persuasive speech ban smoking

Choosing Good Topics
Controversial
Demonstration
Extemporaneous
Informative
School/College
Special Occasion
Public Speaking Help
Writing a Speech
Free Sample Speeches
Share Your Speech
Persuasive Speech Example

Having a persuasive speech example to study can help you to create your presentation more easily. Although the persuasive speech below has plenty of facts, it's really an exercise in using vocal variety, gestures and exaggeration to sell the point of view that smoking should be banned in all public places.

Read through it and see if you can apply some of the techniques used in this speech to your own presentation.

Sample Title: Say "No" to Secondhand Smoke

Beginning of persuasive speech example.

I stumbled out of the building, coughing and wheezing, smoke filling my eyes and lungs. I tugged frantically at my tie to loosen my collar, my head pounding as I ran out the door.

...fresh….air….gotta….have….fresh…..air…

Was it a fire?

Terrorist attack?

No, I was simply eating my dinner when a gentleman at the table next to us decided to light up a cigarette. The smoke went right into my face and lungs. All of a sudden I couldn't breathe, my chest hurt and I panicked.

Ladies and gentlemen, by the end of this year more people will die from second hand smoke related deaths than the average crowd at a Major League Baseball game. Secondhand, or passive smoke, is an insidious killer that is harming adults, and more critically, children around the country every day.

My goal in speaking to you today is to enlist your support in a federal ban of all smoking from all public places without hesitation.

But isn't this America? Shouldn't I have the right to smoke? If I want to pollute my lungs and ruin my health, why should that be any concern of yours?

The facts are that secondhand smoke is responsible for many of the same diseases as if the sufferers had smoked the cigarettes themselves. These diseases include cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases.

For example, the International Agency on Research on Cancer found that “involuntary smoking is carcinogenic to humans." Various studies in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom point to a significant increase in risk of lung cancer among those exposed to passive smoke.

The California Environmental Protection Agency found that passive smoking increases the risk of breast cancer in young women by 70%. In a separate paper, the US Surgeon General found that there was evidence that suggested that there was a causal relationship between smoking and breast cancer.

Secondhand smoke is even associated with the loss of hearing in non-smoking adults.

What? What did you say?

Studies have shown that both active and passive cigarette smoking increases the risk of their atherosclerosis. Also, exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia in adults 50 and over.

And our children?

Putting children at risk is unforgivable at best and probably criminal. In a 2006 report, the US Surgeon General found that the evidence is sufficient to infer a relationship between secondhand smoke and sudden infant death syndrome.

And - horrifyingly - the risk of developing brain tumors is higher among children exposed to passive smoking, even if the mother does not smoke.

The California Environmental Protection Agency found that the risk of childhood cancer (and adult lung cancer) increases after childhood exposure to passive smoking.

Sadly I could go on, and on, and on. And on!

Secondhand smoke in the home is one problem. But to go to a public restaurant, or concert, or any event and to experience secondhand smoke is impacting the health of our population and increasing healthcare costs. Without doubt, it should be banned by federal mandate in the next session.

While you have the option of whether to smoke or not, I DON'T have the option of not breathing.

Nor do our children.

End of Persuasive Speech Example

Were you persuaded? In this persuasive speech example you get some facts and statistics which are usually found in informative speeches . However, when delivered in a slightly exaggerated way with hand gestures, these statistics can be incredibly persuasive.

Free email delivery

MASTER INFORMATIVE SPEAKING WITH OUR FREE CHECKLIST!

We are offering you a FREE SpeakFlight Informative Speaking Preparation Checklist. This valuable resource is packed with step-by-step guidance to help you create compelling, memorable, and effective informative speeches.

Share this page

Persuasive Topics for Valentines

The top five persuasive topics for Valentines day including commercialization, paternalism, inclusiveness, and religion

Fun Persuasive Speech Topics

Here are 54 fun persuasive speech topics for your consideration, around which you can create a light-hearted and entertaining speech.

Persuasive Speech Topics - Find Great Ideas for Your Presentation

Find lots of persuasive speech topics and discover how to influence your listeners' beliefs, change their opinions and ultimately prompt them to take action!

Easily search your speech type

Just check out the sitemap for best-speech-topics.com , which lists all the pages on the site, or use the search box below:

Return to the Top of the Page

Get to Know Us

Attention Grabbers

Positive Quotes for Kids
Quotes for Graduation Speeches
Poems & Quotes on Death
Quotes on Retirement

Select a Speech Topic

Argumentative
Commemorative
Inspirational
Interesting
Other Topics

Let Us Help You

How To Write a Speech
Demonstration Outline
Informative Outline
Introductions
Using a Microphone
Speech Help
Speeches Made Easy

Should Smoking Be Illegal?

Should smoking be banned? What are the pros and cons of banning cigarettes in public places? If you’re writing an argumentative essay or persuasive speech on why smoking should be banned, check out this sample.

Smoking Should Be Banned: Essay Introduction

Reasons why smoking should be banned, why smoking should not be banned: essay arguments, why smoking should be banned essay conclusion.

Smoking involves burning a substance to take in its smoke into the lungs. These substances are commonly tobacco or cannabis. Combustion releases the active substances in them, like nicotine, which are absorbed through the lungs.

A widespread technique through which this is done is via smoking manufactured cigarettes or hand-rolling the tobacco ready for smoking. Almost 1 billion people in the majority of all human societies practice smoking. Complications directly associated with smoking claim the lives of half of all the persons involved in smoking tobacco or marijuana for a long time.

Smoking is an addiction because tobacco contains nicotine, which is very addictive. The nicotine makes it difficult for a smoker to quit. Therefore, a person will become used to nicotine such that he/she has to smoke to feel normal. Consequently, I think smoking should be banned for some reason.

One reason why smoking should be banned is that it has got several health effects. It harms almost every organ of the body. Cigarette smoking causes 87% of lung cancer deaths and is also responsible for many other cancer and health problems. 

Apart from this, infant deaths that occur in pregnant women are attributed to smoking. Similarly, people who stay near smokers become secondary smokers, who may breathe in the smoke and get the same health problems as smokers. Although not widely smoked, cannabis also has health problems, and withdrawal symptoms include depression, insomnia, frustration, anger, anxiety, concentration difficulties, and restlessness.

Besides causing emphysema, smoking also affects the digestive organs and the blood circulatory systems, especially heart arteries. Women have a higher risk of heart attack than men, exacerbating with time as one smokes. Smoking also affects the mouth, whereby the teeth become discolored, the lips blacken and always stay dry, and the breath smells bad.

Cigarette and tobacco products are costly. People who smoke are therefore forced to spend their money on these products, which badly wastes the income they would have otherwise spent on other things. Therefore, I think that smoking should be forbidden to reduce the costs of treating diseases related to smoking and the number of deaths caused by smoking-related illnesses.

However, tobacco and cigarette manufacturing nations would lose a lot if smoking was to be banned. I, therefore, think that it should not be banned. Some nations largely depend on exporting cigarettes and tobacco products to get revenue.

This revenue typically boosts the economy of such nations. If smoking were banned, they would incur significant losses since tobacco companies are multi-billion organizations. Apart from these, millions of people will be jobless due to the ban.

The process by which tobacco and cigarette products reach consumers is very complex, and it involves a chain process with several people involved in it. Banning smoking, therefore, means these people will lose their jobs, which most may depend on for their livelihoods.

In conclusion, the ban on smoking is a tough step to be undertaken, especially when the number of worldwide users is billions. Although it burdens nations enormously in treating smoking-related diseases, it may take a long time before a ban can work. Attempts by some nations to do this have often been met with failures.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 12). Should Smoking Be Illegal? https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/

"Should Smoking Be Illegal?" StudyCorgi , 12 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Should Smoking Be Illegal'. 12 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Should Smoking Be Illegal?" January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Should Smoking Be Illegal?" January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Should Smoking Be Illegal?" January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

This paper, “Should Smoking Be Illegal?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 8, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

On Why One Should Stop Smoking Essay (Speech)

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Credibility material: how do you really feel when some of the problems you or your relative or even friends face due to smoking? And is it possible to stop smoking after you have been told that smoking will definitely give you serious health problems? Well, I had a friend who became a chain smoker. He used to wake and the first thing that went into his mouth was a cigarette stick, then any other thing will follow thereafter. My friend had been experiencing persistent coughs that made him suspect he might have contracted HIV virus yet he had not yet spent with a woman. But he went for HIV test which proved negative. He continued smoking as he sought out the cough issue in his own ways. One day he became very ill and the cough became even worse. As a friend I accompanied him to a local hospital where he was diagnosed with cancer. The doctor’s advice was that he should stop smoking; however, he never adhered to the doctor’s advice and later died of serious cancer. That was a sad event caused by what could be avoided.

Link to the audience: one of the people who have suffered health complications or death as a result of smoking may be somebody close to you or someone you know.
Thesis and preview: today I am privileged to have your audience and I intend to talk to you about the effects of smoking, and also I propose to give a talk on how to solve the problem of smoking.

Shift into the main section of the speech: I will begin by telling you how smoking affects us.

So many people around the world have suffered the effects of smoking. I will talk about these effects in terms of health and financial effects.

Research has found out that non-smokers are also exposed to dangers related to smoking. It can lead to increased effects of asthma on those who already have asthma, especially children. Taking for instance, available statistics indicate that in the United States of America alone, 53,000 non-smokers are killed by issues related to smoking (San Francisco Tobacco Free Project para1).
To those who have coronary diseases, second hand smoking increases the risk of the disease and can make it severe. Moreover, those who have high risk factors of the disease can easily be attacked when exposed to smoking environment for long.
Imagine that being exposed to second hand smoke for only thirty minutes is enough to cause damages to your heart and the damages are just similar to those of an actual or habitual smoker.
Smoking also affects the unborn: the fetus is affected by secondary smoke inhaled by the mother.
In women who are young and have not reached menopause, secondary smoke increases the risk of breast cancer.
Other effects are impaired learning ability of children, increased risk of experiencing spinal pain, and reduced median cotinine levels (Bonnie pp.5-21).Transition: I believe that you can now realize that smoking does not only affect the smoker, but even the non-smokers and the unborn. The problems related to smoking affects all of us, but the smokers are more exposed than non-smokers even though in some of the problems both groups suffer are just the same. Now I will tell you about the risks smokers directly face.

Habitual smokers are exposed to:

Habitual smokers are at a very high risk of cancer. It has been known that smoking is one of the leading causes of cancer. Taking the case of United Kingdom alone, approximately 106, 000 individuals die annually due to smoke related cancer.
Some of the diseases caused and or worsened by smoking include, lung cancer, diseases of the heart, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and also circulation problems.
To pregnant women, smoking is highly likely to cause miscarriages, complications, poor development of the child which may continue after birth and it may also result into still birth or death of the child in the first one week of birth (Litt 29).
Smoking also has economic and other effects on smokers. Smokers, especially heavy chain smokers, use a lot of money as cigarette expenditures. Some of other effects of smoking include, bad breath, clothes and home environment smell stale tobacco, reduces sense of taste, life insurance of smokers are damn expensive and potential employers may not like smokers due to the possibility of constant seek leave.Transition: you can see how much risk smokers are exposed to. It is important to note that these risks can potentially result into deaths. However, it is possible to avoid all these smoking related problems. Now, my last discussion will be on how to solve the problem of smoking.

The only effective way in solving the problem is to stop smoking. But the question somebody may be asking is, “How do I stop smoking?” I will give some ways on how to do so:

Will power is one of the ways to use in solving the problems but the most difficult of all other ways. One should have the courage and have undying persistence on quitting smoking.
Use nicotine-based chewing gum; even though they still contain nicotine, however, the victim under treatment is not getting the tar into the body system.
Use anti-depressants under a medical doctor’s guide.
It is important to stop smoking once diagnosed with problems related with smoking
Another way to stop smoking is to seek the intervention of a counselor who will guide you on gradual processes of stopping smoking.
Non-smokers, especially with risky diseases, should avoid smoking environments (Acts 50).

Brakelight/intention to stop: as you can realize, stopping smoking and campaigning against it will be beneficial to all of us.

Summary: I have talked to you about the effects of smoking on both habitual smokers and non-smokers and also on how the problems can be stopped or avoided. All of us must rise up and campaign against smokers or else we will gradually be affected and infected.

Link back to the audience: now that you know the effects of smoking and how to solve it will you help somebody stop smoking? How happy will you be or satisfied will you feel if someone is to come to thank you for helping him or her stop smoking? Let us take the challenge.

Concluding remark: I am going to stop here, but not before I give you a quote by somebody known as Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland. “A cigarette is the only consumer product which when used as directed kills its consumer.”

Acts, Humbler. How to Stop Smoking in 50 Days . New York: Bookway International Services, 2001.

Bonnie, Richard. Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation . New York: National Academies Press, 2007.

Litt, Iris. Taking our pulse: The health of America’s women . New York: Stanford University Press, 1997.

San Francisco Tobacco Free Project. “Untitled.” 2010.

Ban Smoking in Cars
Business Ethics: Smoking Issue
Cigarette Smoking in Public Places
Online Discussion and Violence Program Evaluation
Rhetorical Analysis: Elements and Concepts
Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Communities
Che Guevara: The Speech Before the General Assembly of the UN
The Public Speeches by Kennedy, Mac Arthur and King
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, June 2). On Why One Should Stop Smoking. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/

"On Why One Should Stop Smoking." IvyPanda , 2 June 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'On Why One Should Stop Smoking'. 2 June.

IvyPanda . 2022. "On Why One Should Stop Smoking." June 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/.

1. IvyPanda . "On Why One Should Stop Smoking." June 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "On Why One Should Stop Smoking." June 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/.

Persuasive Essay Writing

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Craft an Engaging Persuasive Essay About Smoking: Examples & Tips

Published on: Jan 25, 2023

Last updated on: Jan 29, 2024

Persuasive Essay-Defined

A persuasive essay is a form of academic writing that presents an argument in favor of a particular position, opinion, or viewpoint.

It is usually written to convince the audience to take a certain action or adopt a specific viewpoint.

The primary purpose of this type of essay is to provide evidence and arguments that support the writer's opinion.

In persuasive writing, the writer will often use facts, logic, and emotion to convince the reader that their stance is correct.

The writer can persuade the reader to consider or agree with their point of view by presenting a well-researched and logically structured argument.

The goal of a persuasive essay is not to sway the reader's opinion. It is to rather inform and educate them on a particular topic or issue.

Check this free downloadable example of a persuasive essay about smoking!

Simple Persuasive essay about smoking

Read our extensive guide on persuasive essays to learn more about crafting a masterpiece every time.

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Are you a student looking for some useful tips to write an effective persuasive essay about the dangers of smoking?

Look no further! Here are several great examples of persuasive essays that masterfully tackle the subject and persuade readers creatively.

Persuasive speech on the smoking outline

Persuasive essay about smoking should be banned

Persuasive essay about smoking pdf

Persuasive essay about smoking cannot relieve stress

Persuasive essay about smoking in public places

Speech about smoking is dangerous

For more examples about persuasive essays, check out our blog on persuasive essay examples .

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

Our examples can help you find the points that work best for your style and argument.

Argumentative essay about smoking introduction

Argumentative essay about smoking pdf

Argumentative essay about smoking in public places

10 Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Here are a few tips and tricks to make your persuasive essay about smoking stand out:

1. Do Your Research

Before you start writing, make sure to do thorough research on the topic of smoking and its effects.

Look for primary and secondary sources that provide valuable information about the issue.

2. Create an Outline

An outline is essential when organizing your thoughts and ideas into a cohesive structure. This can help you organize your arguments and counterarguments.

Read our blog about creating a persuasive essay outline to master your next essay.

Check out this amazing video here!

3. Clearly Define the Issue

Make sure your writing identifies the problem of smoking and why it should be stopped.

4. Highlight Consequences

Show readers the possible negative impacts of smoking, like cancer, respiratory issues, and addiction.

5. Identity Solutions

Provide viable solutions to the problem, such as cessation programs, cigarette alternatives, and lifestyle changes.

6. Be Research-Oriented

Research facts about smoking and provide sources for those facts that can be used to support your argument.

7. Aim For the Emotions

Use powerful language and vivid imagery to draw readers in and make them feel like you do about smoking.

8. Use Personal Stories

Share personal stories or anecdotes of people who have successfully quit smoking and those negatively impacted by it.

9. Include an Action Plan

Offer step-by-step instructions on how to quit smoking, and provide resources for assistance effectively.

10. Reference Experts

Incorporate quotes and opinions from medical professionals, researchers, or other experts in the field.

These tips can help you write an effective persuasive essay about smoking and its negative effects on the body, mind, and society.

When your next writing assignment has you feeling stuck, don't forget that essay examples about smoking are always available to break through writer's block.

And if you need help getting started, our expert essay writer at CollegeEssay.org is more than happy to assist.

Just give us your details, and our persuasive essay writer will start working on crafting a masterpiece.

We provide top-notch essay writing service online to help you get the grades you deserve and boost your career.

Try our AI writing tool today to save time and effort!

Frequently Asked Questions

What would be a good thesis statement for smoking.

A good thesis statement for smoking could be: "Smoking has serious health risks that outweigh any perceived benefits, and its use should be strongly discouraged."

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Good topics for persuasive essays include the effects of smoking on health, the dangers of second-hand smoke, the economic implications of tobacco taxes, and ways to reduce teenage smoking.

These topics can be explored differently to provide a unique and engaging argument.

Cathy A. (Marketing, Literature)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

Privacy Policy
Cookies Policy
Terms of Use
Refunds & Cancellations
Our Writers
Success Stories
Our Guarantees
Affiliate Program
Referral Program
AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Smoking — Effect of Tobacco: Why Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned

Effect of Tobacco: Why Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned

Categories: Smoking Smoking Ban Tobacco

About this sample

Words: 1585 |

Published: Dec 3, 2020

Words: 1585 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Works Cited

Rezaei, S., Akbari, M. E., Hajizadeh, M., & Heydari, G. (2015). The financial burden imposed on healthcare system due to smoking-attributable diseases: A report from Iran. Global Journal of Health Science, 7(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v7n2p1
World Health Organization. (2017). Tobacco. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Smoking & tobacco use: Health effects. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm
Tobacco in Australia. (2021). Tobacco use in Australia. https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-2-prevalence-of-smoking-adults
American Cancer Society. (2022). Lung cancer risk factors. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/prevention-and-early-detection/risk-factors.html
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2019). DrugFacts: Cigarettes and other tobacco products. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/cigarettes-other-tobacco-products
National Cancer Institute. (2022). Harms of smoking and health benefits of quitting. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/cessation-fact-sheet
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: A report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
Gao, B., Chapman, S., & Sun, S. (2019). The tipping point for tobacco control: Time to prohibit the sale of tobacco products?. Tobacco Control, 28(3), 349-353. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054108
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Public health consequences of e-cigarettes. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24952

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Nursing & Health Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 611 words

3 pages / 1160 words

1 pages / 661 words

3 pages / 1162 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Effect of Tobacco: Why Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Smoking

Initial impressions of a person smoking Association of smoking with wealth and maturity Irony of anti-smoking education Relaxation and stress reduction Taking breaks and social interactions Life skills [...]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today, I would like to talk to you about the dangers of smoking and the impact it has on individuals and society as a whole. Smoking is a prevalent habit that has been around for centuries, [...]

Vaping, once hailed as a safer alternative to traditional smoking, has now come under scrutiny due to its potential health risks and widespread usage among young people. This essay explores the various dangers associated with [...]

Understanding the Effects of Smoking Smoking is a habit that has been linked to a myriad of health risks, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses. In addition to the physical health risks, smoking also [...]

Vaping is not a traditional smoking. Many of us don’t even consider it as a substitute of smoking. That’s why a large chunk of non-smokers get attracted towards vaping because it’s harmless, flavored, aromatic and obviously [...]

Stop smoking it can cost you your life! What is smoking? How can something small cause so much harm to the world? Smoking is an addictive drug that can cause death or cancer it has caused, More than 10 times as many U.S. [...]

Most Popular

11 days ago

How To Use A Semicolon

What is a complex sentence.

12 days ago

Your Welcome or You’re Welcome

13 days ago

Reddit’s “AITA” Catches Philosophers’ Attention: Revealing How Ordinary People View Morality

Methods on how to lengthen an essay, tobacco smoking should be illegal essay sample, example.

There is every reason to consider tobacco smoking the most harmful of bad habits, since it adversely affects not only the person addicted to cigarettes or cigar smoking, but also those around the smoker, who involuntarily inhale the smoke. Statistical reports on the impact of smoking on Americans show that 269,655 deaths annually among men and 173,940 deaths annually among women are tobacco-related. Some people might argue that the odds of AIDS, car accidents, and homicides taking one’s life are greater than smoking a couple of cigarettes a day. But the facts prove quite the opposite. Regular tobacco smoking, despite its apparent comparative harmlessness to illegal drugs or incurable diseases, kills more people every year than car accidents, illegal drugs, AIDS, murders, and suicides combined. In the US alone, approximately 400,000 people die each year from voluntary cigarette smoking. When we add the deaths from tobacco-related causes, primarily the impact of second-hand or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), the numbers exceed 430,000 people every year. Is this the price you are prepared to pay for allowing yourself to yield to this deleterious addiction?

Another impact of tobacco smoking that is often underestimated is the pollution that it causes from a global perspective. Do smokers ever ask themselves: “Where do all the packs and cigarette butts go, where do they disappear to?” They do not just vanish. They pollute our environment, litter our streets, beaches, lakes, and seas. They not only spoil the aesthetics of our environment, but also harm animals and plants, enough of which are being killed every day even without this occurrence. It might seem to be an issue of little importance. After all, one can argue that a tiny cigarette butt is not even worth thinking about when compared to the many tons of litter we produce in our life’s routine activity. While this remains moot, it is instructive that over 1.7 billion pounds of cigarette butts accumulate in lakes and oceans, and on beaches and the rest of the planet’s surface every year. Does this put the issue of pollution from cigarettes into view? The water our children will drink, the places our neighbors will go on vacation, the habitat for fish, animals, and plants that we might someday end up eating—everything gets affected by the litter of tobacco products.

A separate issue that needs to be discussed is tobacco addiction in teens and kids. Yes, it is illegal in most countries around the world, including the United States, to sell cigarettes to minors. But does it really help when all the tobacco products are still out there and teenagers still manage to find a way to access them, made even more desirable because it is prohibited? We all know that, despite prohibition, smoking among teenagers and children exists, simply because there is little control over the selling of tobacco products, as is also the case with alcohol. It has become clear that only by completely prohibiting the sale of these products will we impact the issue globally and drastically bring down the numbers of death due to tobacco consumption.

Why hasn’t anything been done in this regard yet? Why, despite all the awareness of the problem, we still see smokers every day on the streets, in restaurants or, what is worse, among our loved ones? Indeed, the answer is simple. The tobacco industry is one of the most profitable businesses in the world. It makes hundreds of billions of dollars in the United States alone every year. This is why despite all of the cons of tobacco smoking and all the harm it brings to our societies, this industry is still successfully run and widely advertised. The time has come to stop this engine of death! Smoking does kill, slowly and inevitably, not only those who choose to smoke, but also those around them: family, friends and colleagues. The only way to protect us all from being exposed to the hazardous effects of tobacco smoke is by making cigar and cigarette smoking illegal both within and outside of the United States. Only by combining all of the resources of International NGOs, governments, and individuals all around the globe can we fight this death machine run by a few who profit tremendously from the sales of tobacco products. Only collectively can we make this change happen. The time has come to step up and make the first move in advocating making smoking illegal around the world.

Thank you for your time!

Comments (0)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Comments are closed.

More from Speech Examples and Samples

Sep 19 2016

Microsoft Research DRM Talk Essay Sample, Example

13 min read

Apr 22 2016

Speech Delivered After Being Arrested and Fined for Voting Essay Sample, Example

Feb 20 2014

Dealing with Daily Stress Essay Sample, Example

Related writing guides, how to write a speech.

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
17 April 2024
Correction 18 April 2024

Smoking bans are coming: what does the evidence say?

Carissa Wong

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Smoking rates have declined globally over the past few decades. Credit: Debbie Bragg/Everynight Images via Alamy

Nations worldwide are aiming to introduce some of the tightest restrictions ever on smoking and vaping, especially among young people.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 628 , 695-696 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00472-3

Updates & Corrections

Correction 18 April 2024 : The graphic ‘Smoking prevalence’ wrongly coloured the chart lines for the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. This has been corrected.

Pesola, F. et al. Addiction 119 , 875–884 (2024).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Traboulsi, H. et al. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21 , 3495 (2020).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Public health

Japan’s push to make all research open access is taking shape

News 30 MAY 24

Mexico’s next president will be a scientist — researchers are split in their support

Adopt stricter regulation to stop ‘critical mineral’ greenwashing

Correspondence 28 MAY 24

‘Preposterous’: Anthony Fauci denies cover-up of COVID origins during tense hearing

News 03 JUN 24

Hope for global pandemic treaty rises — despite missed deadline

Chance of heatwaves in India rising with climate change

News Explainer 29 MAY 24

Multi-Disciplinary Studies of Biomolecular Condensates

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

Research assistant (Postdoc) (m/f/d) - Department of Biology, Chemistry, Pharmacy - Institute of Bio

Department of Biology, Chemistry, Pharmacy - Institute of Biology Plant Physiology Research assistant (Postdoc) (m/f/d) full-time-job limited for u...

14195, Berlin Dahlem (DE)

Freie Universität Berlin

Global Faculty Recruitment of School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University

The School of Life Sciences at Tsinghua University invites applications for tenure-track or tenured faculty positions at all ranks (Assistant/Ass...

Beijing, China

Tsinghua University (The School of Life Sciences)

Dr. Rolf M. Schwiete Professor (W2) of Translational Pediatric Oncology

The Faculty of Medicine of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main and the University Hospital Frankfurt, in the Department of Pediatrics (Chairman...

Frankfurt am Main, Hessen (DE)

Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt

Nanjing Forestry University is globally seeking Metasequoia Scholars and Metasequoia Talents

Located next to Purple Mountain and Xuanwu Lake, Nanjing Forestry University (NJFU) is a key provincial university jointly built by Jiangsu Province

Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Nanjing Forestry University (NFU)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Persuasive Speech - Smoking in public should be banned

erinkay 1 / 1 Feb 12, 2013 #1 The prompt given is "to present a sustained and reasoned point of view on a selected issue in Australian media since September 1 2012." I have chosen to speak about a possible ban of smoking in all public in areas in Australian states, attempting to persuade the audience that the ban is beneficial to the population and should be implemented. Feedback would be much appreciated! "Everyone, even the apparent one-sided marketing teams of tobacco companies, can acknowledge that smoking is bad for people's health. Pictorial evidence of its dastardly effects, strewn across each deck of 20s, public health posters extolled with "SMOKING KILLS" in vivid text remind us each day. On a serene, sunny afternoon in a Melbourne cafĂŠ, I often find the aromatic scene suddenly interrupted by the pungent scent of tobacco wafting from a gentleman lighting up beside my table, and the sudden shift of the other Melbournian customers as they attempt to avoid breathing it in. As one of the most common and unhealthy of human habits, smoking, generally in public, had been regarded as a personal choice that bystanders had little control over. Now, for the first time, the act of public smoking is becoming regulated, even restricted in some instances. Many believe that it should be prohibited as it influences every person devoid of their own approval, whereas tobacco users believe that their right to personal, private use of tobacco is being stolen from them. Nonetheless, it's time for smoking in public to butt out. Since 2004, Victoria and a number of other states have been campaigning to restrict the act of smoking - starting with proposals to make clubs, pubs and bars smoke free. In the new age of 24-hour gyms, shake weights and electronic cigarettes, Australia has been gradually moving towards a healthier population. The story is that in recognition of the harmful effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, the Australian government are taking intervention to curb the problem of public smoking, taking legal action in regards to implementing a law that prohibits smoking in all public places, including outdoor dining and drinking areas. Perth has already implemented a ban, with Melbourne hot on their heels. Melbourne Councillor Richard Forster states that no-smoking boundaries have been extended "around play areas ... childcare centres and hospitals," and that "it's about time that we made it simpler for smokers and everyone else." I, like 70% of people surveyed in 2010 Cancer Council Victoria Survey, agree that this smoking ban would be beneficial and approve of smoking bans in outdoor areas, although, of course, there are those who oppose it. Among the minority, smokers and tobacco users and some members of the population are fighting to preserve their rights. Many believe that smokers have the right to enjoy themselves. They believe that the ban is unnecessary as it restricts liberties too much, that it has gone "too far" in the plight for a healthier city. Whilst all humans do have a right to enjoy themselves, they should not be allowed to so when endangering the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people, but it is against the law to do it. Smokers endanger the lives of more than themselves when they smoke in public places. It is also believed that the ban would be difficult to enforce, as smoking is a common and popular occurrence. However, after being trialled in some countries, compliance rates have shown to be quite high, with a smoking ban in Scotland evoking a compliance rate in excess of 99% after just three months. Scotland made it work, so what's stopping Australia? Many laws are difficult to enforce, though to protect the public, it is necessary. It is also believed that the introduction of the ban would have a drastic effect on some businesses. Smoking is considered to be a part of nightlife culture, and that if smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs, they will not spend as much time in them and revenue will be lost. However, although smokers may cause initial losses, pubs and restaurants will gain money from those who are more likely to eat or drink somewhere if they know they will not have to breathe in second hand smoke. After a state smoking ban in Wisconsin, Savanna Oehrle, manager of a local village pub, stated that despite losing some customers, "a lot of non-smokers would stay longer because it wasn't so smoky." It's possible. So what else does this ban have to offer? With nearly 4000 Victorians dying of smoke-related illnesses each year, I think Australia can afford to make a change. Although some smokers may argue the ban is pointless, it is likely to provide many benefits. The ban would reduce public exposure to second hand-smoke, saving non-smokers from being exposed to its hazards. Those exposed to second-hand smoke can experience similar effects to those who smoke directly. According to the World Health Organisation, second-hand smoke contributes to over 600,000 deaths per year, from causing conditions such as serious cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. With the smoking ban proposing principles such as preventing smoking within 10 metres of places like playgrounds, is it not justifiable to prevent citizens, even children, from exposure to these potential effects? Arguably, the ban would make it more difficult for smokers to find suitable places, though this would be advantageous. It would make it difficult for smokers to keep up with their habit. Not being able to smoke in a pub, a smoker would have to go outside, to possibly face the wrath of unpredictable Melbourne weather, away from their non-smoking friends every time they wanted a cigarette. This would be likely to influence someone to at least consider giving up, or even to smoke less frequently. When a smoking ban in public was introduced in England in 2004, after 9 months there was a fall of 5.5% of the number of smokers in the country, compared to the 1.1% fall before the ban. This is only a good thing, as giving up would reduce the risk of death and smoking's effects on health. Furthermore, if smoking becomes "legally wrong" in the eyes of society, it may also deter the younger population from adopting the habits. I'm sure that many Australian parents would not be delighted at the thought of their child lighting up, so the portraying smoking in this negative life may encourage youths to appeal to their morals, and curb any possible habits beginning. It is evident that introducing this ban that prohibits smoking in public would benefit Australia greatly. The health benefits are the main concept behind it, though reducing the appeal of smoking can also extend to further generations and help Australia gradually in the plight for a healthier population. It is recognised that smoking is a personal choice that smokers are rightfully allowed to what they do, but at what cost? Smokers are still available to freely smoke in their own homes, in privacy, still able to enjoy themselves. There is no total absence, no total dissatisfaction. Despite smoker's opposition, the ban would be just what Australia, and Victoria needs. Organisations such as the Cancer Council argue that it is possibly not enough, that we aren't in line with the rest of the nation. So, perhaps it's time we finally work to extinguishing this flame in Melbourne, in the whole of Australia, and butt out cigarettes in public once and for all." Thank you!

Granolabargurl 1 / 3 Feb 12, 2013 #2 I actually did this same controversial topic in my english class last year :) You're essay is great, but here are a few comments I have "Everyone, even the apparent one-sided marketing teams of tobacco companies, can acknowledge that smoking is bad for people's health." Maybe you can change the word choice of "bad" to "dentrimental" or "harmful" "As one of the most common and unhealthy of human habits, smoking, generally in public, had been regarded as a personal choice that bystanders had little control over." I believe the first had should be has "... has been regarded as a personal choice..." "Among the minority, smokers and tobacco users and some members of the population are fighting to preserve their rights" Change to "smokers, tobacco users, and some members of the population..." Best of luck! Hope this helps :)

OP erinkay 1 / 1 Feb 14, 2013 #3 Thank you!

Speech on Smoking

Smoking is a habit that involves burning a substance and inhaling the resulting smoke. You might know it’s mostly associated with tobacco, which people consume in cigarettes or pipes.

The smoke from these products carries thousands of chemicals, including nicotine, which is highly addictive. It’s vital to understand the impacts of smoking on health and society.

1-minute Speech on Smoking

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today, we discuss a topic that affects us all, smoking. It’s a habit many people have, but it’s harmful to everyone, even those who don’t smoke.

First, let’s talk about health. Smoking damages our bodies. It’s like an enemy inside us, attacking our lungs, heart, and even our brain. It’s the top reason for lung cancer and heart diseases. The scary part is, it doesn’t just harm the smoker, but people around them too, through second-hand smoke.

Next, consider the cost. Smoking isn’t cheap, and the money spent on it could be used for so many better things. Imagine every coin spent on cigarettes put into a piggy bank. Over time, it could be enough for a vacation, a new bike, or even a college fund!

Then, let’s think about our environment. Cigarette butts litter our parks, streets, and rivers. They are not just ugly; they’re dangerous. They pollute our earth and harm animals who may eat them by mistake.

Lastly, smoking affects our relationships. It makes clothes and breath smell bad, which can push people away. Plus, it’s hard to run and play when lungs are full of smoke.

So, why do we let this enemy into our lives? The truth is, it’s not easy to say no to smoking, especially when friends do it. But it’s not impossible. We can make better choices. We can choose health, savings, a clean environment, and strong relationships over a harmful habit.

So, let’s say no to smoking – for us, for those around us, and for our world. It’s a small step, but it’s a step in the right direction. And remember, every journey starts with a single step.

Also check:

10-lines on Smoking

2-minute Speech on Smoking

We are gathered here to talk about something we see every day. Do you see people blowing smoke from their mouths? Yes, we are here to talk about smoking.

Smoking is when people breathe in the smoke of burning tobacco in cigarettes, pipes, or cigars. It’s like breathing in poison, because tobacco smoke is full of harmful things. It has over 7,000 chemicals, and many of them can hurt our bodies. 70 of these chemicals can even cause cancer. Just imagine, a small cigarette stick holds such a dangerous cocktail!

Now, let’s talk about what happens to our bodies when we smoke. Our lungs are like sponges that soak up air, but when we smoke, they soak up smoke instead. This smoke can damage our lungs and make it hard for us to breathe. It also affects our hearts by making them work harder and faster, which is not good at all. Over time, smoking can cause serious health problems like heart disease, stroke, and various types of cancer.

Smoking doesn’t just affect the person who smokes. You know when you’re around someone who’s smoking, and you can smell the smoke? That’s called secondhand smoke, and it can hurt you too. Even if you don’t smoke, you can still get sick from other people’s smoke. It’s like if someone else eats a bad apple, but you get a stomach ache. It’s not fair, right?

So, if smoking is so bad, why do people do it? Many people start smoking because they think it’s cool or because their friends do it. Some people think it helps them relax or deal with stress. But the truth is, smoking doesn’t solve problems; it creates more. The nicotine in cigarettes is addictive, which means once people start smoking, it’s very hard for them to stop.

But here’s the good news: it’s never too late to quit smoking. If you stop smoking, your body begins to heal. After just 20 minutes, your heart rate drops. After 12 hours, the carbon monoxide level in your blood drops to normal. After a year, your risk of heart disease is half that of a smoker’s.

So, let’s spread the word and help people understand the real picture of smoking. It’s not cool, it’s not safe, it’s simply harmful. And remember, it’s never too late to quit. Thank you.

Speech on European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism
Speech on Smart phone
Speech on Smart Work

We also have speeches on more interesting topics that you may want to explore.

Applying persuasive messages to reduce public outdoor smoking: A pseudo‐randomized controlled trial

Sari r. r. nijssen.

1 Environmental Psychology Group, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna Austria

2 Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen Netherlands

Barbara C. N. Müller

Jürgen gallinat.

3 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Hamburg‐Eppendorf, Hamburg Germany

Simone Kühn

4 Lise Meitner Group for Environmental Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin Germany

Associated Data

Data is stored on the Open Science Framework [ https://osf.io/qfxy6/ ].

Despite efforts to create dedicated smoking areas and no‐smoking signs, many smokers continue to light their cigarettes in front of public building entrances—leading to concerns over health consequences for non‐smokers passing by. To increase compliance with no‐smoking requests, behavioral interventions that tap into habitual and automatic processes seem promising. A pseudo‐randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the differential impact of seven behavioral interventions based on Cialdini's principles of persuasion. Over a period of 9 weeks, the number of smokers was counted (total n = 17,930 observations) in front of a German University Medical Center. Relative to a baseline and a control condition, interventions based on the principles of reciprocity, scarcity, and authority were most effective in reducing the number of observed smokers in front of the building entrance (41.5%, 45.7%, and 52.1% reduction rates, respectively). Having observed smokers' behavior in vivo, this study provides substantial evidence for the impact of persuasive strategies on outdoor smoking. In the future, this knowledge should be used to protect non‐smokers from second‐hand smoke by increasing the use of designated smoking areas, leave to another place to smoke, or not smoke at all.

INTRODUCTION

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 8 million people die annually due to tobacco. Notably, 1.2 million of those are non‐smokers who are exposed to second‐hand smoke (WHO, 2019 ). In an attempt to reduce smoking and limit non‐smokers' exposure to tobacco, many countries have adopted indoor smoking bans which prohibit citizens from smoking in public spaces such as hospitality venues, offices, schools, and hospitals (WHO, 2019 ). While these smoking bans have been very effective in reducing second‐hand smoke exposure (e.g., Verma et al., 2020 ), they have also inadvertently caused a new problem: Instead of smoking inside, many smokers now cluster outside of public spaces (McGlynn et al., 2018 ) leading to peak smoke concentrations rivaling (pre‐smoking ban) indoor concentrations (e.g., Klepeis et al., 2007 ).

Recent data confirm that outdoor smoking can indeed expose non‐smokers to second‐hand smoke, with raised levels of nicotine particles and carbon monoxide found at school entrances (Henderson et al., 2020 ), hospitality venues (Fu et al., 2016 ), government buildings (Sureda et al., 2012 ), and hospitals (Sureda et al., 2010 ). Even though these levels of second‐smoke are lower than, for example, those in a full‐time smoker's home (Carreras et al., 2019 ), there is no “safe” level of second‐hand smoke as small concentrations can already have significant health burdens (WHO, 2019 ). Besides endangering the health of non‐smokers passing by, outdoor smoke particles also permeate adjacent indoor spaces—significantly raising indoor smoke concentrations (Fu et al., 2016 ; Sureda et al., 2012 ). This is particularly concerning given that many public spaces, such as schools or hospitals, are meant for people (children and hospital patients) who are especially vulnerable for the effects of second‐hand smoke (Kaufman et al., 2010 ; Shopik et al., 2012 ).

To address these issues and reduce the health risk for non‐smokers, two routes to reducing outdoor smoking can be identified: First, the top‐down route involves a legal ban on outdoor smoking. Besides being difficult to enforce, such a ban is politically and ethically sensitive. The second route is more promising: Instead of enforcing a ban, bottom‐up (non‐binding) strategies are directed at the individual smoker and their responsibility for the consequences of their actions. For example, some public spaces such as train stations have been outfitted with designated smoking areas or no‐smoking signs to reduce the risks of second‐hand smoke exposure to non‐smokers (Kaufman et al., 2010 ).

Unfortunately, until now, these non‐binding strategies appear to be largely ineffective: Many smokers do not comply with no‐smoking requests or dedicated smoking areas and persist smoking in front of building entrances (McGlynn et al., 2018 ; Navas‐Acien et al., 2016 ; Russette et al., 2014 ; Zhou et al., 2016 ). Thus, the gap between the request and smokers' compliance needs to be bridged. Interventions based on behavioral insights appear suitable for this goal, as they typically sail the narrow strait between top‐down legal obligations, such as a smoking ban, and non‐binding requests, such as a no‐smoking sign. For example, research shows that combining a non‐binding request (e.g., to wash your hands when entering a hospital building) with a persuasive strategy based on behavioral insights often increases compliance (Gaube et al., 2020 ).

What leads smokers to light up their cigarette, despite no‐smoking requests? A myriad reasons have been identified in the literature: knowledge of the harmful consequences of (second‐hand) smoke, awareness of the no‐smoking request, the extent to which the request is perceived to be enforced or policed, smoking behavior of others in the same setting, own and peer attitudes towards smoking, the perceived convenience of alternative locations such as designated smoking areas, and negative attitudes towards smoking bans all influence a smoker's decision to (not) comply with a no‐smoking request (Lazuras et al., 2009 ; Russette et al., 2014 ; Zhou et al., 2016 ). Specifically in a hospital context, limited physical mobility and fear of straying too far away from hospital grounds appear to be reasons for patients to light up close to the hospital entrance (Shopik et al., 2012 ).

However, the largest factor guiding smoking decisions is habit and habit strength (Galán et al., 2012 ; Lacchetti et al., 2001 ; Lazuras et al., 2009 ; Li et al., 2010 ; Parks et al., 2009 ; Sabidó et al., 2006 ; Shopik et al., 2012 ; Zhou et al., 2016 ). Like many addictive behaviors, smoking is often classified as a habitual behavior (e.g., Stacy & Wiers, 2010 ), meaning that it is typically repeated frequently, done automatically, and elicited just by being in the environment in which the behavior typically occurs (Orbell & Verplanken, 2010 ). Research shows that smokers generally score high on measures of habit strength (e.g., Armitage, 2016 ; Orbell & Verplanken, 2010 ; Webb et al., 2009 ). Moreover, the strength of someone's smoking habit has been shown to be predictive of their compliance with smoking bans, both at a behavioral (Orbell & Verplanken, 2010 ) and self‐report level (Zhou et al., 2016 ).

Interestingly, despite its automatic character, interventions designed to withhold people from smoking often target more conscious, deliberate decision‐making. Such interventions typically attempt to activate negative cognitions, for example, through warning labels on cigarette packaging (e.g., Mannocci et al., 2012 ; Müller et al., 2009 , 2019 ). This mismatch between the processing level of the persuasive message and the target behavior could explain the limited impact of such interventions. In contrast, matching health messages to the processing style of the behavior could have potentially positive effects (e.g., Williams‐Piehota et al., 2003 ). A persuasive strategy that taps into people's automatic responses seems thus more promising to influence peoples smoking behavior in public. Therefore, the present study set out to investigate the possibility of changing smokers' habits with a behavior change approach and persuade them to avoid smoking in front of public buildings.

Cialdini's principles of persuasion

A useful framework of persuasive strategies is Cialdini's set of principles of persuasion (Cialdini, 2006 ). These principles have been shown to be effective in a myriad of behavioral change domains, such as healthy eating (Thomas et al., 2017 ), fostering pro‐environmental behavior (Reese et al., 2014 ), and compliance with hygiene regulations (de Lange et al., 2012 ; Gaube et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, there is abundant evidence for their effectiveness in other compliance domains, such as tax compliance, blood donation requests, and charity donation requests (e.g., Cialdini & Ascani, 1976 ).

Persuasive messages are likely to be effective in the context of outdoor smoking as well, for two reasons. First, similar to requests to throw trash in the bin in public transport (de Lange et al., 2012 ) or to disinfect your hands regularly in hospital (Gaube et al., 2020 ), the request to smoke in designated smoking areas instead of in front of public buildings involves compliance with a descriptive social norm. That is, while most would agree that littering, not washing your hands, and smoking in front of a building are not desired or acceptable behaviors, people still engage in them. Thus, these situations require a change in people's actual observable behavior. Second, similar to other behaviors that have been found to be responsive to persuasive messages, the decision whether or not to light a cigarette is often automatic (e.g., Baxter & Hinson, 2001 ). Hence, we expect such persuasive messages to be effective in a smoking context as well.

Cialdini identified seven principles of persuasion which can be applied together or in isolation. We will briefly discuss each principle and their relevance to the health domain below.

The principle of reciprocity is based on the social norm that guides us to respond to a positive action with another positive action (e.g., Molm et al., 2007 ). This norm to “return the favor” is important in building and maintaining social relationships (Batson, 1998 ). In the context of health, patients often feel obliged to reciprocate the help and care they receive from nurses by giving them a gift (Morse, 1989 ). Similarly, patients are more likely to agree to a lifestyle change (e.g., quitting smoking) after their physician does them a small favor (Smith et al., 1986 ).
According to the principle of scarcity , we evaluate products or services that appear to be rare or difficult to obtain as more attractive, desirable, and valuable. For example, people are more likely to make healthy food choices when the healthy option is marketed as scarce (Cheung et al., 2015 ).
The authority principle holds that those who are in authority positions (e.g., a medical doctor) or otherwise have great influence (e.g., social media influencers) have more credibility in the eyes of the recipient. As a consequence, people are more likely to comply with requests of an authority (Dolinksi et al., 2020 ). For example, research shows that people are more likely to comply with recommendations for a healthier diet when it is supported by a dietician (Thomas et al., 2017 ).
Commitment and consistency refer to our tendency to be consistent in our actions. That is, we like to act in accordance with our core beliefs and past actions. Therefore, if we are reminded on any of our past actions or beliefs, we tend to subsequently act similarly in the present moment (e.g., Baca‐Motes et al., 2013 ). In the context of smoking cessation, smokers who have committed to quitting smoking by signing a contract or setting up a dedicated bank account for their extra savings are more likely to be successful in their quitting attempt (e.g., Giné et al., 2010 ).
Social proof refers to the strong influence others have on our behavior (Nolan et al., 2008 ). If many people perform a certain behavior or have a certain opinion, we are likely to adopt the same behaviors and opinions. For example, visitors and patients in a hospital were more likely to use hand sanitizer when seeing others perform the behavior at the same time (Gaube et al., 2020 ).
The liking principle entails that we are more likely to comply with requests of those we like; we like those who are similar to us, who compliment us, or who work with us towards the same goal. In the health domain, it has been demonstrated that physicians consistently give more diagnostic and health information to patients who are more similar to them (Verlinde et al., 2012 ).
Lastly, the principle of unity overlaps with principles 5 and 6 in the sense that unity also taps into our fundamental need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995 ). Essentially, the principle of unity entails that we are more likely to comply with requests regarding the group we (want to) belong to. For example, when a health professional emphasizes shared goals between themselves and the patient, the patient is more likely to adopt and maintain a healthy lifestyle (Johnson, 2007 ).

The current study

Designated smoking areas help to reduce the risks of second‐hand smoke exposure to non‐smokers (e.g., Kaufman et al., 2010 ), but overall, compliance rates are rather low (McGlynn et al., 2018 ; Navas‐Acien et al., 2016 ; Russette et al., 2014 ; Zhou et al., 2016 ). To increase compliance, the goal of the present study was to gather empirical evidence for effective ways of enforcing the smoke‐free policy in front of the main entrance of hospitals. To reach that goal, we translated Cialdini's seven principles of persuasion into speaker messages. These were broadcast at the entrance of a public building (a hospital), and the number of smokers at the entrance and the designated smoking‐area was measured. We hypothesize that persuasive messages based on Cialdini's principles would be (1) effective in reducing the number of smokers in front of the hospital entrance and (2) successfully increase compliance with the request to smoke in designated smoking areas instead. No specific hypotheses were formulated regarding the relative impact of each individual principle.

The field study consisted of a pseudo‐randomized controlled trial with seven treatment conditions and one control condition. The study was conducted over a period of 9 weeks in August and September 2020 at a large university medical center (±1,500 beds, >500.000 patients per year, 13.560 employees) in northern Germany. While data collection was conducted with human participants, no personal identifying information was collected, and thus, no informed consent was obtained. The experimental procedure was approved by the local ethics committee.

A visual overview of the study timeline can be found in Table 1 . Baseline measurements were taken in week 1, followed by the intervention period in weeks 2–9. Measurements were taken on all days of the week (Monday to Sunday). In the intervention period, one intervention condition (seven treatment and one control) was implemented per day. The eight different conditions were assigned to days of the week in a counterbalanced order, so that each condition was implemented once on each day of the week. On each day, the number of smokers was observed in 15‐min intervals between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM.

An overview of the study timeline with 1 week of baseline measurements and 8 weeks of intervention measurements

Note : The overview additionally shows the specific counterbalanced assignment of the various conditions (control and treatments T1–T7) to days of the week.

Intervention

For each condition, an audio message was recorded by a professional voice actress. Messages were recorded in German. The intervention messages were matched for length, tone of voice, speed, and affective tone. On intervention days, the audio message of the respective treatment or control condition was played on repeat every 5 min via a speaker system at the entrance of the hospital. During the baseline period, no audio messages were played. The audio messages were based on Cialdini's principles of persuasion reciprocity, scarcity, authority, commitment and consistency, social proof, liking, and unity (Cialdini, 2006 ). The content of each intervention message is presented below in translated form. Original audio files and message texts are available on the Open Science Framework. 1

Reciprocity

For the reciprocity treatment condition, we constructed a message tapping into people's tendency to reciprocate by stating that the hospital took the effort of setting up special smoking areas for smokers and inviting them to return the favor by making use of it. The full message script was “Dear smokers, [name of hospital] has set up special smoking areas for you in order to offer all smokers a comfortable and dry place to smoke. You can return this favor and take advantage of these special smoking areas. Thanks for your support.”

The principle of scarcity was applied to the current study by informing smokers that the possibilities to smoke on the hospital campus are limited, and the designated smoking areas are a rare location where smoking is still allowed. The full message script was “Dear smokers, smoking is actually forbidden throughout the [name of hospital]. The possibilities to still smoke are very limited; your last chance to smoke is in the designated smoking areas. Thanks for your support.”

We applied this principle by emphasizing the authority of the hospital director in the request to avoid smoking in front of the hospital entrance. The full message script was “Dear smokers, to protect our patients, the Medical Director has banned smoking in all buildings and entrance areas. He asks you to use the existing smoking areas instead. Thanks for your support.”

Commitment and consistency

In relation to the current study, a common belief people adhere to is that our health is valuable and that certain groups are vulnerable. For the current study, we thus appealed to the protection of patient; once recipients of the audio message would have agreed with the first part of the message, the likelihood they would likewise agree with the second part would increase. The full‐text of the message script was “Dear smokers, do not you also want the best for our [name of hospital] patients? Then use the designated smoking areas and help all patients to recover as quickly as possible. Thanks for your support.”

Social proof

To increase the sense that many smokers avoid smoking in front of the hospital entrance, the audio message was constructed as follows: “Dear smokers, almost 75% of smokers use the designated smoking areas. Together with your fellow smokers, you can help to support and expand this majority by using the designated smoking areas. Thanks for your support.”

To increase smokers' liking of the hospital by means of similarity/similar goals and values, we constructed the following message: “Dear smokers, the promotion of health is our goal, and certainly yours, too. In order to achieve our common goal, please use our designated smoking areas if you would like to smoke. Thanks for your support.”

In this study, we aimed to increase unity between smokers and the hospital it was referred to a shared identity between the two by stating “Dear smokers, we are all part of the [name of hospital] community. Together we can make the [name of hospital] a place where everyone feels comfortable. You can help by making use of the designated smoking areas. Thanks for your support.”

To control for potential confounding effects of the presence of an audio message on people's decision to smoke or not to smoke in front of the hospital entrance, a control message was constructed. The full message script was “Dear patients, visitors and employees, we look forward to welcoming you to the [name of hospital]. A place where you will be helped. We are happy to help you. Contact us.”

Measurements

Eighteen trained observers recorded the number of smokers in two locations: (1) in front of the entrance to the main building (location size: 472.35 m 2 ) and (2) at the designated smoking area approximately 100 m away from the entrance (location size: 110.91 m 2 ). Measurements were taken at 15‐min intervals for the duration of the intervention timeline, resulting in 33 measurements per day. Observers were instructed by an expert observer along specific guidelines for classifying a person in the observation areas as smoking. 2 To be classified as smoking, people had to either be rolling a cigarette, lighting a cigarette, smoking a cigarette or e‐cigarette, or about to put out a cigarette. Observers were instructed to note the number of smokers as inconspicuously as possible by using their phone to record their observations, and to avoid counting children and passers‐by. Observers were blind to the study's hypothesis. Furthermore, they were randomly assigned to observation timeslots.

Descriptives

Throughout the intervention period, in total, N = 17,930 observations were made. Of those, N = 6,759 observations were classified as people smoking. It should be noted that relatively more observations of smokers were made in the dedicated smoking areas ( N = 5,295) than in front of the hospital entrance ( N = 1,464). Per measurement period, our observers recorded on average N = 3.27 smokers: N = 2.56 in the dedicated smoking areas and N = 0.71 at the hospital entrance. Since the two dependent measures (smokers in front of the hospital entrance and smokers in the dedicated smoking areas) were not correlated ( r = .03, p = .221), two univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to assess the impact of our intervention. 3

Main analyses

Number of smoking observations at the hospital entrance.

The assumption of normality was met but Levene's test indicated inequality of variance ( F [8, 2,059] = 5.53, p < .001). Hence, to analyze the impact of the Persuasion type on the mean number of observed smokers at the hospital entrance, a Welch ANOVA was conducted with Games‐Howell post hoc tests. Results show that persuasion type had a significant effect on the number of observed smokers, F Welch (8, 2059) = 8.12, p < .001, ω 2 = 0.03. Post hoc tests revealed that this effect was driven by the persuasion types reciprocity ( p baseline < .001, p control = .046, reduction rate 41.5%), scarcity ( p baseline < .001, p control = .012, reduction rate 45.7%), and authority ( p baseline < .001, p control = .002, reduction rate 52.1%). In those three conditions, significantly fewer people were classified as smokers than in the control or baseline conditions. The remaining Persuasion types of commitment, social proof, liking, and unity had no significant effect on the number of smokers in front of the hospital entrance relative to baseline (all p 's > .217) or control (all p 's > .886). Results for the hospital entrance are summarized in Figure 1 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is APHW-15-337-g002.jpg

The number of people in front of the hospital building who were classified as “smoking” per condition. Note : * p < .050, ** p < .010, *** p < .001

Number of smokers in the designated smoking areas

The assumption of normality was met but Levene's test indicated inequality of variance ( F [8, 2,058] = 2.14, p = .030). Hence, to analyze the impact of the Persuasion type of the mean number of observed smokers at the designated smoking areas, a Welch ANOVA was conducted with Games‐Howell post hoc tests. Again, Persuasion type had a significant effect on the number of observed smokers, F (8, 2058) = 2.41, p = .014, ω 2 = 0.01. The result of post hoc tests indicated that only the Social Proof persuasion strategy significantly increased the number of smokers in the designated smoking areas relative to the baseline condition ( p = .021) but not the control condition ( p = 1.000). All other persuasion types had no effect on the number of smokers relative to baseline (all p 's > .311) or control (all p 's > .372). Results for the designated smoking areas are summarized in Figure 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is APHW-15-337-g001.jpg

The number of people in the designated smoking areas who were classified as “smoking” per condition. Note : * p < .050, ** p < .010, *** p < .001

The current study aimed to investigate different messages to reduce the number of smokers in front of public buildings by gathering empirical evidence for the effect of various types of persuasive messages. A pseudo‐randomized controlled trial was conducted with one control condition and seven treatment conditions, which consisted of Cialdini's seven principles reciprocity, scarcity, authority, commitment, social proof, liking, and unity. Results provide clear evidence for the effect of persuasive interventions on the number of people observed smoking in front of the hospital entrance, as well as at the designated smoking areas. Specifically, the authority, reciprocity, and scarcity persuasive interventions significantly reduced the number of people observed smoking in front of the hospital entrance with relative to our baseline condition. Specifically, the authority intervention reduced the number of observed smokers with 52.1%, the scarcity intervention by 45.7%, and the reciprocity intervention 41.5%. At the designated smoking areas, the social proof persuasive intervention was found to significantly increase the number of observed smokers with 27.1%. Importantly, the design of the current study allowed for a direct comparison of various persuasive interventions. Our results thus provide convincing evidence for the relative impact of authority, reciprocity, scarcity, and social proof‐based persuasive interventions on smoking behavior, in contrast to other persuasive strategies. In the subsequent, we will further interpret these findings in the study context. We will also discuss advantages and limitations of field research and the current study design. Lastly, we will present recommendations for the implementation of the current findings (Figure 2 ).

The most effective persuasive message in the current study was based on Cialdini's principle of authority: messages that highlighted that the hospital director request to avoid smoking in front of the hospital entrance lead to fewer smokers in this area compared to the two control conditions. In any behavioral intervention, the effectiveness of the persuasive strategy depends not only on the fit between the intervention and the psychological determinants of the behavior but also on the setting in which the intervention and the to‐be‐changed behavior take place (Fishbein & Cappella, 2006 ). Indeed, many studies have shown cultural differences in sensitivity to Cialdini's principles of persuasion (Wosinka et al., 2001 ). For example, people from individualistic cultures are typically more sensitive to messages about scarcity and consistency, while people from collectivistic cultures perceive authority, reciprocity, social proof, and liking as more persuasive (Orji, 2016 ; Petrova et al., 2007 ; Wosinka et al., 2001 ).

The current study took place in a hospital setting in northern Germany. Generally speaking, Germany scores relatively high on cultural values expressing the importance of authority such as Hofstede's power distance (Hofstede, 1984 ) and Schwartz's hierarchy (Schwartz, 1992 )—especially compared to other Western countries such as Denmark or Canada (Goeveia & Ros, 2000 ). The hospital setting of the study may have further induced this sense of authority. Classically, the medical doctor is seen as an authority figure and patients typically comply with their treatment recommendations (Frosch et al., 2012 ; Schmieder et al., 2019 ). Altogether, the effectiveness of the authority message in the current study is best understood when taking into consideration the setting of the study: in a country with relatively high power distance and hierarchy, in a setting that directly primes authority. When considering implementing an authority‐based persuasion strategy, researchers and practitioners should thus consider the cultural context in which they operate: A context in which values such as power distance and hierarchy are dominant are perhaps better suited for authority messaging than situations in which, for example, anti‐authority sentiments prevail (e.g., Murphy et al., 2021 ).

In addition to authority, the reciprocity and scarcity persuasive interventions were effective in reducing the number of observed smokers in front of the hospital as well. Similar to the effect of authority, the findings regarding reciprocity can probably also be explained by the hospital context of the study. Most (if not all) potential smokers in this study were in some way related to the hospital: They may have been receiving treatment from the hospital (patients), their loved ones might have been treated there (visitors), or they may be getting a monthly paycheck from the hospital (staff). In this sense, the hospital is providing them with a service—and a message reminding potential smokers they can return the favor by lighting their cigarette somewhere else might tap into feelings of obligation to return this favor (see for similar arguments, Morse, 1989 ; Verlinde et al., 2012 ). Regarding scarcity, the interpretation of the obtained effects could be sought in smokers' perception of dedicated smoking areas. Research confirms that smokers appreciate the presence of a designated smoking location in a no‐smoking environment such as a university or hospital campus, as it is more convenient to walk to a designated smoking area than having to travel all the way off campus (e.g., Shopik et al., 2012 ; Zhou et al., 2016 ). From this perspective, tapping into scarcity makes sense: The scarcity message emphasizes that there it at least a limited opportunity for them to use a conveniently located space, which is better than not being allowed to smoke on the hospital campus at all.

An interesting apparent paradox can be noted in our pattern of results. While the authority, scarcity, and reciprocity messages were effective at reducing the number of smokers in front of the hospital entrance, it was only the social proof message that significantly increased the number of smokers in the designated smoking areas. People typically prefer to perform behaviors that are in line with the rest of the group (Nolan et al., 2008 ). That is, people do not like to stand out from the crowd. Furthermore, smoking is specifically associated with socialization (Sureda et al., 2015 ). Thus, it makes sense that the social proof message was efficient in persuading smokers to use the designated smoking areas: When they feel that all their peers are doing the same, they are more inclined to copy the behavior.

Importantly, from the measurements obtained in front of the hospital entrance, we can conclude that the reciprocity, authority, and scarcity messages induced people to reconsider lighting their cigarette in that location—but we cannot be certain whether they decided not to smoke at all, or smoke later in a different location other than the dedicated smoking area. Longer observations that focus on the subsequent behavior of the smokers should be implemented in future research to understand this discrepancy. Yet, from the results obtained in the dedicated smoking areas, we can conclude that the social proof message was actually effective at persuading people to smoke in a different location rather than in front of the hospital. Indeed, people could not hear the audio messages from the designated smoking areas; the effect of social proof on the number of observed smokers thus only reflects those who actually heard the message at the main entrance and complied with the request.

All behavioral outcomes (not smoking at all, smoking in a different location, or smoking specifically in the designated areas) limit non‐smokers' exposure to cigarette smoke and are therefore positive. Yet the divergent pattern of results is psychologically interesting, as it can perhaps be best understood by considering the motivational mechanisms behind the different behavioral outcomes. Deciding not to smoke in that specific location involves a passive choice (inhibiting an action), while deciding to smoke in a specific area involves a more active choice (choosing an alternative action; e.g., Boecker et al., 2013 ; Verbruggen & Logan, 2008 ). One could imagine the authority message being particularly persuasive at convincing people not to smoke in that moment, while the message informing smokers that most other smokers use the designated smoking areas is more motivating to actively decide to pursue a different course of action. Of course, this is a post hoc interpretation that should be corroborated in a more tightly controlled lab setting to test potential differences between the different persuasive strategies in their impact on different behavioral outcomes.

Some limitations to the current research can be noted as well. First, the exposure period of the intervention was limited. The intervention period lasted for 2 months, during which the different persuasive messages were played in a counterbalanced fashion. In this setting, we found clear impact on smoking behavior of the authority, reciprocity, and scarcity messages. However, it is difficult to estimate whether this impact is maintained when the messages are played over a longer period of time or when only one or two messages are played. The repetition of a single message may indeed lead to habituation and any behavioral change may fade out over time (e.g., Allcott & Rogers, 2014 ; Halpern & Sanders, 2016 ; Taubinsky, 2013 ). To investigate this, follow‐up research is needed that looks into the longer‐term impact of these persuasive messages on smoking behavior.

A second limitation is our lack of demographic information. Since this was an in vivo observational study, no per‐participant demographic information is available. Yet, since the study was conducted at a university medical center in a large city in northern Germany, we assume the sample is representative of the local population. In addition, we cannot distinguish in our data between hospital patients, visitors, or hospital staff. Perhaps, the various persuasive messages had different effects on these subpopulations. For example, our interventions were based on the theoretical assumption that smoking behavior is typically an automatic behavior, cued by the environment (Orbell & Verplanken, 2010 ). Nonetheless, it has been established that novice smokers have less strongly entrenched habits and use more attentional resources when smoking, compared to experienced smokers or people who smoke more frequently (Baxter & Hinson, 2001 ; Field et al., 2006 ). However, since we did not measure the habit strength of the observed smokers in this study, we cannot conclude anything about the different interventions and how they were effective at different levels of habit strength. Ways to address this caveat could be to collect qualitative data or conduct a lab study in future research. Yet one could also argue that an intervention in real life involves different populations at the same time anyway. Thus, the fact that our data show that the intervention works on average across all subpopulations is perhaps sufficient to recommend its implementation in practice.

A third limitation is potential environmental factors that could explain our results. Yet given that the intervention (including baseline measures, the control condition, and all treatment conditions) was carried out at exactly the same location, and that the pseudo‐randomized study design (see Table 1 ) was set up in such a way that all conditions were displayed on each day of the week, we deem it unlikely that the significant differences we found between conditions result from environmental factors.

The strength of this research lies in our ability to draw conclusions about the relative impact of different behavioral change interventions. In typical behavior change research, an intervention is compared to a control group. For example, guests in a hotel who were exposed to a social proof intervention were more likely to reuse their towels during their stay than guests who did not receive such an intervention (Reese et al., 2014 ). However, our psychological landscape is much broader than social sensitivity alone. Yet, because of the research design, the effect of social proof cannot be compared to other interventions, and therefore, no conclusions can be drawn about the relative impact of other interventions on people's behavior. This is a shortcoming because much more effective intervention strategies may be missed, with important consequences for the implementation of interventions in the field. In the current research, we therefore contrasted seven types of persuasive factors in a counterbalanced fashion. From the results, we can draw clear conclusions about the relative impact of all these factors—showing that authority, reciprocity, and scarcity were effective in reducing the number of observed smokers relative to commitment, liking, unity, and social proof. The effect of these persuasive strategies did not differ significantly from one another, so their implementation should have similar effects. In persuading smokers to make use of designated smoking areas, social proof was the only effective persuasive strategy—thus paving a clear path for practitioners in government, business, or public administration wishing to increase the use of dedicated smoking areas in a no‐smoking environment.

The current study yields three specific recommendations for behavioral interventions aimed at reducing the number of outdoor smokers. First, in front of public buildings that are typically associated with authority (e.g., a hospital, city hall, and a police station), persuasive audio messages tapping into smokers' sense of authority may be helpful in convincing smokers not to smoke in that specific location. Second, generally speaking, persuasive audio messages tapping into our sense of scarcity or reciprocity may be helpful in persuading smokers to not smoke there. Third, when you are trying to convince smokers to make use of designated smoking areas, tapping into their sense that it is the norm to smoke in these areas may prove fruitful.

Altogether, this observational field study is the first of its kind to investigate the impact of persuasive strategies on outdoor smoking. By observing real behavior, we were able to show that persuasive strategies can be effective in reducing the number of smokers in front of a hospital entrance. In the future, this knowledge can be used to protect non‐smokers from second hand smoke by increasing compliance rates in smokers to use designated smoking areas, leave to another place to smoke, or to not smoke at all.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential competing interest was reported by the authors.

ETHICS STATEMENT

The experimental procedure was approved by the local ethics committee.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Leonie Ascone Michelis, Carolina Garcia‐Forlim, Leonie Klock, Anna Mascherek, Djo Fischer, Dimitrij Kugler, Mirjam Reidick, Kevin Riebandt, Sandra Weber, Janina Wirtz, Lawrence Murphy, Hannah Oltmanns, Linus Krause, Elisaveta Sokolkova, Kira Pohlmann, Karolin Ney, Lubov Lindt, Marcos Caetano, Alina Peters, Anna Kelterer, Robin Taraz, André Schottmann, Hanna Altjohann, and Jannis Weber for their assistance with data collection.

Nijssen, S. R. R. , Müller, B. C. N. , Gallinat, J. , & Kühn, S. (2023). Applying persuasive messages to reduce public outdoor smoking: A pseudo‐randomized controlled trial . Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being , 15 ( 1 ), 337–353. 10.1111/aphw.12382 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

1 All materials are available on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/qfxy6/ ).

2 Original instructions are accessible on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/qfxy6/ ).

3 Data are stored on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/qfxy6/ ).

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Allcott, H. , & Rogers, T. (2014). The short‐run and long‐run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation . American Economic Review , 104 ( 10 ), 3003–3037. 10.1257/aer.104.10.3003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Armitage, C. J. (2016). Evidence that implementation intentions can overcome the effects of smoking habits . Health Psychology , 35 ( 9 ), 935–943. 10.1037/hea0000344 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baca‐Motes, K. , Brown, A. , Gneezy, A. , Keenan, E. A. , & Nelson, L. D. (2013). Commitment and behavior change: Evidence from the field . Journal of Consumer Research , 39 ( 5 ), 1070–1084. 10.1086/667226 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Batson, C. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T., & Lindzey G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 282–316). McGraw‐Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
Baumeister, R. , & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation . Psychological Bulletin , 117 ( 3 ), 497–529. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baxter, B. W. , & Hinson, R. E. (2001). Is smoking automatic? Demands of smoking behavior on attentional resources . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 110 ( 1 ), 59–66. 10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.59 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Boecker, M. , Gauggel, S. , & Drueke, B. (2013). Stop or stop‐change—Does it make any difference for the inhibition process? International Journal of Psychophysiology , 87 ( 3 ), 234–243. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.09.009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carreras, G. , Lugo, A. , Gallus, S. , Cortini, B. , Fernández, E. , López, M. J. , Soriano, J. B. , López‐Nicolás, A. , Semple, S. , & Gorini, G. (2019). Burden of disease attributable to second‐hand smoke exposure: A systematic review . Preventive Medicine . 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105833 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cheung, T. T. L. , Kroese, F. M. , Fennis, B. M. , & de Ridder, D. T. D. (2015). Put a limit on it: The protective effects of scarcity heuristics when self‐control is low . Health Psychology Open , 2 ( 2 ), 205510291561504. 10.1177/2055102915615046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Revised ed.). Harper Business. [ Google Scholar ]
Cialdini, R. B. , & Ascani, K. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood . Journal of Applied Psychology , 61 ( 3 ), 295–300. 10.1037/0021-9010.61.3.295 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dolinski, D. , Grzyb, T. , & La Fontaine, M. (2020). The social psychology of obedience towards authority: An empirical tribute to Stanley Milgram . Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
Field, M. , Mogg, K. , & Bradley, B. P. (2006). Automaticity of smoking behaviour: The relationship between dual‐task performance, daily cigarette intake and subjective nicotine effects . Journal of Psychopharmacology , 20 ( 6 ), 799–805. 10.1177/0269881106063997 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fishbein, M. , & Cappella, J. N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health communications . Journal of Communication , 56 , 1–17. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00280.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Frosch, D. L. , May, S. G. , Rendle, K. A. S. , Tietbohl, C. , & Elwyn, G. (2012). Authoritarian physicians and patients fear of being labeled “difficult” among key obstacles to shared decision making . Health Affairs , 31 ( 5 ), 1030–1038. 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0576 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fu, M. , Fernandez, E. , Martinez‐Sanchez, J. , San Emeterio, N. , Quiros, N. , Sureda, X. , Ballbe, M. , Munoz, G. , Riccobene, A. , Centrich, F. , Salto, E. , & Lopez, M. J. (2016). Second‐hand smoke exposure in indoor and outdoor areas of cafes and restaurants: Need for extending smoking regulation outdoors? Environmental Research , 148 , 421–428. 10.1016/j.envres.2016.04.024 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Galán, I. , Díez‐Gañán, L. , Mata, N. , Gandarillas, A. , Cantero, J. L. , & Durbán, M. (2012). Individual and contextual factors associated to smoking on school premises . Nicotine and Tobacco Research , 14 ( 4 ), 495–500. 10.1093/ntr/ntr174 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gaube, S. , Fischer, P. , Windl, V. , & Lerner, E. (2020). The effect of persuasive messages on hospital visitors hand hygiene behavior . Health Psychology , 39 , 471–481. 10.1037/hea0000854 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Giné, X. , Karlan, D. , & Zinman, J. (2010). Put your money where your butt is: A commitment contract for smoking cessation . American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 2 ( 4 ), 213–35. [ Google Scholar ]
Gouveia, V. V. , & Ros, M. (2000). Hofstede and Schwartz s models for classifying individualism at the cultural level: Their relation to macro‐social and macro‐economic variables . Psicothema , 12 ( 1 ), 25–33. [ Google Scholar ]
Halpern, D. , & Sanders, M. (2016). Nudging by government: Progress, impact, & lessons learned . Behavioral Science & Policy , 2 ( 2 ), 52–65. 10.1353/bsp.2016.0015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Henderson, E. , Continente, X. , Fernández, E. , Tigova, O. , Cortés‐Francisco, N. , Gallus, S. , Lugo, A. , Semple, S. , ODonnell, R. , Clancy, L. , Keogan, S. , Ruprecht, A. , Borgini, A. , Tzortzi, A. , Vyzikidou, V. K. , Gorini, G. , López‐Nicolás, A. , Soriano, J. B. , Geshanova, G. , … López, M. J. (2020). Secondhand smoke exposure and other signs of tobacco consumption at outdoor entrances of primary schools in 11 European countries . Science of the Total Environment , 743 , 1–8. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140743 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: International differences in work‐related values . Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
Johnson, V. D. (2007). Promoting behavior change: Making healthy choices in wellness and healing choices in illness‐use of self‐determination theory in nursing practice . Nursing Clinics of North America , 42 ( 2 ), 229–241. 10.1016/j.cnur.2007.02.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kaufman, P. , Griffin, K. , Cohen, J. , Perkins, N. , & Ferrence, R. (2010). Smoking in urban outdoor public places: Behaviour, experiences, and implications for public health . Health and Place , 16 ( 5 ), 961–968. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.05.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Klepeis, N. E. , Ott, W. R. , & Switzer, P. (2007). Real‐time measurement of outdoor tobacco smoke particles . Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association , 57 ( 5 ), 522–534. 10.3155/1047-3289.57.5.522 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lacchetti, C. , Cohen, J. , Ashley, M. J. , Ferrence, R. , Bull, S. , de Groh, M. , & Pederson, L. (2001). Is nicotine dependence related to smokers support for restrictions on smoking? Nicotine and Tobacco Research , 3 ( 3 ), 257–260. 10.1080/14622200110050475 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
de Lange, M. A. , Debets, L. W. , Ruitenburg, K. , & Holland, R. W. (2012). Making less of a mess: Scent exposure as a tool for behavioral change . Social Influence , 7 ( 2 ), 90–97. 10.1080/15534510.2012.659509 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lazuras, L. , Eiser, J. R. , & Rodafinos, A. (2009). Predicting smokers non‐compliance with smoking restrictions in public places . Tobacco Control , 18 ( 2 ), 527–540. 10.1136/tc.2008.025841 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Li, X. , Li, Q. , Dong, L. , Sun, B. , Chen, J. , Jiang, Y. , Yang, Y. , Zhou, B. , & Fong, G. T. (2010). Risk factors associated with smoking behaviour in recreational venues: Findings from the international tobacco control (ITC) China survey . Tobacco Control , 19 ( Suppl 2 ), i30–i39. 10.1136/tc.2009.031336 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mannocci, A. , Antici, D. , Boccia, A. , & la Torre, G. (2012). Impact of cigarette packages warning labels in relation to tobacco‐smoking dependence and motivation to quit . Epidemiologia e Prevenzione , 36 ( 2 ), 100–107. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
McGlynn, S. , McClymont, P. , & Isles, C. (2018). How do we stop people smoking at the front doors of our hospitals? BMJ , 3334 . 10.1136/bmj.k3334 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Molm, L. D. , Collett, J. L. , & Schaefer, D. R. (2007). Building solidarity through generalized exchange: A theory of reciprocity . American Journal of Sociology , 113 ( 1 ), 205–242. 10.1086/517900 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Morse, J. M. (1989). Reciprocity for care: Gift giving in the patient‐nurse relationship . Canadian Journal of Nursing Research , 21 ( 1 ), 33–46. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Müller, B. C. N. , Haverkamp, R. , Kanters, S. , Yaldiz, H. , & Li, S. (2019). Social tobacco warnings can influence implicit associations and explicit cognitions . Frontiers in Psychology , 10 ( 1408 ), 1–2. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01408 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Müller, B. C. N. , van Baaren, R. B. , Ritter, S. M. , Woud, M. L. , Bergmann, H. , Harakeh, Z. , Engels, R. C. M. E. , & Dijksterhuis, A. (2009). Tell me why … The influence of self‐involvement on short term smoking behaviour . Addictive Behaviors , 34 ( 5 ), 427–431. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.12.016 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Murphy, J. , Vallières, F. , Bentall, R. P. , Shevlin, M. , McBride, O. , Hartman, T. K. , McKay, R. , Bennett, K. , Mason, L. , Gibson‐Miller, J. , Levita, L. , Martinez, A. P. , Stocks, T. V. A. , Karatzias, T. , & Hyland, P. (2021). Psychological characteristics associated with COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom . Nature Communications , 12 ( 1 ), 1–15. 10.1038/s41467-020-20226-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Navas‐Acien, A. , Çarkoğlu, A. , Ergör, G. , Hayran, M. , Ergüder, T. , Kaplan, B. , Susan, J. , Magid, H. , Pollak, J. , & Cohen, J. E. (2016). Compliance with smoke‐free legislation within public buildings: A cross‐sectional study in Turkey . Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 94 ( 2 ), 92–102. 10.2471/blt.15.158238 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nolan, J. M. , Schultz, P. W. , Cialdini, R. B. , Goldstein, N. J. , & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 ( 7 ), 913–923. 10.1177/0146167208316691 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Orbell, S. , & Verplanken, B. (2010). The automatic component of habit in health behavior: Habit as cue‐contingent automaticity . Health Psychology , 29 ( 4 ), 374–383. 10.1037/a0019596 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Orji, R. (2016). Persuasion and culture: Individualism‐collectivism and susceptibility to influence strategies . CEUR Workshop Proceedings , 1582 , 30–39. [ Google Scholar ]
Parks, T. , Wilson, C. V. , Turner, K. , & Chin, J. W. (2009). Failure of hospital employees to comply with smoke‐free policy is associated with nicotine dependence and motives for smoking: A descriptive cross‐sectional study at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom . BMC Public Health , 9 , 1–9. 10.1186/1471-2458-9-238 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Petrova, P. K. , Cialdini, R. B. , & Sills, S. J. (2007). Consistency‐based compliance across cultures . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 43 ( 1 ), 104–111. 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Reese, G. , Loew, K. , & Steffgen, G. (2014). A towel less: Social norms enhance pro‐environmental behavior in hotels . Journal of Social Psychology , 154 ( 2 ), 97–100. 10.1080/00224545.2013.855623 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Russette, H. C. , Harris, K. J. , Schuldberg, D. , & Green, L. (2014). Policy compliance of smokers on a tobacco‐free university campus . Journal of American College Health , 62 ( 2 ), 110–116. 10.1080/07448481.2013.854247 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sabidó, M. , Sunyer, J. , Masuet, C. , & Masip, J. (2006). Hospitalized smokers: Compliance with a nonsmoking policy and its predictors . Preventive Medicine , 43 ( 2 ), 113–116. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.02.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schmieder, R. E. , Högerl, K. , Jung, S. , Bramlage, P. , Veelken, R. , & Ott, C. (2019). Patient preference for therapies in hypertension: A cross‐sectional survey of German patients . Clinical Research in Cardiology , 108 ( 12 ), 1331–1342. 10.1007/s00392-019-01468-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 25 (C), 1–65. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shopik, N. A. , Schultz, A. S. H. , Nykiforuk, C. I. J. , Finegan, B. A. , & Kvern, M. A. (2012). Impact of smoke‐free hospital grounds policies: Patient experiences and perceptions . Health Policy , 108 ( 1 ), 93–99. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.08.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Smith, D. M. , Norton, J. A. , Weinberger, M. , McDonald, C. J. , & Katz, B. P. (1986). Increasing prescribed office visits: A controlled trial in patients with diabetes mellitus . Medical Care , 24 ( 3 ), 189–199. 10.1097/00005650-198603000-00001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stacy, A. W. , & Wiers, R. W. (2010). Implicit cognition and addiction: A tool for explaining paradoxical behavior . Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 6 , 551–575. 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131444 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sureda, X. , Fernández, E. , Martínez‐Sánchez, J. M. , Fu, M. , López, M. J. , Martínez, C. , & Saltó, E. (2015). Secondhand smoke in outdoor settings: Smokers consumption, non‐smokers perceptions, and attitudes towards smoke‐free legislation in Spain . BMJ Open , 5 ( 4 ), 1–8. 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007554 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sureda, X. , Fu, M. , José López, M. , Martínez‐Sánchez, J. M. , Carabasa, E. , Saltó, E. , Martínez, C. , Nebot, M. , & Fernández, E. (2010). Second‐hand smoke in hospitals in Catalonia (2009): A cross‐sectional study measuring PM2.5 and vapor‐phase nicotine . Environmental Research , 110 ( 8 ), 750–755. 10.1016/j.envres.2010.09.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sureda, X. , Martínez‐Sánchez, J. M. , López, M. J. , Fu, M. , Agüero, F. , Saltó, E. , Nebot, M. , & Fernández, E. (2012). Secondhand smoke levels in public building main entrances: Outdoor and indoor PM2.5 assessment . Tobacco Control , 21 ( 6 ), 543–548. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050040 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Taubinsky, D. (2013). From intentions to actions: A model of experimental evidence of inattentive choice . Working Paper.
Thomas, R. J. , Masthoff, J. , & Oren, N. (2017). Adapting healthy eating messages to personality . Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), 10171 LNCS, 119–132. 10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_10 [ CrossRef ]
Verbruggen, F. , & Logan, G. D. (2008). Response inhibition in the stop‐signal paradigm . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 12 ( 11 ), 418–424. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Verlinde, E. , de Laender, N. , de Maesschalck, S. , Deveugele, M. , & Willems, S. (2012). The social gradient in doctor‐patient communication . International Journal for Equity in Health , 11 ( 1 ), 12. 10.1186/1475-9276-11-12 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Verma, M. , Kathirvel, S. , Das, M. , Aggarwal, R. , & Goel, S. (2020). Trends and patterns of second‐hand smoke exposure amongst the non‐smokers in India: A secondary data analysis from the global adult tobacco survey (GATS) I & II . PLoS ONE , 15 ( 6 ), 1–18. 10.1371/journal.pone.0233861 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Webb, T. L. , Sheeran, P. , & Luszczynska, A. (2009). Planning to break unwanted habits: Habit strength moderates implementation intention effects on behaviour change . British Journal of Social Psychology , 48 ( 3 ), 507–523. 10.1348/014466608X370591 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
WHO . (2019). Global report on trends in prevalence of tobacco use 2000–2025 .
Williams‐Piehota, P. , Schneider, T. R. , Pizarro, J. , Mowad, L. , & Salovey, P. (2003). Matching health messages to information‐processing styles: Need for cognition and mammography utilization . Health Communication , 15 ( 4 ), 375–392. 10.1207/S15327027HC1504_01 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wosinka, W. , Cialdini, R. B. , Barrett, D. W. , & Reykowski, J. (2001). The practice of social influence in multiple cultures . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410601810 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zhou, L. , Niu, L. , Jiang, H. , Jiang, C. , & Xiao, S. (2016). Facilitators and barriers of smokers compliance with smoking bans in public places: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative literature . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 13 ( 12 ). 10.3390/ijerph13121228 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Starmer supports smoking ban and pension triple lock, says party

Labour would revive Rishi Sunak 's flagship smoking ban and maintain the state pension triple lock, a senior party figure said yesterday.

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which failed to become law during Parliament's 'wash-up' period last week, would be introduced under a Labour government.

The legislation - which made it into the Prime Minister's speech announcing the July 4 election date - would have made it illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born after January 1, 2009.

Labour also doubled down on their commitment to keep up the state pension triple lock as the party seeks to widen its appeal to all parts of the electorate.

'If we're elected we will make that happen and make it less likely that young people will smoke than vote Tory ,' Ms Kendall told Sky News .

Mr Sunak said he is 'disappointed' that the law would not make it on to the statute books before the election.

Labour were ready to wave the Bill through in Parliament and are set to introduce similar legislation if elected.

The PM, meanwhile, was faced with the prospect of division on his own backbenches if the policy was carried forward.

Last month, 57 Tory MPs voted against the measure, including Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch.

Both parties are also united when it comes to the state pension triple lock - backing an annual increase of the highest of the rate of inflation, average earnings or 2.5 per cent.

Ms Kendall said: 'There's a misunderstanding about what is happening to pensioners in our country. We now have one in five pensioners living in poverty with poverty rising in every region of the country.

'More people are taking their pension early... for the future, more and more people are going to be paying off their mortgages or renting into retirement.

'Having that stability and a clear commitment on the basic state pension alongside reforms to second pensions is what we really need to give people decent security in retirement.'

HISTORY OF SMOKING POLICY IN THE UK

2004 : Ireland bans smoking in enclosed public places, including pubs, clubs and restaurants

2006 : Scotland implements smoking ban on indoor public spaces

2007 : England, Wales and Northern Ireland bring in indoor ban. In England, smoking is banned in almost all enclosed public spaces and the NHS goes smoke-free. Legal age to buy cigarettes raised from 16 to 18

2008 : Cigarette companies told to feature pictorial health warnings on packets

2010 : Government announces it will enforce tobacco display ban and consider plain packaging for tobacco products

2015 : Smoking in cars with children banned in England and ban on the display of tobacco in small shops comes into force throughout the UK

2017 : Government issues target to reduce smoking prevalence among adults to 12 per cent or less by 2022

2019 : Department of Health publishes plans to make England smoke-free by 2030

2020 : Menthol cigarettes are banned in the UK and EU

2023 : Rishi Sunak's unveils radical plan to effectively ban kids born after 2009 from smoking

Starmer supports smoking ban and pension triple lock, says party

IMAGES

🌈 Smoking in public places speech. Persuasive Speech On Smoking In
🎉 Persuasive smoking speech. Tobacco Smoking: Free Formal Persuasive
Persuasive Speech COM165
Write Esse: Persuasive speech about smoking
Persuasive Speech Banning Smoking
Persuassive Speech (Oral Communication)

VIDEO

TIKTOK BAN PRESENTATION !
INFORMATIVE SPEECH IN SMOKING
My persuasive speech about Why should smoking 🚬 in public places be banded
Battle Over Statewide Smoking Ban Brewing
persuasive speech (stop smoking)
Essay on smoking in public places should be banned || Essay writing in English|| essay writing

COMMENTS

Persuasive Speech Example
A persuasive speech example on the dangers of secondhand smoke to get a feel of a good persuasive speech. The sample uses facts, gestures, and exaggeration.
Examples & Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking
Need help writing a persuasive essay about smoking? Check out these tips and examples, and you'll be on your way to crafting a winning persuasive essay.
PDF Persuasive Essay About Smoking Should Be Banned
Persuasive Essay About Smoking Should Be Banned. "Smoking should be banned." This is a statement that has been debated for many years, with strong arguments on both sides of the issue. On one side stands those who believe smoking. themselves and that it is their right to do so. On the other side, there are those that believe. and our economy.
Should Smoking Be Banned?
Should smoking be banned? What are the pros and cons of banning cigarettes in public places? If you're writing an argumentative essay or persuasive speech on why smoking should be banned, check out this sample.
Smoking Persuasive Speech: [Essay Example], 545 words
Smoking has been a prevalent and contentious issue for decades, garnering attention from public health officials, lawmakers, and individuals alike. The detrimental effects of smoking on health are well-documented, yet the habit persists in many societies. This persuasive speech aims to address the issue of smoking and advocate for its cessation. The thesis of this speech is that smoking is a ...
Persuasive Speech: Banning Smoking In Public Areas
Persuasive Speech On Smoking In Public Places. General Purpose: to persuade Specific Purpose: to persuade the audience of the importance of banning smoking in public places Thesis: Smoking should be banned in public places because it is harmful to non-smokers who visit public places. I.
On Why One Should Stop Smoking Essay (Speech)
This persuasive speech aims to persuade the listeners on the need to stop or not to indulge in smoking and ask them to teach others about the negativities related to smoking.
10+ Top Persuasive essay about smoking examples
Looking for examples of essays on smoking? Look no more! Discover the best tips and examples to craft a persuasive essay about smoking here!
Effect of Tobacco: Why Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned
For years there has been conflicting research whether smoking should be banned or not and it is a significant issue today. Many people have given up smoking while others still continue to smoke. Smoking is the inhalation and exhalation of fumes (gases and hydrocarbon vapours) of burning plant materials generated by slowly burning tobacco in cigarette. A variety of plant materials are smoked ...
PDF Persuasive Speech on Smoking Outline
Persuasive Speech on Smoking Outline. I. Introduction. A. Attention Getter - Tell a story, cite an alarming statistic, or make a shocking statement. about smoking. B. Introduce Topic - Explain that the purpose of this speech is to provide information. about the dangers of smoking and why it should be avoided.
Tobacco Smoking: Free Formal Persuasive Speech Sample
What do you think about tobacco smoking? Should it be illegal? Learn our position regarding this in free persuasive essay sample on academichelp.net.
Smoking bans are coming: what does the evidence say?
Countries are cracking down on tobacco use and vaping — the laws could save thousands of lives and billions of dollars, say scientists.
Persuasive Speech
Persuasive Speech - Smoking in public should be banned. The prompt given is "to present a sustained and reasoned point of view on a selected issue in Australian media since September 1 2012." I have chosen to speak about a possible ban of smoking in all public in areas in Australian states, attempting to persuade the audience that the ban is ...
Persuasive Speech On Smoking In Public Places
Persuasive Speech Etson Williams Course # 22297787 Topic: Ban smoking in public places Audience: You are speaking to a group of teenagers. There are twenty-five female and male students present in the class.
Speech on Smoking
Speech on Smoking. Smoking is a habit that involves burning a substance and inhaling the resulting smoke. You might know it's mostly associated with tobacco, which people consume in cigarettes or pipes. The smoke from these products carries thousands of chemicals, including nicotine, which is highly addictive.
Smoking Persuasive Speech
Persuasive Speech Etson Williams Course # 22297787 Topic: Ban smoking in public places Audience: You are speaking to a group of teenagers. There are twenty-five female and male students present in the class.
Applying persuasive messages to reduce public outdoor smoking: A pseudo
Despite efforts to create dedicated smoking areas and no‐smoking signs, many smokers continue to light their cigarettes in front of public building entrances—leading to concerns over health consequences for non‐smokers passing ...
Persuasive Essay On Banning Smoking In Public Places
Persuasive Essay On Banning Smoking In Public Places. Banning Smoking in Public places Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventive death in the United States. For every eight smokers that are smoking kills they take one non-smoker with them.-Adrienne Herron. Every year there is an estimated of the amount of people who die from the ...
Banning Cigarettes Persuasive Speech
Banning Cigarettes Persuasive Speech. "Cigarettes smoking is the leading avoidable cause of death worldwide" (Susan 88). Although this long paper roll of tobacco lessens stress and helps improve concentration, it has been the cause of several grating diseases and has a great impact on people's health. It contains over seven-thousand ...
Persuasive Speech On Smoking
Persuasive Speech On Smoking. 849 Words4 Pages. Dont Smoke For Our Sake For many years smoking cigarettes has been legal to smoke in public places. Would you allow this to continue even knowing the harm and dangers it can bring people who smoke and even people who don 't? Imagine being in a nice family friendly park on a sunny, summer day.
Persuasive Speech Flashcards
Persuasive Speech. Imagine sitting in a restaurant enjoying a delicious meal on a beautiful night, and all of a sudden, you smell the disgusting odor of tobacco smoke. People carelessly smoke in public areas, dispersing the toxins contained in tobacco smoke to the environment and individuals around them. Smoking should be banned in public ...
A Persuasive Speech About Why Smoking Should Be Illegal
Smoking cigarettes can cause lung problems. Both first-hand and second-hand smokers are affected by cigarette smoke. Scientific findings and researches show that the chemicals in cigarettes, apart from the smoke, can lead to health problems such as lung cancer. Smoking cigarettes should be banned in public places.
Persuasive Speech On Smoking
Persuasive Essay On Smoke Gun Ads 925 Words | 4 Pages Smoke Gun Advertisement Ever since the first cigarette was made, smoking has become a problem for our country, and it continues to negatively affect the people who smoke and even those who do not. People who smoke are damaging their health and making themselves susceptible to diseases like lung cancer and emphysema. People who do not smoke ...
Starmer supports smoking ban and pension triple lock, says party
The legislation - which made it into the Prime Minister's speech announcing the July 4 election date - would have made it illegal to sell tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009.