The dispute on smoking bans: which side is right? (Revised CPAA)

As we all know, my cultural problem I have been researching is on smoking bans. But as I have continued to research this problem I have widened my knowledge on more of the arguments that have been going on with the smoking ban then just the previous argument I have been discussing. This time I will be talking about the smoking bans from three different types of sources. The sources I will be looking at are from an academic source, a popular source, and a virtual media source.

I have looked over a couple academic sources and one I have found is from Delta's library, this academic source is called Issues and Controversies and the title is called "Smoking Bans and the Tobacco Industry: Are smoking bans necessary to protect public health?" this source communicates a few points that's mostly based on emotion from the people . Obviously every argument has two sides, the supporters and the opponents. The supporters discuss it's a good thing to have the smoking bans because in certain states that they have the bans, people's health have improved. The supporters also include that it has lowered health care costs. But the opponents on the other hand, argue that it limits their freedom and rights as people on whether they choose to smoke or not. The opponents also point out that some businesses lose revenue because when the smoker has to step outside of whatever store or restaurant they are in to smoke the business is no longer able to serve them, which, therefore, loses revenue.

Issues and Controversies is also a popular site considering that it's offered in Delta's online library and that most people have to pay to use that source if you are not a college student or for another reason. So I have found another article on Issues and Controversies called "E-Cigarettes: should the federal government regulate the emerging e-cigarettes market?" this source discusses a few points as well including some logic, but the reason I choose this article is because the supporters argued about the peoples health using tobacco, but would the supporters of this argument still argue about the health of the people using e-cigarettes or would they have a different point of view to argue over this problem? as I looked over the supporters argument, they stated that "E-cigarettes and related products are potentially harmful and need to be carefully scrutinized by the federal government before they can be sold to consumers. Currently, the government regulates the e-cigarettes and for companies to make potentially false claims about their products safety." they continued to discuss their argument further including that "Advocates of regulation argue that more research must be conducted before e-cigarettes can be deemed safe. "As someone who runs a treatment program for tobacco addicts, I would love to be able to endorse the use of e-cigarettes as an alternative," Michael Steinberg of Rutgers University's Tobacco Dependence Program told the academic journal Science in January 2015. "But I cannot do that because we don't know the risks involved, nor can we be sure that moving to e-cigarettes really helps people stop smoking." they also argued that e-cigarettes could lead to people actually becoming smoker later in life, they also stated this, "Indeed, one recent study conducted by the CDC suggests that e-cigarettes might actually encourage people to smoke. Published on the website of the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research in August 2014, the CDC study found that more than 40 percent of middle and high school students who used e-cigarettes said they intended to try tobacco cigarettes within a year." but the opponents side of the argument discusses that "E-cigarettes offer a potentially groundbreaking way to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes. The regulations proposed by the federal government would unnecessarily burden e-cigarette companies and force hundreds of new, independent companies out of business. Strict federal control of the e-cigarette industry threatens to undercut a product that is likely safer than traditional tobacco cigarettes." their main idea to argue about continuing e-cigarettes is because it is safer than tobacco cigarettes and that it could end smoking tobacco cigarettes instead of leading people to smoke like the supporters argued. the opponents also claim that the e-cigarettes could "wean smokers off of harmful tobacco cigarettes." and that's a little bit of the reason why the opponents do not want to have a regulation on e-cigarettes.

The virtual media source I will be using is from Instagram, on Instagram there is an account called "The Real Cost" this protest is pretty well known considering that it usually plays a lot of commercials on television, it doesn't have much facts or logic in their posts mostly because they are trying to convince the audience that tobacco is bad for you, therefore it is mostly based on emotion. It has helped lower a huge percent in the smoking of teens in America. "The Real Cost" points out a lot of true facts on many things of what Tobacco can harm, but the source isn't really a rhetoric site, but the posts they make sometimes makes people argue about the facts or the health harm of tobacco, which causes it to be rhetoric. There are many posts on there stating that smoking can harm your animals, it can affect your lungs, and is the biggest cause of death in America, but I looked at a specific post that said "Smokers spend more time at doctors' offices and hospitals than non-smokers." some people agreed with that statement, one person said that the statement was very true and that she supported this statement while others did not agree whatsoever, one person claimed that "I smoke everyday and I feel just fine" but there was one person on the post that asked if this post could actually have some evidence along with their statement instead of just claiming that people who smoke more likely to spend more time in hospitals. More arguments like this continue in all of their posts, but maybe if they supported their statements with confirmed facts there would be a decrease the arguments instead of being confused to whether it's true or not.

The main reasons for the supporters in all of these arguments is for the health of the people using tobacco and to possibly make more bans on smoking even with e-cigarettes because they claim that it can lead teenagers to smoke, and for the bettering in costs of healthcare. But the reasons for the opponents arguments are for the liberty and freedom of peoples choices to whether they want to smoke or not, and to not completely limit the e-cigarettes because it can help the people's improvement that use tobacco for smoking causing them to eventually quit smoking, another big reason for their argument is in the lose of revenue in businesses because of the bans. So whether the people argue if smoking bans are good thing or not, I plan on researching this problem more to widen my understanding on this cultural problem and see more perspectives, reasons, and points in these arguments.