Smoking should be Banned

Introduction

Smoking causes health issues, which indirectly causes skin aging to be quicker than usual.  For the most part, it makes people be subjected to cancer and other health issues.  Once a person starts smoking, they become dependant on it in order to relax and be motivated. Without it, they are unmotivated to engage in any activity that can be considered productive while becoming edgy and aggressive.   Unfortunately, due its misuse, the prohibition on smoking should be enforced so that users cannot legally dependant on something that causes cancer and other health issues.

Second hand smoke

From there, since smoking causes cancer, it has been known through research that second hand smoke is worst for the person sitting next to the smoker rather than the smoker themselves. For non smokers who visit smoky places two or three times a week are at a greater in getting a smoking related disease as it can be seen from the following evidence. 

    * Tobacco smoke may cause lung cancer in non-smokers too! (Non smokers page).

    * ETS exposure increases heart attack risk by 20%.(Non smokers page).

    * Being around smokers, even as little as one hour a day, can almost triple a woman's risk of contracting breast cancer (Non smokers page).

    * At least two thirds of the poison components which are in the cigarettes are exhaled by the smoker and inhaled by the people around him (Non smokers page).

Tolerance

Furthermore, people that smoke build up a high tolerance for it, which increases their usages of it and that puts everybody’s health at even higher risk.  This is also increases the amount that they use in order to satisfied their cravings.   With that, this increases their lack of motivation to work or any other productive activity.  Due the increase in usage from high tolerance, it is very clear that the prohibition of smoking should be in effect.

Skin aging

With that, it has been research that smoking causes skin to age quicker while breaking down vitamins in the body. “What Morita shows in his research is that cigarette smoke causes an  increase of matrix-metalloproteinases (MMPs) - which is the  enzyme that breaks down old skin to make place for the new - yet it  causes less collagen to be formed in the skin.Popular belief also proclaims that smoking destroys vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and this could also be indicated to more wrinkle formation, since collagen can not be formed in the skin if there is a shortage of vitamin C. The amount of vitamin C destroyed per cigarette smoked varies, depending on who you talk to, but general consensus seems to be that one cigarette destroys about 50 mg of vitamin C” “(Cigarette smoking and skin aging).  Since it is clear that smoking breaks the body and slowly destroys what it needs to survive, it should be banned for people safety.

Opposition to smoke banning

Along with that, some researchers believe that for teenage girls, smoking leads to sex and other adult behavior. On the other hand, the two biggest responsibilities one can encounter are parenthood and voting, which some teenagers have in their lives.  It takes a far more responsible person to raise a child or to vote for President than to drink a beer or smoke. At age 18, one can be a parent and a voter but cannot buy a bottle of wine or cigarettes for a neighbor or their mother. From there, it needs to be pointed out that is very significant for adults to use intelligent judgment/responsibility when electing important political figures. The government anticipates these adults to possess these qualities but not let them consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes.

Once graduating high school many young adults take on their own lives. The bills and living arrangements are up to them now. So if in fact, a person between the ages of 18-20 is leading a perfectly "adult" life with a job, bills and responsibilities, then why can they not drink? To the government, once you are 18 you are legally held responsible for yourself and your own actions. So it is confusing as to why alcohol would be illegal. If as adults, we are officially held responsible for our own actions, why can't we just be held accountable for our actions concerning alcohol? What does the government think that these young adults are going to learn in those 3 years that would change their attitude towards alcohol and the choices they would make concerning its consumption? Another lovely privilege our government bestows upon us at the ripe age of 18 would be the right to gamble. As of 18 you can officially buy the state's lottery tickets. When you look at the situation it really comes off as odd. We can waste our money on the lotto, vote in a race in which all contestants have already lost, or sign up for the military. It just seems that the government's trust is misplaced, if anything, our country's legal drinking age would be 18 and the legal age to die in war should be 21. So it is well advised to those young teens anxiously awaiting their 18th birthday, that the happiness and excitement they are feeling should be stowed away and saved for a more joyous occasion. Now more than ever, the coming of age for those young teens wishing to be in adulthood, actually must wait until 21, unless they view adulthood as going to war (Does 18 really mean anything?).

At this point, it is clear that the death penalty is reasonable to argue against banning smoking.  If a teenager can be held accountable for their actions, they can take responsibility of smoking.  Therefore, they should feel the same pain as they have caused and face the consequences of their criminal actions, which may lead to their planned death.  This is due to the fact that the victim suffered from pain or even lost their lives when the criminal commits the violent crime. When they are convicted, they sit in prison not knowing or understanding what pain they have caused, which does not make them face the consequences of their actions.  For their punishment, they can sit in jail and watch cable television, use ipods, and get three meals a day.   By sitting in jail, it is not teaching the criminal anything about the crime that he or she committed because they have the luxuries like they had at home. Therefore, the death penalty is reasonable since it teaches that a criminal must suffer for the consequences of his or her crimes while others learn from their mistakes. If someone is old enough to go through this and be held responsible for their actions, they are Although the death penalty serves a good purpose, it is completely illogical that a person of age eighteen can be held accountable for any crimes that they commit but the law states that they are not mature enough to handle the responsibility of drinking.  If they can be held accountable for the actions from a legal stand point, they are old enough to handle the responsibility of drinking. From there, it is illogical and skewed for the government to expect these adults to contain enough judgment that when a certain crime is committed by them it will warrant the death penalty.  With that, how can they say that these same individuals do not possess enough judgment about consuming alcohol?

Even though the government defines crime and while the government has good intention in protecting U.S. citizens from terrorism, having the authority to go through someone’s personal telephone and email communication while searching through their financial and medical records is truly an invasion of privacy, which goes against everything American stands for. Furthermore, this Patriot Act is unacceptable due to the fact it takes away from living in the land of the free.  This also shows some laws are not the best for the country because it takes away from people to where the government does not act responsible for others.

Furthermore, the United States is a free country and people should be allowed to do whatever to their bodies and minds without having any restrictions from the government. “From a philosophical point of view, individuals deserve the right to make choices for themselves. The government only has a right to limit those choices if the individual's actions endanger someone else”  (why marijuana should be legal).  Smoking is not dangerous to others, if the smoker is alone, causing no harm to other people, only to themselves.

Conclusion

Despite that people can responsible smoking, it is extremely obvious that the prohibition on smoking should be enforced since it affects people health, skin and motivation to work.  Smoking cigarettes  causes more harm than good due to the misuse of it for personal entrainment.

Buy custom Smoking should be Banned essay

FREE Extras:
  • Free plagiarism report (on request)
  • Free formating
  • Free title page
  • Free title bibliography
  • Free outline (on request)
  • Free mail delivery
  • Free revision (with 2 days)
We guarantee:
  • BA, MA, and Phd degree writers
  • No hidden charges
  • Quality research and writing
  • 100% confidentiality
  • Never resold works
  • 24/7/265 Customer Support
  • 100% authenticity
Page Format:
  • Up-to-date sources
  • Any citation style
  • 12 pt. Times New Roman
  • Double-spaces/single- spaced
  • papers
  • 1 inch margins
  • Fully referenced papers
← Network Services and Functionality Issues Paper →
Search essay
On your first order you will receive 10% discount
Order now PRICES from $11.99/page ×