Don't Ban Smoking - Does Virginia Really Want To Be more Restrictive than Washington?

        The article “Don't Ban Smoking - Does Virginia Really Want To Be more Restrictive than Washington?” by Radley Balko from the CATO Institute, is an article about how a smoking ban in virginia isn’t the proper choice. The author’s purpose in this article is persuade; one part that shows that the author is persuading is “Smoking bans mean fewer tips, lower wages and fewer jobs for workers. Given the choice between enduring secondhand smoke on the job and having no job at all, many cooks, bartenders and waitresses would prefer the former.” The author only gives his opinion about the smoking ban, and has an extreme bias slanting towards not banning cigarettes. The author used pathos to persuade; one part that showed me he was using pathos was “Does Virginia really want to be more restrictive than Washington when it comes to lawmakers imposing their own vision of healthy living on the states' restaurateurs, bar owners and entrepreneurs?” The author used pathos in that quote to strike emotions into the reader.

        

        The author’s viewpoint in this article is against having a smoking ban in virginia. From just looking at the title, you can already notice he’s against the ban. The author gets his message across to the reader sometimes, by saying “do we really want this...” Which appeals the readers emotions. The author doesn’t use facts to support his viewpoint, but uses examples such as “But even if those numbers were accurate, they shouldn't matter. Bans on public smoking aren't an infringement only on the rights of smokers, they're an infringement on the rights of property owners” to help get his point across to the reader. 

        The author that wrote this article is an experienced writer that works as a senior editor at Reason magazine. This article doesn’t provide any facts, but makes good points about people’s individual rights. When the author gives one of his points, he doesn’t back them up with detailed studies. I would recommend this article to someone wanting to understand, and appreciate why someone would be against a smoking ban. 

Keep Cigarettes Legal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-nadelmann/keep-cigarettes-legal_b_32477.html

This is an article by Huffington Post's Executive Director for the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA); Ethan Nadelmann. Nadelmann's purpose for writing this article was to persuade. Throughout his article, he outnumbered his facts with opinions. An example of one of his facts is "According to a recent nationwide survey of registered voters by Zogby International, 45% of Americans said yes. Among 18-29 year olds, 57% were in favor." Then he includes a lot of his own personal opinions such as "Smoking would become an act of youthful rebellion; no doubt some users would begin to experiment with even more dangerous forms of tobacco." There was a lot of bias included in this piece, because the author was attempting to persuade the readers to the best of his ability; including many of his personal opinions. I would say other than that, the author uses ethos as he is in a high position as a Executive Director for the DPA. Also, ethos is used Nadelmann has claimed to deal with smoking in his life as he states "And, full disclosure: I hate cigarettes. I don't like the smell. I don't like the look. And I don't like the fact that my dad's pack-a-day habit no doubt contributed to the massive heart attack that killed him at 58.... But Prohibition is not the answer - not if we want to stay safe, sane, and free."

The author's point of view on this issue is to continue keeping cigarettes legal. He adamantly supports keeping cigarettes legal as he writes "Just imagine the government's "war on tobacco": hundreds of thousands of new jobs for federal, state and local police, and hundreds of thousands of new prison cells for tobacco producers, pushers and users; government helicopters spraying herbicides on illicit tobacco fields here and abroad; people rewarded for informing on tobacco-growing, -selling, and -smoking neighbors; police seizing the cars of people caught smoking; urine tests commonplace to identify users; if cigarettes were prohibited." He supports his viewpoint by writing with a tone that sets fear into the readers if smoking is actually banned. There are also text features included such as titles, bolded words, linked words (to other webs), publish date, and publisher site. The author generally used words such as 'puffing' instead of smoking, and 'covertly' rather than secretly.

I personally think that this piece is not very accurate factually, but it is a great article to get information on the aftermath of banning cigarettes. The author's credentials assisted himself a lot as he seems to know what will happen if people didn't have their cigarettes, and how he was personally affected as his father died from a heart attack at age 58. If I were to give a rating on the reliability of this piece out of 10, I would give a 4, because it is very biased, and doesn't include many facts.

UC system banning smoking from all campuses

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20099857-10391704.html

        The article “UC system banning smoking from all campuses” written by Erin Allday from the San Francisco Chronicle website, on the University of California banning smoking from their campus. The authors purpose on this article was to persuade. Since the author is writing to persuade, he gives positive outcomes on the ban of cigarettes. To help persuade the reader to think that this smoking ban is a good thing, he uses facts and statistics slated towards the banning of smoking on college campuses; such as “Smoking rates are even lower in the UC system - about 10 percent of employees and about 8 percent of students smoke regularly, according to a UC Office of the President report.” This quote also supports how the author uses logos in his article.

       

        I believe that the authors point of view is in favor of the smoking ban, even though he doesn’t directly state it. The word choice of this article does not tell what side he is on, but the use of quotes only shows the positive outcomes of the smoking ban. While reading the article I did not find any emotional tone or text features that helped me analyze the author’s viewpoint. There were a few parts of the articles that helped me understand that the author was supporting  the smoking ban; one quote that illustraded this is " ‘This is a very important milestone in California’ said Colleen Stevens” another is when he quotes “ ‘If young people can stop smoking, or never start smoking, before they reach their late 20s, they will be unlikely to ever develop the habit as older adults, said Dr. Stanton.' " Both of those quotes the author used are positive towards his point of view and they are credible sources.

        

        The article is accurate, but since the author’s purpose is to persuade, he isn’t giving both sides of the argument. If I were searching for an article about smoking bans, I would use this source. For instance, the author doesn’t present both sides, but has very powerful information, and I would recommend it to anyone wanting to understand the benefits of having a smoking ban.

Smoking ban didn't hurt Illinois casinos, study says

Smoking ban didn't hurt Illinois casinos, study says

        The article “Smoking ban didn't hurt Illinois casinos, study says” By David Nicklaus presents a study that argues against the claim by Illinois’ casinos that they lost money as a result of a 2008 smoking ban. The author’s purpose in this article is to inform about the study and not express his own opinion. Even though the author writes about an “academic study” that is showing that the casinos didn’t lose any money as a result of the smoking ban, there is no clear evidence of a slant or bias on the part of the author. For example, early in the piece the author points out that the study was “funded in part by Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution.” If the author wanted to express his own opinion that the study was something that he agreed with he could have left that fact out. On the other hand, the article is not biased/slanted. He mentions that the study was academic and done through “Washington University's George Warren Brown School of Social Work.”

        
        The author’s viewpoint is balanced. He reports what this study found “When economic conditions were accounted for, casino admissions in Illinois did not decline significantly relative to neighboring states... Reductions reported in Illinois casinos are therefore not due to patrons leaving Illinois casinos for neighboring states where they could smoke” this helped me clarify what his viewpoint was. The word choice of the author has no emotional tone or preference to either side. Nicklaus uses connotations in some parts of his article to assist the reader’s understanding on the issue. The author also uses bold words to emphasize titles, proper names, and places that he found information from. 

        
        The information in this article is accurate, and the fact that Nicklaus works for STL Today; a well know news source, supports the reliability of this article. Since the author doesn’t use any bias or slant, the article is more trustworthy for someone to read. I would recommend this article to anyone looking for information on banning smoking.

Journal News: Law bans smoking on Metro-North

http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/pressroom/ART-8-16-11-journal-news-smoking-train-platforms.html

This article written by Ken Valenti and Joseph Spector describes how smoking is banned on a metropolitan transportation area. The authors' purpose of this article was to inform the readers on the banning of cigarettes in a specific area. Both authors supported this by including many facts, and also some opinions from the people who opposed to prohibition of the cigarettes. The authors themselves included no opinions as they acted as narrators; projecting the thoughts of others. I found no bias/slant in this article, as the authors provides a fair amount of information on both sides of the argument.

The main strategy that Valenti and Spector used for this article was between ethos and logos. The reasoning for logos is that the author had some statistics such as "The state of Department shows estimates that secondhand smoke kills 2,500 New Yorkers every year," This shows how people are effected due to too much exposure of smoking in public places. Ethos is shown as author uses someone else's views on this topic; " 'Exposure to secondhand smoke can lead to serious health problems for nonsmokers, and this law will make outdoor MTA train platforms, ticketing and boarding areas a cleaner, healthier place for all commuters," the governor added.' "

The authors' viewpoint was agreeing with the banning of smoking, even though both sides of the argument presented. There were a few connotations that the authors used in order to create a clearer meaning to the article such as when they wrote "The MTA oversees public transit for New York City and its suburbs." The word 'oversees' was used rather than other such as control or boss-around, and supports the authors' viewpoint. The text features in this article is: the titles, authors, date published, and source (LungUSA)

This article is accurate because both of the authors work for the Lungusa website; a good source for lung information. "Gov. Cuomo's action today will greatly improve public health and will ensure that commuters are better protected from the very real dangers of secondhand smoke," said Dr. Irwin Berlin, board chairman of the American Lung Association in New York. All in all, I'd say that this article is great for facts and information.

Cigarettes Cut About 10 Years Off Life, 50-Year Study Shows

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61981-2004Jun22.html This article is from the Washington Post website by Marc Kaufman on the results of different types of researches conducted over a span of time. The author--Kaufman, presents the negative outcome of smoking supported by many facts, long term studies, and statistics. I think that this article is very factual and contains little or no bias as Kaufman constantly supported main idea with a lot of researched statistics. This article would also be great for informational purposes because Kaufman does not include any opinions, as his purpose was to inform the readers; not to persuade. Kaufman definitely uses logos throughout the story as he informs his readers by using many facts/stats. I think that Kaufman was writing this article to young adults, children, and smokers. The author presents his information in a Cause & Effect format; the smokers were first tested, after 50 years results were recorded. Kaufman's credentials may have affected this article positively, as he is a professional author for a well-known news web. He did not include a single opinion throughout the whole article. If I were to rate the accuracy for the story out of 10, I would definitely give this article a rating of 10; it was written by a professional author, and gives reliable facts. Also, the information-- smoking is unhealthy and shortens lives, is also portrayed on different lung corporations such as the American Lung Association and the National Lung Cancer Partnership. The information presented in this article is strong in facts. The author works for a well-known even though the website is the .com URL. The only catch about this piece is that this article was written in 2003, but it was on a study for over 50 years. I honestly don't think that this effects the article crucially, because facts are facts; just because this was written 8 years ago doesn't mean that the information presented is inaccurate. One part of the article that proved to me that the author was giving facts on was when he wrote "Doll began studying smoking among British doctors in 1951, and the research has continued every decade since, with the final study begun in 2001. At that time, almost 6,000 of the doctors first studied in 1951 were still alive. The effects of smoking show up especially starkly after age 60. At 70, the study found, 88 percent of nonsmokers were still alive, compared with 71 percent of smokers. And at age 80, 65 percent of nonsmokers were alive but only 32 percent of smokers were." This was one of the many parts in which clarified what I thought of the authors viewpoint was. This section from the article also assisted me on deciding if the article was accurate or not; as the author pulled a lot of information from colleges, research centers, and scientists. I would say all in all, this is a great article to get information about cigarettes. Though keep in mind that the author was only writing about the effects of cigarettes, not if they were being banned or not.