
As a personal note, during most of my working years, smoking was permitted just about everywhere. Except for showing off at age 13 by smoking an entire pack of cigarettes and getting very sick, I've never smoked since. However, until the era of banning some areas to smokers, I had to endure the annoying smell and discomfort in restaurants, theaters, airport lounges and many other places. When I attended business meetings in small rooms, i always had to hang my clothing out to air after I went home. It wasn't that I was allergic, as many unfortunate people are. I just found the smell of burning cigarettes, the breath and clothing of addicts annoying, their attitudes inconsiderate.
We who survived the many years before smoking in public places started to be banned are thankful that medical studies exposed the obvious. They proved that cigarettes are deadly to both the smoker and everyone else who must involuntarily be exposed to them. Of course, the medical studies revealed nothing new. As far back as the early 20th Century, cigarettes were called coffin nails. It's just that people finally woke up to the facts of the deadly consequences of smoking, and realized the culture created to enhance the profits of the tobacco companies was simply wrong.
完整文章2：
Imagine you are a smoker. Imagine that you have been a smoker for sixteen years. Imagine what a pain it becomes find a spot in someone's house or a restaurant where you can actually smoke. The laws against smoking are becoming stronger as time goes by, and you are running out of places to puff.
You have to go to the back room, outside, on the balcony, the porch, the weather is nasty, the mosquitoes are tearing you a new one, and while you smoke, you are out there all by your self while your friend is putting his best moves on the good looking girl at the party, leaving you with the wicked witch of oh my God please kill me, and you really aren't even enjoying the thing. It's just ridiculous. It becomes such a hassle to smoke, you finally decide to quit smoking altogether. And you eventually succeed. Well, let's just assume that you succeed, because you're probably weak in real life. Weak and soft.
Now imagine you are walking into a restaurant and as you enter the walkway to the entrance, you breathe in a billowing cloud of smoke and start gagging. Imagine that this happens again and again, everywhere you go, movie theaters, the local grocery store, every entryway, you find smokers gathered around for one last quick puff before entering the non-smoking building, and you realize ''This is what I've been doing to people. I have been ruining the quality of life for others while feeding my addiction all these years'' You quit smoking because it is so unhealthy, and hey, you want to live forever and ever. Now you find yourself choking on human exhaust fumes.
If you have ever been a non-smoker and were forced into close proximity to a smoker right after they put one out, the rank smell is enough to make your eyes water. Naturally, the smoker doesn't care. Like any other junkie, and that is what they are; a junkie, like anyone else that is slave to an addiction is a junkie, the smoker cares only about his fix, not about you, your child, his or her own children, or even about himself. All that matters is the next smoke.
完整文章3
One of my jobs is to be a booster for research on state and local government. In that capacity, I’m always a little sad that most people are captivated by the drama of presidential elections and bored by the nuts and bolts of local politics. Much of what is most important in our lives — the quality of our schools, the safety of our streets and the speed of our commutes — is determined at the local level.
Today, states and localities are on the front line of regulating drugs and tobacco. Last Tuesday, for example, Massachusetts decided to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana possession. As marijuana heads towards legalization, tobacco seems headed in the opposite direction. On Nov. 13, the Boston Public Health Commission will consider a sweeping ban on tobacco consumption, which would end the city’s four remaining cigar bars.
Does it make sense for localities to ban smoking tobacco and permit marijuana possession?
The friends of liberty favor freedom to smoke either substance. There is no reason to think that anyone’s natural goal either is or should be to maximize lifespan. The libertarian perspective is that individuals are the best judges of whether they want to take on the risks involved in either marijuana or tobacco.
Some people think that the libertarian viewpoint is undone by an increasing acceptance that people are not all that rational. I disagree. Accepting the limits on human rationality makes me more uncomfortable with allowing our elected or appointed officials to make decisions for us, because the effects of individual irrationality can be significantly increased when we delegate authority to elected officials. In Boston, government officials want to “de-normalize” smoking. In other places and other times, governments have wanted to “de-normalize” homosexuality. Perhaps we are better off without trusting the state to de-normalize anything.
Yet there are good reasons to regulate smoking that reflect the costs that smoking imposes on third parties.
Friends, parents and children all suffer at the death of a loved one, which means that paternalistic interventions that reduce the risk of death can be thought of as tools to protect the social fabric. The public health case against smoking emphasizes the consequences to third parties of second-hand smoke. Reducing adult smoking may eliminate role models who lead children to light up. After all, people do smoke less when their friends and peers and spouses stop smoking. I’m not sure that cigar bars create such large costs to outsiders, but perhaps “de-normalization” will induce a few fewer children to smoke, and it is hard to be against that.
This high-level discussion of the trade-offs between liberty and health ignores the local element that is the key attribute of the bans. The bans in cities like Boston (and in New York, where smoking has been prohibited in almost all restaurants and bars since 2003) are local ordinances, not global prohibitions. Anyone who does not like them can move elsewhere. Cities regulate plenty of behavior in public spaces, and it is well within the regulatory power of city governments to regulate smoking as well. New York is surely seen by many as a more pleasant place because of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s smoking ban.
Some Asian cities, like Tokyo and Hong Kong, far less aggressively ban smoking within cafes or bars, but far more aggressively ban smoking in parks and on streets. That seems at least as sensible to me as banning smoking in bars, which are generally off limits to children. After all, no one ever confused a Blarney Stone with a health spa.
My own view is that there is not one right or wrong answer on smoking bans, which brings us back to the glories of local government.
Local rules allow people to choose a town with rules that work for them. If parents want to bring up their children in a smoke-free environment, then it is a good thing that they can choose a town that bans smoking. If twenty-something hipsters want to find a place where marijuana is treated liberally, then it is attractive that such places exist as well. We can tolerate far more regulation at the local level than we ever should at the national level, because people get to choose their locality.
And now I have got to put out my cigar and go back to work.