Sample 1. Smoking Ban in Public Places
Tobacco as a stimulant can be used in several different ways but the most common way it is used is smoking it in the form of cigarettes. Smoking is legal in most countries in the world but in the last couple of years there have been debates about whether or not smokers should be allowed to smoke anywhere they want. It is common knowledge that the ban of smoking in public places is majorly for the protection of non smokers from the side effects of smoking, but there are other factors which inform the decision to impose a ban on smoking in public places (Robbins 38). This paper seeks to investigate both the benefits and side effects of smoking in public and finally argue a case for or against the ban on smoking in public places.
Proponents of the ban of smoking in public places argue that because not everyone is a smoker, the smell of cigarette smoke is offensive to non-smokers. They also cite the health effects that second hand cigarette smoke has on the non-smokers who are fond of being around smokers. Some radical proposers to the ban, who also support a total ban on the use of tobacco, further cite the effects that smoking has on the health of the smokers themselves. On the other hand, opponents of the ban argue that if smoking in public places should be illegal then cigarettes would be illegal or contraband products. They also argue that smoking ban in public places is an infringement into their particular rights as people who engage in a legitimate act. Another reason why smokers feel offended by ban in public smoking is the fact that smoking as a practice is protected by the law and as it stands, they are engaging in a legal activity which should not be interfered with. Some of them go as far as arguing that there are more harmful environmental hazards like industrial smoke, motor vehicles exhaust fumes and smoke resulting from the burning of trash or garbage (Sloan 85). These, they argue, have greater environmental effects than just smoking. Some opponents also say that the general public has no reason to think that everybody’s natural goal is or must be to maximise their lifespan.
There are several economic benefits directly attached to the production and sale of tobacco in many parts of the world. Tobacco has been known to support agricultural output, earn several countries foreign revenue for being a major export commodity, provide income for households, and generate both direct and indirect employment in many countries. For instance, in Greece, the northern parts of the country are mostly mountainous and do not support much agriculture other than tobacco cultivation. In fact, it is deemed as one of the most profitable and stable segments of the agriculture sector in Greece earning the farmers an average of 7,000 – 10,000 euro per hectare and during the recent economic downturn, only 25% of the total jobs lost were lost in the tobacco industry (Hahn et al, 2009). Tobacco employs most of the residents of northern Greece both directly, through cultivation of the crop, and indirectly, mainly in the processing, sales and distribution of the finished product. Other countries which benefit socio-economically from the culture of tobacco include Brazil; Malawi, in Africa; Canada; and the United States, especially the state of Kentucky.
Tobacco as a stimulant also has some health benefits. Research shows that the nicotine in tobacco as a mild stimulant acts within the nervous system to help in relaxation and reduce anxiety (Sloan, 2004). Tobacco also increases the rate of metabolism in the human body and suppresses appetite. These effects can help one to reduce body weight and keep obesity in check. Smoking has also been linked to lowering the risk of Parkinson’s disease and some forms of heart attacks.
On the flipside, research has also revealed a lot of negatives about smoking especially in public places. It has been proven that second hand smoke can cause breathing problems to non smokers (Hahn et al, 2009). This happens when a non smoker, especially one who is allergic to smoke, inhales the smoke exhaled by the smoker and the smoke reaches his or her respiratory system causing itchiness in their systems thereby causing inflammations in the lungs resulting in difficulty in breathing problems and sometimes respiratory diseases. Second hand smoke also causes eyesores especially to non smokers who are allergic to smoke (Shetty, 2009). This is as a result of smoke coming into contact with the non smoker’s eyes resulting to itching of the eyes.
Medical research has also shown that second hand smoke, just like the first smoke inhaled by the smoker, can lead to heart diseases (Shetty, 2009). The cause of heart diseases is attributed to the stimulation effect of nicotine which increases pulse rate. With time the heart develops some kind of dependency on nicotine and in the event that nicotine is lacking or in short supply, the heart’s functioning is interfered with. Smoking and exposure second hand smoke are also likely causes of several forms of cancer, but most commonly lung cancer and cervical cancer. This is as a result of the tar present in tobacco, which is capable of changing the structures of the body’s cells. This contributes to the causes of the various forms of cancer…
Sample 2. Do e-cigarettes really not so harmful for health as traditional cigarettes or this opinion has appeared due to well-thought marketing strategy?
It is known the fact that habit is quite a strong phenomenon in human life. There are many habits that are quite easy to get, it can be done even accidentally. However, it can be difficult to break a habit. As far as breaking the habit can be quite difficult, it is common practice to try not to destroy the habit at all but change it in some more positive way. Nowadays people see such positive way in e-cigarettes as alternatives to the traditional tobacco cigarettes. A popularity of e-cigarettes and their widespread image as a harmless alternative to the traditional tobacco cigarettes could be the reason why there is quite a high number of studies which consider the harmfulness of the e-cigarettes. However, even though the studies showed that in general e-cigarettes are less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, they are a quite new phenomenon from the historical view, thus their harmfulness is not conclusive.
The main and one of the most obvious argument to support harmless of the e-cigarettes is the fact that in their system it is lack of combustion. An operating principle of e-cigarettes is more like aerosol than the traditional tobacco cigarettes. This can be a reason why, compared to traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes have less toxicant exposure for their users (Callahan-Lyon, Priscilla ii36). However, comparing e-cigarettes with the traditional cigarettes, one can notice that e-cigarettes have a more complex system and elements that are more saturated with harmful substances. This is a reason why “users and others may experience secondhand or thirdhand exposures through direct physical contact with product components, or inhaling secondhand aerosol” (Callahan-Lyon, Priscilla ii36). In this way, product components, and secondhand aerosol of e-cigarettes are more harmful to the users and others that the traditional tobacco cigarettes.
However, considering an effect of the e-cigarettes, one can say that it is more positive than the effect of the traditional tobacco cigarettes. Thus, e-cigarettes, especially those with nicotine, reduce lung function less than the traditional tobacco cigarettes (Harrell, Paul Truman et al. 4). Besides, e-cigarettes do not appear to significantly affect complete blood count, in contradistinction to tobacco cigarettes (Harrell, Paul Truman et al. 4). Moreover, “studies reported that although both e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes increased pulse, increased inflammatory markers, and impacted measures of myocardial function, these changes were only significant for tobacco cigarettes” (Harrell, Paul Truman et al. 4). Callahan-Lyon, Priscilla also noticed that PM emissions from e-cigarettes were fifteen times lower than emissions after use of traditional cigarettes (37). In this way, the evidence from above clearly showed that effect of the e-cigarettes could be much less harmful to health than the effect of the traditional tobacco cigarettes.
There is one more fact that must be taken into account in this context. As far as e-cigarettes are considered as less harmful than the traditional tobacco cigarettes, there is a quite high number of people who regard e-cigarettes as a safe alternative or even as aids for treatment from nicotine addiction. One must notice that such approach is not quite correct. The first and the most important fact is that e-cigarettes, even though they are less harmful than the traditional tobacco cigarettes still can harm health. Even though e-cigarettes are less harmful than the traditional cigarettes, they are not an absolutely safe alternative. Harrell, Paul Truman et al. noticed that e-cigarettes could be a less harmful source of nicotine than traditional tobacco cigarettes, “but evidence of decreased harm with long-term use is not available” (38). Considering e-cigarettes as aids for treatment from nicotine addiction one can notice that e-cigarettes are not regulated by The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as drug delivery devices, they are rather regulated as tobacco products (Ebbert, Jon O. et al. 129). Moreover, Ebbert, Jon, et al. refer to the American Heart Association, noticing that clinicians should not recommend e-cigarettes as primary cessation aids, and should advise patients to consider a quit date for using e-cigarettes and not plan to use them indefinitely (132). Thus, even if e-cigarettes are less harmful than the traditional tobacco cigarettes they can not be as aids for treatment of nicotine addiction or as a permanent safe alternative to the traditional cigarettes.
The facts from the above allow one to make a conclusion about the harmfulness of e-cigarettes. The evidence from the studies showed that complex system of e-cigarettes could have more intensive harmful substances than a system of the traditional tobacco cigarettes. In this way, e-cigarettes can be more harmful than the traditional cigarettes. However, harm from such elements are rather the accidents than a natural result of using e-cigarettes. On the contrary, the studied that compared using the traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes showed that e-cigarettes in all respects are less harmful than the traditional tobacco cigarettes. Thus, in general, e-cigarettes are less harmful than the traditional cigarettes. However, even being less harmful than the traditional cigarettes they still are harmful and cannot be considered as aids for treatment from nicotine addiction or as the permanent safe alternative to the traditional cigarettes.
Callahan-Lyon, Priscilla. “Electronic Cigarettes: Human Health Effects.” Tobacco Control, vol 23, no. suppl 2, 2014, pp. ii36-ii40.
Ebbert, Jon O. et al. “Counseling Patients On The Use Of Electronic Cigarettes.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol 90, no. 1, 2015, pp. 128-134.
Harrell, Paul Truman et al. “Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (‘‘E-Cigarettes’’): Review Of Safety And Smoking Cessation Efficacy.” Otolaryngology – Head And Neck Surgery, vol 151, no. 3, 2014, pp. 1-13.
It’s a proven fact that a good sample of research paper serves better than dozens of explanatory articles, so you are welcome. We just remind you that you are not allowed to use any of the information posted at our blog without proper references. If you already think that we are cruel and hate students, we are happy to prove you’re wrong. Place your order to get your own sample of research paper and put an end to all your academic troubles. Studying can be hard, but it doesn’t have to be a torture.
1. World Health Organization. Tobacco or Health: A Global Status Report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.
2. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. < http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/smokingconsequences/> (Version current at August 25, 2008)
3. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette Smoking Among Adults –United States, 2004. < http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5444a2.htm> (Version current at August 25, 2008)
4. Murray J, Lopez AD. Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990–2020: Global burden of disease study. Lancet. 1997;349:1498–504.[PubMed]
5. Doll R. Cancers weakly related to smoking. Br Med Bull. 1996;52:35–49.[PubMed]
6. Doll R. Risk from tobacco and potentials for health gain. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1996;3:90–9.[PubMed]
7. Boyle P. Cancer, cigarette smoking and premature death in Europe: A review including the Recommendations of European Cancer Experts Consensus Meeting, Helsinki, October 1996. Lung Cancer. 1996;17:1–60.[PubMed]
8. Hoffman D, Hoffman I. The changing cigarette. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1997;50:307–64.[PubMed]
9. Pryor WA. Cigarette smoke radicals and the role of free radicals in chemical carcinogenicity. Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105:875–82.[PMC free article][PubMed]
10. Powell J. Vascular damage from smoking: Disease mechanisms at the arterial wall. Vascular Med. 1998;3:21–8.[PubMed]
11. Hutchinson S. Smoking as a risk factor for endothelial dysfunction. Can J Cardiol. 1998;14:20D–2D.[PubMed]
12. Nitinberg A, Antony I, Foult JM. Acetylcholine-induced coronary vasoconstriction in young, heavy smokers with normal coronary arteriographic findings. Am J Med. 1993;95:71–7.[PubMed]
13. Celermajer D, Adams MR, Clarkson P, et al. Passive smoking and impaired endothelium-dependent arterial dilatation in healthy young adults. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:150–4.[PubMed]
14. Poredos P, Orehec M, Tratnik E. Smoking is associated with dose-related increase of intima-media thickness and endothelial dysfunction. Angiology. 1999;50:201–8.[PubMed]
15. Raitakari OT, Adams MR, McCredie RJ, Griffiths KA, Celermajer DS. Arterial endothelial dysfunction related to passive smoking is potentially reversible in healthy young adults. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:578–81.[PubMed]
16. Higman D, Strachan AM, Buttery L, et al. Smoking impairs the activity of endothelial nitric oxide synthase in saphenous vein. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1996;16:546–52.[PubMed]
17. Kiowski W, Linder L, Stoschitzky K, et al. Diminished vascular response to inhibition of endothelium-derived nitric oxide and enhanced vasoconstriction to exogenously administered endothelin-1 in clinically healthy smokers. Circulation. 1994;90:27–34.[PubMed]
18. Wang X, Sim AS, Badenhop RF, McCredie RM, Walckin DE. A smoking-dependent risk of coronary artery disease associated with a polymorphism of the endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene. Nat Med. 1996;2:41–5.[PubMed]
19. Rios DL, D’Onofrio LO, Souza JK, et al. Smoking-dependent and haplotype-specific effects of endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene polymorphisms on angiographically assessed coronary artery disease in Caucasian- and African-Brazilians. Atherosclerosis. 2007;193:135–41.[PubMed]
20. Zhang WZ, Venardos K, Chin-Dusting J, Kaye DM. Adverse effects of cigarette smoke on NO bioavailability: Role of arginine metabolism and oxidative stress. Hypertension. 2006;48:278–85.[PubMed]
21. Lehr H. Adhesion-promoting effects of cigarette smoke on leukocytes and endothelial cells. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1993;686:112–8.[PubMed]
22. Shen Y, Rattan V, Sultana C, Kalra VK. Cigarette smoke condensate-induced adhesion molecule expression and transendothelial migration of monocytes. Am J Physiol. 1996;270:H1624–33.[PubMed]
23. Weber C, Erl W, Weber K, Weber PC. Increased adhesiveness of isolated monocytes to endothelium is prevented by vitamin C intake in smokers. Circulation. 1996;93:1488–92.[PubMed]
24. Adams M, Jessup W, Celermajer DS. Cigarette smoking is associated with increased human monocyte adhesion to endothelial cells: Reversibility with oral L-arginine but not vitamin C. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:491–7.[PubMed]
25. Howard DJ, Ota RB, Briggs LA, Hampton M, Pritsos CA. Oxidative stress induced by environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace is mitigated by antioxidant supplementation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998;7:981–8.[PubMed]
26. Morrow JD, Frei B, Longmire AW, et al. Increase in circulating products of lipid peroxidation (F2-isoprostanes) in smokers. N Eng J Med. 1995;332:1198–203.[PubMed]
27. Heitzer T, Yla HS, Wild E, Luoma J, Drexler H. Effect of vitamin E on endothelial vasodilator function in patients with hypercholesterolemia, chronic smoking or both. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:499–505.[PubMed]
28. Steinberg F, Chait A. Antioxidant vitamin supplementation and lipid peroxidation in smokers. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998;68:319–27.[PubMed]
29. US Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A report of the surgeon general. < http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/womenandtobacco/index.html> (Version current at August 25, 2008)
30. Patel JD. Lung cancer in women. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3212–8.[PubMed]
31. International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators. Henschke CI, Yip R, Miettinen OS. Women’s susceptibility to tobacco carcinogens and survival after diagnosis of lung cancer. JAMA. 2006;296:180–4.[PubMed]
32. Lash T, Aschengrau A. Active and passive cigarette smoking and the occurence of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:5–12.[PubMed]
33. Pershagen G, Akerblom G, Axelson O, et al. Residential radon exposure and lung cancer in Sweden. N Eng J Med. 1994;330:159–64.[PubMed]
34. Foy JW, Bombick BR, Bombick DW, Doolittle DJ, Mosberg AT, Swauger JE. A comparison of in vitro toxicities of cigarette smoke condensate from Eclipse cigarettes and four commercially available ultra low-“tar” cigarettes. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004;42:237–43.[PubMed]
35. Lee PN. Lung cancer and type of cigarette smoked. Inhal Toxicol. 2000;13:951–76.[PubMed]
36. Hoffman D, Revenson A, Hecht SS. The biological significance of tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines: Smoking and adenocarcinoma of the lung. Crit Rev Toxicol. 1996;26:199–211.[PubMed]
37. Weston A, Godbold JH. Polymorphisms of H-ras-1 and p53 in breast cancer and lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105(Suppl 4):919–26.[PMC free article][PubMed]
38. Hengstler JG, Arand M, Herrero ME, Oesch F. Polymorphisms of N-acetyltransferases, glutathione S-transferases, microsomal epoxide hydrolase and sulfotransferases: Influence on cancer susceptibility. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1998;154:47–85.[PubMed]
39. Zheng W, Deitz AC, Campbell DR, et al. N-acetyltransferase 1 genetic polymorphism, cigarette smoking, well-done meat intake, and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:233–9.[PubMed]
40. Slattery ML, Potter JD, Samowitz W, Bigler J, Caan B, Leppert M. NAT2, GSTM-1, cigarette smoking and risk of colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998;7:1079–84.[PubMed]
41. Badawi AF, Stern SJ, Lang NP, Kadlubar FF. Cytochrome P-450 and acetyltransferase expression as biomarkers of carcinogen-DNA adduct levels and human cancer susceptibility. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1994;395:109–40.[PubMed]
42. Wu X, Amos CI, Kemp BL, et al. Cytochrome P450 2E1 Dral polymorphisms in lung cancer in minority populations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998;7:13–8.[PubMed]
43. Hung HC, Chuang J, Chien YC, et al. Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2E1, GSTM1, and GSTT1; environmental factors and risk of oral cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6:901–5.[PubMed]
44. Taioli E, Ford J, Trachman J, Li Y, Demopoulos R, Garte S. Lung cancer risk and CYPIA1 genotype in African-Americans. Carcinogenesis. 1998;19:813–7.[PubMed]
45. Dong SX, Ping ZZ, Xiao WZ, et al. Effect of active and passive cigarette smoking on CYP1A2-mediated phenacetin disposition in Chinese subjects. Ther Drug Monit. 1998;20:371–5.[PubMed]
46. Soni M, Madurantakan M, Krishnaswamy K. Glutathione S-transferase Mu (GST Mu) deficiency and DNA adducts in lymphocytes of smokers. Toxicology. 1998;126:155–62.[PubMed]
47. Nakachi K, Imai K, Hayashi S, Kawajuri K. Polymorphisms of CYP1A1 and gluthathione S-transferase genes associated with susceptibility to lung cancer in relation to cigarette dose in a Japanese population. Cancer Res. 1993;53:2994–9.[PubMed]
48. Okada T, Kawashima K, Fukushi S, Minakuchi T, Nishimura S. Association between a cytochrome P450 CYP1A1 genotype and incidence of lung cancer. Pharmacogenetics. 1994;4:333–40.[PubMed]
49. Nebert D, McKinnon RA, Puga A. Human drug-metabolizing polymorphisms: Effects on risk of toxocology and cancer. DNA Cell Biol. 1996;15:273–80.[PubMed]
50. Alexandrie AK, Sundberg MI, Seidegård J, Tornling G, Rannug A. Genetic susceptibility to lung cancer with special emphasis on CYP1A1 and GSTM1: A study on host factors in relation to age at onset, gender and histological cancer types. Carcinogenesis. 1994;15:1785–90.[PubMed]
51. Garcia-Closas M, Kelsey KT, Wiencke JK, Xu X, Wain JC, Christiani DC. A case control study of cytochrome P450 1A1, glutathione S transferase M1, cigarette smoking and lung cancer susceptibility. Cancer Causes Control. 1997;8:544–53.[PubMed]
52. Vineis P, Bartsch H, Caporaso N, et al. Genetically based N-acetyltransferase metabolic polymorphism and low level environmental exposure to carcinogens. Nature. 1994;369:154–6.[PubMed]
53. Brockmöller J, Cascorbi I, Kerb R, Roots I. Combined analysis of inherited polymorphisms in arylamine N-acetyltransferase 2, glutathione S-transferases M1 and T1, microsomal epoxide hydrolase, and cytochrome P450 enzymes as modulators of bladder cancer risk. Cancer Res. 1996;56:3915–25.[PubMed]
54. Rebbeck T. Molecular epidemiology of the human glutathione S-transferase genotypes GSTM1 and GSTT1 in cancer susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6:733–43.[PubMed]
55. Hirvonen A, Nylund L, Kociba P, Husgafvel-Pursiainen DK, Vainio H. Modulation of urinary mutagenicity by genetically determined carcinogen metabolism in smokers. Carcinogenesis. 1994;15:813–5.[PubMed]
56. Kato S, Bowman ED, Harrington AM, Blomeke B, Shields PG. Human lung carcinogen-DNA adduct levels mediated by genetic polymorphisms in vivo. J Natl Canc Inst. 1995;87:902–7.[PubMed]
57. Rojas M, Alexandrov K, Cascorbi I, et al. High benzo[a]pyrene diol-epoxide DNA adduct levels in lung and blood cells from individuals with combined CYP1A1 MspI/Msp-GSTM1*0/*0 genotypes. Pharmacogenetics. 1998;8:109–18.[PubMed]
58. Brockmöller J, Cascorbi I, Kerb R, Sachse C, Roots I. Polymorphisms in xenobiotic conjugation and disease predisposition. Toxicol Lett. 1998:102–103. 73–183.[PubMed]
59. Harries LW, Stubbins MJ, Forman D, Howard GC, Wolf CR. Identification of genetic polymorphisms at the glutathione S-transferase Pi locus and association with susceptibility to bladder, testicular and prostate cancer. Carcinogenesis. 1997;18:641–4.[PubMed]
60. Ryberg D, Skaug V, Hewer A, et al. Genotypes of glutathione transferase M1 and P1 and their significance for lung DNA adduct levels and cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 1997;18:1285–9.[PubMed]
61. Hainaut P, Hernandez T, Robinson A, et al. IARC database of p53 gene mutations in tumors an cell lines: Updated compilation, revised formats and new visualization tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 1998;26:205–13.[PMC free article][PubMed]
62. Husgafvel-Pursiainen K, Ridanpaa M, Antilla S, Vainio H. P53 and ras gene mutations in lung cancer: Implications for smoking and occupational exposures. J Occup Environ Med. 1995;37:69–76.[PubMed]
63. Husgafvel-Pursiainen K, Karjalainen A, Kannio A. Lung cancer and past occupational exposure to asbestos. Role of p53 and K-ras mutations. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 1999;20:667–74.[PubMed]
64. Glantz S, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease: Mechanisms and risk. JAMA. 1995;273:1047–53.[PubMed]
65. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2004;83:1–1438.[PMC free article][PubMed]
66. Howard G, Wagenknecht LE, Diez-Roux A, et al. Cigarette smoking and progression of atherosclerosis: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. JAMA. 1998;279:119–24.[PubMed]
67. He J, Vupputuri S, Allen K, Prerost MR, Hughes J, Whelton PK. Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease – a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:920–6.[PubMed]