Opposing Views On The Banning Of The Tobacco Industry

Everybody has their own opinion on the smoking ban and a lot times the view points about the tobacco industry and how tobacco as a whole effects health insurance get passed up. This smoking ban controversial concern is not black and white. There are so many surrounding stakeholders and viewpoints that come into concern between non-smokers and smokers, the tobacco companies and health insurance companies. This topic affects society as a whole concerning money, health, environmental factors for example what second hand smoke does to the air that affects your lungs, and the government. My audience is intended for those who are affected by the smoking ban; the smokers, the non-smokers, public places, business, tobacco companies as well as health

Although, this article does provide few statistics, it is very opinion oriented and would not provide very much detailed or accurate information when researching how tobacco users and health insurance coincide. It was too general as an article. It did catch my interest about how much money non-smokers save a month by not spending the extra money on tobacco products and the extra money towards health insurance. The author’s audience could be anybody wanting to buy insurance as they sell multiple insurances but the author provides information comparing the cheapest and higher rates for smokers and non-smokers and the difference between each insurance company. This source fits into my research about how much health insurance and smoker are effected by tobacco. It is a view point I believe most people look past when talking about the smoking ban. Not everybody considers all of the companies and people involved in this controversial

The view point argues that the smoking ban imposes restrictions to the right of smokers. The articles compares smokers to non-smokers about topics like, littering, second hand smoke, and the rights of the minority smokers and the majority non-smokers. Levy states, “It is under-inclusive because irresponsible non-smokers who improperly discard food wrappers and soda cans are major contributors to litter. By all means, let us keep the beaches clean. Anyone who flips a cigarette butt onto the sand may deserve to be fined” which is explaining how there is not a difference between throwing a cigarette butt on the ground and throwing a soda can on the ground (Levy, 1). There are also statistics showing that second hand smoke had no increase in heart disease or lung cancer. These details all together summarize the meaning of this article and that is smokers should not be penalized for false information. “Smoking should not be banned-even on public property- without showing, first, that the band will be effective and second, that it will not proscribe more activities than necessary to reach to its objective” which argues that the minority of smokers should have a say in the matter when it comes to the smoking ban as well as research to prove