A Comparative Analysis of Arguments Essays on Smoking Bans

This essay presents a comparative analysis of two arguments essays focusing on the contentious issue of banning smoking in public places. It delves into the arguments against banning smoking, such as the existence of designated smoking zones and the stress-relief smokers may experience, while also addressing counterarguments about the dangers of second-hand smoke and potential fire hazards. The essay highlights the similarities between the two arguments, particularly concerning the health risks associated with smoking and second-hand smoke exposure, especially for children. It also contrasts the essays, noting differing perspectives on the effectiveness of designated smoking areas and the potential risks to non-smokers. Ultimately, the analysis concludes that the essay advocating for a smoking ban is stronger due to its emphasis on the numerous health issues associated with smoking and its valid justifications supported by numerical accuracy. Desklib provides access to this and other solved assignments for students' academic needs.

Compare and contrast
between two arguments
essays

CONTENTS
Contents...........................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................1
Arguments against banning smoking...........................................................................................1
Arguments for banning smoking.................................................................................................1
Comparison between two essays.................................................................................................2
Contrast between two essays.......................................................................................................2
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION
Smoking is now becoming a part of major concern for all the people throughout the
world. As all the people are aware of its consequences for them and their connect people also but
still don’t want this habit to be changes. Smoking is required to be minimised in order to reduce
the health issues that are arising among people throughout the world (Dunlop, Lyons, Dessaix
and Currow, 2016). Hence, for this current study is performed where against or favour arguments
on smoking to be banned or not in public place will be analysed along with its compare ad
contrast to reach up to a strong point.
MAIN BODY
Arguments against banning smoking
It is argued that many public places have their own smoking zone which remains at a
distance from the building and as a result it does not harm non-smokers. But the argument is
fully fallacies, as the smoke get spread in the air which remains for long and it affect people with
its smell too.
On other side it is also argued that employees mainly smoke to get relief from their stress
which support them in performing their work effectively. This argument considers to be analogy
as people actually get a stress relief after having smoke in mid of their work by taking a break
and smoke (Martínez-Sánchez and et. al., 2014).
Addition to this it is also a analogy arguments that when smokers follows the companies
rule regrading smoking it become possible to keep non-smokers safe from its side effective.
Apart from that, it is a fallacies argument as banning smoking in public place doesn’t
encourage people to increase their Tabaco consumption at home.
Despite of this, it is analogy arguments that ban of smoking may result into closer of
several bars which in turn may take up job from many people.
Arguments for banning smoking
As per this essay, smoking must be banned as it is taking several people closure to
number of diseases. It is being argued that smoke increases the risk of lungs failure and also
create cancer and problems related with respiratory system. This argument is true fact as inhaled
smoke affect the internal body system (Khayatzadeh-Mahani, Breton, Ruckert and Labonte,
2017).
1

On other hand, argument that smoke is more dangerous to children as it creates lung
diseases and ear infection, is analogy as there are number of health issues are being diagnosed
from children whose parents are involve in such practices.
It is further argued that smoke doesn’t remain solely in smoking area within pub or
restaurant rather it spread throughout the environment. The argument is true and being explained
with right example.
The arguments under negative effect of smoking in public place left over unpleasant
smell is fallacies as it doesn’t present any valid reason to ban it.
Despite, arguments that allowing smoking in public place lead everyone in dangerous
situation by increasing risk of fire is analogy argument as a single light from cigarette may
convert into big flame.
Comparison between two essays
Both the essay focuses toward presenting arguments in favour as well as against the
smoking to be banned in public place or not. By comparing both the essay it has bene found the
arguments present in both the essay consider smoking is injurious to health for the people who is
intaking and for the one who came in contact with second-hand smoke. There is an argument in
“argument against banning smoke”, that banning of smoking in public will influence people to
smoke at their home which may harm the people living with them specially children as they
much get affected with it (Durham, Diethelm and Cornuz, 2014). This argument is quite similar
which is being presented in essay two “arguments for banning smoke”, where it is stated that
second-hand smoke is more dangerous to children. It is further argued that children who get
exposed to smoke more often may suffer from several diseases that are related with lungs. They
also found issues such as asthma, ear infection. The main reason behind this increasing issue is
that children who live in a family where parents smoke more often, children get exposed to this
smoke and their respiratory system is quite weak to handle this tobacco smoke effectively and as
a result of which they end up with several damage to their internal body parts.
Contrast between two essays
From the analysis of two essay it has been found that both involve arguments in diverted
direction. In essay one i.e. “argument against smoke banning”, it is stated that there are several
smoking regions separately created which remain far away from building where people can
smoke and it do not affect non-smokers. But contrary to this, it is being argued in essay 2 that
2

smoke get spread from this smoking section through building into air and it affect all the people
who came in contact with it (Kadowaki, Vuolo and Kelly, 2015)
Other than this it is being argued in essay 1 that smokers have right and if they smoke
while considering the company’s policies then it brings less harm to other people. But on other
side, in essay 2 it is being argued that allowing smoke to public places take up all the people in
risk which include injury from fire. Despite of this, it is also being argued in essay 2 that non-
smokers have more risk of having a heart diseases or lungs related issues with the inhale of
smoke rather than smokers as they get use too but other people find it difficult to get adjust with
it.
CONCLUSION
From the above performed study it has been found that both the essays put strong
arguments over their favoured statements. The essay one stated several main facts that can
support the not to ban smoke in public places like following of company’s policies, consuming
cigarette at distance from other, banning may leads to closure of harm and take several job at
risk. On other side, the main strength of essay two is that it put emphases over several issues that
smoking may create to a person. Hence, essay two was stronger as it represent valid justification
about issues with numerical accuracy.
3

REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Dunlop, S., Lyons, C., Dessaix, A. and Currow, D., 2016. How are tobacco smokers using e‐
cigarettes? Patterns of use, reasons for use and places of purchase in New South
Wales. Medical Journal of Australia, 204(9), pp.355-355.
Durham, A.D., Diethelm, P. and Cornuz, J., 2014. Why did Swiss citizens refuse a
comprehensive second-hand smoke ban?. Swiss medical weekly, 144.
Kadowaki, J., Vuolo, M. and Kelly, B.C., 2015. A review of the current geographic distribution
of and debate surrounding electronic cigarette clean air regulations in the United
States. Health & place, 31, pp.75-82.
Khayatzadeh-Mahani, A., Breton, E., Ruckert, A. and Labonte, R., 2017. Banning shisha
smoking in public places in Iran: an advocacy coalition framework perspective on
policy process and change. Health policy and planning, 32(6), pp.835-846.
Martínez-Sánchez, J.M and et. al., 2014. Do smoke-free policies in work and public places
increase smoking in private venues?. Tobacco control, 23(3), pp.204-207.
4