If you disagree, please feel to present your opposing argument.
If you agree, please feel free to explain why your classmates who think smoking should be banned are wrong.
Presenting your arguments here will be less formal but very useful practice for the academic writing assignment this week where you have to persuade us to agree with your proposed solution to a drug an alcohol related problem.
Relevance to this week's argumentative essay
Although my two theses are not answers to the questions on pages 224 - 227 of Hartmann (2007), they are related. More importantly, the arguments for and against exemplify an important point that is very relevant to an answer to all of Hartmann's questions; just as I was careful in the lecture to establish some basic facts: that cigarettes are deadly killers, that cigarettes are unhealthy for both smokers and those around them, and that tobacco is a highly addictive drug, so too do all of Hartmann's questions accept that alcohol and drugs are unhealthy. That is why the questions ask you to propose a solution: that there is a problem is already agreed to, so you do not need to present any support for that in the body of your essay, although you might like to include some shocking statistics or the like in your introduction. What your essay this week has to do is persuade us that your proposition really is an effective solution to the problem what we all agree is real; Hartmann does not ask you to persuade us that alcohol and drugs are a problem. Similarly, that cigarettes kill people is not by itself a reason to disagree with me about banning smoking or taxing them highly. My arguments accept that they are dangerous, addictive, offensive to many and generally bad news.
So, what do you think and why do you think that?
- Should cigarette smoking be legally banned in restaurants?
- Should cigarette taxes be high enough to discourage people from smoking?
"Quit Now!" Lecture notes
To get them, send an email to peter.aua+quit@gmail.com
You will get an immediate automatic reply with the link to the presentation.
_________
References
Hartmann, P. (2007). Quest 2 Reading and Writing, (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
If I have only two choices, I will stand in the side which banned smoking in the restaurant because human is a social creature, they need to participate to each other even that ones are smoker; however, non-smoker don't want to harm themselves by secondhand smoke so smoking in the restaurant should be banned.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know that, Peter will tell me that non-smoker have choice to do things, so if they go to the restaurant, it means that they've accepted to join that restaurant already. that why, I have another choice which you should read it.
However, I think we have another choice to satisfy everyone because the restaurant can separate between smoking people and non-smoking by invent the room for smoking people separately or divide the restaurant into two side. As a result, the problems between those people will be disappear.
Thank you Net for the constructive comment.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly understood my arguments in the lecture very well.
I like your alternative, which seems to me to agree that restaurants do have the right to provide the services that different customers want and are willing to pay for. Do you think that some people who do not like smoking might than go and sit in the smoking section for the pleasure of socialising with their friends? Or that people who want to smoke might choose to sit in the non-smoking section for the same reason? (Personally, I would prefer non-smoking when I was eating.)
It depends on person. I don't mind to go and sit in non-smoking or smoking part if the person who I want to socialize is important person to me; however, I will persuade her/him to come to non-smoking area first.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, If smoker want to smoke they can do it because I think smoking time is not endless, it's just several minutes so they will come back anyway. After that we will talk to each other again.
From my experience who has friends who are smoker.
I don't think we should ban smoking in the resturant because as long as the government permit selling cigaratte as an illegal drug, smoker is right smoking on every area also.
ReplyDeleteI always know it doesn't appropiate to smoke cigaratte during the others are having the meal, and also the main purpose of entry resturant is eating, so nobody doesn't want anybody to interrupt while eating and tasting meal with smoking. However, I got experience in something so contradictory at a resturant. Long time ago, I had party at a non-smoking resturant, and it annouces that smoking in this area is prohibited, and you will be fined 2000 THB, but that resturant sell cigaratte for its customers. That is only everybody who buys cigaratte from that resturant can smoke in the resturant.
Personally, I think it is the responsiblity of resturants that they should provide comfortable for their customer such as many resturants and hotels at aboard divide into 2 zones, they are smoking and non-smoking zone.