Annotated Bibliograph - Smoking in Public

Herbert Briffel
Ms. Johnson
English 1302
April 3 2013

Kaufman, Stephen. "Most Americans Believe Smoking Should Be Banned in Public Places." Opposing Viewpoints: Tobacco and Smoking. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Houston Community College. 3 Apr. 2013

In the following viewpoint, Stephen Kaufman, who is a staff writer for the Washington File, published by the U.S. Department of State, states that the American public has changed its attitude regarding to smoking (Kaufman 1). Kaufman supports his statement that public attitudes are changing in a meeting with John F. Banzhaf, an lawyer who teaches public interest law at George Washington Law School in Washington, D.C. (Kaufman 1). Smoking bans are generally seen as an effort to protect the health of nonsmokers (Kaufman 1). Eleven states have banned smoking in indoor public places such as malls, restaurants and bars (Kaufman 1).
The article is biased because it looks at the idea of smoking in public places from the point of view which favorite the nonsmoking. The article fits into smoking in public places by providing some example of culture changes; building on successes and smoking bans discourage new smokers. Kaufman uses pathos in order to make the writers fell what he is trying to say, "We are much less tolerant toward smoking. We are much more willing to ban smoking and to go far further than we would have only a few years ago." (Kaufman 1). He also uses logos by giving statistics of tobacco in USA, “Gone are Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man from their former prevalence on U.S. billboards, replaced by anti-smoking ads under terms of the 1999 tobacco settlement [in which tobacco companies agreed to pay 46 states $206 billion in damages].” (Kaufman 1). Furthermore, this article about smoking in public places is a very helpful source, and I believed that most of the things that he said is true, in others words, many culture are changing over the world.

Bast, Joseph. "Smoking Should Not Be Banned in Public Places." Opposing Viewpoints: Tobacco and Smoking. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Houston Community College. 5 Apr. 2013

In the following viewpoint, Joseph Bast, who is president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit research and educational organization that promotes free market solutions to social and economic problems, claims "people are free to do things both great and foolish so long as they do not conflict with an equal right held by others." (Bast 1) This involves smoking (Bast 1). Since scientific reports have not recognized the power of secondhand smoke, smoking bans should not be established in law, he says (Bast 1). There is indication that fewer individuals are smoking, even in places where rules have not been passed, and he considers that singular freedoms should be preserved (Bast 1).
The article is biased because it looks at the idea of smoking in public places being a freedom in which individuals choose both blameless and reckless as long as they do not struggle with an equal detained by others. The article fits into smoking in public places by bringing some example of rights of smoking, costs of smoking, arguments based on junk science, coercion is not necessary, and freedom must be protected. Bast used logos to show to the reader how the cost of cigarette has a big impact in states taxes, “The 2004 average retail price of a pack of cigarettes was $3.82. The federal tax was $0.47, state tax $1.41...nearly half the retail price. Smokers in some states pay more in taxes on cigarettes than in state income taxes, which is a polite way of saying smokers are forced to pay twice as much in state taxes as nonsmokers” (Bast 1). An example of use of pathos in this viewpoint that Bast uses to persuade his audiences to understand his point was "if we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion" (Bast 1). In conclusion, this standpoint, which was extremely useful because it provided to me many acceptable statements of what is happening with many adults in US, how important is the cigarette for the economy of US.

Viscusi, W. Kip. "Increasing Cigarette Taxes on Tobacco Will Not Reduce Tobacco Use." Opposing Viewpoints: Tobacco and Smoking. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Critical Thinking. Gale. Houston Community College. 5 Apr. 2013

Increasing tobacco taxes is not a successful process of decreasing cigarette utilization, among children and teens, W. Kip Viscusi, who is a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School, struggles in the succeeding standpoint (Viscusi 1). Increased cigarette taxes have the greatest effect on the very poor, he says, not on children, teens, or the majority of adult smokers (Viscusi 1). He demands that efforts to reduce smoking should in its place work to create nonsmoking areas and smoking lounges in public places so that nonsmokers are not injured (Viscusi 1).
The article is biased because it looks at the idea of smoking in public places by saying that increasing cigarette taxes on tobacco will not reduce tobacco use. The article fits into smoking in public places by providing some example of risks of smoking, secondhand smoke, exaggerated perception, cigarette tax policy, few youths buy cigarettes for themselves, and targeted efforts work best. An a good example of pathos in the article was “The mandatory warning for a consumer product was truly a watershed event; before that time, warnings were primarily restricted to products that posed imminent dangers that typically were fatal. The widespread warnings that we now take for granted simply did not exist. Rather, cigarettes were singled out as a high-risk commodity that was dangerous even if used in the manner intended by the manufacturer” (Viscusi 1). Also, Viscusi uses a excellent logos to make sure that his reader understand his point of view, “The tax component of cigarettes is substantial. As of 2001, the federal tax rate on cigarettes was 34¢ per pack, and the average state tax was 40.8¢ per pack. The state of New York imposed a high value of $1.11 per pack, which has since been topped by additional taxes imposed by the city of New York. An additional 40¢ per pack of the cigarette price is attributable to the penalties levied as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement1 as well as the settlement with four additional states that were not parties to that agreement. The result is that the average national retail price of cigarettes is $3.57 per pack for full-price cigarettes and $3.37 per pack if one includes generic cigarettes in the averaging” (Viscusi 1). To sum up, this perspective, which was tremendously helpful, It gave to me many valid statements of increasing cigarette taxes on tobacco will not reduce tobacco use.

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). "'Smoking Bans in Public Places Are Beneficial'." Opposing Viewpoints: Tobacco and Smoking. Ed. Kelly Wand. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Houston Community College. 5 Apr. 2013

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is a national nonprofit legal-action and educational organization that foyers for stricter nonsmoking legislation and fights for the legal rights of nonsmokers (Wand 1). In the subsequent belief, the writer says that there are plentiful explanations for imposing smoking bans in public places (Wand 1). The author claims that in addition to the health dangers produced or caused by ordinances prohibiting smoking in public areas also cut down on littering, advance the health of local wildlife, secondhand smoke, and send positive messages to children and smokers trying to quit by reinforcing the idea that smoking is socially intolerable and transmits with it a influential stigma (Wand 1).
The article is biased because it looks at the idea of smoking in public places by saying that smoking bans in public places are beneficial. The article fits into smoking in public places by providing some reasons for banning smoking in certain public outdoor areas, and support increases for outdoor smoking bans. The author use the following sentence to provide to the reader how he was very emotional about the issue, “Drifting tobacco smoke, even outdoors, can trigger asthmatic attacks, bronchial infections, and other serious health problems in non-smokers. This is especially true for the almost 100 million Americans who have asthma, chronic bronchitis, chronic sinusitis, emphysema, and other breathing-related conditions which make them especially susceptible to secondhand tobacco smoke.” (Wand 1) In addition, he uses some important statement that could be considered as a logos in the article, “Very strong recent evidence of this trend is the overwhelming vote by the citizens of the State of Washington to ban smoking not only in all bars and restaurant[s], but to also require that building entrances be smokefree, and to prohibit smoking within 25 feet of doorways, windows, and ventilation ducts of smokefree establishments. This vote comes on the heels of a poll by the New York State Health Department which showed that the public support for banning smoking in many outdoor areas is even stronger than similar support for a 2003 bill banning indoor smoking” (Wand 1) Finally, I believe that this article was very helpful, and I am also able to say that this article has some knowledge about the issue, which is smoking in public places.

Bilson, Vic. "Government Antismoking Campaigns Are Socialist Propaganda." At Issue: Teen Smoking. Ed. Hayley Mitchell Haugen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Houston Community College. 6 Apr. 2013

The government's antismoking operations pretend to emphasis on wellbeing, drug abuse, or adolescent smoking, but these movements are ordinary socialist propaganda (Bilson 1). The government is truly concerned in producing money and controlling the lives of its populations (Bilson 1). Legislation scheduled to decrease juvenile smoking, for instance, does nothing more than increase taxes on the middle class, spreading the role of government in private lives (Bilson 1). Smokers are exposed of their civil rights, rejected employment rights, and reduced to second-class citizens as the government progressively works to make smoking unlawful in public places (Bilson 1). Exaggerations about the bad health effects of tobacco lead to higher insurance premiums and medical fees (Bilson 1). And antismoking sentiment has led to a drop in personal duty, as members of society discovery means for blaming smoking-related troubles on somebody else (Bilson 1).

The article is biased because it looks at the idea of smoking in public places by saying that the government is truly concerned in producing money, and controlling the lives of its populations. The article fits into smoking in public places by providing some example of public health, agendas and deception. Bilson used the following sentence as logos to inform how the Airlines change their rules about smoking along of the years, “In 1971, United Airlines introduced separate sections for smokers and nonsmokers on their airplanes followed by the first federal restriction on smoking in public places in 1973 when the Civil Aeronautics Board required all airlines to create nonsmoking sections. Fifteen years later, in 1988, Congress banned smoking on domestic flights of less than two hours. Today, not only is smoking banned on domestic and international flights, smoking is also banned inside most airports.” (Bilson 1) On the other hand, he uses “It takes more than a family to raise children” (Bilson 1) as an emotional language on this article to persuade his audience. Last but not least, this article was very helpful, and it gave to me some important information about airline’s rules, money control, teen smoking.

n.p. "Ban smoking in public places and save lives, says top cancer charity." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 15 Sep. 2004. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

In this article, the write ask many doctors about what is the effects of smoking in public places (1). Professor Alex Markham, who is the charity's Chief Executive, claims that the particular most vital contribution to stopping cancer in the next decade is legislation to end smoking in the country's bars, cafeterias and other enclosed workplaces (1). The article is biased because it looks at the idea of smoking in public places from the point of view, which says that it can stop cancer. The article fits into smoking in public places by providing some example charities of priorities for the next government. The writer of this article uses some logos to inform the reader how the death of many people is caused by cancer, “It is estimated that non-smokers, exposed to smoke in the workplace, increase their lung cancer risk by up to 19 per cent. And new research suggests that second-hand smoke in the workplace causes about 700 deaths each year across the UK - including the death of 50 hospitality workers annually.” (1). Also, it is providing on the article a great example of pathos, which show the emotional part of the author, “He believes that a ban would not only protect workers in the hospitality industry but would also encourage people who smoke in pubs and clubs to give up.” (1) In retrospect, this article was very helpful because it gave some information of what the government is doing to ban smoking in public places.

Bethany, S. "Ban Smoking in Public Areas." Teen Ink. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. The article, written by Bethany, is about smoking in public places. Smoking can be risky not only for the smoker, but also for those around the smoker (Bethany 1). Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of avoidable fatality (Bethany 1). Smoking is a dangerous addiction that not only affects the smoker, but those around him or her (Bethany 1). Banning the smoking in public will save non-smokers (Bethany 1). The article is biased because it looks at the idea of smoking in public places from the point of view which favorite the nonsmoking. The article fits into smoking in public places by providing some example of people working, laws banning smoking. Bethany a good example of logos in her article that show some disease that can be cause by smoking, which is “They also say that the smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, 50 of which are known to be cancer-related. Secondhand smoke has been linked to heart and respiratory disease; lung, breast, cervical, and nasal sinus cancers; strokes and miscarriages. In children, dangers include sudden infant death syndrome, fetal growth impairment, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma and middle-ear disease” (Bethany 1). She also used emotional language that provides to the readers that she is very concern about this subject, “Banning the smoking in public will keep non-smokers safer. People who smoke subject themselves to deadly diseases by choice. Why should non-smokers be forced to be around it?” (Bethany 1). It is very visible that this article was very helpful, and that I agree with her argument about why people that do not smoke should inhale the smoke.

Garrison, John R. "Secondhand Smoke Is Harmful." Opposing Viewpoints: Tobacco and Smoking. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Houston Community College. 2 Apr. 2013

In the succeeding viewpoint, John R. Garrison claims that contact with environmental secondhand smoke is dangerous to the health of nonsmokers (Garrison 1). He opposes that stronger limitations on smoking in public places would help protect Americans from the risks of secondhand smoke (Garrison 1). According to Garrison, who is the managing director of the American Lung Association, secondhand smoke produces lung cancer, increases the risk of heart disease, and affects the health of youths and unborn children (Garrison 1).
The article is biased because it looks at the idea of smoking in public places from the point of view which favorite the health of nonsmoking. The article fits into smoking in public places by delivering some example of the threat of secondhand smoke, the EPA report, secondhand smoke causes Lung Cancer, the effects of ETS on children, tobacco industry denial, and restrictions on public smoking. Garrison uses logos by giving some statistics about some diseases cause by smoking, “The EPA's report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen that is responsible for an estimated annual toll of 37,000 heart-disease deaths and 13,000 deaths from other cancers in U.S. nonsmokers. Secondhand smoke was found to be a risk factor for the development of asthma in children. It also was found to worsen asthma symptoms for up to 1 million children already diagnosed with asthma. Annually, an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 cases of lower-respiratory-tract infections, such as bronchitis and pneumonia, among children under 18 months of age were linked to secondhand smoke exposure,” (Garrison 1) and pathos, “Unlike the dangers of cigarette use, the threat that secondhand smoke presents is especially insidious because it affects the health of adults and children who cannot always protect themselves: Children do not choose to live in smoke-filled homes, and nonsmoking adults can't control the smoky air they breathe at work.” (Garrison 1) to help his audiences or reader to understand his point on the issue by making the writer fell how bad is the tobacco to children and non-smoking people. In my opinion, this viewpoint, which was very helpful, gave to me many valid statements of what is happening with children and non-smoking adults, who cannot avoid the smoking in many places such as schools, universities and work.

Smoak, Randolph D., Jr. "Smoking Should Be Banned in All Public Buildings." Opposing Viewpoints: Tobacco and Smoking. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Critical Thinking. Gale. Houston Community College. 8 Apr. 2013

In the following viewpoint, Smoak, who is a surgeon from South Carolina and a member of the board of trustees of the American Medical Association, gave testimony in support of a bill to prohibit secondhand smoke in public buildings (Smoak 1). Smoak argues that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has important adverse effects on the wellbeing of those who are forced to inhale it. It is particularly dangerous to teenagers, he states, and the community must be well informed to decrease children's exposure to secondhand smoke (Smoak 1). Moreover, Smoak claims, ETS should be classified as a human carcinogen and removed from offices and public buildings (Smoak 1).
The article is biased because it looks at the impression of smoking in public places from the point of view in which says that smoke is very dangerous to people. The article fits into smoking in public places by providing some issues such as passive smoking kills, tobacco industry fears, public policy implications, and respiratory disease in ets-exposed children. This article written by Smoak uses logos to informed how many people have died because of smoking, The need to take action to limit exposure to ETS is overwhelming. Exposure to ETS, brought about when nonsmokers inhale thousands of chemicals during "passive smoking," may kill as many as 50,000 Americans annually. It is estimated that about 35,000 of these deaths are from heart disease, 3,000 from lung cancer, and about 12,000 from other cancers. This means that "passive smoking" is the third leading cause of premature death in the United States, exceeded only by direct smoking and alcohol. For example, the ETS cancer mortality alone is higher than the total cancer mortality figures from all the other environmental hazards regulated by the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and other government agencies combined! These include substances such as all regulated outdoor air pollutants, asbestos, benzene, arsenic, radiation, pesticides, active and inactive hazardous wastes, all workplace chemicals, and all other consumer products. In addition, ETS imposed upon children causes 150,000 to 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia each year, and worsens asthma in up to 1 million children annually” (Smoak 1). Moreover, this article also uses emotional language to persuade the reader understand how smoking is dangerous, “Studies that implicate cigarette smoke exposure as a causal factor in asthma are clinically compelling. There is an increased utilization of medical care among smoke-exposed children and, as with the other illnesses studied, there exists a dose-response relationship” (Smoak 1). As it is visible this article was very helpful, in other words, I was able to understand and know new things that I had not had any knowledge such as some disease that are caused by cigarette.

O'Shea, M. Lester, and Richard D. Berman. "Smoking Should Not Be Banned in All Public Areas." Opposing Viewpoints: Tobacco and Smoking. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Critical Thinking. Gale. Houston Community College. 8 Apr. 2013

In first part of the succeeding bipartite viewpoint, M. Lester O'Shea, who served on the Little Hoover Commission, argues that prohibiting smoking in all public edifices, including restaurants, is an attempt to control all aspects of people's behavior (O’Shea 1). He argues that if people do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, they can avoid places, such as bars, where smoking is allowed (O’Shea 1). In second part, Richard D. Berman, who is an attorney in Washington, D.C, uses a case of a mayor who banned smoking within his city's bounds on the basis of protecting the citizens' health to demonstrate that government has become too intrusive (Berman 1).
The article is biased because it looks at the knowledge of smoking in public places from the point of view that says that smoking should not be banned in public. The article fits into smoking in public places by providing some issues such as not a meaningful health threat, a no-smoking town, and a good-for-you law. This bipartite viewpoint give a great example of logos with show the rate of death between man and woman, “According to a study by University of Michigan scientists of data collected by the American Cancer Society's massive Cancer Prevention Study II, involving 900,000 people, the death rate from cancer among lifelong smokers by age 75 was 1,250 per 100,000 men and 550 per 100,000 women, while among those who never smoked it was a mere 50 per 100,000.That's 1 in 80 for male smokers and 1 in 180 for female smokers, compared to 1 in 2,000 for nonsmokers—about 20 times as high a rate, but hardly sure death.” (O’Shea 1) Likewise, this article also give an excellent example of emotional language which make the reader understand the writers idea, “What happened in Friendship Heights is yet another wake-up call for all of us. We can no longer afford to treat the workings of town councils and local boards of health as a spectator sport. These little skirmishes have a "big picture" fall-out effect on our personal freedoms and how we are "allowed" to live our lives. While federal and state regulators continue to worm their way into our personal lives, we need to make time to participate in local government. If you don't believe it, ask the folks in Friendship Heights.” (Berman 1) As it is visible, this article was very helpful because it gave to different opinion about one subject, which is smoking in public place. Although I do not agree with them, I can tell that their arguments were very solid which made me think about the subject a lot.