Supporters of the smoking ban present four main arguments. Firstly, they say smoking is bad for health and it can make you be more likely to have some kind of disease, such as lung cancer. Secondly, people who have chosen not to smoke are passive smokers if there’s people smoking near them, affecting their health. Thirdly, it has nicotine, a very addictive organic compound that makes you smoke more and more. Finally, it’s been demonstrated that CO intoxicates people who breathe that chemical substance.
Opponents of the smoking ban offer four counterarguments. Firstly, they claim their freedom of choice, they think that if they want to smoke, they have the right to. Secondly, smoking generates many working places that may disappear, such as tobacco farmers. Thirdly, the high taxes on cigarettes wouldn't be paid if smoking was banned. Finally, there’s a big business around cigarettes that moves a lot of money and if banned, the cigarettes industry will disappear.
In my opinion, I’m in favour of the smoking ban, because it’s very unhealthy and it affects not only those who smoke but also the people around them. However, I believe that tobacco farmers are going to lose their jobs , a thing that nowadays it’s tragic, and they don’t even have any responsibility of what cigarette industries add to tobacco in order to make it more addictive or gain higher profits.
Leo González 2A
GOOD JOB, LEO. EXCELLENT!!!
ResponderEliminarHere's a suggestion for the third paragraph:
cigarettes have high taxes that if it’s banned won’t be paid ( the high taxes on cigarettes wouldn't be paid if smoking was banned/ should smoking be banned)
Now correct the mistakes and add C2 to the title.