GENERAL PAPER A GRADE SAMPLE ESSAY

What are the advantages and disadvantages of banning smoking in

public places?

Medical studies suggest that smoking can lead to serious health

problems for both the person smoking and the person sitting next to
him. Keeping these statistics in mind, governments all over the world
have implemented bans on smoking tobacco in public places, to the
joy of non-smokers and the dismay of those for whom a cigarette is a
permanent extension of the lips.

Tobacco smoke contains carbon monoxide, a gas which - if inhaled can severely reduce the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. It does
so by combining with the blood pigment haemoglobin and preventing
it from carrying the oxygen it was supposed to.

This action of carbon monoxide displays one great advantage of the

ban on smoking in public places. People standing next to the smoker
will, against their wishes, be inhaling the tobacco smoke emanating
from the tip of the cigar or cigarette as well as that exhaled by the
smoker. Thus, large quantities of carbon monoxide will be entering the
"victim's" blood stream, wreaking havoc with his red blood cells.

Tobacco smoke has also been shown to contain certain carcinogenic

compounds which have the ability to mutate the DNA of anyone who
inhales them, leading to probable cancers of the lungs, mouth and
throats, and also secondary cancers at other sites in the body. These
effects present another case in favour of the ban on smoking in
public. Un-enlightened people standing next to the smoker will be
increasing their risk of getting cancer tenfold.

Tobacco smoke also contains nicotine, a chemical which produces the

same effects as adrenaline in the body. Nicotine increases the
breathing rate, heart beat and blood pressure of the person who
consumes it. Increased blood pressure may lead to hardening of the
arteries, a condition called arthero sclerosis. Thus another advantage
of the ban comes to light. Non-smokers who unwittingly inhale
"second-hand" smoke are exposed to nicotine and its harmful effects.

Apart from the evident medical and health advantages of the ban on
smoking in the public, certain social advantages also come to mind. It
is a well known fact that children, having impressionable minds,
emulate almost everything they see their elders doing. The negative
impact of seeing an adult smoking could ultimately lead these
children to becoming smokers themselves. And the chances of such
sightings increase manifold in public places where smoking is allowed.

Countries which provide free medical aid for their citizens have an
added advantage, a monetary one. Respiratory illnesses caused by
inhaling tobacco smoke are on the rise, resulting in an increase in the
amount of money spent on medical care by these countries. Most of
the people suffering from these illnesses are non-smokers exposed to
'second-hand' smoke. By banning the smoking of any form of tobacco
in public, the incidence of these illnesses is greatly decreased, thus
saving millions which may be directed towards other projects.

The only disadvantage of the ban that comes to mind is that the
smoker finds himself unable to exercise his right to choose, his
freedom as a democratic citizen, fully. It is certainly an infringement
on the rights of the smoker, rights which are guaranteed to any and
all citizens of a democratic country. But one feels it is unjustified. The
smoker cannot and should not force his smoking upon anyone, he
should care for the rights of others as well. The rights of so few
cannot be given preference over the rights of so many.

All in all, the ban on smoking in public is a step in the right direction,
towards a better future for us and the generations to come. All steps
possible should be taken to discourage tobacco smoking, a potentially
hazardous habit which may lead to death. We owe it to ourselves to
do so.

SAMPLE 2
Vegetarianism may be defined as a dietary style which completely
excludes meat.

Eating vegetable sans meat may be the result of personal preference

or religious injunction. Jainism and Buddhism, religions which contain
the belief in reincarnation, argue that since each human is reborn
(often as a lower animal) eating any animal or insect would be
tantamount to cannibalism. However, most vegetarians have no such
profound theory besides their individual liking of vegetables.

Scientific studies have shown that vegetable fats do not contain

ingredients which promote heart disease. Nutritionists and dieticians
advise people with heart problems to steer clear of meat, especially
red meat. However, is it not necessary to supplement the diet with
some meat?

Proteins are made up of several essential units called "amino acids"

lysine, valine, cystine, etc several of which are missing from
vegetable protein. Most vegetables do not contain lysine and valine.
However, with increased research, beans have been found to contain
almost all the necessary amino acids.

Vegetarians respect other animals right to live. If there were a

species larger and more advanced than us, would it justify our being
consumed by them? "Edible" animals such as cows, goats and hens
are decreasing daily, as large numbers are consumed. This has
resulted in "battery farming" and with the advent of advanced
technology, cloning. Whether the animals resulting from these
unnatural methods are as safe to eat as the ones "naturally" born, is
left to be seen.

Eating vegetables (and fruits) ensures that all the necessary vitamins
required by the body are supplied in sufficient quantities. Only three
or four servings of fruit per day are enough to satisfy the

Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamins essential to the

body.

Slaughtering animals is aesthetically repugnant. Even with advances

in machine-run slaughterhouses, the gore and pollution so caused
remains undimmed. Vegetarianism is a safe and healthy alternative.

However, the proponents of vegetarianism often do not pause to

consider the cons. Vegetables today are not grown in purely natural
conditions. Chemical pesticides and fertilizers may seep through the
vegetable, making it unfit for human consumption.

Genetic engineering has worked to create "hybrid" (i.e. high yielding)

varieties of vegetables and fruits, often creating enormously inflated
yields, which look succulent and fresh, but are almost tasteless. Gene
crossovers over several years have also resulted in strange mutations
and less vitamins in the vegetables.

Vegetable protein needs to be restructured in the human body so that

it can be employed to be of some use and in that too, several
essential amino acids are found lacking.

Certain vegetables contain oxalic acid, which creates deposits in the

kidneys or gall-bladder, usually called "stones", which are dangerous
and very painful.

Also, if everyone were to turn vegetarian, where would all the excess
farm animals go?

Man tends to think in terms of two opposite extremes, "Either-ors",

neither of which may be acceptable. A good alternative to
vegetarianism may be a diet containing a healthy mix of meat and
vegetables. Meat may be used to provide the necessary proteins and
vegetables the vitamin. Vegetables do not need to be cooked as much
as meat, so the oil intake reduction may well lead to the reduction or
even the prevention of the incidence of heart disease. Regular
exercise would of course be an added security. Meat and vegetables
both have their merits and demerits, excepting religious

considerations and if given a choice, neither should be excluded from

the diet in order to promote healthy living.

SAMPLE 3
The world today has taken on a form in which guillotines and public
hangings are a thing of the past. The modern man has sought to
sugarcoat handing out of punishment to criminals. However, as the
barbarian of yesterday is replaced by the civilised man of today,
delivering of punishment becomes subtler than ever but does not lose
its essential sadistic touch.

In America today, the gas chamber has been replaced by lethal

injection as a means of inflicting capital punishment. Steps are being
taken to make easier the misery of criminals. However, for the person
in question who is to undergo death by lethal injection or an infinite
number of years in solitary confinement, is any method better than
the other?

People argue in favour of harsher forms of punishment by saying that

there are certain crimes that have to be dealt with very strictly. The
very enormity of crimes like murder, rape etc requires them to be
punishable by severe means. Their argument holds a lot of weight.
How can society treat serious criminals with a lenient hand? However,
against it one can argue that there can be infinitely better methods of
deterring people to commit crimes than following the ancient dictates
"eye for an eye."

The role of harsher forms of punishment as deterrents is debatable.

Instead of making people scared to commit violent crimes, strict
punishment can also lead people on by indirectly challenging them to

outwit the law. The thrill of escaping the harsh snares of justice may
indeed motivate certain people to commit crimes.

Yet the greatest argument against infliction of harsh forms of

punishment to criminals is that they cannot be retracted if made in
error. By punishing people through the death penalty or amputation of
hands etc., the decision cannot be reversed if made erroneously. In
1956, capital punishment was abolished in Britain after Timothy Evans
who was awarded the death penalty for killing his wife turned out to
be innocent. A serial killer confessed to the crime ten years later. As
human beings we cannot make mistakes of this magnitude. We
cannot play God.

Another issue that we need to examine is that are we inflicting

harsher forms of punishment upon criminals to uphold the law, or is it
a legal channel through which the human desire of revenge is being
satisfied? By coming up with subtle, sadistic forms of punishment for
criminals, are we not fanning the primitive urge for retaliation by
taking identical action or worse?

In countries where the system of justice is not as transparent as it

ought to be, harsh punishment meted out to convicts can be used as
means to serve personal interests. Adversaries and enemies can be
eliminated by indicting them in false cases. This is especially true of
third world politics. The all-important question raises its head again:
what rights do human beings, being a tiny part of Nature's system,
have to decide whose time has come to die, and who can be allowed
to live a little longer?

In these ways then it is clear that harsh methods of punishment

should not be made harsher. Their place is not in today's society but
in history books where they can serve to make us learn from our
mistakes. Fourteen states of America have outlawed the death
penalty. The trend is positive, to say the least. By satisfying the baser
of human feelings by punishing criminals harshly, we should not
detract from our already thin vestiges of civilisation.