The writer seems to be directing this entry to students at college campuses, mainly the students that smoke cigarettes. The blog entry turns to a much broader topic of freedom and being able to make your own decisions, and do whatever you want whenever you want, no matter the effect on the people around you. Even though the writer is not a smoker, the issue seems to be very important to her. This seems to bring in a contradiction; there are many other topics related to freedom that she could focus on and that would be more personal to her, which might convince the reader more to agree.
The argument is first focused on the “violation of my rights as a Texas citizen,” and on secondhand smoke being the reason behind the banning of smoking in public places; the writer claims this isn't a credible reason because apparently most cases of lung cancer do not come from cigarette smoke. The author says that people can be at more risk to get cancer from their genetics or from being exposed to other dangers in the world that also lead to cancer. The article's main focus is to say that there should be no ban on smoking cigarettes anywhere because she believes it is her right to chose to smoke, and because tobacco companies still produce cigarettes, so she should be able to do what she wants with them.
The first mention of evidence is an article called, “Anyone can get lungcancer.” She uses this article to point out how horrible lung cancer is, and how it is caused by other factors than just cigarettes and secondhand smoke; also to prove the point that the majority of lung cancer cases are not related to cigarettes. This is a true statement, but in the referenced article it states that 65% of diagnosed lung cancers are from other factors than smoking, which still leaves 35% being cigarette related. To me that is still a significant number, and doesn't help the argument. I think the writer's use of this article as evidence doesn't actually support her argument. The article completely doesn't support her message when it says that, “Avoiding tobacco use remains at the top of the prevention list. If you don't smoke, don't start. If you do smoke, quit. Get help if you need it. If you are a smoker or former smoker, early detection is key to reducing lung cancer's death rate. Stay away from secondhand smoke. Work to make your home and community smoke free.”
Then
the blog goes more into the relation of secondhand smoke to lung
cancer, and uses evidence from a study, posted in 1998, stating there
was “weak evidence supporting a link between lung cancer and
secondhand smoke.” Supporting your argument with an article from
1998 isn't using the most factual and up to date evidence; it does
not take into account what has changed in studies since then. I found
plenty of evidence saying the opposite in articles that were last
medically reviewed and revised in 2011. In an article from TheAmerican Cancer Society, it says “Secondhand smoke is classified as
a 'known human carcinogen' (cancer-causing agent) by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology
Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
a branch of the World Health Organization. Tobacco smoke
contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these
chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause
cancer. Secondhand smoke has been
linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may
be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice
box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.”
Also the article states that secondhand smoke each year has caused
about 3,400 nonsmoking adults to die of lung cancer as a result of
breathing secondhand smoke, worse asthma and asthma related problems
in up to 1 million children, and between 150,000 and 300,000 lower
respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age, and
lung infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each
year in the United States alone. One fact that really stood out to
me in the above was that there have been found at least 69 chemicals
in secondhand smoke that are known to cause cancer.
There
are many points of the blog that make me wonder what they have to do
with the argument that the writer is trying to make. When she says,
“I am of age to smoke legally. So why can't I?,” my response to
that is, “You can!” Just because there are bans to stop you from
smoking around others does not mean by any means you can't actually
smoke yourself. She also says that it is easier to force people to
quit smoking (than take other measures to protect health), which
again is beside the point and not true at all. I haven't seen or
heard where Americans are being forced
to quit smoking. It is also said in the blog that, “Everyone is so
afraid of the big C, and it comforts them to believe that they can
prevent it.” Lung cancer can be prevented; yes, it can also be
caused by other factors, but for the people that won't get cancer
from these other factors, it is still a known fact that one way to
lessen the risk of lung cancer is by avoiding cigarette smoke.
There are another couple of arguments that are made in the blog that don't make sense. First, there is the statement that, just because tobacco companies produce cigarettes, people should be allowed to smoke them; this is irrelevant, because nobody is saying it is illegal to smoke if you are of age. The actual statement is also not a valid argument, because the fact that something is being produced doesn't mean it is right. For example, just because guns are being produced doesn't mean you can shoot them anywhere and put others in danger just because you have one. The last statement of the blog is my last to criticize. When she says, “I might wake up to find that I can't eat fast food because of the fat content and its relation to heart disease,” this again has nothing to do with the point, because an individual eating fast food and putting it into his own body will never affect the well-being and livelihood of another individual's life and body.
In no way do the arguments in this blog convince me that there is something wrong with banning cigarette smoking in public places, where people would be put in a situation of inhaling smoke they wish not to. I believe that if there is a chance, even a small chance, of harming one or more people because of my actions, then there is something wrong. Situations like this will never be something I will agree with. Sometimes you have to think of others and the logic behind a restriction.
No comments:
Post a Comment