|  | Public Health Safety | Smoking

Emotional Arguments for Smoking

The topic of smoking is one that is often hotly debated. While anti-smoking advocates continually campaign for tougher laws against smoking in the interest of public health, smokers rights advocates often present their own, sometimes emotionally charged arguments for protecting their legal and personal rights to smoke as they wish.

  1. Constitutional Arguments

    • One of the biggest arguments of smokers rights advocates relates to the constitutionality of restricting smoking rights. While anti-smoking advocates state that smoking should be prevented as a means of protecting public heath, many smokers rights groups vehemently argue otherwise. Representatives of smokers rights groups such as Smoking Lobby argue that passing laws to prevent smoking does nothing to protect public health and only infringes on an individual's constitutional right to decide what to do with his own body.

    Supposed Health Benefits

    • Another often emotional, yet controversial argument used by smokers rights groups centers on the supposed health benefits of smoking. According to Forces, an online smoking rights advocacy source, smoking has a variety of health benefits that preventing smoking would deny. Some of the benefits smoking supposedly provides include a reduced risk of Parkinson's disease, a reduction in gum disease and reduced incidents of breast cancer.

    Emotional Effects

    • According to an ABC report on smoking, a leading argument that smokers use when asked why they smoke is the level of relaxation and mood enhancement that smoking provides. According to the report, smokers claim that smoking reduces stress and helps to calm their nerves in stressful situations. Further, smokers rights groups such as The Smokers Club argue that restricting smokers from an activity that they enjoy interferes with their ability to make personal choices.

    Personal Rights

    • Yet another often emotionally charged argument put forth by smokers rights groups is that their choice to smoke is just as important as the right of non-smokers not to smoke. Anti-smoking advocates argue that non-smokers are forced to breathe in secondhand smoke when smokers light up in public places. While smokers rights groups do not deny a non-smoker's right to abstain from smoking, they do counter that it is up to non-smokers to remove themselves from an environment when someone is smoking if they fear potential health damages as a result of the secondhand smoke and that smokers are not responsible for the sacrifices made by non-smokers.

Smoking - Related Articles