The article ‘Butt Out of Smokers’ Lives’ is a passionately argued letter to the editor written by an ‘outraged’ author. This biased article is written from a smoker’s perspective that shares a personal interest and feels strongly towards the matter of smoking and the issue surrounding banning it.

The article is centralized around the subject of banning smoking and the government are trying to take matters into their own hands by putting into place drastic measures in order to ban it.
Drastic measures extreme
‘What will they do next? Come into our homes and stub our fags?
Turn the TV over to the ABC? Tell us to clean our teeth and sit up straight’
The author utilizes techniques of appealing to our emotions and that we are being dictated by the government.

In the article, the author convinces us that the government is taking way too much control on how we live and what we do with our lives. He/she is particularly convinced that the government is demanding the ban of cigarettes and trying to stop smokers from their possession of cigarettes. The author uses the technique of rhetorical questions to persuade the audience that this is true. For example, “What will they do next? Come into our homes and stub out our fags? Turn the TV over to the ABC?” These statements refer to the way the government will try to restraint our lives and force citizens to act by their strict regulations. The technique of using rhetorical questions challenges the reader and helps us agree with the author’s argument. The tone in the article is very intense, serious and enraged. As the reader, the approach definitely captured my attention and helped to agree with the articles contention.

the author is proposing is the fact that people have the right to their own actions and deeds. In this case, the author believes that smokers should not be stopped in public places or be told to leave a premises because of their desire to smoke. The author gives attention to this argument by using the technique of agreeing with the opposition in some matters but also using humor to make their arguments sound weak. For instance, the author writes, “They regulate smoking out of the workplace. Well fair enough, even though it means huddling out in the wind on some freezing pavement.” This effectively persuades the audience because it makes the argument more interesting when you can agree with some of the conflicting points but also turn it into a sense of sarcasm. The tone in this argument is frustrated, angry and a little bit sarcastic. As the reader, I found that the technique was a smart option and that it influenced my judgement towards agreeing with the author.

The author also states in the article that if citizens don’t feel comfortable with smokers in public areas they should stop complaining and move away if they are not satisfied. This also supports the main contention that smokers have the right to smoke in public areas. The author uses techniques of attack, such as “No one forces the anti-smoking puritans to stay in a nightclub with smokers” to make authorities seem less credible. This shows that the government is being biased and is only supporting one side of the story. The authors contention aims to convince readers that it is unjust to discriminate against smokers when the complaining anti-smokers are relying on the government to simply ban smoking for their own good benefit. The tone that is taken from this argument is rage, anger and irritation. From reading this argument, I was induced to believe that what the author was suggesting was in fact true and was convinced to agree with the his/her opinion.

The author has indeed demonstrated a direct concern to smokers and how smokers should be given their justice and the right to smoke whenever/wherever they wish. This problem is a great deal in our society and citizens should fight and engage in smokers rights for it is legal and brings justice to those who are discriminated against