Hey everyone, could anyone give me some feedback for this essay?
The city of Melbourne’s initiative of banning smoking in Causeway laneway has sparked a contention debate among fellow Victorians whether a similar ban should be imposed across the entire state. In response to this issue, Rita Panahi within her opinion piece titled, “Victoria lags behind on outdoor smoking bans” contends in a satiric tone that for far too long, smoking in public areas has been portrayed as freedom of choice issue rather issue of ill health and further stresses the dangers associated with second-hand smoking as a result of failing to impose such a ban. Arguing on the same issue but with a different perspective is Pk, in his blog comment within The Herald Sun’s website. In which Pk rants in an infuriated tone that basic civil rights are at risk if such bans are imposed. Similarly, the accompanying image published in The Herald Sun mockingly targets the Victorian government in emphasising how such bans would be carried out if they are amended into the law.
Panahi begins her attack by highlighting how smoking bans are already well supported by the “community” with “87% of us” Victorians being are non-smokers who then are being forced to inhale these “toxins” into our body. Through the use of inclusive language, Panahi elaborates the issue of banning smoking in public areas as prevalent problem facing fellow Victorians, which then positions the readers to be unified for the common good as they may feel their health is at risk hence swaying to the writer’s side. Furthermore, Panahi exaggerates how the continual ignorance on the ban on smoking could cause “open-air spaces” to be “uninhabitable”. By overstating and exaggerating a possibility Panahi positions the readers to be vigilant and fearful that their freedom could be taken away, thus making them further instate their alliance with the writer’s view point. Additionally, the negative connotations associated with “uninhabitable” foreshadows a dark and scarce area to reside in for the readers who maybe petrified and concerned that their future generations will be harmed if something is not done, thus again concreting their support for the writer’s call for the ban on public smoking.
Panahi then turns the attention of the readers to the dangers of second-hand smoke. She quotes Dr Stephen in establishing how “even brief exposure” to second-hand smoke can lead to a variety of health complications such as “cardiovascular disease”. By appealing to expert knowledge, Panahi claims more creditability for her cause as the readers may feel more obliged to believe the words of a credited professional such as Dr Stephen rather than an ill-researched journalist. This newfound creditability portrays to the readers that Panahi can be trusted therefore backing her claim to ban smoking in public areas. Furthermore, Panahi pinpoints the figure of “more than a thousand” deaths take place each month as direct result of smoking and highlights how a recent survey among smokers proved that more people made an attempt to “quit” smoking due to “strict laws” across different cities of Australia. By bringing light to the logic behind the success the ban on smoking within public areas could have, the writer entices the readers into taking her side as it may bring themselves towards a healthier and happier life.
With contrasting view on the ban on smoking in public areas, blog commenter Pk furiously diminishes the idea of the ban by signalling it as “ridiculous” and as an act of “water(ing) done our civil rights”. By appealing to the reader’s sense of justice Pk invites the readers to come to his side as they may feel angry and violated at the prospect of their rights and liberty being ripped out of their hands. Similarly, the complementing image from the Herald Sun also reiterates the diminishing free choice of the citizens as result if such bans are to be imposed. The cartoon depicts am innocent lady having a smoke at peace but then is targeted by a comedic robot as unleashed by the “ciggy disposal squad”. Through this mocking and comedic image the cartoonist portrays to the viewers how childish the plans to impose the tax could be handled and further stresses how the government is viable to control the daily lives of its citizens can hinder the basic rights of mankind. This risk to rights may make the readers vulnerable hence, jumping ship to oppose the smoking ban within public areas. Contrastingly, Panahi pinpoints how this issue is no longer a “freedom issue” as the rights of the majority “supersedes” the right to smoke within public areas. By appealing to the readers sense of reason and injustice, Panahi is rebuking the ideology that this issue is freedom related. This in turn makes the readers jump ship again to Panahi’s claims for the ban.
Pk then elaborates how other substances like alcohol also is “bad for our health” as he compares smoking and other harmful substances hence he questions why not ban them too. By comparing similar but alternative substances the writer presents that there is injustice among this coalition against smoking. Through such bold statement the writer convinces the readers that smoking alone isn’t the problem as the readers themselves may feel guilty knowing that other substances they have used like alcohol is portrayed in positive manner compared to smoking. This would make the readers less obliged to fully support Panahi’s claims and sway towards to Pk’s. In comparison Panhi elaborates on the fact of cigarettes being the “leading contributor” to the two biggest causes of premature death. By engaging to the readers through facts, the writer tempts the readers to take her side or face certain ill-health. This may make readers be frightened as they may feel if these bans are not imposed the ever-high rates of mortality caused by cigarettes will not fall hence leading “premature” deaths thus enabling them to solidify their support for ban on smoking with public regions.
The issue of banning smoking with public facades has been a hotly debates issue in the recent years. With sides arguing that the ban will impede their freedom as well others arguing that the ban is a necessity if our future generations are to live a healthier life away from “uninhabitable” regions.