1) Give an outline of the different positions on the smoking ban which are presented in the texts.
In text one, we meet Robin McKie who is a science editor of the British newspaper, The Observer. The statement itself in text one is definitely clear. It already appears from the title “Benefits of smoke ban will be felt at once”. He claims that the smoking ban will actually benefit the people of England. Robin McKie’s argumentation is very objective, and is based on scientific documentation which supports his claim. All the numbers and fact that are given up throughout the text, makes it obviously very difficult for anybody to argue against the claim of the science editor. However, in text two, it is a completely different opinion that appears. The text is written by A.N Wilson, a British novelist and biographer, who claims that the smoking ban definitely will affect Britain negatively. In contrast to Robin Mckie, A.N Wilson uses examples of many well-known English novelists who had been smoking during their famous works, as a support for his statement. Furthermore he explains how the smoking ban symbolizes an attack on the basic liberty as it denies the right of a human decision whether to smoke or not.
The claim of the last text separates from the former texts. The text is written by Simon Jenkins who is a British newspaper columnist. Simon Jenkins explains that if it was a decision that should have been made by local authorities, it would then be a good thing to have a smoking ban. At the same time he makes it clear that he dislikes smoking but still have respect for smokers as long as they keep their smoke out of his face. Besides, he explains that there is many other life threatening conditions such as noisy traffic, but yet it is not banned. 2) Comment on the use of exaggeration and irony in text 3. Illustrate your answer with quotations from the text.
There is in the third text been used of exaggeration and irony. The exaggeration is primary used in terms of making something more obvious or clear, where the irony’s function is to twist it a bit and make it kind of natural or logical. As a fact the irony is already used in the headline of text 3. “Another victory for Britain’s insufferable paternalists”(s.7 Headline).
This leads to the thoughts of an over-protective state, where paternalist is a reference to the job of a “father” which symbolizes the over-protecting state protecting the public against the smoking issue. At the same time it makes you think that the banning issue is actually taking away the possibility of an individual to make his own choice. However it is also underlined in the headline that Simon Jenkins is against the smoking ban.
Afterwards in the first lines of the text, it is again the irony that dominates. It says:”The noise last night was dreadful, a sort of whirring, clanking, gurgling sound…It was the sound of MPs thinking for themselves”(s.7 l.1-3)
This line resembles something in the way of a paradox. One the one side it is the MPs job to “think” the right way and show the public that they are wise and know when to make what decisions at the right time. On the other side Simon Jenkins uses irony to make it obvious that the MPs are doing actually the opposite of what they are supposed to.

An example of an exaggeration throughout the text, can be found a little further down in the text. on line 22 it says:”Smoking is unpleasant but reasonably avoidable. Unpleasant too is fuming traffic, noisy neighbours, swearing youths and cruel parents. All may lead to death. We do not ban them, yet”(s.7 l.22-24). This is an exaggeration where Simon Jenkins appoints the fact that all “bad” things that occur are impossible to ban, but yet they are “bad”.
Simon Jenkins even speaks about how the smoking ban is just a first step in order for the state to take more control in the future.
“Only a hair’s breadth separates the nanny state from the police state”(S.7 l.30)
This is a point which means that the control of Britain is relatively big. Signs of the increasing control can be found in addition to line 30 on page 8, line 43-44.
“This will doubtless be used to justify extending state control yet further into food, travel, leisure and child-rearing”. This means that the smoking ban is just a part of the control of the state, and that there are yet many things to regulate for example an increased security at the travel conditions. 3) Discuss whether society has a responsibility to prevent people from smoking or whether it is up to the individual to decide.
It is no secret that the most of the world is familiar with the conditions and consequences of smoking. Yet some people might not smoke, but instead drink. Drinking is however actually also a dangerous factor, despite the many people who drink. Again there are a whole third part who might be doing drugs. At this point of view there rises a discussion whether banning some of these factors should be prioritized differently or strictly and conservative.
Well I think it depends of the amount of the sustaining, smoking and drinking. Smoking one cigarette a day, is not as far as dangerous as sustaining drugs. At the same time it is not the coincidence that 60 beers per day is better than to sustain drugs.
Seen from the more morally view, I think it would be fair enough to prevent people from either drinking, smoking or doing drugs. At the same time it is obvious, as it also appears from text 3, that all these restrictions take away the right of an individual to decide himself and act on own. So I support the idea of an individual making own decisions, and acting on its own. However this is only in a little proportion. I think that there should be taken consideration to the people that do not smoke. For instance it could be that a pregnant mother smokes. This will in the theory increase the risk of developing breathing problems for the child. Another example is that some parents smoke in the house, and it would therefore result in a bad health for the children as they are so called “passive smokers”. Therefore I think that there should be made place for both smokers and no-smokers. I think it is up to the individual what choices and decision he or she makes, as long as it is under terms where the consideration to the surroundings is made so both parts will end up happy.