Smokers Vs. Non-smokers | Reading & Writing Blog, Fall 2011

Everyone has their own way to get rid of stress from them. For example, some people regard playing sport as a solution of stress and some other people think that singing is a solution of it. Like those, all of people have their own way. I think that to find a way to reduce stress, we need to find some desirable ways. However, many people choose drinking or smoking as their solution. Even though the way to choose to reduce stress is free, the way of smoking is not desirable for the reasons, smokers’ health, effects to young people and nonsmokers’ health.

Of course, if people smoke, they will feel relaxed and think their stress will be reduced and decreased. On the other hand, if they keep going on, it will be another problem to them, addiction. According to the magazine I read a few months ago, the author urged that smoking and drinking are not solutions, but just causes of stress. Smoking and drinking are very addictive, even more than what we expect. He meant that because of them, people could get more stress than before.

However, the more serious point is that many of young people starts smoking by seeing adults who are smoking, even under 19. in the movie, most describe that smoking is fancy and a expression of struggling with something serious. We usually say children are less mature than adults and their brain is not proper with harmful things. If they start it, they will not able to quit smoking easily and they are addicted more easily than adults. Also, as the adults, they will get very bad and hazardous impacts.

Smoking is not only bad for smokers, but also for nonsmokers. Even though nonsmokers do not smoke, they get indirect effects of smoking. Many of doctors say that indirect effects of smoking can be more dangerous than direct effects. Also, it is a very unfair thing to nonsmokers. They can get hurt by other people’s action. Smokers need to think about other people.

From that, I strongly insist that we need to make much stronger and tighter regulation about smoking and drinking. When we buy a cigarette, we show our id cards. However, I think it is not enough to prevent children from it. We should make double or triple ways. For example, I think license is an effective way. In the U.S, when people buy a gun, they need to get gun license and show it. I do not mean a test. I just urge the license that is able to prove that people passed though some education points about negative effects of smoking on the Internet. After people did it, if they want to buy cigarette, it is their choice. I think it is very effective way to prevent children from smoking. Because when children want to buy it, they have to show their id and license to workers, so I think we need to make effective laws to make people less smoke and drink rather than just prohibit.

One thought on “Smokers Vs. Non-smokers”

Sora,

Your structure is good until the end… at which point you go in a totally new direction, and fail to restate your thesis. Remember, your conclusion shouldoffer something more — so the idea of a smoking license is okay to mention, but it should not become the focus of the concluding paragraph. Rather, you need to return the focus to your thesis.

Of course, on second thought, your thesis is kind of weak. After all, whether or not your arguments are true, they are all common knowledge. Anyone who doesn’t know that smoking is a deadly habit, anyone who hasn’t heard the idea that kids start smoking by imitating adults, and anyone who hasn’t heard about the effects of second-hand smoking is an idiot with his or her head in the clouds — not someone likely to read an essay about the topic. Your thesis seems to be “smoking is not desirable” which is not only awkward, but common knowledge — and your support is common knowledge. This thesis is therefore too uncontroversial to deserve being written about in this way.

Of course, that isn’t to say I agree with your arguments. For example, I would argue that smoking is desirable, at least if we can isolate smokers from the rest of the population when they are smoking. After all, knowing that smoking is a deadly habit, the people who choose to smoke are, in effect, committing a form of suicide. They should of course be given the responsibility for this choice — having to pay for their own cancer treatment when they inevitably get sick, so that non-smokers don’t have to pay for their stupidity — but all in all, smoking is an effective way to let stupid people eliminate themselves from the human gene pool more rapidly.

The idea that children are more vulnerable to the stupidity of smoking than adults is laughable — after all, the vast majority of people who smoke are adults. If kids smoke, it’s more likely that it’s because they’re similarly stupid to the adults they see smoking, and so, if you ask me, this is an even more effective way of getting rid of stupid people. While that may seem harsh, you have to remember that on our planet, stupid people are the ones who are denying all of our serious problems, like, for example, global warming. If we could get rid of those people, it would be good for the rest of us. So letting kids smoke, if they want to, is a good idea. Besides, the idea that people suddenly become responsible and adult at age 18, 19, 20, or 21 is a joke. Look at all the adults out there who are addicted to cigarettes, even though they know it will surely kill them someday. Kids aren’t more or less stupid than adults — they’re equally stupid. We only like to pretend kids are vulnerable and dumb so that we can pretend there’s some big difference between teenagers and adults that makes us better. I say, let teens smoke if they want to — let the dumb ones get an early start on their suicide, and let the smart ones stand back and watch, secure in the knowledge that the world will be a better place if the dumb people all choke to death a little sooner.

Finally, as for the issue of second-hand smoke, I don’t take it all that seriously, but I agree, it would be nice if we could isolate people who are smoking from those who don’t smoke. Of course, on our campus the administration has already tried that: they built smoking shelters for smokers to use. However, the thing they forgot is that rudeness and stupidity go hand in hand. Smokers, being stupid and suicidal, hardly care what others think, feel or suffer. Therefore, they smoke wherever they want to. A short walk around campus reveals idiots not only smoking in places they’re not supposed to (such as in bathrooms) but also in clusters all over campus, mostly very far away from the smoking areas designated for their group self-poisoning sessions. Therefore, I propose as an alternative that non-smokers be equipped with handguns. If smokers want to die, and have no manners, non-smokers should be able to help them along, so that anyone smoking outside of a smoking area can be shot on the spot. This would likely result not only in an improvement of the campus environment, but in a massive upward leap in the intelligence of our student population.

As you might have guessed, I’m not completely serious in my response. I just feel kind of ambivalent about your arguments. I really don’t think kids are copying adults — extensive evidence about kids’ imitative behavior suggests that most kids copy their peers, not adults — or that kids are especially more vulnerable or prone to foolish acts of self-destruction than adults. (From where I’m standing, adults are constantly doing stupid, self-destructive things, about as often as kids; but when kids do it, we blame their youth, while when adults do it, we talk about psychological problems, addiction, loneliness, or free choice. We have a double standard for young people, and it is cheap and hypocritical.) Finally, even I, as a sufferer of asthma and someone constantly annoyed by rude smokers all over campus, think second-hand-smoke is a much less deadly problem outside the home, and that much more serious and life-threatening problems exist. (Korea’s driving culture, and Korea’s drinking culture, and the intersection of the two, claim more lives and cause more suffering in general, and those are the areas I think reform is necessary if we want to protect people in general.)

Finally, I’m a little curious as to why exactly you chose this topic?

admin on 12 December, 2011 at 12:21 pm said:

Sora,

Your structure is good until the end… at which point you go in a totally new direction, and fail to restate your thesis. Remember, your conclusion shouldoffer something more — so the idea of a smoking license is okay to mention, but it should not become the focus of the concluding paragraph. Rather, you need to return the focus to your thesis.

Of course, on second thought, your thesis is kind of weak. After all, whether or not your arguments are true, they are all common knowledge. Anyone who doesn’t know that smoking is a deadly habit, anyone who hasn’t heard the idea that kids start smoking by imitating adults, and anyone who hasn’t heard about the effects of second-hand smoking is an idiot with his or her head in the clouds — not someone likely to read an essay about the topic. Your thesis seems to be “smoking is not desirable” which is not only awkward, but common knowledge — and your support is common knowledge. This thesis is therefore too uncontroversial to deserve being written about in this way.

Of course, that isn’t to say I agree with your arguments. For example, I would argue that smoking is desirable, at least if we can isolate smokers from the rest of the population when they are smoking. After all, knowing that smoking is a deadly habit, the people who choose to smoke are, in effect, committing a form of suicide. They should of course be given the responsibility for this choice — having to pay for their own cancer treatment when they inevitably get sick, so that non-smokers don’t have to pay for their stupidity — but all in all, smoking is an effective way to let stupid people eliminate themselves from the human gene pool more rapidly.

The idea that children are more vulnerable to the stupidity of smoking than adults is laughable — after all, the vast majority of people who smoke are adults. If kids smoke, it’s more likely that it’s because they’re similarly stupid to the adults they see smoking, and so, if you ask me, this is an even more effective way of getting rid of stupid people. While that may seem harsh, you have to remember that on our planet, stupid people are the ones who are denying all of our serious problems, like, for example, global warming. If we could get rid of those people, it would be good for the rest of us. So letting kids smoke, if they want to, is a good idea. Besides, the idea that people suddenly become responsible and adult at age 18, 19, 20, or 21 is a joke. Look at all the adults out there who are addicted to cigarettes, even though they know it will surely kill them someday. Kids aren’t more or less stupid than adults — they’re equally stupid. We only like to pretend kids are vulnerable and dumb so that we can pretend there’s some big difference between teenagers and adults that makes us better. I say, let teens smoke if they want to — let the dumb ones get an early start on their suicide, and let the smart ones stand back and watch, secure in the knowledge that the world will be a better place if the dumb people all choke to death a little sooner.

Finally, as for the issue of second-hand smoke, I don’t take it all that seriously, but I agree, it would be nice if we could isolate people who are smoking from those who don’t smoke. Of course, on our campus the administration has already tried that: they built smoking shelters for smokers to use. However, the thing they forgot is that rudeness and stupidity go hand in hand. Smokers, being stupid and suicidal, hardly care what others think, feel or suffer. Therefore, they smoke wherever they want to. A short walk around campus reveals idiots not only smoking in places they’re not supposed to (such as in bathrooms) but also in clusters all over campus, mostly very far away from the smoking areas designated for their group self-poisoning sessions. Therefore, I propose as an alternative that non-smokers be equipped with handguns. If smokers want to die, and have no manners, non-smokers should be able to help them along, so that anyone smoking outside of a smoking area can be shot on the spot. This would likely result not only in an improvement of the campus environment, but in a massive upward leap in the intelligence of our student population.

As you might have guessed, I’m not completely serious in my response. I just feel kind of ambivalent about your arguments. I really don’t think kids are copying adults — extensive evidence about kids’ imitative behavior suggests that most kids copy their peers, not adults — or that kids are especially more vulnerable or prone to foolish acts of self-destruction than adults. (From where I’m standing, adults are constantly doing stupid, self-destructive things, about as often as kids; but when kids do it, we blame their youth, while when adults do it, we talk about psychological problems, addiction, loneliness, or free choice. We have a double standard for young people, and it is cheap and hypocritical.) Finally, even I, as a sufferer of asthma and someone constantly annoyed by rude smokers all over campus, think second-hand-smoke is a much less deadly problem outside the home, and that much more serious and life-threatening problems exist. (Korea’s driving culture, and Korea’s drinking culture, and the intersection of the two, claim more lives and cause more suffering in general, and those are the areas I think reform is necessary if we want to protect people in general.)

Finally, I’m a little curious as to why exactly you chose this topic?