Scott's short essay "Smokers Get A Raw Deal," Scott's version of a non-smoker is unjust. Scott sees smokers as being segregated because of prejudice. Scott does not realize the hazards of smoking and the effects of second hand smoke. Stanley S. Scott's essay does not portray the side of the smoker and the nonsmoker fairly. The essay does not recognize the harm of smoking and the rights a non-smoker has to a breathe friendly environment.
Scott uses discrimination in the wrong text. Scott states in his essay that "discrimination is discrimination, no matter what it is based on." I do not agree with that statement. I think discrimination is discrimination to a certain extent. Lets think realistically here. Would you want to walk into the movie theatre, sit down and try to enjoy the movie with a theatre filled with smoke? Scott also asks that "Could ice cream, cake, and cookies become socially unacceptable because their consumption causes obesity?" Eating ice cream, cake, and cookies may cause obesity, but it does not effect the health of others nearby like second hand smoke does.
The incidents that Scott uses to prove that smokers are victims of acts of violence are not very effective examples. Think about how many people have cancer because of second hand smoke. You could turn it around and say that innocent bystanders are victims of acts of violence then, since they are affected by second hand smoke. Scott reports an incident where a man was smoking a cigarette in a drugstore while he was waiting for his prescription to be filled and got a gun pulled on him for smoking a cigarette in the drug store. First of all do you really think that you would be allowed to smoke a cigarette in a drug store? I don't think that Scott provided all of the information on the incident. Scott states that "50 million American smokers are at risk today" These Americans are not at risk if they follow the rules of society and use the designated smoking areas.
