Descriptive Essay Example: A Beautiful Place

I think we all have a beautiful place in our mind. I have a wonderful place that made me happy a
lot of times, years ago. But sometimes I think that I am the only person who likes this place and
I’m asking myself if this place will be as beautiful as I thought when I will go back to visit it
again. Perhaps I made it beautiful in my mind.

This place is meaningful to me because it is part of the county I loved, is part of the county
where I grew up and is part of my childhood. This place is in the country in an old region named
Appalachia, a small piece of the Appalachian Mountains, in a town named Pikeville.

Pikeville is a polluted town because of the coal industry. People live in apartment or
condominium buildings because of its little space available. I grew up in one of the many
buildings in Pikeville admiring from my bedroom window the beauty of the mountains, always
exploring with my eyes the forest or the meadows, looking for a clean and quiet place. And, I
found one on a hill in the back of the town. It is about 100 feet square, it has seven old trees, wild
flowers and a lot of bugs and ants during summer time.

I used to go there to sit down on a rock and watch the town and my trees. There was a very old
tree, a maple tree, with a huge trunk. The others were smaller, three in the back, three on my left
side and the old maple tree on my right. There were flowers, many kinds, white, yellow, purple
and blue. It was nobody’s place. Nobody owned that hill, but it was beautiful and peaceful and I
dreamed many times about a white house over there.

I think that, these kinds of places are meaningful to people because they are natural and people
can be there alone, away from their everyday life.

I used to go there to be alone or to dream with my eyes open admiring the blue sky or the clouds.
I liked to go there to lay down on the grass, listen to the wind, kiss the flowers and watch the
leaves moving. It was hard to go up the hill to get there, but I wanted to see everyday my seven
trees, to see how the color of the leaves changed and to feel the softness of the grass.

I used to go there with a reason or with no reason at all. I knew that I had to be there to forget
who I am, to breath and re-feed myself with hope. That was the only place I could go to dance,
or sing, or cry. That place was part of me. The wind was part of my breath, the leaves were part
of my song, the flowers were part of my purity and the trees were my friends that I used to hug
every time when I got there.

I used to go there even in winter to play with clean snow. In my native town, even after a fresh
snow, we got a gray-black layer of soot over the snow. All the town was covered with dirty
snow.

During winter time my place was still beautiful. My trees had branches full of white, heavy
snow. The flowers, the birds, the grass were gone, also the rock I used to sit on was hard to be
found, but it was still peaceful, quiet and especially clean. The snow angels I made kept watch
over this natural splendor.

This place is far, far-away in time and space, part of my childhood and my adolescence. It means
a lot to me because it is beautiful and natural, is a clean and quiet place in a world of noise and
dirty air. This place is maybe beautiful just in my mind, but it is one of the few friends I had,
back in Romania. I really hope that the new construction will spare this place and others like it,
for these are the places that can bring us happiness.
Argumental essay

Life on this planet Earth is the product of a delicate balancing act provided by nature. Mankind’s
very existence is totally dependent on this fragile ecosystem’s ability to maintain itself. A
valuable player in the balance of the environment, the ozone layer, is facing a very serious threat
by man. Chloroflourocarbons (CFCs), are chemical agents commonly found in refrigerants,
aerosol sprays, and in the manufacturing of Styrofoam and industrial solvents. With the rate of
more than a half-million tons of CFCs being spewed into the atmosphere yearly, the rate of
ozone depletion is rising at an alarming rate. If a global effort is not made to end the unnecessary
use of CFCs, the inhabitants of this planet face an extremely difficult and frightening future.

CFCs were invented in Dayton, Ohio, in 1928. They were the product of an intensive search by
engineers with the G. M. Research Corporation to find a safe, non-toxic, non-flammable
refrigerant. Frigidaire patented the formula for CFCs in 1928 and the “new wonder gas” was
named Freon. Seth Cagin and Phillip Dray, co-authors of Between Earth and Sky, inform us in
their story of CFCs that “Freon soon topped the list of wonders, a ‘miracle’ refrigerant . . . [with
the] combination of safety, cleanliness, and efficiency . . . ” (66). Not only was the apparently
“safe” gas being used in refrigeration, but with the innovation of air-conditioning by Willis
Carrier prior to World War I, Freon would one day be used to cool our homes, automobiles, and
businesses.

Other applications for CFCs soon followed. Out of the need to eliminate malaria-carrying
mosquitoes during the first World War, Freon 12 was found to be an excellent propellant to
distribute insecticide–thus the birth of the aerosol spray can. “From eight aerosol-related
companies in the late forties, the industry grew to more than one hundred just a few years later”
(Cagin and Dray 87). CFCs were soon making the lives of millions of Americans much more
comfortable. They were also making the Kinetic Chemical Company, a joint corporation of
General Motors and Dupont who manufactured and marketed Freon, extremely wealthy.

But in August of 1985, the entire world was informed by a group of scientists at NASA’s
Goddard Space Flight Center that the sky was literally falling. A NASA satellite photo revealed
that a portion of the ozone layer the size of the continental United States had disappeared from
the atmosphere above Antarctica. This startling information confirmed the theory of scientists
that the use of CFCs were rapidly destroying the ozone layer.

Ozone is a trace gas naturally formed in the stratosphere. It forms a layer which shields the earth
and its inhabitants from the deadly ultraviolet waves emitted by the sun. According to Gordon
Keyes with the National Institute of Atmosphere and Water, depletion of this thin layer of ozone
not only increases health risks such as skin cancer and suppression of the immune system, it may
also cause a decrease in aquatic species and endanger the basic food chain of the ocean (3). The
chlorine which results from the breakdown of CFCs in the atmosphere combines with other
“greenhouse gases” and enhances the global warming threat. Vice President Al Gore warns of
still another consideration in ozone depletion in his national best seller Earth in the Balance:
Ecology and the Human Spirit:

Ironically, as the amount of ozone in the stratosphere declines, the extra ultra-violet radiation
streaming through also interacts with the local air pollution above cities and increase the amount
of smog–including the amount of low-level ozone. While ozone in the stratosphere protects us by
absorbing ultra-violet radiation before it can reach the surface, ozone at ground level is a harmful
pollutant that irritates our lungs (87).

There is much more at risk here than simply a severe case of sunburn. Unfortunately, the world
is already witnessing the early effects of ozone depletion.

Since its discovery in 1985, the ozone hole above Antarctica has grown to three times the size of
the continental United States. In addition, according to Gore, “scientists believe it is only a
matter of time before significant ozone depletion occurs in the Northern Hemisphere” (87). The
ozone layer in that region is already thinning, “almost 10 percent in just four decades” (Gore 87).
In just a ten-year span, “researchers had seen an astonishing 340 percent increase in cases of
melanoma in the southwestern United States” (Cagin and Dray 325). In 1987, a New York
physician treated six patients with “retinal sunburn”. What he discovered was that
All six had been sunbathing on the afternoon of March 29, 1987, an unseasonably warm day that
had sent people across the northeast out of doors to parks, backyards and beaches. What none
realized, or could have known, was that the balmy weather was accompanied by an “ozone hole”
stretching from Michigan to New England. (Cagin and Dray 326)

Also, in the southern hemisphere where ozone depletion is a “fact of life,” residents in that
region receive official warnings when high levels of UV light are expected. Families have made
a practice of keeping their children indoors between the hours of 10 A. M. and 3 P. M., and
outdoor school activities are always scheduled for late afternoon.

One would think that with the prospect of all living organisms upon this planet being roasted to a
golden crunch there would be a mad rush by industry and government to halt production and use
of CFCs, but that just has not been the case. After the CFC/Ozone theory was proven and
became public knowledge in 1975, industries involved in the manufacture and use of CFCs
blatantly ignored the threat and continued with their “business as usual” policy. But bowing to
consumer activists in June of 1975, “the Johnson Wax Company, the nation’s fifth largest
manufacture of aerosol products, announced it would immediately end all uses of CFC
propellants in aerosols” (Roan 59). It was in that same month and year that Oregon became the
first state to ban CFCs in aerosol sprays. The federal government would wait another year before
it took any action, which consisted of a proposal of the FDA and EPA to phase out CFCs in
aerosols. An additional year passed before those departments actually came up with a timetable
to implement their plan. But this “ban” pertained only to CFCs in aerosols, and included no
regulations on CFCs in refrigerants, Styrofoam, or other industrial applications.

For whatever reason, public interest in the ozone issue began to wane in the 1980’s, during the
Reagan administration. Phil Brick reveals in his article in Environment magazine that “Ronald
Reagan was the first U.S. president to make a concerted effort to reverse the tide of
environmental regulation . . . ” (20). George Bush reneged on his promise to be “the
environmental president.” The environmental movement was revived for a short while when the
Clinton administration took office. There seemed to be renewed interest in environmental issues
with the President’s appointment of prominent environmentalists to top cabinet-level positions.
Unfortunately, after just three years in office, the administration seems to have forgotten most of
its environmental initiatives.

On the international front, delegates from forty-three nations met in Montreal in 1987, and
signed an agreement calling for eventual worldwide CFC reductions of fifty percent. But two
months after the treaty was signed, new scientific evidence became available which disclosed
ozone depletion was occurring at a much faster rate than previous models had predicted. Roan
tells us the scientific community informed the world that “Without global controls, the world
would lose half its ozone layer by 2075” (227). The United States ratified the Montreal Protocol
the following year without calling for any of the resolutions lawmakers had suggested to speed
up CFC reductions.

Twenty years have passed since the CFC/Ozone theory was discovered. Since that time,
scientific evidence clearly indicates that not only is the earth losing its protective shield, it is
disappearing at an alarmingly rapid rate. And still the nations of the world are pumping millions
of tons of CFCs into the atmosphere each year. Regulations in the United States have contributed
to a decrease in the amount of CFCs this nation emits. Figures from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census indicate a drop in those emissions from 278,000 metric tons in 1987 to 180,000 metric
tons in 1993 (235). But with the allowance in increased use of CFCs by developing third world
countries afforded by the Montreal Protocol, global total reduction in their use will amount to
only 35 percent (Roan 227). Government regulations appear to be only a band-aid on a wound of
immense proportions.

The chief opponent to a ban on CFCs is industry, and with good reason. A total ban would
eliminate the entire industry and billions of dollars in profits. The Dupont Corporation, which
supplies one-quarter of the world’s demand for CFCs, has been the leader in both time and
money spent in lobbying lawmakers for softer regulations on the CFC issue. That time and
money would have been much better spent on research for safer inexpensive alternatives to
CFCs. To discourage concerned consumers, industry has maintained that a switch to alternatives
would be cost-prohibitive and less efficient, but that has not proven true.
There has already been a substitute found for Freon that would cost approximately three to five
time more. But in the case of air-conditioning and coolants, a substitute is not even needed. New
technology has found a way to recycle the chemicals that can be safely removed from discarded
air-conditioning and refrigeration units. It is apparent that there are billions of dollars to be made
by industry in a transition to alternatives. Initially consumers may have to absorb the higher costs
of the new technology, but that cost would appear to be minimal compared to the prospect of a
world without an ozone layer. Aid to farmers in these recent years of record drought is already
costing taxpayers billions of dollars. That is only a drop in the bucket compared to the resulting
health care costs projected for the very near future.

Although action is already being taken on the CFC/Ozone issue on both global and national
levels, there are steps we, as individuals, can take to heal our “shattered sky.” Consumers need to
make a practice of reading labels on spray cans, and avoid using products containing any of the
chlorine compounds. Air-conditioning hoses on automobiles should be changed at the first sign
of wear by an agent certified in the proper handling of coolants to prevent unnecessary leaking of
CFCs into the atmosphere. Proper disposal of those coolants used in refrigeration and air-
conditioning is now mandated by the federal government and any violations of those laws could
result in a heavy fine. Consumers can ask dry cleaners to avoid the use of CFC solvents in
cleaning garments. Probably the most important role individuals have in the CFC/Ozone issue is
education.

Public interest in environmental issues has been in a steady decline since the beginning of this
decade, and with it the “awareness” of environmental hazards which was evident in the 70’s and
80’s. In a recent door-to-door survey I conducted of neighborhood households, only 20 percent
of the adult respondents knew what CFCs were, and even fewer were aware of health risks
involved in the use of those chemical agents (see Appendix for a copy of the survey and raw
data).

Education and awareness are essential keys to a healthy future for our world. It is human nature
to ignore those problems not evident to the five senses. If it is not seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or
touchable, it is soon forgotten. So just imagine . . . picture a world brown and seared, empty of
green and of life, windswept and barren. This is the future of our planet Earth, destroyed by the
most intelligent creature to ever live upon it.

Argumentative Essay FOR School Choice

Imagine if only one size of pants were sold in stores and government regulations wouldn’t allow
any other size to be made available to consumers. This may sound crazy but it’s much like
what’s happening with the education of our nation’s children. As Americans we enjoy a wide
range of personal choice, and thankfully it includes our ability to select the pants that fit us best.
But think for a moment about traditional public education. For decades the public school system
has offered a one size fits all approach to educating our nation’s children. As we approached the
21st century, the public school system began to show its age. More and more children began to
fall behind in a rapidly changing environment marked by the introduction of personal computers
and later the internet. Sensing a need for change, many people began to push for new educational
models that would keep up with the times. This marked the beginning of the school choice
movement. Both charter schools and school voucher programs are collectively referred to as
“school choice” initiatives, in that they allow parents freedom to choose individualized education
options for their children that are outside of the traditional “one size fits all’ public school
system. A school voucher program provides parents with certificates that are used to pay for
education at a school of their choice, rather than the public school to which they are assigned.
Charter schools on the other hand are publicly funded schools that have been freed from
inefficient public school system rules and regulations in exchange for accountability to produce
positive, measurable results. These agreed to results are set forth in each school’s charter. The
ability for parents to choose an education path that is best for their children is an exciting
opportunity currently revolutionizing public education.

Considering the importance of public education, it’s understandable that many people would be
hesitant to make changes to the system. Those opposed to school choice site concerns that public
schools would be traded in for profit based education corporations that care more for financial
profit than the individual education of students. Others site concern for what appears to be
government sponsorship of private religious schools through the funding provided by various
school voucher programs. Those against choice should be commended for demonstrating a
committed concern for the education of our nation’s children, but the overwhelming evidence
proves that school choice is the right direction for the future.

A characteristic of privately operated charter schools is the focus on success through measurable
achievement and accountability. Imagine again the one size fits all pants store, how could they
stay in business if another store offered various sizes and styles? Simple, they couldn’t, not when
faced with competition that provides a better choice for consumers. The traditional public school
system of the past had no competition. There was no incentive to improve the quality of
education they provided since there was nothing to measure it against. The school choice
movement for the first time introduced an alternative to poorly performing public schools.
Charter schools make a commitment, or charter, to achieve a measurable level of educational
performance within a defined period of time. This concept works and has produced results in
places like Chicago, where charter schools show better performance in ACT test scores, high
school graduation rates, and greater numbers of students continuing on to college (Rand).

One group that benefits greatly from school choice is the urban poor. For decades there has been
school choice for families that could afford it. The wealthy have always provided very expensive
private schools for their children, and middleclass families with the resources have moved to
neighborhoods that offered the best schools. But the poor, often in urban areas, have had no other
option than to send their children to underperforming and sometimes even dangerous public
schools. Through school choice initiatives poor families have been given the same opportunities
to send their children to safer and better performing schools which others have enjoyed for many
years. In addition to the urban poor, other often overlooked groups can greatly benefit from a
system that allows individual schools to focus on gifted, special education, or teen pregnancy
programs (Chub). It’s clear that choices in schools allow a custom fit of education solutions for
every type of student.

School choice represents change and there will always be those that resist change stand to gain
from a return to the old system. One of the most active opponents to school choice is the
National Education Association. Representing public education professionals, the NEA is the
largest labor union in the US and boasts over 3.2 million members (NEA). The NEA benefits
from keeping status quo and exercising strong political power. At stake are changes in job
performance accountability, and the loss of union jobs a result of non-unionized schools. The
positions the NEA has taken on other issues have often been criticized as favoring the labor
interests of its members rather than what’s best for students. One of the programs the NEA has
been most vocal against has been school vouchers, contending that vouchers amount to
government funding of religious based schools. On the contrary, citizens are allowed to retain a
portion of their tax dollars that would have been spent on local public school funding and apply
it to a school of their choosing. It is the citizen, not the government that selects and contributes to
a private school whether it is religiously based or not. Consider families that are already sending
children to private schools, they must pay the private school tuition and in addition to the tax
burden for a public school they are not even attending. This double burden is unfair and amounts
to a government fine for families that pursue private education without the help of vouchers.

It’s clear that the historical one size fits all approach to education is outdated. The new fast pace
of the digital age demands that we act quickly and accurately in guiding our public education
policies. Cling to an antiquated system that provides poor results is a guarantee that traditional
public education will continue to produce nothing other than poor results. Instead, a path of
measurable results and accountability should be pursued. The arguments of those against school
choice must be seen for what they are, and that is nothing more than protection of special
interests such as big unions. Our nation must ensure that children will be provided with a choice
based education that is forward thinking, customized, fair to all citizens, and able to move into
the future with them.

Argumentative Essay on Single Parent

For many years, children growing up in a single parent family have been viewed as different.
Being raised by only one parent seems impossible to many yet over the decades it has become
more prevalent. In today’s society many children have grown up to become emotionally stable
and successful whether they had one or two parents to show them the rocky path that life
bestows upon all human beings. The problem lies in the difference of children raised by single
parents versus children raised by both a mother and a father. Does a child need both parents?
Does a young boy need a father figure around? Does the government provide help for single
parents? What role do step-parents and step-siblings play? With much speculation, this topic has
become a very intriguing argument. What people must understand is that properly raising a child
does not rely on the structure of a family but should be more focused on the process or values
that are taught to these children as they learn to mature. Children of single parents can be just as
progressive with emotional, social and behavioral skills as those with two parents.

People claim that the only way for children to gain full emotional and behavioral skills is to be
raised by both a mother and a father. When a topic such as this one has a broad amount of
variables it is impossible to simply link these problems to only having one parent. In the article,
“Single-parent families cause juvenile crime”, author Robert L. Maginnis states, “Children from
single-parent families are more likely to have behavior problems because they tend to lack
economic security and adequate time with parents”. The simple statement that raw criminals are
products of single-parent adolescence is absurd. What this writer must understand is that it can
be extremely difficult for one parent to raise a child by themselves for many reasons. A single-
parent must work full time to be able to afford to provide for themselves and their child. They
must also be able to still have time to offer an exuberant amount of emotional time for the well
being of their child. However, even though this may seem impossible, it can be done.

As this subject continues to be looked down on people must realize that single parents are
becoming more common in today’s world. Since 1995 the American family structure for children
ages fourteen to eighteen consists of forty-two percent living in a first marriage family with both
parents, twenty-two percent living in a second marriage step-family, twenty-one percent living in
a single parent, divorced or separated family, six percent living in a single parent never married
family and three percent living in a single parent widowed family. This is an extremely scary
statistic considering that fifty eight percent of children in America are living in a single parent
family. This is a chilling percentage because it shows how little faith is put into a relationship
before actually deciding to have children. Unfortunately not all single-parents take the time to
perform the vital tasks needed to raise their children. Parents who think they would never be able
to provide emotional stability for their children by themselves should have taken the time to
think this through before deciding to become parents. Accidents may happen once in awhile but
in most cases adults know what is at stake when planning to have a child. Plain and simple, if
you’re not ready, than don’t do it. If you do decide to have this child and you love this child, then
you can be a good parent. There are many ways to enhance the well being of your child if you
simply apply yourselves as parents.

Magginnis later states that, “Boys who do not have fathers as male role models suffer
especially”. While it is extremely important for a male child to have his father around, there are
other ways of teaching a young boy the lessons he needs to become a man. I know from personal
experience that what the author of this article is trying to convey is wrong. I never had my father
around while growing up and I did in fact have many positive male role models. My Grandfather
was always there to help guide me as I slowly blossomed into a young man. Anytime my mother
had to work to support us, my grandparents, aunt’s, uncles and cousins would step up and
provide the time and attention I needed. Therefore, I had the best support group I could have had
as a young man. Being a child with a single mother had its benefits. Although I came to find how
hard it really was for her to always meet the needs of her child, she did the best job that she
possibly could and gave me the knowledge that I needed to become a successful man without the
guidance of my father.

I did however have the experience of dealing with a step-parent. Today, twenty five percent of
all American children will spend at least some time of their growing-up years in a stepfamily.
This seems fine for single parents because they feel like they can start over in a new relationship
and receive help from their spouse both emotionally and financially. A step-parent can cause
confusion and emotional stress on the child since they have just had to adjust to only one parent
and now have to adjust to a new parental figure stepping into the family role. Another factor of
bringing a step-parent into a single family’s life is new step-siblings to get along with. It might
not be justified for a step-parent to punish their step-child like they would their own flesh and
blood. As long as both parents have an understanding that their family comes first and that it is
important to communicate between themselves and with the children, a step-family could
survive.

Children who are raised with both a mother and a father have more attention from both parents
therefore they get the emotional time they need to progress in life. This could be true but not in
all circumstances. It would not be beneficial at all to grow up in a two parent family who did
nothing but argue and put each-other down. Naturally, a child who sees this from a very young
age until they are ready to be out on their own would only follow in the footsteps of all that they
have ever known. Children who are raised by one parent who devotes their time and emotion
into their child would benefit much more than a child who has both parents showing them that
fighting and arguing is acceptable.

Not all families are lucky enough to have a healthy structure. It is important for society and
government aids to notice these structural differences and take action. There should be
government funded programs to help assist single-parent families with childcare and finances for
parents who must work and still have time for their children.

Whether it’s a mother and a father, a single mother, or a single father, children need guidance.
They will only become a product of what they are taught from a young age and these children are
deeply affected emotionally by the amount of love and compassion that is put into raising them.
Whichever family structure is implied it must be one of respect and strong moral values that they
can someday pass on to their family.

SMOKING KILLS

4 Pages

987 Words

Smoking is bad for your body and your overall health. There are many side affects that

can hurt and even kill your body. It also can harm your lungs and make it hard for you to breathe.

When you look at the statistics I don't understand why people do smoke.

Cigarette smoking is the most important preventable cause of premature death in the

United States. It accounts for about 430,700 of the more than 2 million annual deaths.

Cigarette manufacturers spend millions of dollars every year to convince you and your

children that smoking will make you exciting, athletic, important, sophisticated, and sexually

attractive. They carefully avoid mentioning the intense addictive qualities of nicotine and the

well-documented, serious health risks involved. Quitting smoking is the best preventive

medicine: Experts estimate that stopping smoking is about 10 times more cost-effective at saving
lives than even the best medical screening tests. The benefits are enormous. Your heart, lungs,

and blood vessels have an amazing capacity to heal themselves when given the chance. When

you stop smoking, your body starts repairing itself almost immediately. And with proper

nutrition and activity, you can usually regain normal lung and heart functioning within a few

years, regardless of how long you've been smoking. The risk of heart attack, stroke, and cancer

starts dropping immediately.

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing

(carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon

monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT. Most of the

chemicals inhaled in cigarette smoke stay in the lungs. The more you inhale, the better it feels-

and the greater the damage to your lungs. As a cigarette is smoked, the amount of tar inhaled into

the lungs increases, and the last puff contains more than twice as much tar as the first puff.

Should Colleges Ban Smoking In Campus

The issue of smoking in campus have been a field of debate as many people give

their different views on whether smoking should be allowed in campus (Coster

45).Smoking is not in any way beneficial as it destroys the human health leading to various

diseases that in the final end because death and thus should be discouraged in campus.

Management of different institutions has come up with different policies that are set to

discourage smoking in campus to protect the students’ future. Many

medical practicers have made points to discourage smoking in any form to avoid the

various effects that come with it. Smoking is not also right to students and in most cases;

their academic performance tends to go down as research done shows it leads to

retardation of the memory among other effects (Miranda 8).

Critics in this field would argue that smoking is an individual choice and they would not in

any way support a free tobacco campus society in their believe that smoking is like a hobby

or some form of drug taking just like alcohol. At this moment, I would argue that campus

smoking should be banned completely due to the negative effects that it has on students. I

myself have been in campus and have seen the effects that smoking has caused to students

and thus it should not be entertained in any way around academic institutions. In view of
this, smoking in campus should be banned because of the following five main reasons:

First, it causes air pollution that has led to global warming by emission of carbonic

products into the atmosphere. It affects students’ performance in classrooms and their

level of concentration goes down(Miranda 43).Secondhand smokers’ or people around the

smoking environment also get affected putting their lives at risk. Many diseases arise

because of smoking (Grekin and Ayna 35).Contrary to those who are opposed to smoking,

tobacco free campus can help students quit smoking.

Smoking should be banned in campus because it leads to environmental pollution

(cleanair.org 1). Many tobacco-producing companies have had litigation issues in failing to

protect the environment form pollution. These carbonic products when they are released

into the atmosphere have led to global warming that has caused climatic changes in the

world. Smoking have even been seen to be worse more than pollution that comes from

diesel car exhausts that was proved by an Italian study (Miranda 43). The study took a

comparison of the air pollution particles from diesel engines and those that came from the

cigarettes. To protect the environment for the future generations, smoking should thus be

banned in campus (Coster 56).

Smoking has been seen to affect the level of academic and physical performance of students

in campus. Students who do not involve themselves in smoking activities have been seen to

have good academic grades. It also affects their co-curriculum activities such as sports

leading to decreased circulation, rapid heartbeat, and shortness in breathing. Smoking

should be banned to increase the performance of students academically and

physically(Grekin and Ayna 34).

Secondhand smokers have been seen to be affected widely by their smoking counterparts.

This arises from smoke pollution that they inhale into their body system. This leads to

causing of serious health effects such as asthma, cancer and other respiratory infections in

the human body. The smoke pollution contains over 4000 chemicals that are poisonous in

nature and at least 69 of them cause cancerous infections (cleanair.org 1).This shows how
smoking is so harmful not only to students but also to the larger environment.

Smoking should be banned in campus to protect the lives of students and other parties

from getting diseases arising from smoke pollution. Smoking causes diseases ranging from

asthma, respiratory infections such as bronchitis and emphysema, lung cancer among

other diseases. These diseases are fatal in nature (cleanair.org 2). Ban smoking in campus

to avoid death arising from diseases caused by smoking.

To those who are opposed in having tobacco free environments in campus, this can be

achieved with supportive authorities that implement codes and standards that are aimed at

instilling discipline to students and thus reducing smoking in campus. Research done in the

United States have shown that 55% of the population have said yes in banning smoking

within campuses within the United States (debate.org 1).Having tobacco free environments

in various academic institutions should be a priority to many academic institutions in the

world.

Smoking should therefore be banned in campus because; it is not in any way beneficial as it

leads to a decrease in academic performance. Banning it would mean having an energetic

young generation who work towards the growth and development of the economy.

Smoking cause global warming and thus creating awareness on the effects of climate

change should help them stop smoking in campus. Campaign awareness of various fatal

diseases such as cancer that arise from smoking should help students stop smoking

(debate.org 1).