should smoking be banned in public places
Smoking or Non-Smoking…Should There Be A Choice? Imagine sitting in a restaurant unable to enjoy a meal due to the cloud of smoke coming from a neighbor’s table. The fact that there was not a designated area for smokers has put the smoker and the non-smoker in an uncomfortable situation. Smoking should be banned in public places because non-smokers have a right to clean air, and because second hand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking a cigarette. However, smoking should not be banned in public places because it is the smoker’s choice to smoke just as it is the non-smokers choice not to smoke. President Clinton is quoted saying that “We’ve got to do more to protect people in public places and clean up the air that all of us share” (Rovner 571). For non-smokers, inhaling someone else’s cigarette smoke can be very aggravating. It is bad enough that automobiles, processing plants, and other types of industries pollute our environment, but for a smoker to choose to smoke around a non-smoker is a violation of their right to clean air. Stanton A. Glantz, who w
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Article Magazine, Ordinances March, Choice Imagine, President Clinton, Kim MD, choice smoke, hand smoke, smoking banned public, banned public, smoking banned, smokers choice smoke, clean air, smokers choice, smoke non-smokers, choose smoke, Stanton Glantz, banned public smokers, public smokers choice, makes choice, non-smokers choice, banned public non-smokers,
Approximate Word count = 726
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
