Critical Analysis (Smokers Get a Raw Deal)
Critical Analysis
March/7/2012
Opposing to receive second hand smoke Is a discrimination to smokers? In the article, “Smokers Get a Raw Deal” Scott explains that smokers are being restricted from their freedom as normal people and “discriminated” because of laws created to prohibit the places they can’t smoke. He tries to guarantee the reader about the discrimination that smokers are having by giving some examples to convince the reader about the situation. He also tells that anti-smokers attacks smokers with the help of organizations .However the author doesn’t achieve to persuade the reader with his argument. It is noticeable that the author argues about smokers being discriminated and restricted from their rights. One reason why Scott argument is not strong is because of his meaning of discrimination. Scott argues that “discrimination is discrimination, no matter what it is based on”(175). Not everyone would agree with what he said. Scott exclude non-smokers perspective. It is not fair that non-smokers have to inhale the smoke from the cigarettes of smokers in a place with no ventilation. At the same time he is contradicting himself. He is saying that smokers are restricted because they have to smoke in an specific place. But if they smoke in front of people that doesn’t smoke, isn’t that restricting others to breathe natural air. Another fact that makes Scott argument weak is the logic of his examples. At the end of his article he mention that “Could ice cream, cake, and cookies become socially unacceptable because their consumption causes obesity?”(174-175). Is agreeable that eating those things cause obesity and is bad for everyone’s health but that is not similar with a person smoking with people around. When a person eats those kind of things they are hurting themselves but when a smoker start to smoke with people around them, they are not only hurting themselves,
March/7/2012
Opposing to receive second hand smoke Is a discrimination to smokers? In the article, “Smokers Get a Raw Deal” Scott explains that smokers are being restricted from their freedom as normal people and “discriminated” because of laws created to prohibit the places they can’t smoke. He tries to guarantee the reader about the discrimination that smokers are having by giving some examples to convince the reader about the situation. He also tells that anti-smokers attacks smokers with the help of organizations .However the author doesn’t achieve to persuade the reader with his argument. It is noticeable that the author argues about smokers being discriminated and restricted from their rights. One reason why Scott argument is not strong is because of his meaning of discrimination. Scott argues that “discrimination is discrimination, no matter what it is based on”(175). Not everyone would agree with what he said. Scott exclude non-smokers perspective. It is not fair that non-smokers have to inhale the smoke from the cigarettes of smokers in a place with no ventilation. At the same time he is contradicting himself. He is saying that smokers are restricted because they have to smoke in an specific place. But if they smoke in front of people that doesn’t smoke, isn’t that restricting others to breathe natural air. Another fact that makes Scott argument weak is the logic of his examples. At the end of his article he mention that “Could ice cream, cake, and cookies become socially unacceptable because their consumption causes obesity?”(174-175). Is agreeable that eating those things cause obesity and is bad for everyone’s health but that is not similar with a person smoking with people around. When a person eats those kind of things they are hurting themselves but when a smoker start to smoke with people around them, they are not only hurting themselves,
Cited: Scott, Stanley.” Smokers Get a Raw Deal.” Current Issues Enduring Questions. Sylvan. Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Matin’s,2005. 175-176.Print.