November 19, 2004

Aguments of opponents

My paper addresses the controversy of the smoking ban being implemented in Minneapolis and St. Paul bars and restaurants. My paper is intended to support and promote the ban further promoting a better public health. However, opposing arguments have much support around the twin cities. It is really hard to actually know if the business economy of Minneapolis a St. Paul will be effected by this new ban. Business owners around the Twin cities are preparing for a drastic decline in business and circulation. One way that I am going to attempt to refute this argument is in the hope that is all business around the cities abide by this now smoking ban, business’ alike will not suffer for all have conformed to non smoking. Another big argument that opponents arise is that smoking is a human right and the government has no right to take away a hobby of millions of Americans. This is the argument that I am the hardest for me to refute. I have found that the only way that I can refute this argument is through which values should humans have in mind. So the argument for public health should be above that of individual rights. It seems that only the individual smoker experiences the pleasure of the actual act of smoking while scientific evidence supports that both the individual as a well as those around experience the harms of this drug. So I am going to argue that the value of public health is more important than that of individual pleasure.

Posted by woka0001 at November 19, 2004 11:18 AM