The smoking debate
The anti-smoking debate is one surrounded by much controversy and coverage, but with slightly lacking in relevant documentation. Although there are many smokers out there who feel that their rights are being ignored, they will not speak out due to the public outrage against “Pig-headed Smokers” and the like. This has meant that I have had some difficulty in finding articles that are pro-smoking.The first article that I am analyzing is “Tobacco attack smokescreen for vested interests”, first published in The Times of London, but reprinted in The Australian on the eighth of March this year. This article is both anti-smoking and anti-drinking, and it uses the smoking debate to make a lengthy introduction to the second contention. The article begins by talking about the sponsorship of Formula One racing by tobacco companies. At the start of the article, the author Simon Barnes is discussing the launch of a new tobacco sponsored motoring team, British American Tobacco. He describes the debate with the members “coughing and spluttering on their own self-righteousness”, a parody on the common view of smokers as sick and choking individuals. This sheds a light of comedy on the issue, and allows people from both sides to relax into the
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
AMA Victoria, American Tobacco, Lee Ringelheim, Daily Telegraph, Words Smoking, Times London, , Pig-headed Smokers, public smoking, Simon Barnes, tobacco companies, smoke public, passive smoke, health risks, stop smoking altogether, article author, women perform, smoking banned, smoking altogether, tobacco sponsorship, main arguments smoking, public smoking banned,
Approximate Word count = 1617
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
