The Anti Smoking Bigots Should Butt Out Analysis
Rewrite critical response essay
There has been some debate recently about whether smoking should be banned. Smoking has been considered a controversial issue recently due to many negative effects bring from it. Deborah Arnott, in her article “Legislation to ban tobacco will save thousands of lives” (Guardian, September 2009) suggest that smoking should be banned in all public places and in private as well. While David Hockney ‘s article, entitled “ The anti – smoking bigots should butt out “ (The Guardian Online, September 2008) takes the opposite view : smoking should not be banned . This essay will critically respond to both of these articles.
Arnott argues that …show more content…
It seems to be more reasonable that saving people health is the responsibility of government to develop society and economy. In fact, the standard of living in a country cannot develop if the government does not take care health system standards. Moreover, the negative effects of smoking bringing to people are not only serious health problems but also the environmental pollution likes deforestation. Thus, the government has to deal with both healthy problems pressure and environmental pollution pressure. A major flaw in Hockney’s argument is that if many young smokers die, government has to deal with lacking of mental young labour resource issue which affects the economic growth so much. Therefore, it is inconvincible when saying there is nothing to worry about death smokers.
Arnott and Hockney also disagree with each other about the effects of smoking. Arnott claims that many persons smoke cigarette just due to the fashionable look but lung cancer or heart disease coming from smoking is unattractive anymore. Furthermore, she states 50% of all smokers will die from their tobacco smoking. Hockney, on the other hand, claims that smoking can bring many benefits for uses. More specifically, smoking
There has been some debate recently about whether smoking should be banned. Smoking has been considered a controversial issue recently due to many negative effects bring from it. Deborah Arnott, in her article “Legislation to ban tobacco will save thousands of lives” (Guardian, September 2009) suggest that smoking should be banned in all public places and in private as well. While David Hockney ‘s article, entitled “ The anti – smoking bigots should butt out “ (The Guardian Online, September 2008) takes the opposite view : smoking should not be banned . This essay will critically respond to both of these articles.
Arnott argues that …show more content…
It seems to be more reasonable that saving people health is the responsibility of government to develop society and economy. In fact, the standard of living in a country cannot develop if the government does not take care health system standards. Moreover, the negative effects of smoking bringing to people are not only serious health problems but also the environmental pollution likes deforestation. Thus, the government has to deal with both healthy problems pressure and environmental pollution pressure. A major flaw in Hockney’s argument is that if many young smokers die, government has to deal with lacking of mental young labour resource issue which affects the economic growth so much. Therefore, it is inconvincible when saying there is nothing to worry about death smokers.
Arnott and Hockney also disagree with each other about the effects of smoking. Arnott claims that many persons smoke cigarette just due to the fashionable look but lung cancer or heart disease coming from smoking is unattractive anymore. Furthermore, she states 50% of all smokers will die from their tobacco smoking. Hockney, on the other hand, claims that smoking can bring many benefits for uses. More specifically, smoking