Is the new smoking banning a good thing or a bad thing?
Everyone knows about the new smoking ban & how restaurants now have no smoking signs posted in their windows. Everyone has their own perspective on this and you probably have your own even. The point of my blog is not to persuade you that the smoking ban is neither good nor bad. I am just going to present you with reviews on three sources (all with different viewpoints) that I find to be creditable and give good information.
Research information
Source #1:
The article “ the case against smoking bans” by the university of Missouri-Columbia school of law tries to persuade one that banning smoking in restaurant is a bad thing and it violates the rights of the smokers. The university’s point of view on this topic is that “examined closely each of these externality-based arguments for smoking bans fail.” This shows one that they are totally against the smoking ban and believe that the reasons for banning smoking in a restaurant are not justified because they can be proven incorrect. However they also state that it is more of the owner of the public places choice whether they want to remove smoking entirely and different places have more rights to remove the ability to smoke in their place. Thus meaning that a place such as an art museum or a theater have the right to remove smoking more than a place such as a bar or casino.
They use the persuasive technique of pathos to make you feel bad for the smokers, they make you feel as if smoker have the right to smoke in a restaurant and by making them go outside to smoke you are taking away there rights to smoke that they have.
They present this information in a cause and effect matter as well as a more descriptive overall text structure. This is shown because they start off by describing all the things included in smoking ban law and how each of them can be proven incorrect. The cause and effect is shown in the way that people smoke and as a result the healthcare cost is lower. Also they show some conflicting evidence by stating that smoking was unhealthy and was bad but then they state the fact that the healthcare cost are lower now because the smoker die earlier. This is conflicting evidence because first they are telling you smoking is a bad thing then they state how it is a some what “good” thing because it lowers our healthcare cost. The author/s uses the word injustices instead of unfair because the word injustice has a worse connotation than unfair. People use the word unfair in a sentence like when she got more candy than me, it felt as if it was unfair. While people would use the word injustice in a more complex and meaning full sentence such as this brought injustice to the people.
This a creditable source because it was written by a well known university who has done a lot of research and has cited their sources. Also it was written in the year 2005-2006 which may seem like a long tome ago but is not that long for the website world. Next off they also don’t have ads popping up or bright colors/animations.
Source #2
The article “New York City outdoor smoking ban begins” by (Jordana Ossad) informs the general public about the new smoking ban in New York City that prohibits smoking in public places such as beaches, parks, and pedestrian plazas like Times Square . Ossad’s point of view is generally not shown however the article seems to be slightly slanted towards supporting the new smoking ban. I can see this because while she includes general information she tends to include more information about the harmful effects of second hand smoke. Some of this information consists of “second hand smoke causes close to 50,000 deaths per year, and side affects may include lung cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.” But this is according to the American lung association’s website therefore it is true but they are not the one really saying it. Also she includes what Bloomberg stated about how it not only harmed the people but it also harmed the environment because it causes littering. There however is no information in this article to argue against the points she made above or any conflicting evidence for that matter. Therefore it makes it have a slight slant supporting the new smoking ban. This can be seen because they are not completely biased because they are not using persuasive techniques but they are informing us in a way that may seem to be leaning slightly one way rather than another.
They also tend to use more positive words such as no hospitality rather than unfriendliness which has a worse connotation. All this information is presented in a descriptive text structure. The author only describes the issue and does not hint at any other text structures. This is a good text structure for their piece because the author only wants to inform you about the situation and not try and provide a solution or explain the effect of this issue.
This is a creditable website because first off it is written by CNN which is a very well known news resource, which also has a very good reputation. Also you can tell by the way their website is organized and presented. There are no ads shown on their page and the page looks sophisticated and not like it as made in a rush. Also this specific article was written on May 23rd of 2011 which is quite resent.
Source #3
The article “The Year in Tobacco Control” by the American lung association persuades the states government that the smoking ban is an awesome thing that helps to promote healthier living. The author/s viewpoint is that the smoking ban has helped a lot in people being healthier and neglecting these laws has bad consequences on everyone’s part.
This data is presented in a cause and effect text structure which can be seen by looking how they include the problem or cause of the states becoming more lenient on the new smoking ban laws instead of reinforcing them. The effect can be seen in the way that they explain how because of this “Today’s report calls out states for their failure to protect children.”
There is no conflicting evidence to argue the points the author has made which cause the article to seem bias in the way that they support the new smoking ban. This can be seen partially through the connotation used in the article and partially thought the information that is included in the article but also what is left out of the article to make their point seem stronger. Some of the connotation usage consists of the word devastating instead of upsetting or burden instead of problem. Those words have a worse connotation which makes you feel worse. Also they include persuasive techniques of logos, pathos, and ethos to try and persuade you. An example of logos is when the author says
“443,000 people die each year from tobacco-related illnesses and secondhand smoke exposure”. Pathos is shown when they talk about how this is to protect your children and when you disobey this law you are no longer protecting your children from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. Ethos is shown because this is written by the American lung association which researches a lot about the harmful effect of second hand smoke, therefore they would know a lot more about this than let’s say you or me.
I know this is a creditable source because first off it is written by the American lung association which deals with a lot of research on second hand smoke and other things that harm your body and especially your lungs. Also they are a very well known association, in which has an excellent reputation. Even if you had no idea who they were you would be able to tell they were a creditable source by the way their website is laid out and how their information is presented. There are no ads on the page which automatically tells me this is not some website just looking for money. This was written on January 19th of this year which is extremely recent and up to date.
After reading this post I hope that you have a better understanding of the other point of views and maybe learned something to make yours stronger. Also maybe you found some source that you may want to use for a research project in the future. All of these sources have different viewpoint and no one is more correct over the other. They have their support and reasons for their idea therefore in a way they are all correct.
