thesis why you should not smoke

Why you should not smoke cigarettes

Cigarette smoking is one of the riskiest behaviors that lead to serious health problems. While active smokers are the mainly affected, cigarette smoking also affects passive smokers due to inhalation of the smoke. Cigarette is said to contain 4000 different chemicals whose sizes vary considerably. Some cigarette chemicals are atomic sized, and others are particulate matter. Moreover, a person’s intensity of smoking, cigarette brand, and smoking behavior determine the amount and type of chemicals inhaled. The aim of this paper is to discuss why one should not smoke cigarettes because cigarette smoking causes breast, rheumatoid arthritis, and cardiovascular diseases.

The first reason why you should not smoke cigarettes is because cigarette smoking is one of the causes of breast cancer. The study has shown that there is a high risk of breast cancer not only to active smokers but also passive smokers (Dossus et al., 1872). The increased risks for breast cancer according to Dossus and the colleagues are associated with higher pack-years, cumulating pack-years of smoking from menarche to the first full-term pregnancy, and smoking duration. Among the 322,988 women included in the study, there were 9,822 cases of breast cancer for active smokers and 6,264 for passive smokers. However, the number was minimal for non-passive and non-active smokers. The researchers contend that “there may be an increased risk of heavy smoking, smoking of long duration, smoking before a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) and passive smoking” (Dossus et al., 1882). It is thus evident that smoking is a leading cause of breast cancer.

The second reason why you should not smoke a cigarette is because it causes rheumatoid arthritis. Statistics show that smokers have a 40 percent higher risk of developing RA compared to non-smokers (Di Giuseppe et al., 1). Nevertheless, Di Giuseppe et al. argue that it is still not clear about the dose-response relationship of the increased RA and the pack-years. However, it has been established that increased cigarette smoking has been associated with increased RA. Both heavy and light smokers should be cautioned because they are all at the risk of developing RA as argued by the scholars “Light smoking as well as heavy smoking could increase the risk of RA due to the triggering of the immune system against citrullinated proteins antigens.” (Di Giuseppe, et al., 2).

The third reason why you should not smoke cigarettes is because it causes cardiovascular diseases. According to the World Health Organisation, cigarette smoking contributes to 10 percent of the cardiovascular-related diseases. Smoking was found to interfere with the quantity of lipids and also changing them (Messner and David, 509). Additionally, the oxidants and radicals in the cigarette smoke are responsible for causing pro-oxidant environment thereby resulting in the oxidation of lipids. For this reason Messner and David 509) contend that “for the past decades, it has been clear that smoking is an important (and modifiable) risk factor for CVDs” (Messner and David, 510). CVDs are complex diseases that pose a threat to human life.

In conclusion, cigarette smoking is one of the predisposing factors for many diseases. Among them are breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and cardiovascular diseases. It is also evident that both active and passive smokers are at risk of developing such diseases. However, the duration of cigarette smoking, pack-years, smoking intensity, and dose-response are some of the factors that influence a person’s risk of diseases. Nonetheless, cigarette smoking cessation is one of the most efficient measures for preventing or reversing the damage that has already been caused by the chemicals in cigarettes.

Di Giuseppe, Daniela, et al. “Cigarette smoking and risk of rheumatoid arthritis: a dose-response meta-analysis.” Arthritis research & therapy 16.2 (2014): R61. Print.
Dossus, Laure, et al. “Active and passive cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: results from the EPIC cohort.” International journal of cancer 134.8 (2014): 1871-1888. Print.
Messner, Barbara, and David Bernhard. “Smoking and cardiovascular disease.” Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 34.3 (2014): 509-515. Print.
☠️ Assisted Suicide
Affordable Care Act
Breast Cancer
Genetic Engineering

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay

A persuasive essay is a type of writing that aims to convince its readers to take a certain stance or action. It often uses logical arguments and evidence to back up its argument in order to persuade readers.

It also utilizes rhetorical techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make the argument more convincing. In other words, persuasive essays use facts and evidence as well as emotion to make their points.

A persuasive essay about smoking would use these techniques to convince its readers about any point about smoking. Check out an example below:

Simple persuasive essay about smoking

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. It leads to adverse health effects, including lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the respiratory tract. However, the number of people who smoke cigarettes has been on the rise globally.

A lot has been written on topics related to the effects of smoking. Reading essays about it can help you get an idea of what makes a good persuasive essay.

Here are some sample persuasive essays about smoking that you can use as inspiration for your own writing:

Persuasive speech on smoking outline

Persuasive essay about smoking should be banned

Persuasive essay about smoking pdf

Persuasive essay about smoking cannot relieve stress

Persuasive essay about smoking in public places

Speech about smoking is dangerous

Persuasive Essay About Smoking Introduction

Persuasive Essay About Stop Smoking

Short Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Stop Smoking Persuasive Speech

Check out some more persuasive essay examples on various other topics.

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that uses facts and logical arguments to back up a point. It is similar to a persuasive essay but differs in that it utilizes more evidence than emotion.

If you’re looking to write an argumentative essay about smoking, here are some examples to get you started on the arguments of why you should not smoke.

Argumentative essay about smoking pdf

Argumentative essay about smoking in public places

Argumentative essay about smoking introduction

Check out the video below to find useful arguments against smoking:

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

You have read some examples of persuasive and argumentative essays about smoking. Now here are some tips that will help you craft a powerful essay on this topic.

Choose a Specific Angle

Select a particular perspective on the issue that you can use to form your argument. When talking about smoking, you can focus on any aspect such as the health risks, economic costs, or environmental impact.

Think about how you want to approach the topic. For instance, you could write about why smoking should be banned.

Check out the list of persuasive essay topics to help you while you are thinking of an angle to choose!

Research the Facts

Before writing your essay, make sure to research the facts about smoking. This will give you reliable information to use in your arguments and evidence for why people should avoid smoking.

You can find and use credible data and information from reputable sources such as government websites, health organizations, and scientific studies.

For instance, you should gather facts about health issues and negative effects of tobacco if arguing against smoking. Moreover, you should use and cite sources carefully.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Make an Outline

The next step is to create an outline for your essay. This will help you organize your thoughts and make sure that all the points in your essay flow together logically.

Your outline should include the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. This will help ensure that your essay has a clear structure and argument.

Use Persuasive Language

When writing your essay, make sure to use persuasive language such as “it is necessary” or “people must be aware”. This will help you convey your message more effectively and emphasize the importance of your point.

Also, don’t forget to use rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make your arguments more convincing. That is, you should incorporate emotion, personal experience, and logic into your arguments.

Introduce Opposing Arguments

Another important tip when writing a persuasive essay on smoking is to introduce opposing arguments. It will show that you are aware of the counterarguments and can provide evidence to refute them. This will help you strengthen your argument.

By doing this, your essay will come off as more balanced and objective, making it more convincing.

Finish Strong

Finally, make sure to finish your essay with a powerful conclusion. This will help you leave a lasting impression on your readers and reinforce the main points of your argument. You can end by summarizing the key points or giving some advice to the reader.

A powerful conclusion could either include food for thought or a call to action. So be sure to use persuasive language and make your conclusion strong.

To conclude,

By following these tips, you can write an effective and persuasive essay on smoking. Remember to research the facts, make an outline, and use persuasive language.

However, don't stress if you need expert help to write your essay! Our professional essay writing service is here for you!

Our persuasive essay writing service is fast, affordable, and trustworthy.

Try it out today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Wiley-Blackwell Online Open

Freedom of choice and the tobacco endgame

Andreas t. schmidt.

1 Faculty of Philosophy, University of Groningen, Groningen The Netherlands

Endgame proposals strive for a tobacco‐free (or at least cigarette‐free) society. Some endgame proposals are radical and include, for example, a complete ban on cigarettes. Setting aside empirical worries, one worry is ethical: would such proposals not go too far in interfering with individual freedom? I argue that concerns around freedom do not speak against endgame proposals, including strong proposals such as a ban on cigarettes. I first argue that when balancing freedom with public health goals in tobacco control, the latter win out. But I also argue that, in principle, a concern with freedom itself already justifies endgame measures. First, such measures can increase people's lifetime freedom, that is, the freedom they have across their entire lives. Second, such measures can facilitate a better interpersonal distribution of freedom by increasing aggregate societal freedom and by reducing inequalities. Overall, freedom does not preclude strict tobacco control but supports it.

1. TOBACCO CONTROL AND FREEDOM

Smokers lose around 10 years in life expectancy. 1 An estimated one in two smokers die of smoking‐related conditions, with an estimated eight million dying each year. 2 Yet tobacco control also offers tractable ways to save lives. If smokers quit early enough, their health and life expectancy can often recuperate. And tobacco control efforts in recent decades have shown that public policy can save many millions of lives.

Given its awesome potential to save lives, the case for (some form of) tobacco control seems largely settled. However, there is still disagreement about how far tobacco control should go. Recently, so‐called endgame proposals have received growing attention: rather than trying to reduce smoking, their aim is complete eradication or, depending on formulation, at least reducing smoking to very low numbers (at least below 5%). Endgame proposals include a complete ban on cigarettes, 3 a partial ban limited to those born after a certain year, 4 and proposals like a ‘sinking lid’ and others. 5 Some countries, like Finland, have publicly committed to the tobacco endgame. As the only country so far, Bhutan has even instituted a ban on sale of cigarettes—although, as I write this, they have paused the ban because of the ongoing Covid 19 pandemic. Of course, many empirical questions remain: do such proposals work? Do they lead to an unregulated black market that will, on balance, make things worse? I here do not engage with those questions. Rather, I respond to what I think is the central ethical worry: are radical policies, like a complete cigarette ban, not excessively paternalistic and violate respect for individual freedom?

In this article, I argue that a concern with freedom of choice does not speak against even the most radical endgame proposals, like a cigarette ban (conditional on such proposals being effective). Instead, a concern with freedom supports them. Among those measures, I mostly talk about a cigarette ban. For public health, cigarettes are by far the most common and harmful tobacco product. Moreover, a cigarette ban is the most radical proposal. But my argument is meant to apply more generally. If freedom justifies a complete ban, then it is easy to justify weaker endgame proposals too. And if freedom justifies endgame proposals, it is easy to justify weaker, ‘standard’ tobacco control proposals by extension.

There are three strategies to make that case.

First, you could point to externalities : of the eight million estimated deaths per year, an estimated 1.2 million die through second‐hand smoke. 6 It is a common liberal idea that freedom of choice can be restricted to prevent harm to others. Given the vast harm to others, this argumentative strategy still leaves room for much stricter tobacco control. But it is not the argument I pursue here. I want to argue that even being mostly concerned with (potential) smokers themselves gives us sufficient freedom‐based reason for endgame proposals.

Second, you could hold that something like a cigarette ban does reduce freedom but then argue that, on balance, a concern with freedom is overridden by other considerations. The public health effects of cigarettes are so detrimental that they override any concern with freedom. Of course, this argument has the difficulty that we lack a clear criterion of how to balance pro tanto concerns (where a concern is ‘pro tanto’ when it speaks for something but can be overridden by other concerns). But I show below that even without such a criterion, we can make the argument.

Third, you could hold that a concern with freedom of choice itself justifies endgame proposals. I present two sub‐arguments to this effect. First, tobacco control can make people more free by increasing their lifetime freedom, that is their freedom aggregated across time. Call this the intrapersonal freedom argument. Second, strict tobacco control can bring about a better distribution of freedom between persons. Call this the interpersonal freedom argument.

Note that within the endgame discussion, there is some disagreement about whether electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or other forms of harm reduction products should form part of a strategy to move people away from combustible cigarettes or whether they are among the products to be eradicated. Apart from some comments, I here mostly bracket this issue, seeing as I do not have space to address the many empirical disagreements that run through this debate.

I proceed as follows. I introduce freedom of choice in Section 2 , argue that public health concerns outweigh a concern with freedom in tobacco control in Section 3 , defend the intrapersonal freedom argument in Section 4 , and the interpersonal freedom argument in Section 5 . I conclude in Section 6 .

2. FREEDOM OF CHOICE

Freedom is a rich value. We can distinguish at least the following dimensions:

Psychological freedom : (a) Volitional autonomy : people have volitional autonomy to the extent that they can pursue their conception of the good without being constrained by autonomy‐reducing psychological forces such as addiction; (b) rational agency : people have rational agency to the extent that their decision‐making capacities allow them to choose from external options in line with their preferences and/or conceptions of the good.
Freedom of choice : People are free to the extent that they have external options to choose from.
Freedom as non‐domination : People are free to the extent that they are not subject to the dominating power of other agents. 7

In this article, I am only concerned with the second dimension: freedom of choice. I make this restriction to have enough space to develop the arguments in detail, not because the other dimensions do not matter. 8 Freedom of choice is not about what people do or how they live but about the external options they have. The choice dimension is a central—although often insufficient—component for any person to lead an autonomous life.

But what is freedom of choice? Of the many theoretical discussions, let me highlight three issues that will be relevant later.

First, what obstacles to a person's actions are sources of unfreedom? Some theorists think only interpersonal constraints can reduce someone's freedom—mere ability constraints are insufficient. For example, being imprisoned is a constraint that makes me unfree, whereas my inability to jump really high is typically not a source of unfreedom. Call this

The restraint view : A person is free to φ , if and only if she is not subject to any interpersonal constraints with respect to φ .

Other authors argue that the absence of ‘social’ or ‘interpersonal’ constraints is a necessary but often insufficient condition for freedom. It also matters what abilities (or capabilities) you have. For example, a person suffering from an incapacitating illness might not be subject to many interpersonal constraints. Yet if she is unable to leave her bed, her freedom of choice is still diminished. So, on this view, better health can increase your freedom. Call this

The ability view : A person is free φ , if and only if she is able to φ . 9

Second, someone's specific freedom to do something is different from her overall freedom , that is, how free she is overall. As we will see below, one important question is whether a person's overall freedom is determined only by how many options she has or whether it also matters how good those options are. 10

Third, we can determine a person's overall freedom at one point in time (call this point freedom) but also across a period of time (call this period freedom or intrapersonal freedom). 11 For intrapersonal freedom, we might for example care not only about how free someone is at one point in their life but aggregated across their entire life. Below in Section 3 , we will see why this distinction is so important in judging paternalistic policies.

Invoking freedom in normative arguments is trickier than often appreciated. For example, someone might argue that a policy proposal, like a cigarette ban, violates freedom, because it takes away an option. However, many policies take away options but also add others. Or they reduce one person's freedom yet increase another's. Invoking freedom in normative arguments, I suggest, requires looking at three questions:

1. How does a policy affect a person's overall freedom (point freedom)? And how significant is this effect compared with other, non‐freedom effects?
2. How does a policy affect a person's intrapersonal overall freedom?
3. How does a policy affect a society's interpersonal distribution, that is, how freedom is distributed between persons?

I take up these three questions in the following three sections.

Before doing so, let me acknowledge that while most prominent writers on freedom implicitly follow this focus on distributions of freedom, not everyone will be happy with this distribution‐centred approach. For example, Robert Nozick views freedom as being about property rights that impose deontic side constraints that must not be violated at any cost. I here do not discuss Nozick. This exclusion is also somewhat justified, seeing that most authors think he does not have a plausible theory of freedom of choice. 12 Moreover, his anarcho‐libertarian view also makes for too stark a contrast with most normative debates around public health. Somewhat less radical than Nozick, others might hold that the value of freedom is not primarily about the government promoting freedom but about the government respecting individual freedom. Respect here could imply that the government has a strong pro tanto duty not to actively interfere with individuals but only a far weaker duty to prevent others from interfering. Note that some authors, including myself, have argued that many such ‘respect‐based’ views might be compatible with tobacco control, endgame measures included. For it is typically thought that a duty to respect individual decisions can be overridden when the individual lacks sufficient rationality or autonomy in making that decision. For example, individuals might forfeit a right to use self‐harming products, when they are seriously irrational, addicted or uninformed—conditions that apply often enough to cigarette use. 13

For the purposes of this article, we can ignore these debates. I here focus on freedom of choice and simply assume that the state has a duty to bring about or facilitate certain distributions of freedom of choice. 14

3. THE OUTWEIGHING CLAIM

Many tobacco control measures limit our choices. For example, such measures might determine where people can or cannot smoke. Or they make cigarettes less affordable through taxes. A ban on cigarettes could even make smoking illegal across the board. So, endgame proposals would, other things being equal, restrict freedom of choice. At a given point, people will thus have less overall freedom.

But even ardent liberals also care about values besides freedom. If those values are strong enough, they can sometimes override freedom. I think for endgame measures, those other considerations are strong enough. Call this

The outweighing claim : In tobacco control, public health concerns outweigh freedom concerns.

To defend the outweighing claim, one could proffer two arguments: first, show that public health concerns are very weighty and, second, that removing the option to smoke would not be a prohibitively weighty reduction in freedom. 15

The first argument, I think, is obvious: cigarette consumption is the leading cause of (somewhat easily) preventable death. Moreover, smokers incur great morbidity and disability risk and are financially worse off. Each year, an estimated 1.2 million also die from second‐hand smoke. 16 Moreover, the untimely deaths of family members and friends can cause severe emotional hardship. Finally, cigarettes raise concerns of justice. 17 For example, smoking intensifies the social gradient of illness and mortality. And tobacco companies often deliberately exploit vulnerable populations.

The second argument would show that we would not lose that much freedom of choice, if the option to smoke were taken away. For this point, briefly return to measuring overall freedom. Some authors argue that measuring freedom is a purely quantitative exercise: the more options you have, the more freedom you have. 18 For those authors, it does not matter how good those options are. Moreover, the actions one is free or unfree to do are individualized by their spatio‐temporal extensions. 19 Now, a smoking ban would not be dramatic on the quantitative view: the purely physical option of using particular ‘sticks’ and being free to place them in our mouths could be replaced by any number of other sticks, such as carrots.

However, most freedom theorists think the quality of options also matters when measuring freedom. Other things being equal, better options increase our freedom more than bad options. But is the option to smoke sufficiently valuable to weigh heavily in our measure of freedom? This, of course, depends on what theory of value we use. Proposals here include welfarist, preference‐based and objective list approaches. I lack space here to go through them. But on any of those accounts, it seems hard to come by strong arguments as to why the option to smoke should be prohibitively valuable. Most people have no interest in smoking but rather a preference for smoke‐free environments. And the vast majority of those who smoke also wish they could quit. 20 So, not having the option to smoke might be valuable for them. Moreover, smoking makes people more stressed and, likely, less happy. 21 Of course, some features make smoking attractive, such as opportunities for socializing, rituals and looking cool. But such upsides are unlikely to make the option to smoke valuable all things considered.

But even without surveying all those reasons, I think a thought experiment shows that we intuitively think the option to smoke is not sufficiently valuable to outweigh public health concerns. Imagine cigarettes had not yet been introduced. Now, a company invents them and seeks approval to bring them to market. Assume the regulatory authority had the information and evidence we have. It is clear that they would refuse to approve cigarettes and that their refusal would be morally justified. 22 In this case, population health outweighs the freedom to smoke. But now if withholding cigarettes is all things considered justified, should withdrawing the option to smoke cigarettes not also be? Call this the equivalence argument .

The equivalence argument supports the outweighing claim. However, the equivalence argument by itself does not settle the question. I elsewhere argue that there can be reasons why withdrawing existing options is a greater reduction in a person's freedom than withholding non‐existing options. 23 This is so, if we think the quality of options matters for freedom. And an option can become more valuable, if it has been around for a while. Accordingly, withdrawing options can sometimes reduce freedom more than withholding an equivalent option. For example, options can become valuable, if they become part of people's community and identity, if that option has entered people's plans, and if removing the option would come with transition costs for individuals. 24 However, while these reasons apply to cigarettes, they only apply weakly. Given how strong the countervailing considerations are, such reasons are too weak to justify prioritizing freedom. Given limited space, I cannot repeat the argument here. But I think it is clear the equivalence argument at least creates a strong burden of proof: the moral dissimilarity between withdrawing cigarettes and withholding them would have to be extremely strong if a concern with freedom should outweigh public health concerns. On balance, it seems more likely that the outweighing claim is true.

What is more, I think the outweighing claim becomes nearly inescapable, if we include future generations . As Grill and Voigt write: ‘For future people… the arguments against a ban are much weaker than for current people. The arguments for a ban, on the other hand, are just as strong’. 25 Including future generations means that the public health benefits of the tobacco endgame become much larger, given how many future people we should expect. At the same time, the worry around freedom becomes far weaker: if future generations never have the option to smoke, then we only need to withhold the option from them. We do not need to withdraw it. And withholding an option typically meets with a lower justificatory burden. So, the endgame's vast long‐term benefits and the much‐reduced concern around individual freedom together make a strong case for the outweighing claim.

I think we should accept the outweighing claim. However, my case in this article does not depend on it. In the next two sections, I argue that a concern with freedom itself already decides the case in favour of endgame measures. For such measures, if effective, would increase freedom. Accordingly, we need not balance freedom with other values, as freedom itself speaks for tobacco control.

4. THE INTRAPERSONAL FREEDOM ARGUMENT

The first argument starts with an intuitive thought: sometimes, reducing your current freedom can increase your future freedom. Remember the point freedom and period freedom distinction above. When we are concerned with overall freedom, this can be about how much freedom a person has at one point in time. However, if we care about freedom, we should not only care about our current freedom but also about our future freedom extended across time. 26

Reasoning about future freedom is already familiar from John Stuart Mill's classic discussion of voluntary slavery. Mill argues that: ‘… by selling himself for a slave, he abdicates his liberty; he forgoes any future use of it beyond that single act. […] The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free’. 27

Intrapersonal freedom is a way to make sense of this idea: while having the option to sell yourself as a slave increases your point freedom, choosing such an option would massively curtail your future freedom. So, to safeguard freedom across time, we should sometimes ban or at least regulate those options that, once chosen, reduce people's future freedom. As an aside in an op‐ed, Amartya Sen applies Mill's idea to cigarettes:

…how should we see the demands of freedom when habit‐forming behaviour today restricts the freedom of the same person in the future? Once acquired, the habit of smoking is hard to kick, and it can be asked, with some plausibility, whether youthful smokers have an unqualified right to place their future selves in such bondage. 28

The option to smoke cigarettes carries the risk of addiction and thereby greatly reduces one's future options in expectation. 29 Now, one source of ‘unfreedom’ might be psychological: addiction is often thought to reduce people's volitional autonomy. So, by becoming addicted to cigarettes, people reduce their future volitional autonomy. While important, I here focus only on freedom of choice. But the argument works for freedom of choice too. Say we estimate how much future freedom a person has in expectation if she takes up smoking. If the probability is high enough that she will become addicted, we should expect her to lose many future options. One source of reduced freedom is life expectancy. You cannot have freedom of choice when you are dead. Cigarettes drastically reduce life expectancy. Accordingly, in expectation, smokers have lower lifetime freedom. Another source of reduced freedom is financial. Nicotine addictions are expensive. Most addicts wish they were free of their desire to smoke. If they were, they would also gain disposable income to spend on other projects and preferences, which would greatly increase their future freedom (considering how costly an addiction is when aggregated across a lifetime). 30 Finally, cigarettes also increase morbidity risk during life years lived and can curtail physical functioning. With fewer physical abilities, cigarette addicts have less expected future freedom.

How robust are these arguments across theories of freedom? The arguments concerning reduced life expectancy and reduced effective disposable income are available to both the ability view and the restraint view. On both views, having a shorter life means less freedom. And, as G. A. Cohen has argued, less money means less freedom, even if freedom is understood purely as the absence of interpersonal interference. Money gives you the power to remove interpersonal constraints: having the money to buy a plane ticket, for example, removes the physical constraints that would stop you from boarding without a ticket. 31 But some versions of the restraint view would hold that illness and disability as such do not reduce freedom. So, that sub‐argument is more easily made with the ability view.

Arguments like the intrapersonal freedom argument also have their critics. Jessica Flanigan, for example, argues that applying (something like) the intrapersonal freedom argument to strict tobacco control betrays double standards. For applying such an argument to other comparable choices would lead the argument ad absurdum: 32

… the choice to take out a long‐term mortgage, enlist in the military, enrol in medical school, marry, have a child, pursue internet fame early in one's life or move to a small town may constrain a person's options going forward. But people are generally entitled to make these choices even if they limit their options on balance over the course of a life. 33

However, the objection is not sound. It is not the case that to increase future freedom—or increase lifetime freedom—we should remove any option that can reduce future freedoms. To find out which options could be removed is a little technical, but it depends mostly on three factors: first, how likely I am to choose that option, second, how much less future freedom does that option give me compared to all other options I have (‘relative fecundity’), and, third, what distribution of freedoms across time should we aim for. 34

For example, moving to a small town might in some ways reduce my freedoms, as I might have fewer cultural options available (assume that's correct). But, of course, removing the option to move to a small town would be a heavy restriction on people's freedom of movement and their freedom aggregated across time. Because not being able to move to any small town would reduce someone's freedom at every stage of their life. Adding up this loss of options across time can be a massive reduction in freedom. Such a restriction would have to be offset by the freedom gains of (forced) big city living. But that's unlikely to be the case. Moreover, moving to a small town is a largely reversible choice—one can typically move away again—so one does not really lose many future freedoms.

Or consider mortgages. Flanigan is right, of course, that having a mortgage binds your future self in ways that renting does not. But that does not by itself imply that, in expectation, people become freer across their lifetime, if they cannot buy houses through mortgages. Any such restriction always involves a reduction in freedom. Moreover—unlike being a smoker—buying a house can also increase your lifetime freedom: building equity can help you increase your future wealth and thereby your future freedom. So, again, the intrapersonal freedom argument does not extend to mortgages.

Of course, some of Flanigan's examples might indeed raise lifetime freedom worries, but that does not seem so counterintuitive. Consider for example enlisting in the military. It seems there is a worry about future freedom when a person puts their future self at grave risk and restricts their future self through enforceable long‐term labour contracts. Indeed, for other fields, we do not allow labour contracts that would legally bind employees to a company for so many years. So, in the military example, the intrapersonal freedom worry does apply. But remember a concern with freedom is often just pro tanto. The military is not just any old company. Countries seem willing to make an exception for the military, because they might think that security concerns outweigh concerns around intrapersonal freedom (whether they are right, I leave open here). So, that the intrapersonal freedom perspective creates a pro tanto reason against enlisting is not a reason to reject the intrapersonal freedom perspective.

So, each case is different and must be analysed on its own merit. But just a quick look at Flanigan's examples reveals that cigarettes are different from cases like moving to a small town, marrying (provided it includes a divorce option), or getting a mortgage. Many people are sufficiently likely to consume cigarettes. And when they consume cigarettes, they are sufficiently likely to become addicted. And, once addicted, cigarettes massively reduce expected future freedoms, because they massively increase mortality and morbidity. Of course, removing the option to smoke also comes with a ceteris paribus reduction in freedom. But—unlike options like getting a mortgage or moving to a small town—cigarette's freedom‐reducing effect far outweighs their positive contribution to freedom.

So, not all options with a lower relative fecundity must automatically be banned. This also matters for options within tobacco control. For example, I earlier mentioned that there is some strong disagreement about how far ENDS, such as e‐cigarettes, should be part of an endgame strategy. ENDS likely have a far lower morbidity and mortality risk than conventional combustible cigarettes. Accordingly, it is not obvious that the intrapersonal freedom argument would extend to ENDS. This would depend on empirical details about addictiveness, likely consumption pattern, likely mortality and morbidity effects and so on. Discussion of these empirical details is unfortunately beyond my scope. But we can say, with some confidence, that people's expected lifetime freedom would be higher, if they only had the option to consume ENDS but not combustible cigarettes.

5. THE INTERPERSONAL FREEDOM ARGUMENT

The argument in this section is that endgame measures—again assuming they work—would improve the overall distribution of freedom between persons. From a public policy perspective, we should care not only about one person's freedom but about individual freedom across society. And even if having the option to smoke cigarettes increases some people's freedoms, it brings about a distribution of freedom that, from a societal perspective, is worse. Call this the interpersonal freedom argument .

Note that, to keep things simple, I first focus on within‐country tobacco control policies and the distributions of freedom within a country's existing population. Below I briefly discuss what happens if we extend the argument to include global and future populations.

How should we distribute freedom between persons? Instead of a detailed ranking or measure, I here just give two—hopefully uncontroversial—properties a ranking of interpersonal distributions should have. 35 First, other things being equal, distributions that contain more aggregate freedom between individuals are to be preferred over distributions that contain less. More aggregate freedom is better than less. Second, other things being equal, distributions in which freedom is more equally distributed are to be preferred over those where they are distributed more unequally. 36 The second, distributive principle might, for example, be justified by fairness: it might be objectionable, if some people have so much more freedom than others. Or we could appeal to a decreasing marginal value of overall freedom: having additional freedom matters less the more you already have. 37 Of course, the aggregative and the equality concern can conflict. Sometimes more aggregate freedom might come at the cost of less equality or vice versa. Luckily, we can ignore this issue here, as there is no such conflict for the interpersonal freedom argument.

Return to tobacco control. The interpersonal argument holds that strict tobacco control can bring about better overall interpersonal distributions of freedom. There are two sub‐arguments.

First, considering my intrapersonal freedom argument from the previous section, we should expect that the aggregate amount of freedom in a society should go up, if those possibly addicted to cigarettes either stop or do not start. Cigarettes cut short so many lives each year and cause illness and disability. Eradicating cigarettes would thus greatly increase aggregate freedom.

Second, stricter tobacco control likely also facilitates a more equal distribution of freedom. First, there is an inequality in the genetic predisposition to become addicted to nicotine. 38 Tobacco control can reduce the resulting differences in lifetime freedom between groups that are predisposed to develop nicotine addiction and those that are not. Effective tobacco control here reduces inequalities that are, at least in part, the result of natural disadvantage. 39 But the probability at birth of becoming addicted to cigarettes later in life also has a social gradient. The lower your socioeconomic status, the more likely you are to become a smoker. Cigarettes compound the social gradient of health. Moreover, with lower disposable income, people of a lower SES lose a higher proportion of their disposable income on cigarettes. Effective tobacco control thus reduces some of those class‐based inequalities in lifetime freedom. 40

So, strict tobacco control might bring about distributions of freedom with more and more equally distributed freedom.

I have made the argument so far in the familiar context where countries enact tobacco control policies for their own population. Note how the argument becomes even stronger when we extend it internationally . Eighty per cent of all cigarettes are now consumed in low‐ to middle‐income countries. 41 The social gradient of health also holds globally. Moreover, the proportional loss in disposable income due to tobacco addiction typically also tends to be higher for those who have a comparatively low income on a global scale (although they typically also consume cheaper tobacco products). Therefore, the interpersonal freedom argument provides a strong reason for tobacco control internationally, because of both the greater magnitude and inequality involved.

What happens to the interpersonal distribution argument if we include future generations?

First, should the egalitarian principle only be concerned with inequalities between people that exist at the same time or should it also consider inequalities between members of different generations? If the latter, then the egalitarian principle's implication is not so obvious, because future generations are likely to have higher levels of freedom due to technological, medical and economic progress. That might mean giving slightly greater priority to people alive today. But, of course, one might reject intergenerational egalitarianism and focus on distributive concerns between temporally co‐existing individuals only. 42 I leave such tricky philosophical issues aside here. Either way, these different options do not seem to undermine the interpersonal freedom argument.

Second, if we focus on the aggregative principle, then including future generations makes the argument stronger. Tobacco control not only helps those currently at risk but also prevents millions, potentially billions, of future people from smoking. This is a major attraction of endgame measures: if effective, they save future generations from the tobacco scourge. So, the vast amount of freedom that future generations might gain implies we should push for the endgame.

6. CONCLUSIONS

I have defended endgame tobacco measures—and by extension weaker tobacco control measures—against what is likely the strongest ethical objection: a concern around freedom of choice.

First, I argued that a concern with people's momentary overall freedom is outweighed by competing considerations, particularly around public health. While endgame proposals raise a worry about people's freedom of choice, that worry is outweighed by public health concerns, particularly if we include the interests of future generations.

Second, I argued that we might not even need to balance freedom of choice with other goods in this case, because tobacco control itself can increase people's intrapersonal freedom, that is, their freedom across time.

Third, strict tobacco control can also improve the interpersonal distribution of freedom by increasing aggregate societal freedom and by reducing smoking‐related inequalities. The case becomes even stronger if we move from national to international distributions and include future generations.

Overall, if endgame measures are effective, a concern with freedom of choice does not speak against such measures but supports them instead.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers at Bioethics and the participants at the 2018 Brocher Summer Academy in Population‐level Bioethics for helpful comments.

Andreas T. Schmidt is an Associate Professor of Political Philosophy at the Philosophy Faculty and the Centre for PPE in Groningen in the Netherlands. He holds a DPhil in Philosophy from the University of Oxford. His research is in political theory, ethics, and the philosophy of public policy, including topics such as freedom, equality, public health ethics, biomedical ethics, longtermism, consequentialism, distributive justice/ethics, and behavioural policies. See www.andreastschmidt.com for more.

Schmidt, A. T. (2022). Freedom of choice and the tobacco endgame . Bioethics , 36 , 77–84. 10.1111/bioe.12967 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

1 Jha, P., Ramasundarahettige, C., Landsman, V., Rostron, B., Thun, M., Anderson, R. N., McAFee, T., & Peto, R. (2013). 21st‐century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 368 (4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1211128

2 WHO. (2020). Tobacco fact sheet . Retrieved October 15, 2021. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco

3 Grill, K., & Voigt, K. (2016). The case for banning cigarettes. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42 (5), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102682 ; Conly, S. (2013). Against autonomy: Justifying coercive paternalism . Cambridge University Press; Proctor, R. N. (2013). Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition. Tobacco Control, 22 (Suppl 1), i27–i30. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050811

4 Berrick, A. J. (2013). The tobacco‐free generation proposal. Tobacco Control, 22 (Suppl 1), i22–i26. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050865 ; Khoo, D., Chiam, Y., Ng, P., Berrick, A. J., & Koong, H. N. (2010). Phasing‐out tobacco: Proposal to deny access to tobacco for those born from 2000. Tobacco Control, 19 (5), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2009.031153 ; Daynard, R. A. (2009). Doing the unthinkable (and saving millions of lives). Tobacco Control, 18 (1), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2008.028308

5 Warner, K. E. (2013). An endgame for tobacco? Tobacco Control, 22 (Suppl 1), i3–i5. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-050989 ; Malone, R. E. (2010). Imagining things otherwise: New endgame ideas for tobacco control. Tobacco Control, 19 (5), 349–350. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2010.039727 ; Thomson, G., Wilson, N., Blakely, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Ending appreciable tobacco use in a nation: Using a sinking lid on supply. Tobacco Control, 19 (5), 431–435. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2010.036681

6 WHO, op. cit. note 2.

7 Pettit, P. (2014). Just freedom: A moral compass for a complex world . W. W. Norton & Company; Skinner, Q. (2012). Liberty before liberalism . Cambridge University Press.

8 Different existing arguments seek to show that tobacco control is compatible with autonomy and freedom. For example, nicotine addiction reduces volitional autonomy (see Schmidt, A. T. (2020). Is there a human right to tobacco control? In M. E. Gispen & B. Toebes (Eds.), Human rights and tobacco control (pp. 26–43). Edward Elgar Publishing; Grill & Voigt, op. cit. note 3). And most smokers wish they did not smoke, so external conditions that make it harder for them to smoke can increase their autonomy (ibid). Finally, tobacco control can strengthen freedom as non‐domination. Smokers are often of lower socioeconomic status and, globally, predominantly from low‐ and middle‐income countries. Strong tobacco control can thus help protect vulnerable populations against the dominating power tobacco companies can exercise over their lives (Grill & Voigt, ibid).

9 For examples of the restraint view, see Carter, I. (1999). A measure of freedom . Oxford University Press; Kristjánsson, K. (1996). Social freedom: The responsibility view . Cambridge University Press; Steiner, H. (1994). An essay on rights . Wiley; Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In H. Hardy (Ed.), Four essays on liberty (pp. 118–72). Oxford University Press. For examples of the ability view see Schmidt, A. T. (2016). Abilities and the sources of unfreedom. Ethics, 127 (1), 179–207. https://doi.org/10.1086/687335 ; Cohen, G. A. (2011). Freedom and money. In M. Otsuka (Ed.), On the currency of egalitarian justice, and other essays in political philosophy (pp. 166–200). Princeton University Press; Kramer, M. H. (2003). The quality of freedom . Oxford University Press; Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom . Knopf; Parijs, P. V. (1997). Real freedom for all: What (if anything) can justify capitalism? Clarendon Press. Note that the ability view does not imply that the government must try to increase all possible abilities no matter how trivial. First of all, which abilities to focus on depends on what criterion of interpersonal distribution one subscribes to (point [3] on the next page). But even a criterion that implies increasing overall freedom need not imply trying to facilitate all abilities no matter how trivial. Some abilities lead to many further abilities and are thus more ‘fecund’ than others. And some abilities are simply more valuable than others. The more fecund or valuable an ability, the more it will contribute to a person's overall freedom. So, we should prioritize such freedoms over trivial abilities. The point about value can be made if one assumes—as those who defend the ability view typically do—that overall freedom is a function of both quantity and quality.

10 For more on this discussion, see van Hees, M. (2012). Legal reductionism and freedom . Springer Science & Business Media; Kramer, ibid; Sugden, R. (2003). Opportunity as a space for individuality: Its value and the impossibility of measuring it. Ethics, 113 (4), 783–809; Carter, ibid; Pattanaik, P. K., & Xu, Y. (1990). On ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice. Recherches Économiques de Louvain/Louvain Economic Review, 56 (3–4), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0770451800043955

11 Schmidt, A. T. (2017). An unresolved problem: Freedom across lifetimes. Philosophical Studies, 174 (6), 1413–1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0765-5

12 Carter, op. cit. note 9, pp. 70–72; Cohen, G. A. (1995). Self‐ownership, freedom, and equality . Cambridge University Press.

13 Schmidt, op. cit. note 8; Halliday, D. (2016). The ethics of a smoking licence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42 (5), 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101347 ; Goodin, R. E. (1989). The ethics of smoking. Ethics, 99 (3), 574–624.

14 Although I defend such a picture in Schmidt, op. cit. note 9; Schmidt, A. T. (2014). Freedom and its distribution (DPhil thesis). University of Oxford.

15 Also see Grill & Voigt, op. cit. note 3 on this.

16 WHO, op. cit. note 2.

17 Kniess, J. (2020). Tobacco and the harms of trade. Journal of Political Philosophy, 28 (3), 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12172 ; Voigt, K. (2010). Smoking and social justice. Public Health Ethics, 3 (2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phq006

18 Carter, op. cit. note 9; Steiner, H. (1983). How free: Computing personal liberty. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 15 , 73–89.

19 Carter, op. cit. note 9.

20 Grill & Voigt, op. cit. note 3.

21 Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well‐being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (38), 16489–16493. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107 ; Parrott, A. C. (1998). Nesbitt's paradox resolved? Stress and arousal modulation during cigarette smoking. Addiction, 93 (1), 27–39; West, R., & Hajek, P. (1997). What happens to anxiety levels on giving up smoking? The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154 (11), 1589–1592.

22 Schmidt, A. T. (2016). Withdrawing versus withholding freedoms: Nudging and the case of tobacco control. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16 (7), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1180442 ; Conly, op. cit. note 3, p. 169; Khoo et al., op. cit. note 4; Goodin, op. cit. note 13, p. 611.

23 Schmidt, ibid.

25 Grill & Voigt, op. cit. note 3, p. 300.

26 Schmidt, op. cit. note 11; Carter, I. (2013). Distributing freedom over whole lives. In A. Gosseries & P. Vanderborght (Eds.), Arguing about justice: Essays for Philippe Van Parijs (pp. 135–143). Presses universitaires de Louvain.

27 Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty (1979 ed.). Penguin.

28 Sen, A. (2007, February 11). Unrestrained smoking is a libertarian half‐way house. Financial Times . https://www.ft.com/content/c8617786-ba13-11db-89c8-0000779e2340

29 Grill & Voigt, op. cit. note 3.

30 Of course, one might respond that cigarettes are expensive, in part, because they are heavily taxed. If there were no taxes, people's future earning potential would be higher and their expected lifetime freedom reduced to a lesser degree. Unfortunately, reducing such taxes also increases the probability that people take up smoking and die, which in turn means they reduce expected lifetime freedom more (see below for more on what determines expected lifetime freedom).

31 Cohen, op. cit. note 9. This also addresses a worry about drawing a comparison with Mill's case of selling oneself into slavery: in the slavery case one exposes oneself to external social constraints, whereas in the cigarette case one exposes oneself to future physical constraints. While these cases are of course different, it is not the case that cigarette smoking does not affect one's expected future freedom understood as the absence of interpersonal constraint: because cigarette smoking reduces one's life expectancy and one's available spending potential, it reduces the number of freedoms one has in the future, even on the restraint view.

32 Also see Richard Arneson's slippery slope response to Gerald Dworkin: Arneson, R. J. (1980). Mill versus paternalism. Ethics, 90 (4), 470–489; Dworkin, G. (1972). Paternalism. The Monist, 56 (1), 64–84.

33 Flanigan, J. (2016). Double standards and arguments for tobacco regulation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42 (5), 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103528

34 Schmidt, op. cit. note 11.

35 See Carter, op. cit. note 9 for more on interpersonal distributions of freedom and different proposals.

36 First, I make the assumption, which I defend elsewhere, that societal freedom is a function of the freedom held by individuals Schmidt, A. T. (2020). Does collective unfreedom matter? Individualism, power and proletarian unfreedom. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy . Advance online publication, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1830350 . Second, someone might think inequality does not matter but priority does (‘prioritarianism’ or ‘the priority view’): Parfit, D. (1997). Equality and priority. Ratio, 10 (3), 202–221. If correct, we could just substitute the equality principle with a priority one without changing the outcome of my argument. Finally, one might hold that we only ought to make sure individuals have sufficient lifetime freedom. Although I do not find sufficientarianism attractive, some of my arguments could still be run, if we think that, in expectation, cigarettes move freedom levels below this sufficiency level. This seems plausible given how deadly cigarettes are.

37 If you measure individual overall freedom both based on the options' quantity and quality, then the measure will partly (but not completely) reflect such decreasing marginal value.

38 Hall, W., Madden, P., & Lynskey, M. (2002). The genetics of tobacco use: Methods, findings and policy implications. Tobacco Control, 11 (2), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.11.2.119

39 Luck egalitarians will feel the pull of wanting to reduce inequalities that are, at least partly, due to factors for which individuals are not responsible. But one need not be a luck egalitarian to think that responsibility, and lack of responsibility, matter for inequality. I argue elsewhere that relational egalitarians too will consider responsibility and consider it relevant when inequalities are due to factors beyond an individual's control (although for different reasons) (Schmidt, A. T. (2021). From relational equality to personal responsibility. Philosophical Studies . Advance online publication, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01711-3 ). Plus, there are instrumental and non‐egalitarian reasons for considering responsibility relevant.

40 At the same time, tobacco control can impose stronger burdens on people of lower socioeconomic status, for example through steep taxes. Moreover, public health measures often have a higher uptake by people with higher socioeconomic status, which could have an unequalizing effect. On balance, however, we should expect the effect of tobacco control to be more equalizing. See Voigt, op. cit. note 17 for more.

41 WHO, op. cit. note 2.

42 I discuss intergenerational egalitarianism in Schmidt, A. T. (2020). Egalitarianism across generations. Manuscript. Grill, K. (2020). E‐cigarettes: The long‐term liberal perspective. Nicotine & Tobacco Research , 23 (1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaa085 , also discusses what those issues imply for ENDS.

I need some ideas for a thesis statement on why not to smoke

1 expert answer.

Laura W. answered • 12/21/15

Law graduate specializing in SAT, LSAT, AP, SAT II, essay writing

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Get a free answer to a quick problem. Most questions answered within 4 hours.

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.

When do I use which or that in a sentence?

Answers · 17

Is there any proof that Shakespeare wrote his plays?

Answers · 16

Is it wrong to write in passive voice?

Answers · 46

How do I know when to use affect vs effect?

Answers · 37

find an online tutor

Language Arts tutors
Speech tutors
SAT Writing tutors
English tutors
Essay tutors
College Essay tutors
Spanish tutors
Research Paper Writing tutors

related lessons

SAT Essay Strategies and Advice
SAT Writing Test Format and Strategies
ACT Writing Test Format and Strategies
What is Plagiarism?
Anesthesia, the Medical Lack of Feeling

Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Last updated on: Apr 15, 2024

Craft an Outstanding Persuasive Essay About Smoking with Our Examples and Tips

By: Caleb S.

Reviewed By: Chris H.

Published on: Jan 25, 2023

Are you trying to write a persuasive essay about smoking? Do you want to prove that this habit is dangerous and should be avoided but are unsure how to do it convincingly?

Don't worry – we've got your back!

In this blog, we will provide persuasive essay examples and tips on how to make your argument truly persuasive! We'll help you to understand the dangers of smoking and to craft persuasive evidence that will make your essay powerful and persuasive.

With our tips, you can be sure that your persuasive essay about smoking will be a success!

So let's get started!

On this Page

What is a Persuasive Essay?

A persuasive essay is written to convince your reader of a particular opinion, point of view, or stance. These essays typically use persuasive devices such as logical arguments and emotional appeals to make their point.

The goal of persuasive essays about smoking is to convince your reader that smoking is dangerous and should be avoided. With persuasive evidence and reasonable opinions, you can do that!

Explore how to develop compelling arguments in your persuasive essay about smoking with our example as a guide!

Simple Persuasive essay about smoking

Check out our extensive guide on persuasive essay if you want to learn more!

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

A persuasive essay effectively presents your opinion and makes the reader think twice about their stance on a particular issue.

Writing persuasive essays about smoking can be challenging, as there are many different arguments you can use to support your point of view.

To do this, you first need to understand the dangers of smoking and then craft persuasive evidence that supports your claims.

Persuasive speech on smoking outline

Persuasive essay about smoking should be banned

Persuasive essay about smoking pdf

Persuasive essay about smoking cannot relieve stress

Persuasive essay about smoking in public places

Speech about smoking is dangerous

Want more examples? See our persuasive essay examples blog!

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

Argumentative essay writing can be difficult, especially regarding topics like smoking. To make a persuasive argument, you must provide evidence that supports your stance.

We have provided persuasive essay examples about smoking to help you craft a persuasive argument on this topic.

Let's look at how to craft persuasive arguments in your argumentative essay about smoking with the help of our examples!

Argumentative essay about smoking introduction

Argumentative essay about smoking pdf

Argumentative essay about smoking in public places

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

How do you make sure that your argument persuades the reader?

Here are some tips to ensure that your argument is effective.

Start With an Engaging Introduction

The introduction of your essay should set the tone for the rest of the essay. It should catch readers' attention and make them want to continue reading.

Your introduction should include a clear thesis statement summarizing your smoking opinion. This will give the reader an understanding of where you stand on this issue.

Explore our guide for a thesis statement to learn how to write an effective one!

Research is Key

When creating an argument, you want to ensure you have all the facts and figures on your side.

Do some research related to your topic to make a compelling argument. This will help give credibility to what you’re saying and convince others more easily.

Use Credible Resources

When researching for your persuasive essay, it’s important to use reliable sources like scientific journals or government websites. These sources provide factual evidence that can support your claims credibly.

When using these resources, cite them correctly to avoid plagiarism and maintain academic integrity.

Construct Your Argument Logically

Once you have gathered your research, it’s time to start constructing your argument.

Using logical arguments helps keep readers engaged and allows them to see why you believe what you believe in an organized manner.

Additionally, don’t forget to include counterarguments so that readers can see both sides of the issue before forming their own opinion.

If you want to know how to construct an outline for your persuasive essay, check out our blog of persuasive essay outline !

Be Creative

The best way to get someone interested in what you have to say is by being creative with how you present it. If there are any interesting stories or anecdotes related to the topic, include them!

Doing this can help break up the monotony of an essay and make it easier for people to connect with what you’re saying.

If you want to explore some interesting topics, see our persuasive essay topics blog!

Crafting an effective persuasive essay or speech about smoking doesn’t have to be difficult if you keep these tips in mind!

You can also check out this video for creating logical arguments for your persuasive essay!

In conclusion, crafting an effective persuasive essay about smoking doesn’t have to be difficult if you keep these tips in mind! Get help from our examples to get you started on your persuasive essay.

Be sure to use persuasive language and persuasive techniques to make your point!

If you are still stuck, you can always count on MyPerfectPpaper.net to help you craft the persuasive essay you want.

Our essay writing service can provide expert persuasive writing help tailored to your needs. We'll help you create essays that will make a lasting impression on your reader.

So, don't hesitate, avail our custom papers writing services today and

Frequently Asked Questions

What would be a good thesis statement for smoking.

Smoking is an addiction that ruins lives. It harms not only the smoker but also those around them. Smoking should be banned in all public places to protect the health of everyone.

What is a good way to start a persuasive essay?

A good way to begin is by introducing your topic and stating your position. Then, you can provide evidence or examples to support your position. Finally, you can ask the reader to take action or think about the issue differently.

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

How to quit smoking cigarettes for good?
How to resist the temptation of smoking in difficult situations?
How to motivate yourself to stop smoking cigarettes?
How to deal with cravings for cigarettes when trying to quit smoking?
How to stay smoke-free after quitting smoking?

Marketing, Literature

Was This Blog Helpful?

Keep reading.

How to Write a Persuasive Essay - The Basics

100+ Persuasive Essay Topics That Will Hook Your Reader's Attention

Learn From the Best: Check Out Persuasive Essay Examples That Got an A+

How to Create a Persuasive Essay Outline That Stands Out

Writing a Persuasive Essay about Gun Control - Best Examples for Students

Persuasive Essay on Covid-19: Examples to Help You Persuade

Persuasive Essay About Business: Learn How To Write An Outstanding One

Achieve Perfection in Your Persuasive Essay About Bullying: Check Out Our Examples!

Write an Exceptional Persuasive Essay About Social Media – Look at Our Examples

Make Your Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty Stand Out: Tips and Examples From Experts

Make a Powerful Argument: Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Online Education

Craft an Engaging Persuasive Essay About Abortion: Examples, Topics, and Facts

Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay

Introduction, arguments in favor of smoking in campus, arguments against smoking in campus, reconciliation of the two positions, campus smoking: conclusion of the essay, works cited.

The idea of smoking in colleges and campuses has developed a mixed reaction in the USA and in many other parts of the world such that it has posed a very hot and contentious universal debate.

Several campuses and colleges have tried to impose a total ban on smoking within their environs, some of them succeeding while others failing to do so. For instance, colleges like Santa Ana and Fullerton have managed to ban smoking completely within their environs, while others such as Huntington Beach and Golden West College still allow smoking in prescribed places such as in parking lots.

Fullerton College was the first to successfully impose a smoking ban in the year 2007 (Bates 57). Nevertheless, many colleges and campuses have not managed to follow suit because of some state laws which assert that smoking is only proscribed inside buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses. These laws continue to give students the right to smoke within certain areas of their campuses.

As aforementioned, section 7595 of the government code affirms that smoking is proscribed only in public buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses (Merrill 36).Therefore, the opponents of this subject believe that since it is the right of every citizen to do anything that is recognized as legal, it is very wrong to impose a total ban on smoking, especially in campuses.

The most important thing is to ensure that students follow the laid down rules and regulations such as the strict use of the recommended areas of smoking. In deed, it is very unfair to send students off campus to smoke.

In addition, the opponents of this argument believe that smoking should not be banned because it helps students to relax whenever they are in stressful situations. Concerning the health risks that are brought about by smoking, they assert that every mature citizen should be in a position to separate good behavior from wrong behavior.

They say that since there has been an integration of cigarette smoking topics in schools for several decades, by the time a student reaches campus, he/she must be in a position to understand the risks that cigarette smoking poses to their health and therefore they should be able to make informed decisions about smoking. They also argue that it is very unfair to impose an immediate ban on cigarette smoking in campus yet it is clearly understood that smoking is an additive activity which can not be stopped at once.

Even though campus students have the right to smoke within some prescribed areas whenever they wish to do so, as mandated by some state laws, they ought to realize the fact that cigarette smoking has got very serious and detrimental effects on human health. Smoking of cigarettes can bring about lung infections to both first-hand and second-hand smokers. Therefore, smokers need to recognize that their right to smoke may greatly infringe on the rights of their non-smoking counterparts.

It is obvious that students know the negative effects of smoking cigarettes. For instance, it is expensive for them and it may also reduce their lifetime. Generally speaking, cigarette smoking is just bad. Currently, at least forty three colleges in the USA have imposed a total ban on cigarette smoking in their campuses and this trend is increasing especially among commuter schools and community colleges (Merrill 40).

However, it is hard to impose such a ban in some colleges because of the mixed reactions that are held by different stakeholders about the issue of smoking, and the existing campus policies which give the smokers the right to smoke in prescribed areas. According to the research that was carried out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, 31% of college students smoke cigarettes. This figure exceeds the national general average of 25% (Longmire 15).

It is also worth to note that even though there has been an integration of cigarette smoking topics in schools for several decades, cigarette smoking has continued to attract many youths and this continues to raise a lot of alarm about their future. This is because cigarette smoking is the major contributor of the cases of lung cancer in the entire world.

Research indicates that close to eighty percent of men who die from lung cancer, and seventy five percent of women who die from the same disease do so because of smoking tobacco. Research also indicates that the risk of lung cancer increases when a person starts smoking at an early age, and with an increase in the number of cigarettes that a person smokes in a day (Robicsek 56).

Scientific research has proved that cigarette smoking is harmful to the body. The smoke that comes out of a burning cigarette is a compound mixture of several chemicals which are produced when tobacco is burned.

This smoke contains a deadly compound called tar, which consists of more than four thousand chemicals which are very poisonous, and a majority of them have been clearly identified to be the main cause of cancer. Most of these chemicals are also known to cause lung diseases and heart problems. Some of these chemicals include cyanide, benzene, methanol, ammonia, formaldehyde and acetylene (Merrill 45).

Other deadly substances that are found in cigarettes include carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide gases which are very poisonous. The most active component of a cigarette is nicotine. Nicotine is a very addictive compound. Cigarette smoking can cause several problems such as cancer, lung damage and heart infections among many other diseases.

Research also indicates that more than thirty percent of the deaths that result in the United States occur due to the use of tobacco. Cigarette smoking also causes eighty seven percent of the deaths that result due to lung cancer. Other types of tobacco-related cancers include mouth cancer, cancer of the larynx, cancer of the throat and esophagus and cancer of the bladder. There is also a very close connection between cigarette smoking and the occurrence of the cancers of the kidney, pancreas, stomach and the cervix.

Cigarette smoking can also cause lung damage which begins at the early stages of smoking. Cigarette smokers encounter many problems with their lungs as compared to non-smokers and this situation gets worse when an individual increases his/her capacity to smoke. Smoking is linked to many dangerous lung infections which are just as perilous as lung cancer. These infections include emphysema and chronic bronchitis which cause difficulties in breathing and may even cause death.

Cigarette smoking also augments the risk of heart infections which stand out as the major causes of deaths in the U.S. Out of all the risk factors of heart infections, i.e. excess cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, cigarette smoking, physical lethargy and high blood pressure, cigarette smoking remains the leading risk factor for impulsive deaths that result from heart attacks (Bates 78).

In addition, low levels of cigarette smoking which may not be able to cause lung infections are capable of damaging the heart. Therefore, second-hand smokers also stand a very high chance of getting heart infections.

As stated earlier, Section 7595 of the government code affirms that smoking is proscribed in all public buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses (Merrill 36). Even though this ruling is good, it is not sufficient because it seems to discriminate the innocent second-hand smokers who continue to suffer from cigarette smoke which pollutes the air around them.

Cigarette smoking has also very detrimental effects to the real smokers and therefore they should be able to accept this ban because it is meant for their own good. Though it is very hard to ban citizens from doing something which is legally right, smoking should be gradually banned in campuses so as to protect the non-smokers. This is because campuses are public places which consist of both smokers and non-smokers.

My stand on this issue differs significantly from my opponents who believe that smoking should be allowed in some prescribed areas in campuses. My stand is that cigarette smoking should be banned in campuses because it impacts negatively on the non-smokers. Banning of cigarette smoking in campuses would enable the non-smoking citizens to enjoy the delight of breathing unpolluted air.

Nevertheless, my stand does not include cigarette smoking in private places such as in homes. At the same time, cigarette smokers should understand that the non-smokers are not trying to be intolerant when they keep on complaining about them. Rather, they are doing it for the sake of their own health.

In conclusion, smoking should be totally banned in campuses and colleges because of its severe health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. The health risks are much more to non-smokers because they may double up especially to those who already suffer from other ailments such as heart and lung problems.

In addition, a very short exposure by a non-smoker to secondhand smoke may have abrupt severe effects on his/her cardiovascular system thus escalating the risk for lung and heart infections. This makes the non-smoker to have a higher risk of catching infections from cigarette smoke than the real smoker yet he/she is very innocent. A more effective way of reducing smoking in campuses would be to provide tobacco termination counseling programs in the campuses.

Bates, Tim & Gordon Mangan. Smoking and Raven IQ. New York: Pocket Books, 2007.

Longmire, Wilkinson, & Torok Edgar. Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Melo, Maurice. Cigarette Smoking and Reproductive Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Merrill, David. How Cigarettes are made. London: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Robicsek, Francis. Ritual Smoking in Central America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, February 13). Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/

"Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." IvyPanda , 13 Feb. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay'. 13 February.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." February 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

1. IvyPanda . "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." February 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." February 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

Secondhand Smoke Effect on Infants and Young Children
Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?
Ban Smoking in Cars
Smoking Cigarette Should Be Banned
Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay
Legislation Reform of Public Smoking
Health Care Costs for Smokers
Understanding Advertising: Second-Hand Smoking
Ethical Problem of Smoking
Smoking Ban in the United States of America
American History: The Problem of Education in American Culture
Education in Afghanistan Before the Taliban
Time Management: Lesson Pacing
Truancy in Schools
Drug Test for Teachers and Athletes in Schools

Open access
Published: 01 February 2017

College anti-smoking policies and student smoking behavior: a review of the literature

Brooke L. Bennett 1 ,
Melodi Deiner 1 &
Pallav Pokhrel 1

Tobacco Induced Diseases volume 15 , Article number: 11 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

37 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Currently, most college campuses across the U.S. in some way address on-campus cigarette smoking, mainly through policies that restrict smoking on campus premises. However, it is not well understood whether college-level anti-smoking policies help reduce cigarette smoking among students. In addition, little is known about policies that may have an impact on student smoking behavior. This study attempted to address these issues through a literature review.

A systematic literature review was performed. To identify relevant studies, the following online databases were searched using specific keywords: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Studies that met the exclusion and inclusion criteria were selected for review. Studies were not excluded based on the type of anti-smoking policy studied.

Total 11 studies were included in the review. The majority of the studies (54.5%) were cross-sectional in design, 18% were longitudinal, and the rest involved counting cigarette butts or smokers. Most studies represented more women than men and more Whites than individuals of other ethnic/racial groups. The majority (54.5%) of the studies evaluated 100% smoke-free or tobacco-free campus policies. Other types of policies studied included the use of partial smoking restriction and integration of preventive education and/or smoking cessation programs into college-level policies. As far as the role of campus smoking policies on reducing student smoking behavior is concerned, the results of the cross-sectional studies were mixed. However, the results of the two longitudinal studies reviewed were promising in that policies were found to significantly reduce smoking behavior and pro-smoking attitudes over time.

More longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the role of college anti-smoking policies on student smoking behavior. Current data indicate that stricter, more comprehensive policies, and policies that incorporate prevention and cessation programming, produce better results in terms of reducing smoking behavior.

Tobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, continues to remain a leading preventable cause of mortality in the United States (U.S.). Across different age-groups, young adults (18–29 year olds) tend to show the highest prevalence of cigarette smoking [ 1 ]. For example, past-30-day prevalence of cigarette smoking among 18–24 year olds is 17%, whereas the prevalence is approximately 9% among high school students [ 2 ]. Although most smokers initiate cigarette smoking in adolescence, young adulthood is the period during which experimenters transition into regular use and develop nicotine dependence [ 1 ]. Young adulthood is also the period that facilitates continued intermittent or occasional smoking [ 3 ], neither of which is safe. In addition to the possibility that intermittent smokers may show escalation in nicotine dependence, intermittent smoking exposes individuals to carcinogens and induces adverse physiological consequences [ 4 ].

Research [ 5 ] shows that smokers who quit smoking before the age of 30 almost eliminate the risk of mortality due to smoking-induced causes. Thus smoking prevention and cessation efforts that target young adults are of importance. Traditionally, tobacco-related primary prevention efforts have mostly focused on adolescents [ 6 ] and have utilized mass media as well as school and community settings [ 7 , 8 ]. This is only natural given that most smoking initiation occurs in adolescence. However, primary and secondary prevention efforts focusing on young adults have been less common. This is particularly of concern because tobacco industry is known to market tobacco products strategically to promote tobacco use among young adults by integrating tobacco use into activities and places that are relevant to young adults [ 9 ].

As more and more young adults attend college [ 10 ], college campuses provide a great setting for primary and secondary smoking prevention as well as smoking cessation efforts targeting young adults. According to the American College Health Association [ 11 ], approximately 29% U.S. college students report lifetime cigarette smoking and 12% report past-30-day smoking. Currently, most college campuses across the U.S. in some way address on-campus cigarette smoking, mainly through policies that restrict smoking [ 12 , 13 ]. One of the main reasons why such policies are considered important is the concern about students’ exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke [ 14 ]. Therefore, at their most rudimentary forms, such policies tend to be extensions of local- or state-level policies restricting smoking in public places [ 15 ]. However, some colleges may take a more comprehensive approach, by integrating, for example, smoke-free policies with anti-smoking campaigns and college-sponsored cessation services [ 16 ]. Further, some colleges may implement plans to enhance enforcement of and compliance to the smoke-free policies [ 17 – 19 ].

At present, there are a number of questions related to college-level anti-smoking policies that need to be examined carefully in order to scientifically inform how colleges can be better utilized to promote smoking prevention and cessation among young adults. Besides the degree of variation in anti-smoking policies, there are questions about students’ compliance with such policies and whether such policies have influence on students’ attitudes and behavior related to cigarette smoking. Past reviews of the studies on the effects of tobacco control policies in general (e.g., not specific to college populations) [ 20 – 22 ] emphasize the need for a review such as the current study. Wilson et al. [ 20 ] found that interventions involving smoke-free public places, mostly restaurants/bars and workplaces, showed a moderate to low effect in terms of reducing smoking prevalence and promoting smoking cessation. The review included three longitudinal studies, none of which showed that the policies had an effect on smoking cessation. Fichtenberg & Glanz [ 21 ] focused on smoke-free workplaces and found that the effects of such policies seemed to depend on their strength. That is, 100% smoke-free policies were found to reduce cigarette consumption and smoking prevalence twice as much as partial smoke-free policies that allowed smoking in certain areas. In a recent exhaustive review, Frazer et al. [ 22 ] found that although national restrictions on smoking in public places may improve cardiovascular health outcomes and reduce smoking-related mortality, their effects on smoking behavior appear inconsistent. There are reasons why college anti-smoking policies may be more effective than policies focused on restaurant/bars or even workplaces. For example, students tend to spend the majority of their time on campus premises. In fact, in the case of 4-year colleges, a large number of students live on or around campus premises. Strong anti-smoking policies may deter students from smoking by making, for example, smoking very inconvenient. However, the current state of research on college anti-smoking policies and student smoking behavior is not well documented.

The purpose of the current study is to systematically review quantitative studies that have investigated the impact of college-level anti-smoking policies on students’ attitudes towards tobacco smoking and smoking behavior. In the process, we intend to highlight the types of research designs used across studies, the types of college and student participants represented across studies, and the studies’ major findings. A point to note is that this review’s focus is on anti-smoking policies and cigarette smoking. Although the review does assess tobacco-free policies in general, our assumption at the outset has been that most studies in the area have had a focus on smoke-free policies and smoking behavior because of the emphasis on secondhand smoke exposure. Smoke-free and tobacco-free policies are different in that smoke-free policies have traditionally targeted smoking only whereas tobacco-free policies that have targeted tobacco use of any kind, including smokeless tobacco [ 23 ]. Both types of policy could be easily extended to incorporate new tobacco products such as the electronic nicotine delivery devices, commonly known as e-cigarettes. Given that e-cigarettes are a relatively new phenomenon in the process of being regulated, we assumed that the studies eligible for the current review might not have addressed e-cigarette use, although if addressed by the studies reviewed, we were open to addressing e-cigarettes and e-cigarette use or vaping in the current review.

Study selection

We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1990 to June, 2016), PubMed (1990 to June, 2016), PsycINFO (1990 to 2013), and Google Scholar databases to identify U.S.-based peer-reviewed studies that examined the effects of college anti-smoking policies on young adults’ smoking behavior. Searches were conducted by crossing keywords “college” and “university” separately with “policy/policies” and “smoking”, “tobacco”, “school tobacco”, “smoke-free” “smoking ban,” and “tobacco free.” Article relevance was first determined by scanning the titles and abstracts of the articles generated from the initial search. Every quantitative study that dealt with college smoking policy was selected for the next round of appraisal, during which, the first and the last authors independently read the full texts of the articles to vet them for selection. Studies were selected for inclusion in the review if they met the following criteria: studies 1) were conducted in the U.S. college campuses, including 2- and 4-year colleges and universities; 2) were focused on young adults (18–25 year olds); 3) focused on implementation of college-level smoking policies; 4) were quantitative in methodology (e.g., case studies and studies based on focus groups and interviews were excluded); and 5) directly (e.g., self-report) or indirectly (e.g., counting cigarette butts on premises) assessed the cigarette smoking behavior. References and bibliographies of the articles that met the inclusion criteria were also carefully examined to locate additional, potentially eligible studies.

Selected studies were reviewed independently by the first and the last authors in terms of study objectives, study design (i.e., cross-sectional or longitudinal), data collection methods, participant characteristics, U.S. region where the study was conducted, college type (e.g., 2- year vs. 4-year), policies examined and the main study findings. The review results independently compiled by the two authors were compared and aggregated after differences were sorted out and a consensus was reached.

Study characteristics

Figure 1 depicts the path to the final set of articles selected for review. Initial searches across databases resulted in total 71 titles and abstracts related to college smoking policies. Of these, 49 were deemed ineligible at the first phase of evaluation. The remaining 22 articles were evaluated further, of which, 11 were excluded eventually. Two studies [ 24 , 25 ] were excluded because these studies did not assess students’ tobacco use behavior. One study [ 26 ] was excluded because it was not quantitative. Five studies [ 17 – 19 , 27 , 28 ] were excluded because the studies focused on compliance to existing smoking policies and did not assess the impact of policies on behavior. One study [ 15 ] was excluded because although it studied college students, the smoking policies examined were county-wide rather than college-level. Two studies [ 29 , 30 ] were excluded because their samples consisted of college personnel rather than students. Thus, a total of 11 studies were included in the current review.

Chart depicting selection of the final set of articles reviewed

Table 1 summarizes the selected studies in terms of research purpose, study design, subjects, type of college, region, policies and findings. The majority of the studies were conducted in the Midwestern ( n = 3; 27.3%) or Southeastern United States ( n = 3; 27.3%). Other regions represented across studies were Southern ( n = 2; 18.1%), Northwestern ( n = 2; 18.1%), and Western United States ( n = 1; 9.1%). Six studies (54.5%) included predominantly White participants (i.e., greater than 70%), and 2 studies (18%) included predominantly female participants. Nationally, women and Whites comprise 56% and 59% of the U.S. college student demographics, respectively [ 10 ]. Two studies (18.1%) assessed smoking behavior indirectly by counting cigarette butts on college premises, counting the number of individuals smoking cigarettes in campus smoking “hotspots,” or counting the number of smokers who utilized smoking cessation services. Across studies, the sample size ranged between N = 36 and N = 13,041. The mean and median sample sizes across studies were 3102 (SD = 4138) and 1309, respectively. Participants tended to range between 18 and 30 years in age. The majority of the studies ( n = 6; 54.4%) were cross-sectional in design. Only 2 (18%) of the studies were longitudinal. The majority of the studies were conducted at 4-year colleges ( n = 10; 90.9%). Only 1 study was conducted at a 2-year college ( n = 1; 9.1%).

Three studies (27%) focused on tobacco-free policies and 3 studies (27%) on smoke-free policies. Three studies ( n = 3; 27.3%) compared the associations of differing policies on smoking behavior. One study [ 31 ] examined the relative impacts of policies utilizing preventive education, smoking cessation programs, and designated smoking areas or partial smoking restriction. Another study [ 32 ] implemented an intervention to increase adherence to a partial smoking policy (i.e., smoking ban within 25 ft of buildings). The intervention involved increasing anti-tobacco signage, moving receptacles, marking the ground, and distributing reinforcements and reminder cards.

Anti-smoking policies and students’ smoking behavior

Table 1 lists the types of anti-smoking policies examined across studies and the corresponding findings. Major findings are as follows:

Partial smoking restriction

Borders et al. [ 31 ] compared colleges that utilized partial smoking restriction by providing “designated smoking areas” to curb smoking with college-level policies that incorporated preventive education and with those that provided smoking cessation courses only. Results indicated that the presence of preventive education was associated with lower odds of past-30-day smoking whereas the presence of designated smoking areas only or smoking cessation programs only was associated with higher odds of past-30-day smoking. Fallin et al. [ 16 ] found that college campuses with designated smoking areas tended to show higher prevalence of smoking, compared with campuses that enforced smoke-free and tobacco-free policies. Braverman et al.’s [ 33 ] findings indicate that enforcing smoke-free policies tends to reduce secondhand exposure close to college buildings but may increase smoking behavior on the campus periphery.

Smoke- and tobacco-free campuses

Fallin et al. [ 16 ] found that compared with policies that relied on partial smoking restriction, tobacco-free policies were associated with reduced self-reported exposure to secondhand smoke as well as students’ lower self-reported intentions to smoke cigarettes in the future. Studies [ 34 , 35 ] consistently observed fewer cigarette butts or smokers in campuses under smoke-free policies compared with campuses without smoke-free policies. Prevalence of cigarette butts was likely to be inversely related to policy strength [ 35 ]. A study that monitored smokers’ behavioral compliance to smoke-free policies [ 32 ] indicated that interventions to promote compliance, such as use of signage, are likely to be effective in improving compliance and reducing student smoking in areas were the policy is enforced.

Lechner et al. [ 36 ] conducted assessments at a single college campus before and after a tobacco-free policy went into implementation. The policy, which also involved making smoking cessation services available campus-wide, was found to reduce proportions of high- and low-frequency smokers, pro-smoking attitudes (i.e., weight loss expectancy), and exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke [ 36 ]. The study did not find an effect on smoking prevalence. Seo et al. [ 37 ] followed a similar design where a policy intervention was evaluated based on pretest and posttest surveys. However, this study [ 37 ] included a “control” campus where similar assessments as in the “treatment” campus were conducted but no intervention was implemented. The study found that compared with the control campus, the campus that implemented smoke-free policies showed an overall decrease in smoking prevalence.

Other policies

Borders et al. [ 31 ] did not find policies governing the sales and distribution of cigarettes on campus to be associated with smoking behavior. Hahn et al. [ 38 ] found that college smoking policies that integrate smoking cessation services may increase the use of such services as well as promote smoking cessation. This study kept track of students who utilized the smoking cessation service offered by a college after the policy offering such a service was enacted. Sixteen months after the policy was first implemented, smokers who utilized the service were surveyed. Based the results it was estimated that approximately 9% of them had quit smoking.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically review studies examining the effects of anti-smoking policies on smoking behaviors among U.S. college students. We found that such studies are severely limited. Only 11 studies met the inclusion criteria in the present review, although the review appeared to encompass all policies aimed at smoking behavior on college campuses. Thus, this review stresses the need for increased smoking policy and smoking behavior research on college campuses.

Rigorous evaluation of existing college anti-tobacco policies are needed to refine and improve the policies so that national-level efforts to reduce tobacco use among young adults are realized. Key initiatives at the national level have recognized the importance of mobilizing college campuses in the fight against tobacco use. For example, in September 2012 several national leaders involved in tobacco control efforts, in collaboration with the ACHA, came together to launch the Tobacco-Free College Campus Initiative (TFCCI) [ 39 ]. The TFCCI aims to promote and support the use of college-level anti-tobacco policies as a means to change pro-tobacco social norms on campuses, discourage tobacco use, protect non-smokers from second-hand exposure to tobacco smoke and promote smoking cessation. The ACHA’s position statement [ 11 ] regarding college tobacco control recommends a no tobacco use policy aimed towards achieving a 100% indoor and outdoor campus-wide tobacco-free environment.

We found that the majority of studies on smoking policies were cross-sectional in nature. Researchers relied upon students to report their smoking behavior or their observations of other students’ smoking behavior after a smoke-free or tobacco-free policy had been implemented. It is difficult to draw conclusions about an anti-smoking policy’s ability to change smoking behavior without knowing the smoking behavior prior to policy implementation. This domain of research would benefit from additional longitudinal studies. Ideally, research studies should collect data before the policy is implemented, immediately after, and at follow-up time points.

We found inconsistencies in the measurement of smoking behavior across studies. Two studies [ 34 , 35 ] counted cigarette butts, one study [ 38 ] counted people seeking tobacco dependence treatment, one study [ 32 ] counted smokers violating policy, and seven studies [ 16 , 31 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 41 ] relied upon self-report of smoking behavior. Another study [ 33 ] used survey methods to obtain participants’ response on other students’ smoking behavior. Counting cigarette butts has been validated as an effective measure of smoking behavior [ 19 ], especially when validating compliance to an anti-smoking policy, and self-report measures are commonly used in public health research [ 42 ]. Despite the validity and feasibility of these measures, the lack of a consistent measurement tool makes comparing effectiveness of anti-smoking policies on smoking behaviors across campuses difficult. Research in this domain would benefit from a consistently used measurement of smoking behaviors.

Although the reviewed studies represented diverse U.S. regions, the majority of the research was set in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States; Northeastern and Southwestern regions were not represented. Only one of the reviewed studies reported a sample that contained less than 50% White participants. Across studies, the minority group most represented was Asian American; but only one of the reviewed studies [ 16 ] included 20% or more Asian Americans. Relatively few studies included or reported Hispanic participants, although Hispanics are the largest minority group in the United States [ 43 ]. None of the reviewed studies included 20% or more Black participants. Only three studies [ 33 , 36 , 37 ] included American Indian/Alaska Natives and in only one of those studies [ 32 ] was the proportion greater than one percent. Only two studies [ 33 , 37 ] included Pacific Islanders, and in both the proportion was less than one percent. Clearly, more research is needed on minority populations, specifically Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native students and the subgroups commonly subsumed under these ethnic/racial categories. The U.S. college student demography is ethnically/racially diverse [ 10 ], comprising 59% Whites. The remaining 44% include various minority groups. Thus, for research on U.S. college students across the nation, studies with more ethnically/racially diverse student samples are needed.

The review findings were helpful in elucidating the types of tobacco policies being implemented on college campuses and their effects on the smoking behavior of U.S. college students. Mainly, three types of smoking policies were studied: smoke-free policies, tobacco-free policies and policies that enforced partial smoking restriction, including prohibition of smoking within 20–25 ft of all buildings and providing designated smoking areas. Indeed, campus-wide indoor and outdoor tobacco-free policy is considered a gold-standard for college campus tobacco control policy [ 11 ]. But only one study [ 16 ] compared tobacco-free and smoke-free policies. Other policies such as governing the sale and distribution of tobacco products, preventive education programs, and smoking cessations programs were also studied, but to a lesser extent. In general, interventions regarding the implementation of smoking policies on college campuses were difficult to find in the existing literature.

The combined results of the studies reviewed suggest that stricter smoking policies are more successful in reducing the smoking behavior of students. Tobacco-free and smoke-free policies were linked with reduced smoking frequency [ 16 , 36 , 37 ], reduced exposure to second-hand smoke [ 16 , 36 ], and a reduction in pro-smoking attitudes [ 36 ]. Implementation of a campus-wide tobacco-free or smoke-free policy combined with access to smoking cessation services was also associated with increased quit attempts [ 38 , 40 ] and treatment seeking behaviors [ 38 ]. It appears that 100% smoke-free policies are not only successful in reducing smoking rates, but also have strong support from students and staff members alike [ 33 ]. These results remained consistent when compared to less comprehensive tobacco control policies, which was evidenced by student report and the number of cigarette butts found on campus [ 34 , 35 ].

There was one important consistent exception to the general success of anti-smoking policies: designated smoking areas. All three studies which included designated smoking areas [ 16 , 31 , 41 ] found that designated smoking areas were associated with higher rates of smoking compared with smoke-free or tobacco-free policies. Designated smoking areas were also associated with the highest rates of recent smoking [ 16 ]. Lochbihler, Miller, and Etcheverry [ 41 ] proposed that students using the designated areas were more likely to experience positive effects of social interaction while smoking. They found that social interaction while smoking on campus significantly increased the perceived rewards associated with smoking and the frequency of visits to designated smoking areas [ 41 ].

None of the studies included in this review addressed new and emerging tobacco products such as e-cigarettes. This is understandable given that the surge in e-cigarette use is relatively new and in general there have only been a few studies examining the effects of anti-smoking policies on student smoking behavior, which has been the focus of this review. However, going forward, it will be crucial for studies to examine how campus policies are going to handle e-cigarette use, including the enforcement of on-campus anti-smoking policies given the new challenges posed by e-cigarette use [ 44 ]. For example, e-cigarette use is highly visible, the smell of the e-cigarette vapor does not linger in the air for long and e-cigarette consumption does not result in something similar to cigarette butts. These characteristics are likely to make the monitoring of policy compliance more difficult. Moreover, because of the general perception among e-cigarette users that e-cigarette use is safer than cigarette smoking, compared with cigarette smokers smoking cigarettes, e-cigarette users might be more likely to use e-cigarettes in public places. The fact that the TFCCI strongly recommends the inclusion of e-cigarettes in college tobacco-free policies [ 39 ] bodes well for the future of college health.

The current study has certain limitations. It is possible that this review might have missed a very small number of eligible studies. We believe that the literature searches we completed were thorough. However, new studies are regularly being published and the possibility that a new, eligible study may have been published after we completed our searches cannot be ignored. In addition, we may not have tapped eligible studies that were in press during our searches. If indeed a few eligible studies were not included in our review, the non-inclusion may have biased our results somewhat, although it is difficult for us to speculate the nature of such a bias. Hence, we recommend that similar studies need to be conducted in the future to periodically review the literature. Second, non-peer-reviewed articles or book chapters were excluded from this review. Despite the potential relevance of non-peer-reviewed materials, the choice was made to limit the inclusion in order to maintain scientific rigor of the review. However, it is possible that some data pertinent to the review might have been overlooked because of this, thus increasing the possibility of introducing a bias to the current findings. Third, this study focused on anti-smoking policies. Although we used “tobacco free” as search terms, “smoking” dominated our search strategies. Thus our results are more pertinent to cigarette smoking than other tobacco products and may not generalize to the latter. Lastly, in order to be as inclusive as possible, we reviewed three studies [ 32 , 35 , 38 ] that focused on more on compliance to anti-smoking policy than on the effect of policy on student smoking behavior. The findings of these studies may not be comprehensive in regard to student smoking behavior, even though they are indicative of the success of the policies under examination.

Conclusions

Despite limitations, this study is significant for increasing the understanding of smoking policies on U.S. college campuses and their effects on the smoking behavior of college students. We found that research on smoking policies on U.S. college campuses is very limited and is an area in need of additional research contribution. Within existing research, the majority used samples that were primarily White females. More diverse samples are needed. Future research should also report the full racial/ethnic characteristics of their samples in order to identify where representation may be lacking. Future research would benefit from longitudinal and interventional studies of the implementation of smoking policies. The majority of current research is cross-sectional, which does not provide the needed data in order to make causal statements about anti-smoking policies. Lastly, existing research was primarily conducted at 4-year colleges or universities. Future research would benefit from broadening the target campuses to include community colleges and trade schools. Community colleges provide a rich and unique opportunity to collect data on a population that is often older and more racial diverse than a typical 4-year college sample [ 45 ]. Also, there is at present a need to understand through research how evidence-based implementation and compliance strategies can be utilized to ensure policy success. A strong policy on paper does not often translate into a strong policy in action. Thus, comparing policies on the strength of written documents alone is not enough; policies need to be compared on the extent to which they are enforced as well as the impact they have on student behavior.

This review may be of particular interest to college or universities in the process of making their own anti-smoking policies. The combined results of the existing studies on the impact of anti-smoking policies on smoking behaviors among U.S. college students can help colleges and universities make informed decisions. The existing research suggests that stricter policies produce better results for smoking behavior reduction and with smoking continuing to remain a leading preventable cause of mortality in the U.S. across age-groups [ 1 ], college and university policy makers should take note. Young adults (18–25 year olds) show the highest prevalence of cigarette smoking [ 1 ], which places colleges and universities in the unique position to potentially intervene through restrictive anti-smoking policies on campus.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: a report of the surgeon general. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2012.

Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Smoking and tobacco use. 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/ . Accessed 16 Aug 2016.

Pierce JP, White MM, Messer K. Changing age-specific patterns of cigarette consumption in the United States, 1992–2002: association with smoke-free homes and state-level tobacco control activity. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11:171–7.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Schane RE, Ling PM, Glanz SA. Health effects of light and intermittent smoking: a review. Circulation. 2010;121:1518–22.

Peto R, Darby S, Deo H, Silcocks P, Whitley E, Doll R. Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the U.K. since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. BMJ. 2000;321:323–9.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Bruvold WH. A meta-analysis of adolescent smoking prevention programs. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:872–80.

Pentz MA, Dwyer JH, MacKinnon DP, Flay BR, Hansen WB, Wang EY, Johnson CA. A multicommunity trial for primary prevention of adolescent drug abuse: effects on drug use prevalence. JAMA. 1989;261:3259–66.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Tobler NS, Roona MR, Ochshom P, Marshall DG, Streke AV, Stackpole KM. School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. J Prim Prev. 2000;20:275–336.

Article Google Scholar

Ling PM, Glantz SA. Why and how the tobacco industry sells cigarettes to young adults: evidence from industry documents. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:908–16.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Fast facts. 2016. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98 . Accessed 16 Aug 2016.

American College Health Association. Position statement on tobacco on college and university campuses. 2011. https://www.acha.org/documents/resources/guidelines/ACHA_Position_Statement_on_Tobacco_Nov2011.pdf . Retrieved November 20, 2016.

Wechsler H, Kelly K, Seibring M, Kuo M, Rigotti NA. College smoking policies and smoking cessation programs: results of a survey of college health center directors. J Am Coll Health. 2001;49:205–12.

Patterson F, Lerman C, Kaufmann VG, Neuner GA, Audrain-McGovern J. Cigarette smoking practices among American college students: review and future directions. J Am Coll Health. 2004;52:203–12.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Wolfson M, McCoy TP, Sutfin EL. College students’ exposure to secondhand smoke. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11:977–84.

Hahn EJ, Rayens MK, Ridner SL, Butler KM, Zhang M, Staten RR. Smoke-free laws and smoking and drinking among college students. J Community Health. 2010;35:503–11.

Fallin A, Roditis M, Glantz SA. Association of campus tobacco policies with secondhand smoke exposure, intention to smoke on campus, and attitudes about outdoor smoking restrictions. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:1098–100.

Fallin A, Johnson AO, Riker C, Cohen E, Rayens MK, Hahn EJ. An intervention to increase compliance with a tobacco-free university policy. Am J Health Promot. 2013;27:162–9.

Ickes MJ, Hahn EJ, McCann M, Kercmar S. Tobacco‐free take action: increasing policy adherence on a college campus. World Med Health Policy. 2013;5:47–56.

Ickes MJ, Gokun Y, Rayens MK, Hahn EJ. Comparing two observational measures to evaluate compliance with tobacco-free campus policy. Health Promot Pract. 2015;16:210–7.

Wilson LM, Tang EA, Chander G, et al. Impact of tobacco control interventions on smoking initiation, cessation, and prevalence: a systematic review. J Environ Public Health. 2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/961724 .

Fichtenberg CM, Glanz SA. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behavior: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;325:188–95.

Frazer K, Callinan JE, McHugh J, van Baarsel S, Clarke A, Doherty K, Kelleher C. Legislative smoking bans for reducing harms from secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005992.pub3 .

Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. 2016. http://www.no-smoke.org/ . Accessed 20 Nov 2016.

Lee JG, Goldstein AO, Kramer KD, Steiner J, Ezzell MM, Shah V. Statewide diffusion of 100% tobacco-free college and university policies. Tob Control. 2010;19:311–7.

Miller KD, Yu D, Lee JG, Ranney LM, Simons DJ, Goldstein AO. Impact of the adoption of tobacco-free campus policies on student enrollment at colleges and universities, North Carolina, 2001–2010. J Am Coll Health. 2015;63:230–6.

Garg T, Fradkin N, Moskowitz JM. Adoption of an outdoor residential hall smoking policy in a California public university: a case study. J Am Coll Health. 2011;59:769–71.

Ickes MJ, Rayens MK, Wiggins AT, Hahn EJ. A tobacco-free campus ambassador program and policy compliance. J Am Coll Health. 2015;63:126–33.

Russette HC, Harris KJ, Schuldberg D, Green L. Policy compliance of smokers on a tobacco-free university campus. J Am Coll Health. 2014;62:110–6.

Gerson M, Allard JL, Towvim LG. Impact of smoke-free residence hall policies: the views of administrators at 3 state universities. J Am Coll Health. 2005;54:157–65.

Mamudu HM, Veeranki SP, He Y, Dadkar S, Boone E. University personnel’s attitudes and behaviors toward the first tobacco-free campus policy in Tennessee. J Community Health. 2012;37:855–64.

Borders TF, Xu KT, Bacchi D, Cohen L, SoRelle-Miner D. College campus smoking policies and programs and students’ smoking behaviors. BMC Public Health 2005;5: doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-5-74 .

Harris KJ, Stearns JN, Kovach RG, Harrar SW. Enforcing an outdoor smoking ban on a college campus: effects of a multicomponent approach. J Am Coll Health. 2009;58:121–6.

Braverman MT, Hoogesteger LA, Johnson JA. Predictors of support among students, faculty and staff for a smoke-free university campus. Prev Med. 2015;71:114–20.

Fallin A, Murrey M, Johnson AO, Riker CA, Rayens MK, Hahn EJ. Measuring compliance with tobacco-free campus policy. J Am Coll Health. 2012;60:496–504.

Lee JG, Ranney LM, Goldstein AO. Cigarette butts near building entrances: what is the impact of smoke-free college campus policies? Tob Control. 2011;22:107–12.

Lechner WV, Meier E, Miller MB, Wiener JL, Fils-Aime Y. Changes in smoking prevalence, attitudes, and beliefs over 4 years following a campus-wide anti-tobacco intervention. J Am Coll Health. 2012;60:505–11.

Seo DC, Macy JT, Torabi MR, Middlestadt SE. The effect of a smoke-free campus policy on college students’ smoking behaviors and attitudes. Prev Med. 2011;53:347–52.

Hahn EJ, Fallin A, Darville A, Kercsmar SE, McCann M, Record RA. The three Ts of adopting tobacco-free policies on college campuses. Nurs Clin North Am. 2012;47:109–17.

The National Tobacco Free College Campus Initiative. 2012. http://tobaccofreecampus.org/ . Retrieved November 20.

Butler KM, Rayens MK, Hahn EJ, Adkins SM, Staten RR. Smoke‐free policy and alcohol use among undergraduate college students. Public Health Nurs. 2012;29:256–65.

Lochbihler SL, Miller DA, Etcheverry PE. Extending animal models to explore social rewards associated with designated smoking areas on college campuses. J Am Coll Health. 2014;62:145–52.

Gorber SC, Tremblay MS. Self-report and direct measures of health: bias and implications. In: Shepherd RJ, Tudor-Locke C, editors. The objective monitoring of physical activity: contributions of accelerometry to epidemiology, exercise science and rehabilitation. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 369–76.

Chapter Google Scholar

U.S. Census Bureau. United States Census 2010. 2010. http://www.census.gov/ . Accessed 3 Jun 2013.

Pokhrel P, Herzog TA, Muranaka N, Fagan P. Young adult e-cigarette users’ reasons for liking and not liking e-cigarettes: a qualitative study. Psychol Health. 2015;30:1450–69.

Pokhrel P, Little MA, Herzog TA. Current methods in health behavior research among US community college students: a review of the literature. Eval Health Prof. 2014;37:178–202.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research was supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI) grant 1R01CA202277-01.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated during the current study. All articles that contributed to the results and conclusions of the current study are included in the reference list.

Authors’ contributions

BB conducted the literature review, analyzed and interpreted results, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. MD assisted with the literature review. PP conceptualized the study, assisted with the literature review and manuscript preparation, and provided overall guidance. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Ethics approval and consent to participate, author information, authors and affiliations.

Cancer Prevention & Control Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 701 Ilalo St, Honolulu, HI96822, USA

Brooke L. Bennett, Melodi Deiner & Pallav Pokhrel

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pallav Pokhrel .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bennett, B.L., Deiner, M. & Pokhrel, P. College anti-smoking policies and student smoking behavior: a review of the literature. Tob. Induced Dis. 15 , 11 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12971-017-0117-z

Download citation

Received : 09 September 2016

Accepted : 21 January 2017

Published : 01 February 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12971-017-0117-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Young adults
Cigarette smoking

Tobacco Induced Diseases

ISSN: 1617-9625

General enquiries: [email protected]

Read each question and choose the best thesis statement.

Essay on Smoking

500 words essay on smoking.

One of the most common problems we are facing in today’s world which is killing people is smoking. A lot of people pick up this habit because of stress , personal issues and more. In fact, some even begin showing it off. When someone smokes a cigarette, they not only hurt themselves but everyone around them. It has many ill-effects on the human body which we will go through in the essay on smoking.

Ill-Effects of Smoking

Tobacco can have a disastrous impact on our health. Nonetheless, people consume it daily for a long period of time till it’s too late. Nearly one billion people in the whole world smoke. It is a shocking figure as that 1 billion puts millions of people at risk along with themselves.

Cigarettes have a major impact on the lungs. Around a third of all cancer cases happen due to smoking. For instance, it can affect breathing and causes shortness of breath and coughing. Further, it also increases the risk of respiratory tract infection which ultimately reduces the quality of life.

In addition to these serious health consequences, smoking impacts the well-being of a person as well. It alters the sense of smell and taste. Further, it also reduces the ability to perform physical exercises.

It also hampers your physical appearances like giving yellow teeth and aged skin. You also get a greater risk of depression or anxiety . Smoking also affects our relationship with our family, friends and colleagues.

Most importantly, it is also an expensive habit. In other words, it entails heavy financial costs. Even though some people don’t have money to get by, they waste it on cigarettes because of their addiction.

How to Quit Smoking?

There are many ways through which one can quit smoking. The first one is preparing for the day when you will quit. It is not easy to quit a habit abruptly, so set a date to give yourself time to prepare mentally.

Further, you can also use NRTs for your nicotine dependence. They can reduce your craving and withdrawal symptoms. NRTs like skin patches, chewing gums, lozenges, nasal spray and inhalers can help greatly.

Moreover, you can also consider non-nicotine medications. They require a prescription so it is essential to talk to your doctor to get access to it. Most importantly, seek behavioural support. To tackle your dependence on nicotine, it is essential to get counselling services, self-materials or more to get through this phase.

One can also try alternative therapies if they want to try them. There is no harm in trying as long as you are determined to quit smoking. For instance, filters, smoking deterrents, e-cigarettes, acupuncture, cold laser therapy, yoga and more can work for some people.

Always remember that you cannot quit smoking instantly as it will be bad for you as well. Try cutting down on it and then slowly and steadily give it up altogether.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Smoking

Thus, if anyone is a slave to cigarettes, it is essential for them to understand that it is never too late to stop smoking. With the help and a good action plan, anyone can quit it for good. Moreover, the benefits will be evident within a few days of quitting.

FAQ of Essay on Smoking

Question 1: What are the effects of smoking?

Answer 1: Smoking has major effects like cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and more. It also increases the risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems with the immune system .

Question 2: Why should we avoid smoking?

Answer 2: We must avoid smoking as it can lengthen your life expectancy. Moreover, by not smoking, you decrease your risk of disease which includes lung cancer, throat cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and more.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Buy Custom Assignment
Custom College Papers
Buy Dissertation
Buy Research Papers
Buy Custom Term Papers
Cheap Custom Term Papers
Custom Courseworks
Custom Thesis Papers
Custom Expository Essays
Custom Plagiarism Check
Cheap Custom Essay
Custom Argumentative Essays
Custom Case Study
Custom Annotated Bibliography
Custom Book Report
How It Works
+1 (888) 398 0091
Essay Samples
Essay Topics
Research Topics
Uncategorized
Writing Tips

How To Create A Thesis Statement For An Academic Essay About Smoking In The Us

August 10, 2017

A thesis statement is not supposed to be something that you have to worry about. This is actually one of the easiest things that you need to think about. There are a number of students who struggle to learn how to frame a really good statement, and bearing that in mind, it will be important to at least try and make sure that you are in a good position to address the issue at hand, and then from there you can think about how to frame this and make a really good paper in the process.

The following are some ideas that you need to think about when you are looking to write the thesis statement for your essay on smoking in the US:

What do you want to tell the reader?

What idea do you want the reader to have?

How do your ideas fit in with the topic.

If at all there is something that you need to know when working on this particular idea for your research essay , it is the fact that you need to figure out beforehand the message that you want to share with the reader of your paper. This is one of the most important things that will help you determine how to frame this statement the way you want it to come out.

If you can do this well, rest assured that your statement will blend in perfectly with the reader, and you will have the best experience so far when you are working on this.

Other than what you want to tell the audience, you also need to think in terms of the perception that you want them to have of your topic . You should think about how you would want them to react when you are discussing your ideas on smoking within the US, and then frame your statement based on the same concept.

A good thesis statement has to blend in well with the topic of your essay .

This is mandatory. Someone should read it and see the connection between it and your topic and nod in appreciation. If you are able to do this, you will have made the first and most important step towards writing one of the best papers ever.

Write my essay for me ? With our service that is the best custom writing service , it's easy! Ask support for help.

Sociology Research Topics Ideas

Importance of Computer in Nursing Practice Essay

History Research Paper Topics For Students

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related emails.

Latest Articles

Navigating the complexities of a Document-Based Question (DBQ) essay can be daunting, especially given its unique blend of historical analysis...

An introduction speech stands as your first opportunity to connect with an audience, setting the tone for the message you...

Embarking on the journey to write a rough draft for an essay is not just a task but a pivotal...

I want to feel as happy, as your customers do, so I'd better order now

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
17 April 2024
Correction 18 April 2024

Smoking bans are coming: what does the evidence say?

Carissa Wong

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Smoking rates have declined globally over the past few decades. Credit: Debbie Bragg/Everynight Images via Alamy

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Nations worldwide are aiming to introduce some of the tightest restrictions ever on smoking and vaping, especially among young people.

On 16 April, UK lawmakers backed one of the world’s most ambitious plans — to create by 2040 a ‘smoke-free’ generation of people who will never be able to legally buy tobacco. The proposal is now a step closer to becoming law. The UK, Australian and French governments are also clamping down on vaping with e-cigarettes. These countries’ bold policies are currently in the minority, say researchers, but such measures would almost certainly prevent diseases, as well as save lives and billions of dollars in health-care costs.

Smoking scars the immune system for years after quitting

The UK plan would probably “be the most impactful public-health policy ever introduced”, says health-policy researcher Duncan Gillespie at the University of Sheffield, UK. The Conservative government’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak initiated the proposal. The government hopes that the smoking restrictions, alongside offering health benefits for individuals, will reduce toxic chemicals leaching from used vapes into the environment.

Smoke-free generations

The health harms of smoking tobacco have been established for decades — it substantially raises the risk of diseases including cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Increased awareness of these health risks has led to a global decline in the deadly habit in the past few decades (see ‘Smoke clearing’).

SMOKE CLEARING. Chart shows the worldwide decline of tobacco smoking among people aged 15 and over.

Source: WHO

Any drop in smoking rates saves money and reduces the burden on health-care systems, says Alison Commar, who studies tobacco policy at the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland. The WHO estimates that tobacco use costs the world US$1.4 trillion every year in health expenditures and lost productivity. “Every tobacco-related illness is adding to the burden on the health system unnecessarily,” says Commar.

The UK proposal, announced last October, would ban the sale of tobacco to any person born in or after 2009. That would prevent anyone who turns 15 or younger this year from ever buying cigarettes legally in the country. From 2027, the minimum legal age to purchase tobacco products would increase from 18 years old by one year each year — meaning that the threshold in 2028, for instance, would be 20. This strategy, the government hopes, will by 2040 create a smoke-free generation. The UK move follows similar legislation announced in 2021 by New Zealand. The nation reversed its intended ban because tobacco sales were needed to help pay for tax cuts, but the government said last month that it will seek to ban disposable vapes.

Modelling smokers

The UK government’s policies are backed by a modelling study published in December that predicts how the proposal would affect smoking rates and people over time. Its ‘pessimistic’ model predicts that the policy could reduce the smoking rate among people aged 14–30 from 13% in 2023 to around 8% in 2030. By 2040, just 5% of this age group would smoke. In the baseline scenario, 8% of 14- to 30-year-olds would smoke. In the ‘optimistic’ scenario, only 0.4% of that age group would start smoking by 2040 (see ‘Ban plan’). That model suggests that, by 2075, the policy would save tens of thousands of lives and £11 billion ($13.7 billion) in health-care costs by preventing smoking-related diseases.

These projections are based on solid evidence and are of high quality, says tobacco researcher Allen Gallagher at the University of Bath, UK.

Still, no country has ever introduced a policy that raises the minimum tobacco-purchasing age in this way — only time will tell what the effects will be, says Commar.

Vaping bans

Nations are also targeting vaping, a trend that began around 2010 and has surged among younger people. Many people have perceived it as a potentially healthier alternative to smoking — for which there is substantial evidence. But whether vaping itself harms health has long been controversial, and the evidence is uncertain.

“The results are not super clear, but certainly hint towards vaping causing damage to the lungs and other organs,” says Carolyn Baglole, who studies lung disease at the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Canada.

BAN PLAN. Chart shows UK government projections for smoking prevalence and lives saved.

Source: UK government

Vapes are made of a box filled with liquid that usually contains nicotine, a heating element that turns the liquid into aerosols and a mouthpiece to inhale the aerosol ‘vape’ clouds, which are often fruity or dessert-flavoured. Although vapes lack tobacco and most of the toxic chemicals in cigarettes, the nicotine is still harmful. Nicotine can raise blood pressure, increase the risk of heart and lung disease and disrupt brain development in children and adolescents. In turn, this can lead to impairments in attention, memory and learning.

The UK plan includes banning disposable vapes, restricting vape flavours that appeal to young users and limiting how vapes are advertised. Most young people in Great Britain use disposable vapes rather than rechargeable ones than can be refilled with liquid, according to a survey by the public-health charity Action on Smoking and Health, based in London. Rechargeable vapes would remain legal.

Global policies

The French government also wants to ban disposable vapes this year, and in December its parliament unanimously backed the proposal. And in 2021, Australia restricted e-cigarette sales to smokers who have a prescription for using vapes to quit smoking. “There is a good consensus that vaping is likely to pose only a small fraction of risks of smoking over the long term,” says psychologist Peter Hajek at Queen Mary University of London, who led a study 1 that suggested vaping safely helped pregnant women to stop smoking.

But illegal vaping is still surging among people under the legal age of 18 in Australia, according to research by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. That’s led the government to tighten rules on vape products. “This policy push should see the upswing in youth vaping contained and reversed,” says epidemiologist Tony Blakely at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

The flavoured liquid in vapes also contains solvents such as propylene glycol and glycerin. Agencies including the US and European Union drug regulators have approved these chemicals for oral consumption. But animal studies suggest that inhaling them could cause damage and inflammation, raising the risk of lung and heart disease 2 . “The issue is we don’t know much about what happens when you heat these products and aerosolize them for inhalation,” says Baglole.

One thing researchers know is that the heating element in e-cigarettes can release heavy metals into the inhaled aerosols. These particles have been linked to a raised risk of heart and respiratory disease, she says.

Ultimately, scientists seem to be overwhelmingly in favour of tough restrictions on smoking and vaping. Research is needed to establish the long-term health impacts of such policies, says Baglole. “Hopefully, different types of studies, different models, in addition to human participants, will start to paint a more complete picture,” she says.

Nature 628 , 695-696 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00472-3

Updates & Corrections

Correction 18 April 2024 : The graphic ‘Smoking prevalence’ wrongly coloured the chart lines for the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. This has been corrected.

Pesola, F. et al. Addiction 119 , 875–884 (2024).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Traboulsi, H. et al. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21 , 3495 (2020).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Public health

India’s 50-year-old Chipko movement is a model for environmental activism

Correspondence 23 APR 24

The Middle East’s largest hypersaline lake risks turning into an environmental disaster zone

More work is needed to take on the rural wastewater challenge

Monkeypox virus: dangerous strain gains ability to spread through sex, new data suggest

News 23 APR 24

Any plan to make smoking obsolete is the right step

Editorial 23 APR 24

Postdoctoral Associate

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Description Applications are invited for a postdoctoral fellow position at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health, to participate...

Toronto (City), Ontario (CA)

Sinai Health

Postdoctoral Research Associate - Surgery

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Open Rank Faculty Position in Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics

The Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics (www.virginia.edu/bmg) and the University of Virginia Cancer Center

Charlottesville, Virginia

Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics

Postdoctoral Position - Synthetic Cell/Living Cell Spheroids for Interactive Biomaterials

Co-assembly of artificial cells and living cells to make co-spheroid structures and study their interactive behavior for biomaterials applications.

Mainz, Rheinland-Pfalz (DE)

University of Mainz

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Who Killed Deyda Hydara?
Download The Point News App
The Point Archive

National News
Youth Forum

10 reasons not to smoke

Feb 26, 2013, 12:16 PM | Article By: Isatou Senghore

Smoking kills more than AIDS, alcohol, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.

DR AZADEH our health adviser a Senior Lecturer at the Medical School at the University of the Gambia and a Senior Consultant Physician is focussing on this week’s health advice on the damage to the health including developing lung cancer caused by smoking and how to quit smoking to live healthier and longer.

DR AZADEH why is smoking so harmful? It is an absolute fact that smoking became the commonest killer in human history in recent century and unfortunately Gambia is not an exception when it comes to smoking in even very young adults and not only cigarettes but also other harmful drugs in quite a large numbers. Let me give you some important statistics related to smoking in young people

Here are some facts and some information on the dangers and hazards of smoking. Reading and understanding this information should be enough to convince you to not start smoking.

• 30,700 teenagers die each year in New York from smoking, unfortunately no statistics available in the Gambia

• Recent research has revealed that smoking tobacco as a teenager does greater damage to the lungs because they are still developing.

• The average age that a child first tries tobacco is 11 also been seen here in the Gambia too.

• Almost 90 percent of adult smokers began at or before the age of 18.

• Smoking kills more than AIDS, alcohol, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.

1. Smoking under age 18 is illegal. Using, holding, or buying of cigarettes hopefully we will have very soon the same law as western countries that cigarettes must not be sold to under age as unfortunately young children here have very easy access to go to any corner shop and buy cigarettes for themselves and their members of their families

2. Smoking reduces your ability to do things that require endurance, such as sports, etc.

The tar in the cigarettes covers up alveoli, which help you breathe, which makes for less surface area for gas exchange.

In other words, you must breathe more to get the same amount of oxygen as if you didn’t smoke. So the effect that has on sports is that you will get tired quicker due to a lack of oxygen, which inevitably reduces your endurance.

3. Smoking can seriously harm your body in ways of cancer, emphysema, etc. Also, it leads to your early demise.

4. Smoking is a repulsive habit, especially when it comes to the opposite sex.

5. Smoking makes you and your environment stink. Your room stinks, your house stinks, your clothes stink, and, if you have one, your car stinks.

6. The nicotine in cigarettes are extremely addictive, and, chances are that if you start early, then it’ll be harder to quit the habit.

7. Smoking may cause tension between friend and family relationships. If anyone gets upset that you smoke, then you’d probably get angry and fight with that person, defending why you smoke.

8. It is also a very costly habit. You may lose all your money before you know it. For example, let’s say that you smoke one pack of cigarettes per day, and the price is D25 dalasi per pack. Then every month you’d spend approximately D750 dalasi on cigarettes alone! That money could definitely be use for your health

9. contrary to what you might hear in songs or see in the movies, smoking cigarettes DOES NOT MAKE YOU LOOK COOL!

Effects on Smoking Cigarettes • Due to tobacco use, work performance and productivity annually decreases, resulting in early termination from your job. For example, when you start working at a job, and you don’t smoke, you do fine. But when you start smoking, then each year, you get slower and slower at your job due to a lack of oxygen because of the alveoli being covered with tar.

• Nicotine in cigarettes causes a great addiction to them.

• There are also many health hazards related to smoking of which we shall now explain

Effects on the Respiratory (breathing) System As you know, smoking cigarettes literally destroys your lungs. This destruction is caused by conditions such as smoker’s cough, emphysema, and lung cancer.

• Smoker’s Cough - a condition where the ammonia in cigarettes paralyzes the cilia in the trachea, causing tar, phlegm, etc. to slide to the bottom of the lungs. This creates a dry, hacking cough.

• Emphysema - a condition where the tar in cigarettes coats the lungs’ alveoli turning them black. As a result, the alveoli lose their elasticity and eventually explode (this damage is irreversible).

• Lung Cancer - this condition will be be deadly. This is the number 1 cancer killer in the United States.

Effects on the Circulatory System The nicotine in cigarettes stimulates the heart and constricts the body’s blood vessels. This results in high blood pressure and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, blood clots, and fatty deposits.

Effects on Pregnancy For further information on the potential effects on an unborn child from a mother smoking during pregnancy,

Addictive Potential Smoking causes compulsive, often uncontrollable cravings. This is caused by the nicotine in the cigarette. When one tries to quit smoking, he or she will exhibit withdrawal symptoms, which is a reaction to your craving for nicotine. These symptoms include shaking, a cold sweat, and sometimes paranoia.

How Do You Quit?

1. Do not carry cigarettes.

2. Quit smoking one day at a time. Do not concern yourself with next year, next month, next week or even tomorrow. Concentrate on not smoking from the time you wake up until you go to sleep.

3. Work on developing the attitude that you are doing yourself a favour by not smoking. Do not dwell on the idea that you are depriving yourself of a cigarette. You are ridding yourself fully fledged smoking because you care enough about yourself to want to.

4. Be proud that you are not smoking.

5. Be aware that many routine situations will trigger the urge for a cigarette. Situations which will trigger a response include: drinking coffee, alcohol, sitting in a bar, social events with smoking friends, card games, the end of meals.

3. Try to maintain your normal routine while quitting. If any event seems to tough, leave it and go back to it later. Do not feel you must give up any activity forever. Everything you did as a smoker, you will learn to do at least as well, and maybe better, as an ex-smoker.

6. Make a list of all the reasons you want to quit smoking. Keep this list with you, preferably where you used to carry your cigarettes. When you find yourself reaching for a cigarette, take out your list and read it.

7. Drink plenty of fruit juice the first three days. It will help flush nicotine out of your system.

8. To help avoid weight gain, eat vegetables and fruit instead of candies and pastries. Celery and carrots can be used safely as short-term substitutes for cigarettes.

9. If you are concerned about weight gain, do some moderate form of regular exercise. If you have not been exercising regularly, consult your physician for a practical exercise program which is safe for you.

10. If you encounter a crisis, (e.g. a family illness) while quitting, remember, smoking is no solution. Smoking will just complicate the original situation while creating another crisis, a relapse into the nicotine addiction.

11. Consider yourself a “smoke-a-holmic.” One puff and you can become hooked again. No matter how long you have been off, don’t think you can safely take a puff!

12. Don’t debate with yourself how much you want a cigarette. Ask yourself how you feel about going back to your old level of consumption.

13. Save the money you usually spend on cigarettes and buy yourself something you really want after a week or a month. Save for a year and you can treat yourself to buy what you otherwise could not

14. Practice deep breathing exercises when you have a craving.

15. Go places where you normally can’t smoke, such as, li no smoking sections of palaces.

16. Tell people around you that you have quit smoking.

17. Remember that there are only two good reasons to take a puff once you quit. You decide you want to go back to your old level of consumption until smoking cripples and then kills you, or, you decide you really enjoy withdrawal and you want to make it last forever. As long as neither of these options appeals to you-never take another puff!

For further information please send E-Mail to [email protected], call The Point health section, or send text to DR AZADEH on 002207774469 during working days from 3-6pm.

Read Other Articles In Article (Archive)

Divine mercy hits streets of serekunda, apr 14, 2010, 12:39 pm, national oil spill contingency planning workshop underway, jul 5, 2012, 2:34 pm.

Scottish topflight team eyeing Gambian striker Pa Sulay Njie

Feb 26, 2020, 2:32 pm, high court frees two alleged homosexuals, jul 31, 2015, 11:29 am.

COMMENTS

Why you should not smoke cigarettes
The first reason why you should not smoke cigarettes is because cigarette smoking is one of the causes of breast cancer. The study has shown that there is a high risk of breast cancer not only to active smokers but also passive smokers (Dossus et al., 1872). The increased risks for breast cancer according to Dossus and the colleagues are ...
Examples & Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking
Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking. Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. It leads to adverse health effects, including lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the respiratory tract. However, the number of people who smoke cigarettes has been on the rise globally. A lot has been written on topics related ...
Smoking: Persuasive Essay on Why You Shouldn'T Smoke
Smoking does not only make people look bad, but it also effects their bodies internally in negative ways. Smoking can cause many life-threatening diseases. Some of those diseases include chronic lung and heart disease; and cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, and mouth. It can also cause heart attacks and strokes.
Freedom of choice and the tobacco endgame
But on any of those accounts, it seems hard to come by strong arguments as to why the option to smoke should be prohibitively valuable. Most people have no interest in smoking but rather a preference for smoke‐free environments. ... (DPhil thesis). University of Oxford. 15 Also see Grill & Voigt, op. cit. note 3 on this. 16 WHO, op. cit. note ...
235 Smoking Essay Topics & Titles for Smoking Essay + Examples
In your essay about smoking, you might want to focus on its causes and effects or discuss why smoking is a dangerous habit. Other options are to talk about smoking prevention or to concentrate on the reasons why it is so difficult to stop smoking. Here we've gathered a range of catchy titles for research papers about smoking together with ...
PDF Writing a Thesis Statement
What a thesis statement is NOT A topic - quitting smoking A title - Why I Quit Smoking An announcement - This essay will explain why I quit smoking. ===== The thesis statement mentions the TOPIC and makes a POINT about the topic. Topic - quitting smoking Point about topic - it is good for your health THESIS STATEMENT: Quitting smoking ...
I need some ideas for a thesis statement on why not to smoke
I would make a statement that incorporates all of the myriad reasons not to smoke that you would mention in your introduction. Something like, "Considering that smoking has been proven to cause devastating health problems, can negatively affect the health of others around you, is prohibitively expensive, and damages the environment, it seems indisputable that smoking is an irresponsible and ...
Persuasive Essay About Smoking
A persuasive essay is written to convince your reader of a particular opinion, point of view, or stance. These essays typically use persuasive devices such as logical arguments and emotional appeals to make their point. The goal of persuasive essays about smoking is to convince your reader that smoking is dangerous and should be avoided.
Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned
In conclusion, smoking should be totally banned in campuses and colleges because of its severe health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. The health risks are much more to non-smokers because they may double up especially to those who already suffer from other ailments such as heart and lung problems.
College anti-smoking policies and student smoking behavior: a review of
Background Currently, most college campuses across the U.S. in some way address on-campus cigarette smoking, mainly through policies that restrict smoking on campus premises. However, it is not well understood whether college-level anti-smoking policies help reduce cigarette smoking among students. In addition, little is known about policies that may have an impact on student smoking behavior ...
Identifying a Good Thesis Statement
Although smoking has many negative health effects, making smoking illegal would not solve the problem. B) Teenagers should be allowed to smoke if they choose to. C) Smoking is a leading cause of death in the United States. 2: What is the best way to teach the public about healthy lifestyles? A) People should be able to decide what kind of ...
Why Do Teenagers Should Not Smoke Persuasive Essay
Teens should not smoke because they can have health risks, money issues, and addiction start. One of the most important reasons why a teen should not smoke, is that it can result in having health risks. The more often a student smokes, their giving themselves more of a risk of not being in good shape. From them smoking, it can end in heart ...
A10 Communication- Persuasive Speech. Why you should stop smoking
Why you should quit smoking. INTRO. Attention grabber: We all have our little addictions, or things we may do to get us through the day. But when should we start considering the risks of these little things we may do? ... THESIS: 1. At the end of the speech, I want my audience to agree that smoking is not worth the overall health of our body ...
Essay on Smoking in English for Students
500 Words Essay On Smoking. One of the most common problems we are facing in today's world which is killing people is smoking. A lot of people pick up this habit because of stress, personal issues and more. In fact, some even begin showing it off. When someone smokes a cigarette, they not only hurt themselves but everyone around them.
Writing A Thesis Statement In An Essay On Smoking
A good thesis statement has to blend in well with the topic of your essay. This is mandatory. Someone should read it and see the connection between it and your topic and nod in appreciation. If you are able to do this, you will have made the first and most important step towards writing one of the best papers ever. Write my essay for me?
Persuasive Essay: Why People Should People Stop Smoking
837 Words4 Pages. Why people should stop smoking In many ways, people relieve stress by smoking each day. Most people do not know or do not seem to care about how much damage it does to their body and environment. Despite these definite facts that accompany smoking, cigarettes and cigars have practically a staple in most people 's living ...
Smoking bans are coming: what does the evidence say?
Smoking scars the immune system for years after quitting. The UK plan would probably "be the most impactful public-health policy ever introduced", says health-policy researcher Duncan ...
Thesis Statement On Smoking
Thesis statement: Trying to stop smoking can be the hardest thing a person can do. Couple that with the fact that there are 101 ways to stop smoking, those that are not 100% dedicated to quitting can find this a very daunting task. However, there is one way that can make the path to quitting clearer and easier.
What should be the thesis statement and subtopics for a persuasive
Smoking on college campuses should be banned in _____[state which buildings] because second-hand smoke is harmful and because smoking is offensive to those who do not smoke. Before you begin ...
Why You Should Not Smoke Essay Example
The first reason why smoking is bad for you is because of all the health reasons. When smoking the risk of developing cancer is higher than ever. Out of all the people who die of lung cancer, 90% of men and 80% do so because they smoked. There are about eleven cancers associated with smoking.
Why People Should Stop Smoking
Cigarette smoking is intricately linked to various cancers, affecting organs such as the lungs, esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, pancreas, stomach, and cervix, along with acute myeloid leukemia (Harms of Smoking). Moreover, the detrimental effects extend beyond internal organs, manifesting in outward signs such as bad breath ...
10 reasons not to smoke
5. Smoking makes you and your environment stink. Your room stinks, your house stinks, your clothes stink, and, if you have one, your car stinks. 6. The nicotine in cigarettes are extremely addictive, and, chances are that if you start early, then it'll be harder to quit the habit. 7.
Persuasive Speech on Why You Shouldn't Smoke
Persuasive Speech on Why You Shouldn't Smoke by Caroline Shreve on Prezi. Blog. April 18, 2024. Use Prezi Video for Zoom for more engaging meetings. April 16, 2024. Understanding 30-60-90 sales plans and incorporating them into a presentation. April 13, 2024. How to create a great thesis defense presentation: everything you need to know.
Smoke: Smoking Thesis Statement
2. Secondhand Smoke. a. Affects non-smokers greatly (about 3,000 deaths every year) Transition Statement: The time is now to quit smoking permanently. 3. Why and now you can quit smoking. a. Tips, thoughts, and reasoning (get all the help you need no matter how you do it).
What is the UK smoking ban, how will it work and when will it start?
MPs have voted to back the government's plans to create a "smoke-free generation", and reduce the number of smoking-related deaths. The restrictions will apply to the sale of cigarettes in the UK ...

Why you should not smoke cigarettes

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Choose a Specific Angle

Research the Facts

Make an Outline

Use Persuasive Language

Introduce Opposing Arguments

Finish Strong

Keep reading

Freedom of choice and the tobacco endgame

1. TOBACCO CONTROL AND FREEDOM

2. FREEDOM OF CHOICE

3. THE OUTWEIGHING CLAIM

4. THE INTRAPERSONAL FREEDOM ARGUMENT

5. THE INTERPERSONAL FREEDOM ARGUMENT

6. CONCLUSIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I need some ideas for a thesis statement on why not to smoke

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

RELATED TOPICS

When do I use which or that in a sentence?

Is there any proof that Shakespeare wrote his plays?

Is it wrong to write in passive voice?

How do I know when to use affect vs effect?

RECOMMENDED TUTORS

find an online tutor

related lessons

Craft an Outstanding Persuasive Essay About Smoking with Our Examples and Tips

What is a Persuasive Essay?

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Start With an Engaging Introduction

Research is Key

Use Credible Resources

Construct Your Argument Logically

Be Creative

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good way to start a persuasive essay?

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Was This Blog Helpful?

Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay

College anti-smoking policies and student smoking behavior: a review of the literature

Study selection

Study characteristics

Anti-smoking policies and students’ smoking behavior

Partial smoking restriction

Smoke- and tobacco-free campuses

Other policies

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and materials

Authors’ contributions

Competing interests

Consent for publication

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Tobacco Induced Diseases

Essay on Smoking

Ill-Effects of Smoking

How to Quit Smoking?

Conclusion of the Essay on Smoking

FAQ of Essay on Smoking

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

How To Create A Thesis Statement For An Academic Essay About Smoking In The Us

What idea do you want the reader to have?

Latest Articles

Smoking bans are coming: what does the evidence say?

Smoke-free generations

Modelling smokers

Vaping bans