in attachment

UNIV 1212: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Fall 2016-2017
Section XXX
Name:
ID:
Major:
Assignment 4: Compare and Contrast Two-Argument Essays
Introduction
The smoking ban is a strategy designed to prohibit smoking of cigarette and other tobacco products in public places, for instance, malls, learning places, recreational places, and amongst others. This analysis breaks down the arguments on either side of the issue, and later provides a succinct summary of the topic by looking into both the comparisons and contrasts of the two essays.
Arguments against Banning Smoking
Smoking areas are set aside in public places for smokers to enjoy their moments, and nonsmokers should contend with the wider nonsmoking world they have. Moreover, when nonsmokers enter designated smoking zone, they only have themselves to blame.
Smoking releases stress, especially to employees pursuing tight deadlines and other issues. A smoker who is banned from smoking can be less productive. The widespread opinion that smoking relegates an individual to unprofessional image is a false. It should remain a wild suggestion.
Smokers have rights much like every other human being on the planet, and their opinions should not just be pushed away with a wave of the hand. When smokers are following the laws of the land and the policies of their respective employers, they should not be hunted down.
Actually, banning of smoking can be counterproductive, as it may encourage more smoking in private places such as at homes.

A ban on smoking might actually kill certain business, such as bars and pubs because most smokers would shun these outlets.
Finally, a ban on smoking might be difficult to monitor especially because public places can be a stretch; for instance, obscure workplaces.
Arguments for Banning Smoking
Secondary smokers have continued to bear brunt of the smoke, as it increases the risks of both fatal and nonfatal heart diseases up to a third. It is equally confounding that smokers are less exposed to the risks from heart diseases compared to secondary smokers.
Children are at more risk to secondhand smoking because of their relatively weak immune system, they are more likely to suffer from hurt conditions such bronchitis or pneumonia, and the risks of developing asthma from second-hand exposure increase tenfold.
The banning of smoking in restaurants should actually occur because smoke is a not solid and does not stay in a single space, rather it moves in the direction of the wind. Hence, when a smoker smokes at a designated location, the smoke is bound to flow to a nonsmoker in a nonsmoking zone.
Public smoking has other numerous side effects such as the unpleasant breath linked to smoking. Nonsmokers can be put off by the stench emanating from the garments of smokers.
Permitting smoking in public areas puts people in potentially dangerous situations, such as risks from fire is greatly amplified. Moreover, the environment can be greatly harmed by the effects of the smoking.
In general, smoking in public areas is not a good deterrent to nonsmokers as they are bound to become secondhand smokers, and the authorities should consider a total blackout on smoking in the country.
Comparison between the Two Essays
The two essays intersect on the rights of smokers, and on the fact that it should be upheld. Furthermore, the two essays content that public banning of smoking is as hot debate today as it was in the past.
Contrasts between the Two Essays
While the first essay insists that the rights of smokers should be upheld along with the line of smoking, the second one point out that the rights should be respected while taking into consideration the plight of nonsmokers.
Conclusion
Debates on the policies that are intended to ban smoking in public places have been around for decades, and they have produced as much heat as the smoke the cigarette stick produces. There are certain jurisdictions that perhaps that successfully or unsuccessfully implemented the policy, but certain pros and cons continue to emanate from the ban or the intended ban.