Sure! you can make smoking illegal, but then whose going to compensate for the pork barrel loss? All those tobacco taxes would go away but the programs won’t. Too many laws backing them up-the authors make sure of it. Going to be a different story when second hand smoke becomes second hand wallet.

somking should be ilegal because when kids are watching these adults or young ppl smoke it influences them and second hand someking hurts them more than it dose smoking

the money for sigrts add up like if your a addict you buy 1 box-2 aday 5 dollars a box 10dollars a day 210dollars a month over 2000 a year

i gave u some good reasons:) i need points!

Here’s some things you can do to help support your answer:

– Research the effects of businesses/restaurants/bars when they undergo a smoking ban.

– Research different effects smoking has on people who smoke.

– Find out how chain smoking creates or bonds relationships in some cultures.

it SHOULD be illegal.

1. it causes cancer

2. it causes 2nd hand smoke(which is badder than the actual smoking.)

3. every puff takes a year off your life.

hi there,

take a look at : http://www.ielts-exam.net/

Tobacco is one of the most widely-used recreational drugs in the world; mainly in the form of cigarettes, but also in cigars and pipes, and in combination with cannabis and marijuana in ‘joints’. Although most countries put age restrictions on its use, over a billion adults smoke tobacco legally every day, and supplying this demand is big business. As well as having serious health consequences for smokers themselves, the pollution of other people’s atmospheres with cigarette smoke also makes this an environmental issue. Attitudes have changed rapidly over the past twenty years. In the developed world, public opinion has shifted against smoking. By the 1990s, the sheer weight of evidence had forced major tobacco companies to admit that their products are both harmful and addictive. Many governments have substantially increased taxes on tobacco in order to discourage smoking, and often to alleviate the economic costs of smoking-related illness. However, while smoking has declined amongst some groups, it has increased amongst others – particularly young women. Meanwhile restrictions on the industry in the developed world have seen a new emphasis on developing nations, and new markets.

Key questions for this debate are: Is it the proper role of government to legislate to protect citizens from the harmful effects of their own lifestyle decisions? Does tobacco advertising increase tobacco consumption? Do health warnings, however much of the cigarette packet they cover, reduce consumption? What would be the effects of banning smoking in all public places, or even completely?

Argument for banning smoking

There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker’s health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year – more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 3 million people die from smoking each year – one every ten seconds – which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease. One of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population; that is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking – an activity which kills millions of people each year.

Personal freedom is of course an important issue, but it is the tobacco companies who we should be acting against. If a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned.

Smoking is not a real choice, as nicotine is an addictive drug – in fact, recent allegations suggest that tobacco companies deliberately produce the most addictive cigarettes they can. Up to 90% of smokers begin when they are below the age of 18, often due to peer pressure; once addicted, continuing to smoke is no longer an issue of freedom of choice, but of chemical compulsion. Like other addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine, tobacco should be banned since this is the only way to force people to quit. Most smokers say that they want to kick the habit, so this legislation would be doing them a favour.

Most people who smoke tobacco are law-abiding normal citizens who would like to stop. They would not resort to criminal or black-market activities if cigarettes were no longer legally available – they would just quit. Banning smoking would make this happen and massively lighten the burden on health resources of the countries in which it was banned.

Smoking also has wider effects, not simply restricted to smokers themselves. So-called ‘passive smoking’ is becoming an important issue: in a smoke-filled environment, non-smokers are also exposed to the risks associated with tobacco. Research suggests that partners of smokers have an increased chance of developing lung cancer, even if they do not use tobacco products. Beyond the health risks, smoke can also be extremely unpleasant in public spaces, in the workplace or in bars and restaurants. Smokers are therefore causing discomfort – as well as actual harm – to others. On top of the harm cause to the smokers themselves, this is surely enough reason to ban smoking.

At the very least there should be a ban on all tobacco advertising and even more prominent and graphic health warnings on cigarette packets to deter young people, in particular, from starting to smoke.

Arguments for not banning smoking

While a government has a responsibility to protect its population, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves – for example, dangerous sports such as rock-climbing, parachuting or motor-racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health-threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.

Cigarettes are very different from dangerous cars or poisonous foods. As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. But people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them. A better comparison is to unhealthy foods. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allow to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods – both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks.

A comparison to hard drugs is inaccurate – tobacco is not debilitating in the same way that many illegal narcotics may be, nor is it comparable to the likes of heroin in terms of addictiveness, nor is it a mind-altering substance that leads to irrational, violent, or criminal behavior. In this sense it is much less harmful than e.g. alcohol. The fact that so many smokers give up every year is testament to this. Many other substances and activities can be addictive (e.g. coffee, physical exercise) but this is no reason to make them illegal. People are able to abstain if they choose to live a healthier life, but many enjoy their use as part of their everyday existence.

It would be crazy to criminalize an activity indulged in by about one sixth of the world population. The lesson of prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s was that banning a recreational drug used by a large proportion of the population merely leads to crime and contraband. It would also mean that governments would lose tax revenue from tobacco sales – a major source of income for national health and other resources in many countries.

The evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. It is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this – smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option. Restricting smoking in public places may sometimes be appropriate, banning it altogether would be lunacy.

There is no good evidence that either of these measures would have an impact on the rate of tobacco consumption. Cigarette companies claim that advertisements are merely to persuade people to switch brands, not to start smoking in the first place. People start smoking through peer pressure – indeed the more of a ‘forbidden fruit’ cigarettes become, the more attractive they will be to adolescents. As for health warnings, if the knowledge that cigarettes have serious health risks deterred people from smoking then no-one would smoke any more. People start and continue to smoke in the full knowledge of the health risks.

Hope this is helpful!