Public Smoking Ban: A Critical Comparison of Argumentative Essays

This essay presents a comparative analysis of arguments surrounding the banning of smoking in public spaces. It examines the rationale behind the ban, highlighting concerns about individual and societal health impacts, while also considering counter-arguments related to individual rights and the potential ineffectiveness of bans. The essay identifies fallacies and assumptions within the arguments, such as hasty generalizations and the prioritization of smokers' rights over public health. It compares the emphasis on smokers' rights and contrasts the perceived causes of deteriorating public health. Ultimately, the essay concludes that a balanced understanding requires considering the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, acknowledging the positive impacts of smoking bans while recognizing the complexities and limitations of solely relying on them to address public health issues. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and study tools for students.

Running head: COMPARISON AND CONTRAST
Comparison and contrast
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author Note

1COMPARISON AND CONTRAST
Introduction
The aim of the paper is to present the analysis by focusing on the comparison and
contrast on the issue of banning of smoking in the public spaces. It is divided in to three
distinct parts, while the first part of the essay discusses the rationale behind ban of smoking
in the public places. It has been argued that smoking is harmful to the individual at the
personal level and it has certain negative impact on the society. There have been academic
and non-academic debates regarding the ban of smoking in the public spaces and it has been
acknowledged that there is a need to consider both side of the argument.
It is essential to argue that the reasons for not banning smoking in the public area are
wide and has remained a debatable topic for long.
Reasons: It is argued that the reasons against the banning of smoking in the public spaces is
the justification that the smoking areas are always in the separate zones and it is not likely to
impact the normal living of the people. It is further argued that the smoking ban at the public
spaces in likely to impact the smoking habit of then people which sometimes leads to the
increasing level of smoking at home and it is more harmful for the family members who
becomes the victim of the chain smokers.
Argument: This argument is analogical in nature since it is derived from the consideration of
the similar instances where health has been impacted due to the reasons other than smoking
in public.
Fallacies: One of the fallacies of the essay is the is that the rights of the smoker are being
violated. It is mentioned that the types of arguments presented to support the idea in each of
the article suffers from the problem of issue hasty generalisation fallacy and the circular
argument fallacy. This assay has one the major shortcomings since some of the arguments
are based on the hasty generalisation.

2COMPARISON AND CONTRAST
Assumptions: It has been assumed that the rights of the smokers are of more importance than
the protection of the public health.
It is significant to consider the fact that the reason for banning smoking gin the public
spaces is the harmful impact of the same to the people who is a smoker. It is associated with
the development of fatal diseases to the smokers and the non-smokers. Another negative
impact of the same in on the children.
Reasons: The rationale given for the ban of smoking in the public area is due to the cause that
the act of smoking can never be restricted to the smoking area and it is bound to impact the
people around them.
Argument: The nature of the argument is analogical since it is induced from the given set of
repercussion that smoking has on the health of the people.
Fallacy: The fallacy associated with the argument supporting the withdrawal of smoking in
the public places is that smoking in particular area is not likely to impact the non-smoker.
However, the issue is more complex in nature. It is known as the circular argument fallacy
where the agreement is presented few times more which is already been accepted beforehand.
Assumptions: One of the assumptions of the essay is related to the issue that smoking in
public will be always harmful to the children. It is to be noted here that there are separate
smoking areas for the smokers who are not always likely to impact the health of the children,
rather there are other issues of environmental concerns which are most impactful to the health
of the children.
Comparison:
One of the key issues that has been highlighted by both of the essays are the issue of
the rights of the people as smokers. It is argued that smokers do have the right to freedom

3COMPARISON AND CONTRAST
where the decision of banning smoking at the public space might be an infringement of the
rights of the people. However, it is also argued that the practical implications of the rights are
ultimately depended on the decision of the respective government. While the first article
points out the issue of protection of the rights of the smokers are crucial than the protection of
public health, it is imperative to note the protection of one’s rights can be the infringement of
rights of the other. The second article points out the issue of smoking in the public space is
the sole cause of all the lung and heart diseases of people, instead there a different set of
reasons for the deteriorating public health.
Contrast:
However, it is not to mention that the ideas presented in both of the article is also
contrasting in nature. However, the reason for the deteriorating public health is due to the
sole reason of public smoking. However, it is does not take into consideration of the fact
that ban on smoke is not the only reason for development of public health rather it requires
the consideration of all other facts. Then first article suffers from the weakness of argument
in circles where the questions posed in the body of the essay is created for the enhancement
of the nature of the conclusions. Hence it is to be mentioned that that the arguments presented
in both of the article suffers from some shortcomings and it is essential to consider the
strength and weakness of both to reach to a balanced solution.
Conclusion
It is necessary to summarize the arguments of the above discussion that the ban of
smoking in the public spaces requires the consideration of all other aspects of the issue. It is
not to deny the fact the ban on smoking has certain positive impact on public health, however
it cannot be completely ignored that the smoking in the public space is harmful due to
multiple reasons. It cannot be completely argued that ban of smoking should be withdrawn

4COMPARISON AND CONTRAST
neither it is justified to claim that the ban of smoking will be effective for managing the issue
of diseases. Hence it can be concluded that the issue would be effectively understood by
considering both of the arguments.