From the two standpoints in the article, the main question being debated is that of whether it should be allowed for the government to impose a ban on public housing and the people living in those houses. Three of the groups most affected by this ban would be, the people living in the public housing, non-smokers, and the government themselves.
For example, if this ban were to go through it would mean that the people in the position of needed public housing would have to choose between their addiction and comfort or their living situation. Many times, as Torres, the first column writer in the New York Times discussion board titled, “Is it Fair to Ban Public Housing Tenants from Smoking?” mentioned, it could be near impossible for them to quit on their own. And given the circumstances, it is likely they do not have the money to get help anyways. Next to be affected would be non-smokers. Their role in this is interesting because while they are not smoking themselves, they are still…show more content… For example, as Marcano suggested, while it is a horrible thing to smoke and there are too many deaths related to something we can prevent, he noted that, “I can’t reconcile a government ban on a legal product, even tobacco, in the privacy of one’s home.” I believe this to be the strongest point because it makes you wonder why and how the government can try to impose a law banning something that is legal, in the privacy of people’s private homes. The viewpoint of the con argument is clear, in that it expresses need for separation of government and private home. For example, in the article, Marcano mentioned, “over 200,000 homes have already adopted public smoking bans.” This argument that Marcano leads supports the smoking ban, so long as it is “voluntary and agreed upon in a unanimous vote by the residents
