smoking should be made illegal essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMJ Open Access

Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition

The cigarette is the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilisation. Most of the richer countries of the globe, however, are making progress in reducing both smoking rates and overall consumption. Many different methods have been proposed to steepen this downward slope, including increased taxation, bans on advertising, promotion of cessation, and expansion of smoke-free spaces. One option that deserves more attention is the enactment of local or national bans on the sale of cigarettes. There are precedents: 15 US states enacted bans on the sale of cigarettes from 1890 to 1927, for instance, and such laws are still fully within the power of local communities and state governments. Apart from reducing human suffering, abolishing the sale of cigarettes would result in savings in the realm of healthcare costs, increased labour productivity, lessened harms from fires, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, and a smaller global carbon footprint. Abolition would also put a halt to one of the principal sources of corruption in modern civilisation, and would effectively eliminate one of the historical forces behind global warming denial and environmental obfuscation. The primary reason for abolition, however, is that smokers themselves dislike the fact they smoke. Smoking is not a recreational drug, and abolishing cigarettes would therefore enlarge rather than restrict human liberties. Abolition would also help cigarette makers fulfil their repeated promises to ‘cease production’ if cigarettes were ever found to be causing harm.

Six reasons to ban

The cigarette is the deadliest object in the history of human civilisation. Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year, a number that will grow before it shrinks. Smoking in the twentieth century killed only 100 million people, whereas a billion could perish in our century unless we reverse course. 1 Even if present rates of consumption drop steadily to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century.

The cigarette is also a defective product, meaning not just dangerous but unreasonably dangerous, killing half its long-term users. And addictive by design. It is fully within the power of the Food and Drug Administration in the US, for instance, to require that the nicotine in cigarettes be reduced to subcompensable, subaddictive levels. 2 3 This is not hard from a manufacturing point of view: the nicotine alkaloid is water soluble, and denicotinised cigarettes were already being made in the 19th century. 4 Philip Morris in the 1980s set up an entire factory to make its Next brand cigarettes, using supercritical fluid extraction techniques to achieve a 97% reduction in nicotine content, which is what would be required for a 0.1% nicotine cigarette, down from present values of about 2%. 5 Keep in mind that we're talking about nicotine content in the rod as opposed to deliveries measured by the ‘FTC method’, which cannot capture how people actually smoke. 5

Cigarettes are also defective because they have been engineered to produce an inhalable smoke. Tobacco smoke was rarely inhaled prior to the nineteenth century; it was too harsh, too alkaline. Smoke first became inhalable with the invention of flue curing , a technique by which the tobacco leaf is heated during fermentation, preserving the sugars naturally present in the unprocessed leaf. Sugars when they burn produce acids, which lower the pH of the resulting smoke, making it less harsh, more inhalable. There is a certain irony here, since these ‘milder’ cigarettes were actually far more deadly, allowing smoke to be drawn deep into the lungs. The world's present epidemic of lung cancer is almost entirely due to the use of low pH flue-cured tobacco in cigarettes, an industry-wide practice that could be reversed at any time. Regulatory agencies should mandate a significant reduction in rod-content nicotine, but they should also require that no cigarette be sold with a smoke pH lower than 8. Those two mandates alone would do more for public health than any previous law in history. 5

Death and product defect are two reasons to abolish the sale of cigarettes, but there are others. A third is the financial burden on public and private treasuries, principally from the costs of treating illnesses due to smoking. Cigarette use also results in financial losses from diminished labor productivity, and in many parts of the world makes the poor even poorer. 6

A fourth reason is that the cigarette industry is a powerful corrupting force in human civilisation. Big tobacco has corrupted science by sponsoring ‘decoy’ or ‘distraction research’, 5 but it has also corrupted popular media, insofar as newspapers and magazines dependent on tobacco advertising for revenues have been reluctant to publish critiques of cigarettes. 7 The industry has corrupted even the information environment of its own workforce, as when Philip Morris paid its insurance provider (CIGNA) to censor the health information sent to corporate employees. 8 Tobacco companies have bullied, corrupted or exploited countless other institutions: the American Medical Association, the American Law Institute, sports organisations, fire-fighting bodies, Hollywood, the US Congress—even the US presidency and US military. President Lyndon Johnson refused to endorse the 1964 Surgeon General's report, for instance, fearing alienation of the tobacco-friendly South. Cigarette makers managed even to thwart the US Navy's efforts to go smoke-free. In 1986, the Navy had announced a goal of creating a smoke-free Navy by the year 2000; tobacco-friendly congressmen were pressured to thwart that plan, and a law was passed requiring that all ships sell cigarettes and allow smoking. The result: American submarines were not smoke-free until 2011. 9  

Cigarettes are also, though, a significant cause of harm to the natural environment. Cigarette manufacturing consumes scarce resources in growing, curing, rolling, flavouring, packaging, transport, advertising and legal defence, but also causes harms from massive pesticide use and deforestation. Many Manhattans of savannah woodlands are lost every year to obtain the charcoal used for flue curing. Cigarette manufacturing also produces non-trivial greenhouse gas emissions, principally from the fossil fuels used for curing and transport, fires from careless disposal of butts, and increased medical costs from maladies caused by smoking 5 (China produces 40 percent of the world's cigarettes, for example, and uses mainly coal to cure its tobacco leaf). And cigarette makers have provided substantial funding and institutional support for global climate change deniers, causing further harm. 10 Cigarettes are not sustainable in a world of global warming; indeed they are one of its overlooked and easily preventable causes.

But the sixth and most important reason for abolition is the fact that smokers themselves do not like their habit. This is a key point: smoking is not a recreational drug; most smokers do not like the fact they smoke and wish they could quit. This means that cigarettes are very different from alcohol or even marijuana. Only about 10–15% of people who drink liquor ever become alcoholics, versus addiction rates of 80% or 90% for people who smoke. 11 As an influential Canadian tobacco executive once confessed: smoking is not like drinking, it is rather like being an alcoholic. 12

The spectre of prohibition

An objection commonly raised is: Hasn't prohibition already been tried and failed? Won't this just encourage smuggling, organised crime, and yet another failed war on drugs? That has been the argument of the industry for decades; bans are ridiculed as impractical or tyrannical. (First they come for your cigarettes.…) 13

The freedom objection is weak, however, given how people actually experience addiction. Most smokers ‘enjoy’ smoking only in the sense that it relieves the pains of withdrawal; they need nicotine to feel normal. People who say they enjoy cigarettes are rather rare—so rare that the industry used to call them ‘enjoyers’. 14 Surveys show that most smokers want to quit but cannot; they also regret having started. 15 Tobacco industry executives have long grasped the point: Imperial Tobacco's Robert Bexon in 1984 confided to his Canadian cotobacconists that ‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week’. 12 American cigarette makers have been quietly celebrating addiction since the 1950s, when one expressed how ‘fortunate for us’ it was that cigarettes ‘are a habit they can't break’. 16

Another objection commonly raised to any call for a ban is that this will encourage smuggling, or even organised crime. But that is rather like blaming theft on fat wallets. Smuggling is already rampant in the cigarette world, as a result of pricing disparities and the tolerance of contraband or even its encouragement by cigarette manufacturers. Luk Joossens and Rob Cunningham have shown how cigarette manufacturers have used smuggling to undermine monopolies or gain entry into new markets or evade taxation. 17 18 And demand for contraband should diminish, once the addicted overcome their addiction—a situation very different from prohibition of alcohol, where drinking was a more recreational drug. And of course, even a ban on the sale of cigarettes will not eliminate all smoking—nor should that be our goal, since people should still be free to grow their own for personal use. Possession should not be criminalised; the goal should only be a ban on sales. Enforcement, therefore, should be a trivial matter, as is proper in a liberal society.

Cigarette smoking itself, though, is less an expression of freedom than the robbery of it. And so long as we allow the companies to cast themselves as defenders of liberty, the table is unfairly tilted. We have to recognise that smoking compromises freedom, and that retiring cigarettes would enlarge human liberties.

Of course it could well be that product regulation, combined with taxation, denormalisation, and ‘smoke-free’ legislation, will be enough to dramatically lower or even eliminate cigarette use—over some period of decades. Here, though, I think we fail to realise how much power governments already have to act more decisively. From 1890 to 1927 the sale of cigarettes was banned virtually overnight in 15 different US states; and in Austin v. Tennessee (1900) the US Supreme Court upheld the right of states to enact such bans. 19 Those laws all eventually disappeared from industry pressure and the lure of tax revenues. 20 None was deemed unconstitutional, however, and some localities retained bans into the 1930s, just as some counties still today ban the sale of alcohol. Bhutan in 2004 became the first nation recently to ban the sale of cigarettes, and we may see other countries taking this step, especially once smoking prevalence rates start dropping into single digits.

Helping the industry fulfil its promises

One last rationale for a ban: abolition would fulfil a promise made repeatedly by the industry itself. Time and again, cigarette makers have insisted that if cigarettes were ever found to be causing harm they would stop making them:

• In March 1954, George Weissman, head of marketing at Philip Morris, announced that his company would ‘stop business tomorrow’ if ‘we had any thought or knowledge that in any way we were selling a product harmful to consumers’. 21
• In 1972, James C Bowling, vice president for public relations at Philip Morris, asserted publicly, and in no uncertain terms, that ‘If our product is harmful…we'll stop making it’. 22
• Helmut Wakeham, vice president for research at Philip Morris, in 1976 stated publicly that ‘if the company as a whole believed that cigarettes were really harmful, we would not be in the business. We are a very moralistic company’. 23
• RJ Reynolds president Gerald H Long, in a 1986 interview asserted that if he ever ‘saw or thought there were any evidence whatsoever that conclusively proved that, in some way, tobacco was harmful to people, and I believed it in my heart and my soul, then I would get out of the business’. 24
• Philip Morris CEO Geoffrey Bible in 1997, when asked (under oath) what he would do with his company if cigarettes were ever found to be causing cancer, said: ‘I'd probably…shut it down instantly to get a better hold on things’. 25 Bible was asked about this in Minnesota v. Philip Morris (2 March 1998) and reaffirmed that if even one person were ever found to have died from smoking he would ‘reassess’ his duties as CEO. 26

The clearest expression of such an opinion, however, was by Lorillard's president, Curtis H Judge, in an April 1984 deposition, where he was asked why he regarded Lorillard's position on smoking and health as important:

A: Because if we are marketing a product that we know causes cancer, I'd get out of the business…I wouldn't be associated with marketing a product like that.

A: If cigarettes caused cancer, I wouldn't be involved with them…I wouldn't sell a product that caused cancer.

Q: …Because you don't want to kill people? … Is that the reason?

Q: …If it was proven to you that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, do you think cigarettes should be marketed?

A: No…No one should sell a product that is a proven cause of lung cancer. 27

Note that these are all public assurances , including several made under oath. All follow a script drawn up by the industry's public relations advisors during the earliest stages of the conspiracy: On 14 December 1953, Hill and Knowlton had proposed to RJ Reynolds that the cigarette maker reassure the public that it ‘would never market a product which is in any way harmful’. Reynolds was also advised to make it clear that

If the Company felt that its product were now causing cancer or any other disease, it would immediately cease production of it. 28

To this recommendation was added ‘Until such time as these charges or irresponsible statements are ever proven, the Company will continue to produce and market cigarettes’.

What is remarkable is that we never find the companies saying privately that they would stop making cigarettes—with two significant exceptions. In August 1947, in an internal document outlining plans to study ‘vascular and cardiac effects’ of smoking, Philip Morris's director of research, Willard Greenwald, made precisely this claim: ‘We certainly do not want any person to smoke if it is dangerous to his health’. 29 Greenwald had made a similar statement in 1939, reassuring his president, OH Chalkley, that ‘under no circumstances would we want anyone to smoke Philip Morris cigarettes were smoking definitely deleterious to his health’. 30 There is no reason to believe he was lying: he is writing long before Wynder's mouse painting experiments of 1953, and prior even to the epidemiology of 1950. Prior to obtaining proof of harm, Philip Morris seems honestly not to have wanted to sell a deadly product.

Abolition is not such a radical idea; it would really just help the industry fulfil its long-standing promises to the public. The cigarette, as presently constituted, is simply too dangerous—and destructive and unloved—to be sold.

Summary points

• The cigarette is the deadliest object in the history of human civilisation. It is also a defective product, a financial burden on cash-strapped societies, an important source of political and scientific corruption, and a cause of both global warming and global warming denial.
• Tobacco manufacturers have a long history of promising to stop the production of cigarettes, should they ever be proven harmful.
• The most important reason to ban the sale of cigarettes, however, is that most smokers do not even like the fact they smoke; cigarettes are not a recreational drug.
• It is not in principle difficult to end the sale of cigarettes; most communities–even small towns–could do this virtually overnight. We actually have more power than we realize to put an end this, the world's leading cause of death and disease.

Competing interests: The author has served as an expert witness for plaintiffs in tobacco litigation.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Open Access: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Should Smoking Be Made Illegal?

In his column on the BBC’s website Professor Terence Stephenson has called for parents to be stopped from smoking in cars. If his calls were enacted it would be the latest in a long line of restrictions passed on smokers. But is it time to do away completely with the tradition of having a “ciggie” so to speak and ban nicotine altogether.

All the Yes points:

Eliminates a public health menace, being regulated out of existence anyway, class exploitation, damaging health, can cause lung cancer, would you smoke a cigarette if you knew…, second hand smoke can cause lung cancer in young children with weak immune systems, youll get sick.

Peoples lives

Smoking ends peoples lives when they could have had a great futurees lives

All the no points:, slippery slope of overzealousness in other words “nanny state”, the taxes on cigarettes help fund this country.

• Cigarettes are just as bad as cars

It would never work

John stuart mill – the principles of power and harm in liberal democracy, the buying and selling of tobacco products should not be made illegal, why would you want to make something illegal after it has been legal for years., getting rid of something doesnt nessecerily mean that it stops., what’s wrong with enjoying life anymore, yes because….

Let’s face facts smoking is a public health hazard whether it’s passive or done directly. With regard to smoking the damage done to lungs and other internal organs in the form of cancer and other diseases is well documented , not to mention premature aging. Passive smoking also causes problems in that as well as causing lung disease and heart cancer if done over a long time, it also reducing the functions of lungs of people with asthma as well as causing eye problems and increased sensitivity.[[ASH “Smoking and disease” http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_94.pdf Accessed 19.06.09]] . All of this costs the National Health Service an estimated £2.7 billion in try to deal with all the smoking related illnesses as well as hitting the UK workforce in terms of lost productivity.[[http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf]] It’s a dangerous drug and it’s high time it was treated as a narcotic and banned So if someone was to go around poisoning peoples foods so the person dies, they would go to jail. Also, if someone tried commiting suicide, they would try to be stopped. Well everyday, thousands of people are slowly committing suicide! Helllloooo! The tobacco companies are poisoning people just to make money!! I’m 15 and have cancer and my dad smokes and I just want it to stop. Do you want brain tumors or black lungs? Putting your kids at risk? Do you want your hair to slowly fall out while you realize you have a risk of death? What if you had to watch your baby go through cancer? The little pleasure smoking gives you is not worth somebodys life.

No because…

Smoking is a hazard but its effects are massively overstated by the smoking lobby. For instance although lung cancer affects “0.01”% of non smokers smoking increases the likelihood of a person who started smoking in their teens have a chance of developing lung cancer at 2% if they stop at 30 and 16% if they stop at 70 [[Forest “Smoking and Health”http://www.forestonline.org/output/Smoking-and-Health.aspx Accessed 19.06.2009]] Also smoking could potentially help protect against Alzheimers disease as well as reduce stress something that can cause just as much serious problems for people as smoking does. [[Forest “Smoking and Health”http://www.forestonline.org/output/Smoking-and-Health.aspx Accessed 19.06.2009]] Secondly it pays its way so to speak, the UK treasury gets an estimated £8,000 million from revenues that’s money that can go towards hospitals schools etc[[Ash http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf Accessed]]. Why take away a good source of revenue that can help?

In the UK the tobacco industry are running out of ways to advertise and sell cigarettes anyway and people are running out of options to smoke them. For example tobacco companies can’t advertise or sponsor events or teams etc. They can not sell cigarettes to people under 18 . Also people can not smoke in most “enclosed” public areas or workplaces with a few exceptions. Not to mention the major warnings on cigarette packets that companies are compelled to put on by the Department of Health [[ Ash “Ash facts at a glanceTobacco regulations”http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_96.pdf]]. In fact Liverpool City Council are proposing to give newly released films depicting people who smoke an automatic 18 classification over riding what ever classification the British Board of Film Classification may have for that film.[[BBC News “Smoking Actors to be rated 18” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8105585.stm%5D%5D Given these restrictions isn’t it time to give it the final legal kiss of disapproval and ban them completely?.

Just because something is heavily taxed and regulated doesn’t make the activity wrong and the regulations on it working it right. The high taxes on smoking force people some people to buy illicitly whether in the form of smuggled cigarettes from France something that hits the treasury to the amount of £2 billion a year or fraud cigarettes. [[ Action on smoking and health (ash) “Facts at a glance ” [[http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf]]

Smoking and the industry just like the narcotics industry are a form of class warfare. As tobacco advertising is being banned in the UK companies are heading towards less economically developed countries exploiting the people in search of profits. This is adding to a figure of five million people who die worldwide each year as a result of smoking and is yet another strain on a continent that has enough problems to deal with HIV or Aids [[ BBC News World Africa “Why do we still smoke in Africa “http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4361837.stm Accessed 19.06.09]]

The Health secretary who was present when the ban was enacted, John Reid famously said it “was wrong for middle class politicians to ban what for many working class people was their only pleasure”. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3789591.stm]] This means an outright ban on smoking far from being an act of liberating people would be tightening the screw on an already strained working class by a puritanical middle class nanny state.[[Patrick Wintour http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/oct/27/smoking.health1%5D%5D .

Smoking does not just effect the smokers health, it effects the people around them. Just because they want to damage their health doesn’t mean they should damage ours.

That would certainly be an argument for regulating the circumstances in which people can smoke, like, for example, the law in Ireland that bans smoking in enclosed workplaces. But so long as smokers don’t “smoke in someone’s face” then they should not be prevented for enjoying a cigarette if they so choose.

Smoking is a very bad habit.It has many bad side effects.it causes many fatal diseases like bronchitis,liver cancer,blood cancer, breathing problems etc.which can kill people.It also causes heart related diseases.It makes infections in the internal side of our body.Because of it, every year about 50,000-1,00,000 people dies in the world.It has tobacco in it which is very very dangerous for human health.Sometimes it gets harder to breathe for the smokers.It also can be dangerous for the friends & family of a smoker.As a Substantiation we can take the matter of Hafiz who is a student of CTG. university.(-THE DAILY AJADY)..He died of cancer last year because of smoking.Smoke made his liver infected.So he died with an unbearable pain.Like Hafiz there are so many people are dying.So we should take necessary steps to make people live.We should make smoking illegal. Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths[[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/tobacco/cancer]]

It is the case that smoking is an unhealthy habit, and that it harms the smoker and those physically close to the smoker when they are smoking. But that’s no argument for a government-enforced ban on smoking. Eating fast food is unhealthy, so is it up to the government to shut down all fast food restaurants? Drinking alcohol is unhealthy, and many innocent bystanders are harmed as an effect of drunk behavior (drinking and driving, drunken arguments, etc), is it up to the government in that case to eradicate all alcohol from the country? Of course not. In all of these cases, it is up to the individual to make the decision for their own health. As for preventing secondhand smoke, smoking regulations enforced by the government, ie smoking is not allowed within 50 feet of a public building or inside the workplace, etc, seem to be a good idea. But there’s no need for complete government control of tobacco products/cigarettes.

The smoke enters your lungs and causes you to have lung cancer. Lung cancer is the leading cancer deaths among women.

Smoking does not cause Lung Cancer. It may increase your chances of getting Lung Cancer but smoking does not cause it. If smoking did cause Lung Cancer then non smokers would be unable to get it.

kills 1200 people a day

Assuming that cigarettes do kill 1,200 people a day, that would mean 438,000 a year. In 2001, car accidents caused 669,000 deaths. [[http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/cause.php]] Should we outlaw driving to? In my opinion, smokers know the risk. They choose to smoke anyway. They are adults that can do what they chose to.

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer. Some these chemicals include… *Benzene-(petrol additive)- derived from coal & petroleum (you know, what you put in your car?) *Formaldehyde-(enbalming fluid)-used to perserve DEAD bodies (if you have ever dissected before, it’s that nasty scent that comes out of the specimen) *Ammonia-(toilet cleaner)-used for flavoring *Acetone-(nail polish cleaner)-fragrant volatile liquid, used as a solvent *Arsenic-(rat poisoning) *Butane-(lighter fluid) *Lead-(used in batteries and pencils) And my personal favorite… *Nepathelene-(the key ingredient in MOTH BALLS) If that isn’t enough to ban smoking around the entire planet, then I hope that this will… The list of diseases caused by cigarette smoking includes… *Chronic Obstructive pulmonary diesease *Coronary Heart Diesease *Bladder Cancer *Esophageal Cancer *Laryngeal Cancer *Lung Cancer *Oral Cancer *Throat Cancer *Cervical, Cancer *Kidney Cancer *Stomach Cancer *Pancreatic Cancer *Peptic Ulcer Diesease

young children sould not have to be exposed to second hand smoke. (:

On top of the horrid health risks that are involved with smoking cigarettes, the cost of being a smoker is pretty hefty and might surprise the majority of people. To be a smoker not only do you have to pay weekly,you have to get yourself the right amount of expensive packs but the insurance bill of a smoker will cost more than that of a non-smoker. As you ca see a smoker a much greater chance of having health risks as mentioned above. Let,s say that you smoked one pack of Camel cigarettes a day. The pack cost $4.50, multiplied by the days in a month equals $135.00 a month, multiplied by 12 months equals $1620 a year. That is money that can be used for a better education especially for people going to college. Even agencies the cover insurance may not even cover your cost of being a smoker just because they have a smaller chance at having to spend any money on there. For example, a person that smokes will have high blood pressure and have much more frequent doctor visits and will expect his insurance to pay all the time. But the conpany will lose money if they decide to do that. So they may just decide not to cover people who are smokers with health risks.

You know how if you smoke to much, you will get very sick? Well now you have to most likely pay over a $1000 and now your broke.

Smoking ends peoples lives when they could have had a great future

you could get heart disease and lung cancer

Banning smoking would be a yet another slippery slope down the road of overzealousness leading to a nanny state if we aren’t in one already. Given that a significant amount teachers and schools are chafing at the bit because of health and safety regulations and worrying about. What’s next alcohol? There are some groups calling for that to happen, does the government ban alcohol with all the consequences that would bring.

Making smoking illegal is about as much “nannying” people as making heroin illegal. During the 1800’s, opium was legal, many people were addicted to it and spent large amounts of their income on inhaling the fumes. This applied throughout society from the rich to the poor. As a result the growing and marketing of opium poppies and their products was outlawed (This step was not taken until well after 1900, the opium trade was well developed by then). This was not considered nannying people, but rather a step to better society by trying to eliminate a habit that could destroy lives. Whilst smoking is not as expensive as opium was, it still takes a significant amount of money from people who can’t afford it, and inhibits their ability to develop as people.

Cigarettes have like a 2 dollar tax, assuming that even if 20,000,000 people in the USA alone smoke, thats 40,000,000 dollars every time they buy a pack a cigarette.

There is a phrase that that applies to this: “ill gotten gains”. Think about it literally we are getting money from people who are buying something that is addictive and harmful to their and other people’s health . Admittedly we do the same by taxing alcohol (whether we’re in the UK or US) and spirits but if they are drunk in moderation then they have positive effects outweighing the negative ones.

Cigarettes are just as bad as cars.

Walking outside in a polluted city like San Francisco or Karachi or LA or a city in china(16 of the world’s most polluted cities are in China) [[http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028,00.html]], you are already damaging your lungs from all the CO(carbon monoxide fumes) put in the air from car emissions and all the people exhaling Carbon Dioxide(why are very polluted BIG cities, very populated too? people use cars and aeroplanes/airplanes(used by people vacationing to places with cleaner air and traveling businessmen) which cause a lot more pollution than cars[[http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html]]). Cigarettes release chemicals that are bad of course, but they are a preferable means of getting your smoke. Electronic vaporizing cigarettes do not produce second hand smoke and are hugely unpopular but won’t be for long. It’s better to be the smoker than to be the person whose face is being smoked into(statistically passive smokers are at a greater risk) .

A fair point but the chemicals in an “average” cigarette add to the effect of the CO2. We have measures to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and there are things called catalytic so why aren’t we trying to reduce the harmful effects of chemicals from cigarettes down to a minimal level. Oh and nicotine is a poisonous drug in it’s own right. Farmers use it to kill bugs and three or four cigarettes worth of it or a single large drop would be enough to kill a person [[National Institute on Drug Abuse “Nida for Teens” http://teens.drugabuse.gov/facts/facts_nicotine1.php and Ann Meeker O Conell How Nicotine Works” How Stuff Works p7http://health.howstuffworks.com/nicotine7.htm]]. Why should we say a drug that effectively partially enslaves and kills is just as bad as your average motor or a Toyota Prius when it serves no purpose only to hook a person to their death or until they can get out again. Let me make it clear Nicotine is far worse than a Toyota Prius or your average car.

It’s a great idea but in practice how would it work? Taking them out of the shops will leave greater problems since many people smoke because they are addicted and not because they enjoy it. Making something illegal is of course easier than it seems. We must weigh in not only the reasons why, but also how are we going to implement a certain set of provision. We have to realise that making something illegal does not automatically solve a problem, instead it might create even more problems as a repercussion to such a decision. Making illicit drugs such as heroine, cocaine, etc. was agreeably a good decision. However, the consequences of making such commendable decisions also involve the allocation of large amounts of state resources (read: tax payer money) to combat illegal drug trafficking. Apparently, making these drugs illegal did not really stop people from using the drugs (fyi: drugs are still a lucrative business, if not why would people risk their lives to smuggle it). That said, the same goes for cigarettes, I don’t see any strong reason that making cigarettes (or smoking them) illegal to be of any use in the context of making people quit the bad habit. People who smoke are addicted to it, and as those people who are addicted to illicit drugs, they will always find ways to circumvent the law. Making smoking illegal does not automatically make the business less profitable. As I see it, the demand for cigarettes are still high everywhere, and this kind of policy would only create “black markets” for the item. This in turn would put burden on the law enforcement to combat such black markets (read: more personnel, more funds needed), and of course these burdens would be passed on to tax payers who pays for all the cost of faithfully enforcing such a new law. I believe that the restrictions and requirements which are already in place (i.e. restricting smoking areas, limited advertisement methods) are sufficient enough to tackle the problem. Moreover, the current approach is right on track where the government should sponsor and support policies that would decrease the demand for cigarettes (if the demand for cigarettes were to fall substantially, the business would be less lucrative, and soon enough nobody will be in the cigarette business). This is not a policy that would effectively reduce the demand, simply making it illegal is not addressing to the demand problem.Thus, what I see in this is another burden for the state budget, with little or minimal impact on the real issue at hand.

Evidence suggests that in spite of possible practical difficulties of the smoking ban in pubs and bars, it has been a considerable success: if we are to believe Health dept. figures, 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the ban being brought in ^1^. Further evidence suggests that in previous discussions, wider enforcement has been seen to be more practical than narrower enforcement: in the case of the current smoking ban, evidence from a Camden subcommittee opposed initial plans to restrict smoking bans to only those pubs and bars serving food, on the basis of enforcement difficulties ^2^. If precedent is anything to go by – and it as least as good as unsubstantiated common sense – an outright ban might be quite easily enforced. ^1^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7480856.stm ^2^ http://www3.camden.gov.uk/templates/committees/documents/14971.doc

“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. … Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” [[J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1859. Chapter 1. see http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html ]] The principle that only those actions which harm others should be legislated against is being eroded by legislation on obesity and narcotics in particular. Certainly, it is true that there is an extent to which something such as smoking falls into the category, for it has demonstrable negative effects on others in certain cases. However, these are the cases that have already been legislated against with the ban on smoking in public, indoor places. At the point at which the extension of the ban on smoking crosses the line from protecting others to controlling the behaviour of the individual, it transgresses the principles upon which a liberal democratic society is based

Then why are drugs illegal? Obviously, the government has a duty to protect it’s citizens from things that will definitely harm them.

The buying and selling of tobacco products should not be made illegal (as the sale of drugs has). There is no paucity in pot-smoking college students, even though the transaction is illegal. American tycoons smoke Cuban cigars despite the law in their Country. Making the sale/purchase of cigarettes/pipes/cigars/etc illegal will (as in the case of illegal narcotics) only give rise to the boom of a black market for these products , thus crime(Theft, murder and smuggling). Also, the hate (for self and others), guilt (for doing something illegal) and desperation (from addiction, loss/test of self-control and the inability to come clean/get rehabilitated without legal prosecution) will most naturally lead to a host of psychological/psychiatric problems (Prozac nation), followed by more crime(increased suicide-rate, theft etc). However, the public use and abuse of such products SHOULD be illegal. This will permit people who choose not to smoke, to avert the health risks of passive smoking. The black market will NOT emerge, since transactions (buying and selling of tobacco products) will be legal (and the black market having to incur added costs would be unable to compete with legal prices). Smokers restricted from public circles/events will have the incentive to get rehabilitation and work towards losing the habit. Once public smoking is illegal smokers might even take the health concern seriously.

Public smoking IS illegal in Countries in the U.K, a host of other Countries and now Pakistan. Making smoking illegal should on paper decrease smoking considerably and dealing with ‘BLACK MARKET’ is the law enforcement’s job.

It has been legal for so long it does not make sense to change it now. If they hadn’t advertised cigarettes as flashy as they were advertised ( handsome people in movies smoked , while nerds had healthy pink lungs!) people would not have become addicted. This means it is all the government’s fault! They did not check if it was as dangerous so allowing the tobacco companies to ruin lives

That is the dumbest argument i have ever heard. So, because we made a mistake in the past we are not allowed to fix it? Yes they made it glamorous in the media, yes the government allowed this to happen because they didn’t do their homework on it. But that doesn’t mean that since we made a mistake in the past it is set in stone forever! If that was the case then how the hell did we get Amendments to the Constitution? Think before you write please

In the late 1920’s in America, alcohol was banned. There was something called a underground railway or something. Where people went underground and bought cans and bottles of alcoholic products. they drank it in clever ways (teacups,in/outside coffee shops) ECT ECT! Thus meaning is if the government BANS anything, it is still not stopped in the Country so leave people to have freedom of choice/speech!

First, get your facts straight. The underground railroad was used to transport slaves out of America to Canada or Mexico. Also, there is a difference between alcohol and cigarettes. Alcohol is easy to conceal and easily can be drunk, unlike cigarettes which require you to light them and smoke them. Obviously they would do it in secluded locations (alleyways, underground, homes, etc), but that doesn’t mean everyone is doing it. For example, drugs such as cocaine and heroin, are banned and people do still use them, but not as much as if it was legal. If a government was to make smoking illegal, it would limit the amount of smokers dramatically.

People have seemed to forgotten the basis of smoking; people start, and many continue to because they enjoy it. It relieves stress, can calm people and help them focus. It is also used as a hunger suppressant by models, and assorted other people. Smoking itself is a solution to other problems, if you think you could prevent all stress in society and remove any other reasons why people start smoking then i think you need to place your feet back on the ground. Smoking itself is a solution to other problems, not just a problem itself in the eyes of social facists. Can’t really reference that other than personal experience (no im not an addicted chain smoker) and common sense.

Just because people smoke to releive stress doesnt make the feeling of releif last forever. When smoking “helps you focus” it is actually destroying the brain cells inside. So over the time that you smoke your brain cells die and you can become very stupid, in other words, years of education is lost. Smoking to use as a hunger suppressant is a very unhealthy way of losing wheight. smoking is an unhealthy solution to all things. While releif of stress, your phisical apperance becomes, so to say … unnatractive. Your teeth turns yellow as so do your finger nails. your skin becomes wrinkly … so who wants to become a rasin?! not me :)

smoking should be banned, it’s really bad

We would love to hear what you think – please leave a comment!

Smoking also pollutes children’s minds. When their parents smoke, they believe that it is the right thing to do and they grow up to smoke which just results in generations of smokers. However if smoking was banned none of this would happen.

If smoking was banned, the country would be left with lots of people struggling to get back on their feet. Many would have to seek help and go to rehab. Sadly, not everyone can get access to this type of treatment. Nicotine medications can be expensive. According to drugs.com, Zyban, a common medication for this addiction, costs up to $267 for 60 tablets. Another medication called Chantix can cost $129.00 for 30 tablets. Lots of cigarette users might have a low income, therefore not being able to afford these medicines. It would not be fair to prohibit cigarettes and leave these people struggling with addiction. :(

If you can afford cigarettes, then you can afford the medications.

like you cut g

Why Should Smoking Be Illegal?

Smoking is the act of inhaling or smelling smoke that results from burning something, most commonly tobacco. All enclosed public areas, including bars and restaurants, have been subject to statewide smoking bans in some states; only certain areas have been affected in other states. According to WHO’s Smoking and Tobacco Use Policy, a smoker is defined as someone who regularly or infrequently smokes any tobacco cigarette (WHO). A daily smoker, consequently, is someone, who smokes at least once a day. Smoked tobacco products include cigarettes, cigars, bidis, and kreteks. Some people prefer to use a pipe or a hookah (water pipe) to smoke loose tobacco. Tobacco products that are chewed include snuff, dip, and snus; smokers can also smell snuff. Some people smoke regularly, but not every day, and these people are known as “infrequent smokers” (Recher 18). Tobacco smoking in public places is prohibited by smoking bans or “smoke-free laws.” They include both criminal and health and safety regulations for the workplace.

Getting nicotine from cigarettes is like sucking on a tailpipe for air. Many countries have banned smoking, but despite decades of research showing its dangers, tobacco is still widely available and profitable for everyone but the customer (Recher 1). One percent of public funds are allocated to a chemical that has no benefits and only causes illness, disability, and death. Even though taxing tobacco has its benefits, including fewer smokers, increased government revenue, and a healthier society, as respiratory therapists, people should embrace the use of excise duties that the government may use selectively. Smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer, asthma, and other pulmonary diseases, with an estimated $12.0 billion in annual economic losses worldwide due to these conditions (Recher 1). The trade-off is illogical, even if one looks at it only from an economic standpoint.

As a reasonable position, the government should not dictate what vices the population engages in, which is why tobacco sales should continue. Even though the United States has tried to limit soft drink quantities, fast food is unregulated but failed miserably. Despite increased government interference, few people oppose access to these items. However, there is at least one advantage to these other “sins,” however. People need fuel, even if they eat at fast-food restaurants infrequently, drink alcohol, and gamble in moderation. There is no such thing as moderate use when it comes to tobacco. A person, those around them, or even those exposed to it in a tertiary setting cannot be exposed to any amount of cigarette smoke without harm. They are willing to tolerate smoking-related illness and death to make money. It is unlikely that Health Canada would allow tobacco smoking in Canada today, but it is also unlikely that any of today’s governments would denounce it. The public outcry from smokers and non-smokers, enforcement expenditures, illegal imports, anti-government action, and underground sales conspire to make absolute prohibition impossible.

Here is the dilemma: although tobacco has no health benefits, it cannot be outlawed. Smoking rates in the United States had steadily decreased since 1965 when more than half of the population smoked; by 2014, they had fallen to 18.1 percent (Recher 1). It means that people are forced to use whatever resources are still available to them to quit smoking: logical or emotional arguments, organized cessation programs, medications and patches, and e-cigarettes and gum.

In the history of humanity, the cigarette has been the most lethal item. An estimated 6 million people die from smoking each year, a number that is expected to rise before it decreases (Leung and Don 1). Only 100 million people died from smoking in the twentieth century, but a billion could die if people do not change their ways (Ritchie and Roser). This century, even if current consumption rates are gradually reduced to zero by 2100, people will still have around 300 million tobacco-related deaths in this century. (Roser and Roser). A flaw in the product design of the cigarette has resulted in half of its long-term users dying from their use. It’s designed to be addictive, too. Tobacco companies in the United States have the authority to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes to non-compensable, non-addictive levels. It is within the FDA’s jurisdiction. Denicotinized cigarettes were already on the market in the nineteenth century, and the water-based nicotine alkaloid is easy to produce. When Philip Morris first started making Next cigarettes in the 1980s, they used supercritical fluid extraction techniques to reduce nicotine levels by 97%, which would be required to make a cigarette with just 0.1% nicotine, down from the current values of around 2% (Havermans et al.). Keeping in mind that the amount of nicotine in the rod is more important than how much a person consumes.

Cigarettes are intended to produce smoke that can be inhaled is another flaw. Before the seventeenth century, tobacco smoke was seldom breathed due to its harshness and alkalinity (Baron 1). A way of heating the raw tobacco leaf during the fermentation process to preserve its naturally existing sugars, flue-curing, was only discovered after the invention of smoking. Inhaling smoke with a lower pH is easier because of the acids produced when sugars are burned. Ironically, these supposedly milder cigarettes were much more dangerous, causing smoke to be sucked into the lungs and making them far more dangerous. Flue-cured nicotine, a manufacturing practice that can be changed at any time, is nearly solely responsible for the current global lung cancer epidemic. There should be a significant reduction in the amount of nicotine in the rods, but no cigarette should be supplied with a smoke pH lower than 8.5. The health of the public will be better served by these two new laws than by any other legislation.

Alternatively, it could be argued that the tobacco industry is a major source of corruption in society. By funding “decoy” or “distraction studies,” big tobacco has distorted scientific research. As a result, newspapers and magazines that rely on tobacco advertising for revenue have been hesitant to print critical articles on cigarettes. As a result of Philip Morris’ bribery of its insurance provider (CIGNA), the corporation polluted even its workforce’s information environment. Even the US president and military have been subjected to cigarette firms’ exploitation and coercion, as have the American Medical Association, the American Law Institute, several sports leagues, firefighting organizations, and the Hollywood industry. President Lyndon Johnson refused to approve the 1964 Surgeon General’s report for political reasons. US Navy attempts to go smoke-free were scuppered by cigarette manufacturers. Tobacco-friendly politicians were persuaded to thwart the Navy’s goal of having a smoke-free Navy by 2000 in 1986, and regulation was enacted requiring all ships to sell cigarettes and allow smoking. American submarines didn’t go smoke-free until 2011, as a result.

In contrast, smoking cigarettes is a major environmental polluter. Pesticide use and deforestation are both harmful to the environment when it comes to producing cigarette products because of their use in growing and curing and rolling, and flavoring (Leung and Don 1). Several square miles of savannah woods are burned each year to produce the charcoal needed to cure flues. A large amount of greenhouse gas emissions is also produced by the curing and transportation of cigarette goods and the careless disposal of butts. Adding insult to injury, the tobacco industry has generously supported those who reject man-made climate change even further. Even in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, the easy-to-avoid cause of the catastrophe, cigarettes, are mostly overlooked.

Any proposal for a ban is likely to be criticized for increasing smuggling or even organized crime. That, however, is akin to blaming criminals with large wallets for their crimes. For reasons including price discrepancies and cigarette makers’ tolerance for contraband, tobacco smuggling is already widespread in the industry. In contrast to alcohol prohibition, when drinking was viewed as a more recreational substance, the demand for illegal drugs is expected to decline after the addicts overcome their dependency. In the end, smoking will not be eliminated by a prohibition on the sale of cigarettes since individuals should cultivate their own for personal use. Instead of criminalizing the possession, it’s time to put a stop to sales. As a result, in a liberal society, enforcement should be of secondary importance. On the other hand, smoking a cigarette is not a celebration of freedom but rather a theft of that freedom. People are putting corporations at a disadvantage by portraying themselves as defenders of freedom. Smoking poses a threat to individual liberties, and as a result, it should be discouraged.

Prohibitions are dismissed as impractical or totalitarian by the industry, which has been the case for many years. On the other hand, the freedom argument falls short when taking into account how individuals experience addiction. For most smokers, the only reason they ‘enjoy’ smoking is to stave off nicotine withdrawal symptoms; they need it to feel normal. Cigarette “enjoyers,” those who profess a love for the product, are an extremely rare breed. A majority of smokers want to stop but are unable to; many often regret starting the habit. It’s been known for a long time. In spite of product control, price, denormalization, and “smoke-free” laws aimed at reducing or eliminating cigarette usage, it is achievable. Even now, certain counties still ban the sale of alcohol, just as some municipalities did in the 1930s.

Cigarettes have been the most harmful invention in human history. Because of this, it is a huge financial and political drain, a contributor to both climate change denial as well as global warming itself, and a costly burden on cash-strapped nations alike. For decades, tobacco firms have said that if their products are shown to be dangerous, they would cease production. Since cigarettes have no recreational value, banning their sale is the best way to prevent people from smoking in the first place. Generally speaking, small towns and localities have the ability to outlaw the selling of cigarettes fairly instantly. The world’s leading cause of death and respiratory illness can be eliminated if people realize they have more power than they think.

Works Cited

Baron, Yves Muscat. “Incidence and Case-Fatality Ratio of COVID-19 infection in relation to Tobacco Smoking, Population Density and Age Demographics in the USA: could Particulate Matter derived from Tobacco Smoking act as a Vector for COVID-19 transmission?.” medRxiv (2020).

Havermans, Anne et al. Feasibility of Manufacturing Tobacco with Very Low Nicotine Levels. Tobacco Regulatory Science, Volume 6, Number 6, November 2020, pp. 405-415(11).

Leung, Janice M., and Don D. Sin. “Smoking, ACE-2 and COVID-19: ongoing controversies.” European Respiratory Journal 56.1 (2020).

Recher, Vedran. “Tobacco smuggling in the Western Balkan region: Exploring habits, attitudes, and predictors of illegal tobacco demand.” Radni materijali EIZ-a 1 (2019): 1-24.

Ritchie, Hannah and Roser, Max. Smoking. OurWorldInData.org . (2021). Web.

World Health Organization. Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, December 9). Why Should Smoking Be Illegal? https://studycorgi.com/why-should-smoking-be-illegal/

"Why Should Smoking Be Illegal?" StudyCorgi , 9 Dec. 2022, studycorgi.com/why-should-smoking-be-illegal/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Why Should Smoking Be Illegal'. 9 December.

1. StudyCorgi . "Why Should Smoking Be Illegal?" December 9, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/why-should-smoking-be-illegal/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Why Should Smoking Be Illegal?" December 9, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/why-should-smoking-be-illegal/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Why Should Smoking Be Illegal?" December 9, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/why-should-smoking-be-illegal/.

This paper, “Why Should Smoking Be Illegal?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: December 9, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Tobacco Should Be Made Illegal, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 632

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

In the recent years, the legality of tobacco smoking has been a contentious issue. Several parties have raised eyebrows on the implication and the consequences of banning its use. As such, the following essay seeks to establish some of the arguments relating to tobacco smoking. First, the paper introduces the negative effects associated with its smoking before considering the arguments presented by its proponents. In a broader view, the benefits associated with the tobacco smoking are much less as compared to its disadvantages and its use should be declared illegal (Dresser 700).

Whenever tobacco is mentioned, smoking emerges in various manners. According to the scientific research carried out on the impact of smoking to an individual, it has been revealed that most respiratory diseases are caused by smoking. Smoking also causes strokes and heart attacks. When one begins to smoke at a tender age, he or she may experience early signs of heart disease as the building up of fatty deposits in the arteries reduces the efficient flow of blood. In addition, serious ailment that can lead to death from smoking is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This define all the diseases associated with respiratory disorders namely emphysema and chronic bronchitis. The openings and tissues of the lungs are destroyed which make the process of inhalation difficult. People having such problems often encounter shortness in breath, aching chest, inherent coughing, and fatigue. Most smokers suffer from the craving of carcinogenic substances making them want to smoke every time. This behavior makes them to care less concerning other’s who are allergic to carcinogenic substances others as they may begin smoking even in public places hence a conflict (Haustein and Groneberg 72).

The environmentalists have also been concerned with the common and risky behavior of smokers who after smoking throw remains anywhere. When cigarette butts are discarded while still smoldering, they cause bushfires and destroy large chunks of flora and fauna. Evidently, the areas littered by the cigar butts have interfered with the aesthetic value and the eventual harm of birds and other wild animals. The litter of the cigarette butts increases the cost of cleaning the area, which has an economic implication (Dresser 703).

When a society looses an individual through death caused by smoking, it has an impact on the economy. The loss of human resource affects the economy as the sphere where the person was working misses his services. The cost incurred in treating smoke-related diseases transfer the money into an area that could be avoided, and the funds could have been instead used to build a country’s economy. Tobacco has been criticized in many spheres, and the economists have had a point to defend it on its impact to the economy. Employment opportunity provided by tobacco to farmers, manufactures, and entrepreneurs have been immense hence boosting the economy. Additionally, a lot of money is wasted in mobilizing social organization and groups to educate the public on the dangers of this drug. Such money could have been used by the federal government in development expenditure. This obviously has negative impacts on the economy of a country (Haustein and Groneberg 78).

In conclusion, it is evidently clear that the economic value that use of tobacco bears is far much less than its negative implications. Considering that it is a leading cause of chronic and respiratory diseases, most people using it end up spending much money in the treatment of such diseases. Therefore, tobacco use should be illegalized because it causes more harm than benefit to the society.

Dresser, Cherry, et al. A Clash Of Rights: Should Smoking Tobacco Products In Public Places Be Legally Banned. The Annals of thoracic surgery (impact factor : 3.64). 10/2008; 86(3):699-707. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.04.108

Haustein, Knut-Olaf and Groneberg, David. Tobacco or Health: Physiological and Social Damages Caused by Tobacco . London: Springer, 2009. Print

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

A Business Failure, Essay Example

Subjective Health, Assessment Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Cigarettes Should be Illegal – Argumentative Essay

One of the biggest and most challenging health concerns in our society is smoking. Smoking is not a new activity. This practice has been around for ages in different forms. Smoking is presently the foremost cause of death in the world, due to its damaging and addicting substances, such as nicotine and tobacco. Even though millions die from it each year, smoking is the single most avoidable cause of death as well. Without smoking, a great amount of money and lives will be saved. Bans on items like tobacco are difficult to implement, and usually, do not stop all activity. Illegal selling of cigarettes is likely to follow a ban, if not imposed correctly. Cigarette smoking is the source of several health issues, it also includes lethal cancers.  The habit-forming nature makes it a tough task to stay away from once it has been experienced. This is made particularly testing when smoking is attempted at a young age. Evolving and impressionable minds often form addictions faster.

Currently, a cigarette manufacturing machine can use up to 3.7 miles of paper an hour. Tobacco crop uses additional important nutrients than many other harvests, degrading the soil. Probably the most influence of a cigarette on the environment is the making of them. The land used to grow tobacco crops could be put to healthier use by planting more trees or food production. Huge quantities of pesticides, fertilizer and herbicides are used on tobacco crops. Cigarette butts also do a lot of damage as actually they are often made from a form of plastic. The polymer acetate filters consist of thousands of strands that can take up to 15-25 years to dissolve. The dregs from tobacco in the butts also discharge pollutants into the atmosphere. Trillions of butts are discarded each year. These cigarette butts then make their way inside the stomachs of birds and fishes. It is awful to know that some of the fishes that we have consumed may have been tainted by cigarette butts.

Main reasons why cigarette smoking should be banned Pollution Cigarettes add to pollutions every day as people smoke them and release toxins into the air. Our air is already wanting in good quality. This is only increasing the problem. Global warming has become the main problem because of the solid inflow of toxins into our air. We also want plants to help filter our air and produce purified clean air to breathe. The air around us is also needed by plants to breathe. Crops grown by farmers in contaminated air, do not give the top nourishment for our bodies. Polluted air and soil is the root cause of these issues.

Cancer Cancer is the usual result for those that smoke for many long years. Probabilities of escaping cancer are better instantly after giving up the habit. However, the damage to the lungs can be substantial. There are many losses that turn around advanced lung cancer. The lungs of these patients are frequently studied to understand how much damage has happened. They are mostly found to be totally black in colour, like the inside of a fireplace. The smoking of cigarettes can also lead to cancers of the mouth and throat. The smoke that constantly passes down the lungs harms the delicate tissues of the respiratory tract. There is, therefore, no purpose to permit the usage of a product that is killing people.

The rise of cancer is in many forms. Lung cancer can even happen after the habit of smoking ends. It takes time for the cells to heal themselves once they have been mutilated. Smokers very often regret the decision to try cigarettes when cancer is the diagnosis. Others may be angry after being exposed to unprotected second-hand smoke.

Children Children are at great danger from cigarette smoking. Those children whose Parents smokes regularly are susceptible to this poison, every day. Young kids that are still growing can be especially vulnerable to the bad effects of cigarette smoke. Children can also without difficulty become hooked when they live in the home with a smoker.

Children that are wide open to cigarette smoke before they are even born can have many problems right away. Pregnant women, who smoke cigarettes, put their newborn babies at danger for prematurity and low birth weight. Pregnant women smoking during and after pregnancy are at risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Smoking can expose a baby to harmful substances like nicotine, carbon monoxide and tar. Children with smoking parents are often ignorant of the concerns until they start school and learn about the dangers.

The recent laws forbid smoking in the car with children. This is a gigantic step towards shielding children from grown-ups with bad habits. Children that are open to cigarette smoke at an early stage in their life, often suffer from respiratory problems. This can include chronic disease like asthma. The pollutants from smoke settle down into the hair, clothes, and furniture of smokers. Even if a smoker selects to smoke only outside and away from children, the toxins from the cigarettes still make their way to children in the home.

Smoking is a nauseating habit that puts people’s lives at risk. The health concerns have been identified for many years, yet the habit-forming nature of cigarettes has stayed put. It may benefit to ban cigarettes since some people do not have the willpower to fight the problem on their own. A ban holds people responsible for their actions when it comes to illegal substances. Nicotine may not damage cognitive skills in the same way that drugs and alcohol do. However, they do affect vast long-term health matters. Smokers also suffer publicly, socially and not just physically. Cigarette smoking culminates to governing the lives of those who become addicted. Many residential complexes do not want smokers, as the cleaning is difficult when they move out. It is very difficult to totally eliminate the smell as the smell penetrates the walls and carpets deeply.

Unfortunately, smokers are at danger of losing their lives from huge health concerns. Smaller illnesses, like asthma, can also be challenging on the person. Lung cancer is often terminal and can lead to a heart-breaking loss for family and friends. Many people may try to support smoker mend, without any positive result. A ban on smoking may assist to curb pollution, keep children safe and healthy, and leave fewer people lonely. Any kind of addiction can inflict destruction in the lives of the addicts and those close to them.

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

200+ Persuasive Essay Topics to Help You Out

Learn How to Create a Persuasive Essay Outline

30+ Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Learn to Write Persuasive Essay About Business With Examples and Tips

Check Out 12 Persuasive Essay About Online Education Examples

Are you wondering how to write your next persuasive essay about smoking?

Smoking has been one of the most controversial topics in our society for years. It is associated with many health risks and can be seen as a danger to both individuals and communities.

Writing an effective persuasive essay about smoking can help sway public opinion. It can also encourage people to make healthier choices and stop smoking. 

But where do you begin?

In this blog, we’ll provide some examples to get you started. So read on to get inspired!

• 1. What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay
• 2. Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking
• 3. Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples
• 4. Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay

A persuasive essay is a type of writing that aims to convince its readers to take a certain stance or action. It often uses logical arguments and evidence to back up its argument in order to persuade readers.

It also utilizes rhetorical techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make the argument more convincing. In other words, persuasive essays use facts and evidence as well as emotion to make their points.

A persuasive essay about smoking would use these techniques to convince its readers about any point about smoking. Check out an example below:

Simple persuasive essay about smoking

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. It leads to adverse health effects, including lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the respiratory tract. However, the number of people who smoke cigarettes has been on the rise globally.

A lot has been written on topics related to the effects of smoking. Reading essays about it can help you get an idea of what makes a good persuasive essay.

Here are some sample persuasive essays about smoking that you can use as inspiration for your own writing:

Persuasive speech on smoking outline

Persuasive essay about smoking should be banned

Persuasive essay about smoking pdf

Persuasive essay about smoking cannot relieve stress

Persuasive essay about smoking in public places

Speech about smoking is dangerous

Persuasive Essay About Smoking Introduction

Persuasive Essay About Stop Smoking

Short Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Stop Smoking Persuasive Speech

Check out some more persuasive essay examples on various other topics.

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that uses facts and logical arguments to back up a point. It is similar to a persuasive essay but differs in that it utilizes more evidence than emotion.

If you’re looking to write an argumentative essay about smoking, here are some examples to get you started on the arguments of why you should not smoke.

Argumentative essay about smoking pdf

Argumentative essay about smoking in public places

Argumentative essay about smoking introduction

Check out the video below to find useful arguments against smoking:

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

You have read some examples of persuasive and argumentative essays about smoking. Now here are some tips that will help you craft a powerful essay on this topic.

Choose a Specific Angle

Select a particular perspective on the issue that you can use to form your argument. When talking about smoking, you can focus on any aspect such as the health risks, economic costs, or environmental impact.

Think about how you want to approach the topic. For instance, you could write about why smoking should be banned. 

Check out the list of persuasive essay topics to help you while you are thinking of an angle to choose!

Research the Facts

Before writing your essay, make sure to research the facts about smoking. This will give you reliable information to use in your arguments and evidence for why people should avoid smoking.

You can find and use credible data and information from reputable sources such as government websites, health organizations, and scientific studies. 

For instance, you should gather facts about health issues and negative effects of tobacco if arguing against smoking. Moreover, you should use and cite sources carefully.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Make an Outline

The next step is to create an outline for your essay. This will help you organize your thoughts and make sure that all the points in your essay flow together logically.

Your outline should include the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. This will help ensure that your essay has a clear structure and argument.

Use Persuasive Language

When writing your essay, make sure to use persuasive language such as “it is necessary” or “people must be aware”. This will help you convey your message more effectively and emphasize the importance of your point.

Also, don’t forget to use rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make your arguments more convincing. That is, you should incorporate emotion, personal experience, and logic into your arguments.

Introduce Opposing Arguments

Another important tip when writing a persuasive essay on smoking is to introduce opposing arguments. It will show that you are aware of the counterarguments and can provide evidence to refute them. This will help you strengthen your argument.

By doing this, your essay will come off as more balanced and objective, making it more convincing.

Finish Strong

Finally, make sure to finish your essay with a powerful conclusion. This will help you leave a lasting impression on your readers and reinforce the main points of your argument. You can end by summarizing the key points or giving some advice to the reader.

A powerful conclusion could either include food for thought or a call to action. So be sure to use persuasive language and make your conclusion strong.

To conclude,

By following these tips, you can write an effective and persuasive essay on smoking. Remember to research the facts, make an outline, and use persuasive language.

However, don't stress if you need expert help to write your essay! Our professional essay writing service is here for you!

Our persuasive essay writing service is fast, affordable, and trustworthy. 

Try it out today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Top Streams

• Data Science Courses in USA
• Business Analytics Courses in USA
• Engineering Courses in USA
• Tax Courses in USA
• Healthcare Courses in USA
• Language Courses in USA
• Insurance Courses in USA
• Digital Marketing Courses in USA

Top Specialization

• Masters in Data Analytics in USA
• Masters in Mechanical Engineering in USA
• Masters in Supply Chain Management in USA
• Masters in Computer Science in USA
• MBA in Finance in USA
• Masters in Architecture in USA

Top Universities

• Cornell University
• Yale University
• Princeton University
• University of California Los Angeles
• University of Harvard
• Stanford University
• Arizona State University
• Northeastern University
• Project Management Courses in Australia
• Accounting Courses in Australia
• Medical Courses in Australia
• Psychology Courses in Australia
• Interior Designing Courses in Australia
• Pharmacy Courses in Australia
• Social Work Courses in Australia
• MBA in Australia
• Masters in Education in Australia
• Masters in Pharmacy in Australia
• Masters in Information Technology in Australia
• BBA in Australia
• Masters in Teaching in Australia
• Masters in Psychology in Australia
• University of Melbourne
• Deakin University
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Monash University
• University of Sydney
• University of Queensland
• RMIT University
• Macquarie University
• Data Science Courses in Canada
• Business Management Courses in Canada
• Supply Chain Management Courses in Canada
• Project Management Courses in Canada
• Business Analytics Courses in Canada
• Hotel Management Courses in Canada
• MBA in Canada
• MS in Canada
• Masters in Computer Science in Canada
• Masters in Management in Canada
• Masters in Psychology in Canada
• Masters in Education in Canada
• MBA in Finance in Canada
• Masters in Business Analytics in Canada
• University of Toronto
• University of British Columbia
• McGill University
• University of Alberta
• York University
• University of Calgary
• Algoma University
• University Canada West
• Project Management Courses in UK
• Data Science Courses in UK
• Public Health Courses in UK
• Digital Marketing Courses in UK
• Hotel Management Courses in UK
• Nursing Courses in UK
• Medicine Courses in UK
• Interior Designing Courses in UK
• Masters in Computer Science in UK
• Masters in Psychology in UK
• MBA in Finance in UK

MBA in Healthcare Management in UK

• Masters in Education in UK
• Masters in Marketing in UK
• MBA in HR in UK
• University of Oxford
• University of Cambridge
• Coventry University
• University of East London
• University of Hertfordshire
• University of Birmingham
• Imperial College London
• University of Glasgow

Top Resources

• Universities in Germany
• Study in Germany
• Masters in Germany
• Courses in Germany
• Bachelors in Germany
• Germany Job Seeker Visa
• Cost of Living in Germany

Best Universities in Germany

Top courses.

• Masters in Data Science in Germany
• MS in Computer Science in Germany
• Marine Engineering in Germany
• MS Courses in Germany
• Masters in Psychology in Germany
• Hotel Management Courses in Germany
• Masters in Economics in Germany
• Paramedical Courses in Germany
• Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
• University of Bonn
• University of Freiburg
• University of Hamburg
• University of Stuttgart
• Saarland University
• Mannheim University
• MBA in Ireland
• Phd in Ireland
• Masters in Computer Science Ireland
• Cyber Security in Ireland
• Masters in Data Analytics Ireland
• Ms in Data Science in Ireland
• Pharmacy courses in ireland
• Business Analytics Course in Ireland
• Universities in Ireland
• Study in Ireland
• Masters in Ireland
• Courses in Ireland
• Bachelors in Ireland
• Cost of Living in Ireland
• Ireland Student Visa
• Part Time Jobs in Ireland
• Trinity College Dublin
• University College Dublin
• Dublin City University
• University of Limerick
• Dublin Business School
• Maynooth University
• University College Cork
• National College of Ireland

Colleges & Courses

• Masters in France
• Phd in France
• Study Medicine in France
• Best Universities in Frankfurt
• Best Architecture Colleges in France
• ESIGELEC France
• Study in France for Indian Students
• Intakes in France
• SOP for France Visa
• Study in France from India
• Reasons to Study in France
• How to Settle in France

More About France

• Cost of Living in France
• France Study Visa
• Cost of Living in Frankfurt
• France Scholarship for Indian Students
• Part Time Jobs in France
• Stay Back in France After Masters

About Finland

• Universities in Finland
• Study in Finland
• Courses in Finland
• Bachelor Courses in Finland
• Masters Courses in Finland
• Cost of Living in Finland
• MS in Finland
• Average Fees in Finland Universities
• PhD in Finland
• Bachelor Degree in Medicine & Surgery
• MBBS Courses in Georgia
• MBBS Courses in Russia
• Alte University
• Caucasus University
• Georgian National University SEU
• David Tvildiani Medical University
• Caspian International School Of Medicine
• Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University
• Kyrgyz State Medical Academy
• Cremeia Federal University
• Bashkir State Medical University
• Kursk State Medical University
• Andijan State Medical Institute
• IELTS Syllabus
• IELTS Prepration
• IELTS Eligibility
• IELTS Test Format
• IELTS Band Descriptors
• IELTS Speaking test
• IELTS Writing Task 1
• IELTS score validity
• IELTS Cue Card

IELTS Reading Answers Sample

• Animal Camouflage
• Types Of Societies
• Australia Convict Colonies
• A Spark A Flint
• Emigration To The Us
• The History Of Salt
• Zoo Conservation Programmes
• The Robots Are Coming
• The Development Of Plastic

IELTS Speaking Cue Card Sample

• Describe A Puzzle You Have Played
• Describe A Long Walk You Ever Had
• Describe Your Favourite Movie
• Describe A Difficult Thing You did
• Describe A Businessman You Admire
• Memorable Day in My Life
• Describe Your Dream House
• Describe A Bag You Want to Own
• Describe a Famous Athlete You Know
• Aquatic Animal

IELTS Essay Sample Sample

• Best Education System
• IELTS Opinion Essay
• Agree or Disagree Essay
• Problem Solution Essays
• Essay on Space Exploration
• Essay On Historical Places
• Essay Writing Samples
• Tourism Essay
• Global Warming Essay
• GRE Exam Fees
• GRE Exam Syllabus
• GRE Exam Eligibility
• Sections in GRE Exam
• GRE Exam Benefits
• GRE Exam Results
• GRE Cutoff for US Universities
• GRE Preparation
• Send GRE scores to Universities

GRE Exam Study Material

• GRE Verbal Preparation
• GRE Study Material
• GRE AWA Essays
• GRE Sample Issue Essays
• Stanford University GRE Cutoff
• Harvard University GRE Cutoff
• GRE Quantitative Reasoning
• GRE Verbal Reasoning
• GRE Reading Comprehension
• Prepare for GRE in 2 months

Other Resources

• Documents Required For Gre Exam
• GRE Exam Duration
• GRE at Home
• GRE vs GMAT
• Improve GRE Verbal Scores

Free GRE Ebooks

• GRE Preparation Guide (Free PDF)
• GRE Syllabus (Free PDF)
• GMAT Eligibility
• GMAT Syllabus
• GMAT Exam Dates
• GMAT Registration
• GMAT Exam Fees
• GMAT Sections
• GMAT Purpose

GMAT Exam Study Material

• How to prepare for GMAT?
• GMAT Score Validity
• GMAT Preparation Books
• GMAT Preparation
• GMAT Exam Duration
• GMAT Score for Harvard
• GMAT Reading Comprehension
• GMAT Retake Strategy

Free GMAT Ebooks

• GMAT Guide PDF
• Download GMAT Syllabus PDF
• TOEFL Exam Registration
• TOEFL Exam Eligibility
• TOEFL Exam Pattern
• TOEFL Exam Preparation
• TOEFL Exam Tips
• TOEFL Exam Dates
• Documents for TOEFL Exam
• TOEFL Exam Fee

TOEFL Exam Study Material

• TOEFL Preparation Books
• TOEFL Speaking Section
• TOEFL Score and Results
• TOEFL Writing Section
• TOEFL Reading Section
• TOEFL Listening Section
• TOEFL Vocabulary
• Types of Essays in TOEFL

Free TOEFL Ebooks

• TOEFL Exam Guide (Free PDF)
• PTE Exam Dates
• PTE Exam Syllabus
• PTE Exam Eligibility Criteria
• PTE Test Centers in India
• PTE Exam Pattern
• PTE Exam Fees
• PTE Exam Duration
• PTE Exam Registration

PTE Exam Study Material

• PTE Exam Preparation
• PTE Speaking Test
• PTE Reading Test
• PTE Listening Test
• PTE Writing Test
• PTE Essay Writing
• PTE exam for Australia

Free PTE Ebooks

• PTE Syllabus (Free PDF)
• Duolingo Exam
• Duolingo Test Eligibility
• Duolingo Exam Pattern
• Duolingo Exam Fees
• Duolingo Test Validity
• Duolingo Syllabus
• Duolingo Preparation

Duolingo Exam Study Material

• Duolingo Exam Dates
• Duolingo Test Score
• Duolingo Test Results
• Duolingo Test Booking

Free Duolingo Ebooks

• Duolingo Guide (Free PDF)
• Duolingo Test Pattern (Free PDF)

NEET & MCAT Exam

• NEET Study Material
• NEET Preparation
• MCAT Eligibility
• MCAT Preparation

SAT & ACT Exam

• ACT Eligibility
• ACT Exam Dates
• SAT Syllabus
• SAT Exam Pattern
• SAT Exam Eligibility

USMLE & OET Exam

• USMLE Syllabus
• USMLE Preparation
• USMLE Step 1
• OET Syllabus
• OET Eligibility
• OET Prepration

PLAB & LSAT Exam

• PLAB Exam Syllabus
• PLAB Exam Fees
• LSAT Eligibility
• LSAT Registration
• TOEIC Result
• Study Guide

Application Process

• LOR for Masters
• SOP Samples for MS
• LOR for Phd
• SOP for Internship
• SOP for Phd
• Check Visa Status
• Motivation Letter Format
• Motivation Letter for Internship
• F1 Visa Documents Checklist

Career Prospects

• Popular Courses after Bcom in Abroad
• Part Time Jobs in Australia
• Part Time Jobs in USA
• Salary after MS in Germany
• Salary after MBA in Canada
• Average Salary in Singapore
• Higher Studies after MBA in Abroad
• Study in Canada after 12th

Trending Topics

• Best Education System in World
• Best Flying Schools in World
• Top Free Education Countries
• Best Countries to Migrate from India
• 1 Year PG Diploma Courses in Canada
• Canada Vs India
• Germany Post Study Work Visa
• Post Study Visa in USA
• Data Science Vs Data Analytics
• Public Vs Private Universities in Germany
• Universities Vs Colleges
• Difference Between GPA and CGPA
• Undergraduate Vs Graduate
• MBA in UK Vs MBA in USA
• Degree Vs Diploma in Canada
• IELTS vs TOEFL
• Duolingo English Test vs. IELTS
• Why Study in Canada
• Cost of Living in Canada
• Education System in Canada
• SOP for Canada
• Summer Intake in Canada
• Spring Intake in Canada
• Winter Intake in Canada
• Accommodation in Canada for Students
• Average Salary in Canada
• Fully Funded Scholarships in Canada
• Why Study in USA
• Cost of Studying in USA
• Spring Intake in USA
• Winter Intake in USA
• Summer Intake in USA
• STEM Courses in USA
• Scholarships for MS in USA
• Acceptable Study Gap in USA
• Interesting Facts about USA
• Free USA course
• Why Study in UK
• Cost of Living in UK
• Cost of Studying in UK
• Education System in UK
• Summer Intake in UK
• Spring Intake in UK
• Student Visa for UK
• Accommodation in UK for Students
• Scholarships in UK
• Why Study in Germany
• Cost of Studying in Germany
• Education System in Germany
• SOP for Germany
• Summer Intake in Germany
• Winter Intake in Germany
• Study Visa for Germany
• Accommodation in Germany for Students
• Free Education in Germany

Country Guides

• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in USA
• Study in Australia
• SOP Samples for Canada Student Visa
• US F1 Visa Guide for Aspirants

Exams Guides

• Duolingo Test Pattern

Recommended Reads

• Fully Funded Masters Guide
• SOP Samples For Australia
• Scholarships for Canada
• Data Science Guide
• SOP for MS in Computer Science
• Study Abroad Exams
• Alumni Connect
• Booster Program
• Scholarship

GPA CALCULATOR Convert percentage marks to GPA effortlessly with our calculator!

Expense calculator plan your study abroad expenses with our comprehensive calculator, ielts band calculator estimate your ielts band score with our accurate calculator, education loan calculator discover your eligible loan amount limit with our education calculator, university partner explore growth and opportunities with our university partnership, accommodation discover your perfect study abroad accommodation here, experience-center discover our offline centers for a personalized experience, our offices visit us for expert study abroad counseling..

• 18002102030
• Study Abroad

Should Smoking Be Banned In Public Places Essay - Samples and Tips for IELTS

• IELTS Preparation
• IELTS E-Books
• IELTS Registration
• IELTS Exam Fee
• IELTS Exam Dates 2024
• Documents Required
• IELTS Test Centers
• Test Format
• Band Descriptors
• IELTS Speaking Test
• General Reading Test
• General Writing Task
• IELTS Coaching
• Types of Essays
• IELTS for Australia
• IELTS Results
• Generation Gap Essay
• GPA Calculator
• Study Abroad Consultant In India
• Study Visa Consultants in India

Updated on 23 May, 2024

Anupriya Mukherjee

Sr. content writer.

If studying abroad is next on your list, then knowing about popular English proficiency tests would be prudent. IELTS, or the International English Language Language Testing System, is one of the most popular and standardized tests for measuring non-native English speakers' English language proficiency.  The IELTS writing section has two tasks, and Task 2 is an essay writing question

Here, an essay topic will be given and you need to write an essay in response. So, you should know about the popular essays that have come in the past. Should smoking be banned in public places? An essay has been asked multiple times in the IELTS writing test over the years.

Banning smoking in public places is an issue that must be taken up with the utmost urgency. With the increasing risks of passive smoking, the prohibition of smoking with regard to public health benefits is the need of the hour. Thus, you should practice common topics related to general and controversial issues. The relevant essay questions may change, but the main topic often remains the same. 

You must develop ideas and provide relevant examples to write a winning essay on whether smoking should be banned in public places. The essay writing module is a challenging task and needs thorough preparation. Let us take a look at some of the ways smoking should be banned in public places: IELTS essay samples and some tips to ace the task.

Table of Contents

Sample essay:, download e-books for ielts preparation, download ielts sample papers.

• Tips to Write a Winning IELTS Essay on 'Should Smoking be Banned in Public Places'

Health Implications

Banning of smoking in public places, learn more about study abroad, popular study abroad destinations, sample 1 on should smoking be banned in public places essay.

Some say 'smoking in public areas should be banned' while others go against the ban. Discuss both sides and give your opinion. 

Tip : It is an opinion-based topic. Here, both sides need to be discussed, and finally, the opinion of the test-taker should be discussed. 

Smoking is quite common among the younger generations today. But it has detrimental health impacts on both the smoker and any other person who inhales the smoke. The idea that 'smoking in public should be banned, is supported as well as opposed by many people. I believe smoking in public cannot be completely banned, but there can be a middle path. 

There are convincing arguments in favor of the ban because smoking ultimately leads to serious health crises. Supporters of the ban have various reasons to state. 

Firstly, smoking is injurious to health. The main cause of lung cancer is smoking tobacco. Active smokers also suffer from other diseases like tuberculosis and heart problems. The symptoms may take time to show up, but it eventually leads to a major crisis. It does not affect only the smoker but also the people around the smoker. Both active and passive smokers can fall ill, and this calls for huge support for a blanket ban on smoking in public places. 

Secondly, smoking is an addiction that influences non-smokers, too. Anything that becomes an addiction is not at all safe, and it tends to spread quickly. Peer and colleague group influences are very common in forming smoking habits. It is very easy to pick up smoking when one stays among smokers for long. People spend plenty of time in public areas. Hence, smoking should be banned in public areas to avoid such negative influences. 

Lastly, non-smokers feel very stressed when among smokers. It becomes difficult for pregnant women, senior citizens, and children, to adjust to an environment that is filled with cigarette smoke. It irritates non-smokers of various age groups. Smoking in public should be banned as it leads to annoyance to a large extent.  

Nevertheless, some people oppose this ban too.

Firstly, they are unhappy about giving away their rights to smoke. They believe that such a ban would make them feel deprived of their individual rights. 

Secondly, people against the ban on smoking in public areas say that cigarettes are sold and advertised publicly, and banning them will not make any difference. “Why can’t the government ban cigarettes completely if smoking in public is not allowed?”

Thirdly, they argue on terms like it becomes difficult to give up due to addiction. There are many incidents where severe health conditions are reported by active smokers, due to nicotine withdrawal. It is not easy to give up on smoking if someone does it regularly. 

Fourthly, it will be an expensive affair to ban public smoking and impose new rules. Hence, they feel that the best solution is to keep active smokers separated from the general public. 

Considering both sides of the argument, I feel there should be designated smoking zones in public areas. The bus stands, shopping malls, restaurants, and offices must have separate smoking zones so that addicted smokers are not affected or deprived. 

Important Resources to Read:

Sample 2 on  ‘Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places IELTS Essay’

Some businesses restrict smoking inside office spaces. Do you agree or disagree with this step taken by the businesses? Give reasons for your opinion.

Tip: It is an opinion-based topic. Here, both sides need to be discussed, and finally, the opinion of the test-taker should be discussed. 

Sample essay: 

Corporate offices often see groups of individuals discussing issues while smoking. Is it a habit, or does smoking help you brainstorm? Well, for non-smokers, it should be banned, and for smokers, it is almost office culture.

Many companies, firms, and government offices have restricted smoking inside office spaces. I feel it can be addressed with some other effective measures. 

There are certain seemingly positive sides to smoking during work hours. It is believed that smoking improves concentration and helps employees relax after long meetings or completion of projects. There is constant stress regarding deadlines, appraisal, and targets at work. In such a scenario, smoking is supposed to reduce stress.

Nicotine is a stimulant and smoking during office hours might keep employees in an active and elevated mood. Some projects may demand employees to stay awake late at night and work. In such a situation, employees don't feel drowsy and sleepy due to the nicotine boost. 

Despite all these positive sides, there are alarming negative aspects too. 

Firstly, smoking is harmful to health. It is one of the main reasons behind the increasing number of lung cancer cases globally. Diseases like tuberculosis and various cardiovascular health issues are caused by prolonged smoking habits. It does not only affect the smoker but also the people who spend time around smokers. Passive smokers face detrimental impacts too when they come in contact with smokers. 

Secondly, the non-smokers feel uncomfortable in public spaces filled with cigarette smoke. It causes them stress. It is also very annoying, particularly for pregnant women and senior citizens in the office areas.

The debate between smokers and non-smokers can stop only when the authorities plan something fruitful. A strict ban on smoking will do no good. It will instill a sense of anger and disappointment among smokers if their rights are taken away suddenly. Similarly, the health impact of passive smokers cannot be ignored. In my opinion, office spaces and public areas should have separate smoking zones. This way, non-smokers will not have any problems and smokers can also relax.

You Can Also Read Sample Questions and Answers For The IELTS Passage: G reen Wave Washes Over Mainstream Shopping

Recommended Reads:

Tips to Write a Winning IELTS Essay on 'Should Smoking be Banned in Public Places'

• The time allotted for the task 2 essay is 40 minutes and no extra time is allowed.
• The minimum word limit for an essay is 250 words but there is no upper word limit. It is recommended to write a little more than the prescribed limit. 
• Organize the entire essay in 3 parts, introduction, body, and conclusion. In the introduction is a clear overview of the entire topic. The body analyzes facts, and the conclusion should contain opinions and sum up points.
• Paraphrasing is important. It increases the readability of the essay.
• Write short, crisp, and to-the-point sentences. Refrain from writing complicated and lengthy sentences.
• Answer all the parts of the questions. Refer to the first sample below, which has three parts - 

1. Agree in favor of why smoking should be banned 

2. Disagree in context to why smoking should not be banned 

3. Your own opinion.

• If you are using any facts or statistical data, you need to be sure about them.
• Idioms make your write-up colorful and accurate. You need to know them well before you use them.
• Use collocations wherever needed. Use connectors and linking words but do not stuff them unnecessarily. 
• Be careful about the punctuation.
• Present all your ideas in the right flow. The ideas, concepts, and experiences should be relevant to the topic.
• Maintain a semi-formal tone. Do not use any informal and personal phrases.
• Proofread your essay once you are done with the writing. This will help you scan mistakes in your essay.
• When you practice a particular topic, you must focus on learning all the vocabulary related to it.
• Check spellings, you should not make spelling errors. Use only those words that you are 100% sure of. 
• Practice all kinds of essays. You can get pattern questions like advantages, disadvantages, opinions, causes and effects, causes and solutions, and direct questions. 
• The conclusion is very important. The way you sum up your opinion will matter in boosting your IELTS band. 
• Get your practice essays checked by an expert or any IELTS experienced professional you might know.

Bonus Essay Topic

Smoking has been a primary source of dopamine release for humans for a very long time. As the decades passed, the harmful effects of smoking became a concern for people. A major issue that arose was related to the health of passive smokers.

This became a reason for stirring debates on public health, individual rights, and societal welfare. Hence, “should smoking be banned in public places” - raises a great question mark among groups of smokers and non-smokers. This essay delves deep into finding the solutions behind this question, concluding what might be best for mankind.

Firstly, it cannot be denied that smoking poses a great risk to human life. Creating serious health issues and leading to major illnesses like cancer is not at all beneficial. Despite knowing its drawbacks, people prefer smoking for various reasons. However, smoking in public places often affects the health of those who do not indulge in it.

Passive smoking is a process through which non-smokers are exposed to serious health risks when they inhale smoke unknowingly from a person smoking nearby. This raises concerns regarding their individual rights and health issues.

The unwanted inhalation of harmful smoke by non-smokers due to individuals smoking in public areas raises various concerns. However, various proponents of personal freedom argue against the banning of smoking in public places. The concern raised is whether people are not free enough to make their own choices and decisions related to smoking.

This makes banning smoking in public places a more complex issue. However, if closely looked at, putting a ban on smoking in public places has a lot of advantages. Smoke-free environments promote social cohesion and make a space accessible to all. Moreover, it can also reduce the normalization of smoking in various sectors.

The ban on smoking in public places will also discourage youth from indulging in such harmful habits. Therefore, banning smoking in public places comes with a lot of advantages.

However, opponents believe that banning smoking will ultimately affect the economy of the country. Since tobacco consumption generates a major chunk of revenue in various countries, discouraging it might lead to less revenue.

Despite the multiple views of people regarding the banning of smoking, various countries have already started implementing smoking bans in public places. In countries like Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, smoke-free legislation has been established to control tobacco consumption in the country.

Therefore, banning smoking can be a major consideration on a global level for various countries. It will not only reduce health risks but also encourage individuals to quit smoking.  

It is important to practice and prepare for a winning IELTS essay. The IELTS writing task is very important as it measures the writing skills of non-native English speakers. Go through all the samples and tips on  should smoking be banned in public places essay to write well. For any assistance regarding the IELTS essays, applicants can get in touch with academic counselors of upGrad Abroad.

Also Reads:

Frequently Asked Questions

How does smoking in public places affect the environment.

Smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products in public has an adverse effect upon the environment. It leads to pollution and releases toxic air and polluting agents into the atmosphere. The cigarette butts also pile up, littering several areas and the chemicals contained in the same are toxic. When they leach into water and soil, they end up contaminating the entire ecosystem, leading to pollution of the water and soil alike. Smoking is also an irritant for others if done in public.

How does smoking affect the society & community?

Smoking has a widespread impact on the community and society at large. Smoking in public releases toxic and harmful air into the atmosphere while also contributing towards increasing the pollutant counts in the air. It also leads to contamination of the soil and water through the littering of cigarette butts.

Exposure to second-hand smoke is also physically harmful for others in public. Smoking contributes towards respiratory disorders and air pollution as well. It also enhances the risks of various ailments and fatalities in society at large.

What are the arguments for and against banning smoking in all public places?

The arguments for banning smoking in public places are the following:

• Smoking leads to air pollution and releases toxic air into the atmosphere. 
• Littering of cigarette butts leads to widespread soil and water contamination. 
• Smoking leads to serious diseases and respiratory illnesses for others owing to their exposure to second-hand smoke. 
• Smoking leads to a higher incidence of heart attacks, lung cancer and other disease which de-stabilize major chunks of communities, leading to higher healthcare costs for Governments and more strain on healthcare resources.

The arguments against banning smoking in public places are the following:

• Smoking bans do not usually have the intended effect, i.e. getting people to cut down or give up smoking.
•  It may be perceived as an infringement of the freedom and rights of citizens. 
• It will lead to lower tax revenues for Governments, limiting their public spending as a result. 
• It will not be good for several businesses either, especially in the food and beverage sector.  

Why smoking should be banned in public places ielts essay?

Smoking is a social evil that is greatly impacting the society and community at large. At the individual and organizational levels, much more needs to be done to combat the harmful incidence of rising smoking levels amongst people in multiple age groups. Smoking causes innumerable ailments and diseases, while exposing people to harmful passive smoke and pollutes the air considerably. It also contributes towards soil and air pollution. I feel that smoking should be banned in public places owing to its negative effects on entire communities.

Smoking should be banned in public places because of the pollution it creates. Firstly, it leads to the release of toxic smoke and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Secondly, littering of cigarette butts leads to soil and water contamination alike. Thirdly, people who are non-smokers, are exposed to passive smoke for no fault of theirs and contract respiratory ailments in turn. Fourthly, banning public smoking will lower the incidence of fatalities and serious disease, lowering the strain on Governmental healthcare resources and costs of the same.

Banning public smoking will also set a more positive example for the younger generations who will be less likely to pick up the habit. Hence, I firmly believe that Governments should set examples by banning public smoking and setting the tone for a healthier tomorrow.

Here are few of the trending IELTS Reading Answers:

• The Life And Work Of Marie Curie Reading Answers
• Why Pagodas Don't Fall Down
• Spoken Corpus Comes To Life Reading Answers
• Striking Back At Lightning With Lasers IELTS Reading Answers
• The Context Meaning And Scope Of Tourism Reading Answers
• A Spark A Flint IELTS Reading Answers
• The Concept Of Role Theory Reading Answers
• Micro Enterprise Credit For Street Youth Reading Answers
• When Evolution Runs Backwards IELTS
• The Impact Of Wilderness Tourism IELTS Reading Answers
• The Truth About The Environment Reading Answers
• The Politics Of Pessimism Reading Answer
• The Rocket From East To West Reading Answers
• Glass Capturing The Dance Of Light
• Population Movements And Genetics Reading Answers
• The Megafires Of California Reading Answers

What is Scholarship

Learn all about the scholarships like types of scholarships and how to get a one

Provincial Nominee Program Canada

Learn all about Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) Canada

Fulbright Scholarship

Learn about the eligibility, benefits, procedure etc about Fulbright Scholarships

Education Loan for Study Abroad

Learn about educational loans, types, amount, eligibility & more in this article.

Best Universities in Australia

Learn about best universities in Australia along with other information

SEVIS Fees for F1 Visa

Learn about SEVIS fees amount & how to pay SEVIS fee here.

Learn more about the best universities in Germany for higher education

Learn all about USMLE exam here including USMLE steps, process & more

Letter of Recommendation (LOR)

Find our all about an LOR and also how to effectively write an LOR

Best Courses After 12th Commerce in USA

Know about the best courses to study in the USA after 12th commerce.

MBA Jobs in Australia for Indians

Know about the best-paying jobs after an MBA in Australia

Best Courses After 12th Arts in USA

Know the study options in USA for Indian students after completing 12th from Arts

Narotam Sekhsaria Scholarship

Narotam Sekhsaria scholarships are available for Indian students to apply for

What is SDS and Non SDS Visa

Difference between SDS and Non-SDS visa applications, their requirements & more.

MBA in healthcare management in the UK and the scope of work after graduating.

PR in Canada

How to get Canada PR from India along with the key factors, process and cost

CRS Score Calculator

Learn more about CRS of Canada’s Express Entry program.

MBA Fees in Canada

Learn about all the costs involved in pursuing an MBA in Canada.

What to Do After BCom

Popular courses after BCom abroad that you can opt for. Read to know!

Vidya Lakshmi Education Loan

Study abroad by applying for a student loan at the Vidya Lakshmi Portal.

Study in Canada & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in Australia & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in the USA & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in Germany & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in Ireland & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Study in UK & Save up to 20 Lakhs with upGrad Abroad

Anupriya Mukherjee is a passion-driven professional working as a Content Marketer and earlier worked as a Digital Marketeer. With around 6 years of work experience, she has experience creating high-quality, engaging content for websites, blogs, news articles, video scripts, brochures, and ebooks.

Important Exams

Important resources for ielts, free study abroad counselling.

Refer Your Friend & Earn upto ₹15000

Help your friend upgrade to a Global Career and earn rewards together.

TRENDING SEARCHES

Editor's pick, other countries.

• Masters in Accounting
• MA in Communication
• Bachelors in Aviation
• BSc in Nursing
• Universities in Australia
• Masters in Australia
• La Trobe University
• MS in Australia
• University of Adelaide
• University of Melbourne Courses
• Courses in Australia
• Masters in Business Analytics in Australia
• Masters in Public Health in Australia
• Nursing Courses in Australia
• University of Windsor
• University of Manitoba
• University of Victoria
• Masters in Data Science in Canada
• Universities in Canada
• Trent University
• Masters in Canada
• Courses in Canada
• Thompson Rivers University
• Concordia University
• University of Saskatchewan
• University of West London Ranking
• Liverpool John Moores University Ranking
• Universities in UK
• Bachelors in UK
• University of Strathclyde Ranking
• University of Bristol
• Masters in UK
• De Montfort University
• Courses in UK
• University of Cambridge Courses
• University of Sussex Ranking
• University of Leicester
• University of Leicester Ranking
• Northumbria University Ranking
• Manchester Metropolitan University Ranking
• Kings College London
• University of Oxford Courses
• Queen Mary University of London
• Birmingham City University
• Queen Mary University of London Ranking
• Purdue University
• Purdue University ranking
• Saint Louis University Ranking
• Bachelors in USA
• Columbia University Ranking
• masters in computer science in usa
• DePaul University Ranking
• George Mason University ranking
• DePaul University
• Northeastern University ranking
• University of Dayton ranking
• Courses in USA
• University of South Florida ranking
• Saint Louis University
• New York University Ranking
• Masters in USA
• Universities in USA
• Pace University
• University at Buffalo
• Columbia University Acceptance Rate
• Drexel University Ranking
• University of Texas at Dallas ranking
• George Mason University
• New York University
• University of Texas at Arlington ranking
• Northeastern University acceptance rate
• Duolingo Exam Fee
• MBA In UK Without Gmat
• SAT Exam Syllabus
• CEFR Level in IELTS
• Duolingo Accepted Universities In Australia
• Usmle Test Centers In India
• Duolingo Accepted Universities In Canada
• Gre Exam Fee in India
• Minimum IELTS Score For Canada
• IELTS Speaking Scores
• IELTS Introduction Sample
• GRE Waived University In Usa
• IELTS Common Speaking Topics
• Universities in Canada Without IELTS
• 22 July IELTS Exam
• How to download IELTS Scorecard
• IELTS Band Score Chart
• Duolingo Certificate
• Gmat Syllabus
• IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics
• Duolingo vs IELTS
• Top Phrases for IELTS Speaking Test
• Universities in Netherlands
• Business Courses in Ireland
• Maynooth University Courses
• Courses in Netherlands
• Masters Courses in Netherlands
• Technological University Dublin
• University of Limerick Courses
• University of Europe for Applied Sciences Acceptance Rate
• Study in Netherlands
• Dublin City University Courses
• Dundalk Institute of Technology Courses
• Technological University Dublin Courses
• National University of Ireland Galway Courses
• Dundalk Institute of Technology

The above tips are the Author's experiences. upGrad does not guarantee scores or admissions.

Call us to clear your doubts at:

Download our App

• Grievance Redressal
• Experience Centers
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• University Partner
• Accommodation
• IELTS Band Calculator
• Download Study Abroad App
• Education Loan Calculator
• upGrad Abroad Office
• Expense Calculator
• Knowledge Base
• Business Partner

Top Destinations

Masters programs.

• MBA in Germany, IU
• MIM in Germany, IU
• MS in CS in Germany, IU
• MS in Data Analytics in USA, Clark University
• MS in Project Management in USA, Clark University
• MS in IT in USA, Clark University
• MS in Data Analytics & Visualization in USA, Yeshiva University
• MS in Artificial Intelligence in USA, Yeshiva University
• MS in Cybersecurity, Yeshiva University

Study Abroad Important Blogs

• Cost of Study:
• Cost of Studying in Canada
• Cost of Studying in Ireland
• Cost of Studying in Australia
• Cost of living:
• Cost of living in UK
• Cost of living in Australia
• Cost of living in Germany
• Cost of living in Ireland
• Cost of living in Canada
• Career Opportunities:
• Career Opportunities in Australia
• Career Opportunities in Germany
• Job Opportunities in After MS in Canada
• Job Opportunities After MBA in Australia
• Job Opportunities After MS in UK
• IELTS Exam Resources:
• Academic IELTS
• IELTS Band Score
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• IELTS Slot Booking
• IELTS Score for UK
• IELTS Score for USA
• Validity of IELTS Score
• IELTS Speaking Topics
• IELTS Reading Tips
• How to Prepare for IELTS at Home Without Coaching
• IELTS Preparation Books
• Types of IELTS Exam
• IELTS Academic vs General
• IELTS Exam Pattern
• IELTS Essay
• IELTS Exam Dates
• Top Streams:
• Fashion Designing Courses in Australia
• Accounting Courses in Canada
• Management Courses in Canada

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts essay sample 1125 - many people say smoking should be banned, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, many people say that smoking should be banned while others say it is not a good idea. what is your opinion on this.

• IELTS Essay
• Writing Task 2

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Anniversary
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 22, Issue suppl 1
• Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Robert N Proctor
• Correspondence to Dr Robert N Proctor, Department of History, Stanford University, Bldg 200, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; rproctor{at}stanford.edu

The cigarette is the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilisation. Most of the richer countries of the globe, however, are making progress in reducing both smoking rates and overall consumption. Many different methods have been proposed to steepen this downward slope, including increased taxation, bans on advertising, promotion of cessation, and expansion of smoke-free spaces. One option that deserves more attention is the enactment of local or national bans on the sale of cigarettes. There are precedents: 15 US states enacted bans on the sale of cigarettes from 1890 to 1927, for instance, and such laws are still fully within the power of local communities and state governments. Apart from reducing human suffering, abolishing the sale of cigarettes would result in savings in the realm of healthcare costs, increased labour productivity, lessened harms from fires, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, and a smaller global carbon footprint. Abolition would also put a halt to one of the principal sources of corruption in modern civilisation, and would effectively eliminate one of the historical forces behind global warming denial and environmental obfuscation. The primary reason for abolition, however, is that smokers themselves dislike the fact they smoke. Smoking is not a recreational drug, and abolishing cigarettes would therefore enlarge rather than restrict human liberties. Abolition would also help cigarette makers fulfil their repeated promises to ‘cease production’ if cigarettes were ever found to be causing harm.

• Denormalization
• Tobacco Industry Documents

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050811

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Six reasons to ban

The cigarette is the deadliest object in the history of human civilisation. Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year, a number that will grow before it shrinks. Smoking in the twentieth century killed only 100 million people, whereas a billion could perish in our century unless we reverse course. 1 Even if present rates of consumption drop steadily to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century.

The cigarette is also a defective product, meaning not just dangerous but unreasonably dangerous, killing half its long-term users. And addictive by design. It is fully within the power of the Food and Drug Administration in the US, for instance, to require that the nicotine in cigarettes be reduced to subcompensable, subaddictive levels. 2 , 3 This is not hard from a manufacturing point of view: the nicotine alkaloid is water soluble, and denicotinised cigarettes were already being made in the 19th century. 4 Philip Morris in the 1980s set up an entire factory to make its Next brand cigarettes, using supercritical fluid extraction techniques to achieve a 97% reduction in nicotine content, which is what would be required for a 0.1% nicotine cigarette, down from present values of about 2%. 5 Keep in mind that we're talking about nicotine content in the rod as opposed to deliveries measured by the ‘FTC method’, which cannot capture how people actually smoke. 5

Cigarettes are also defective because they have been engineered to produce an inhalable smoke. Tobacco smoke was rarely inhaled prior to the nineteenth century; it was too harsh, too alkaline. Smoke first became inhalable with the invention of flue curing , a technique by which the tobacco leaf is heated during fermentation, preserving the sugars naturally present in the unprocessed leaf. Sugars when they burn produce acids, which lower the pH of the resulting smoke, making it less harsh, more inhalable. There is a certain irony here, since these ‘milder’ cigarettes were actually far more deadly, allowing smoke to be drawn deep into the lungs. The world's present epidemic of lung cancer is almost entirely due to the use of low pH flue-cured tobacco in cigarettes, an industry-wide practice that could be reversed at any time. Regulatory agencies should mandate a significant reduction in rod-content nicotine, but they should also require that no cigarette be sold with a smoke pH lower than 8. Those two mandates alone would do more for public health than any previous law in history. 5

Death and product defect are two reasons to abolish the sale of cigarettes, but there are others. A third is the financial burden on public and private treasuries, principally from the costs of treating illnesses due to smoking. Cigarette use also results in financial losses from diminished labor productivity, and in many parts of the world makes the poor even poorer. 6

A fourth reason is that the cigarette industry is a powerful corrupting force in human civilisation. Big tobacco has corrupted science by sponsoring ‘decoy’ or ‘distraction research’, 5 but it has also corrupted popular media, insofar as newspapers and magazines dependent on tobacco advertising for revenues have been reluctant to publish critiques of cigarettes. 7 The industry has corrupted even the information environment of its own workforce, as when Philip Morris paid its insurance provider (CIGNA) to censor the health information sent to corporate employees. 8 Tobacco companies have bullied, corrupted or exploited countless other institutions: the American Medical Association, the American Law Institute, sports organisations, fire-fighting bodies, Hollywood, the US Congress—even the US presidency and US military. President Lyndon Johnson refused to endorse the 1964 Surgeon General's report, for instance, fearing alienation of the tobacco-friendly South. Cigarette makers managed even to thwart the US Navy's efforts to go smoke-free. In 1986, the Navy had announced a goal of creating a smoke-free Navy by the year 2000; tobacco-friendly congressmen were pressured to thwart that plan, and a law was passed requiring that all ships sell cigarettes and allow smoking. The result: American submarines were not smoke-free until 2011. 9  

Cigarettes are also, though, a significant cause of harm to the natural environment. Cigarette manufacturing consumes scarce resources in growing, curing, rolling, flavouring, packaging, transport, advertising and legal defence, but also causes harms from massive pesticide use and deforestation. Many Manhattans of savannah woodlands are lost every year to obtain the charcoal used for flue curing. Cigarette manufacturing also produces non-trivial greenhouse gas emissions, principally from the fossil fuels used for curing and transport, fires from careless disposal of butts, and increased medical costs from maladies caused by smoking 5 (China produces 40 percent of the world's cigarettes, for example, and uses mainly coal to cure its tobacco leaf). And cigarette makers have provided substantial funding and institutional support for global climate change deniers, causing further harm. 10 Cigarettes are not sustainable in a world of global warming; indeed they are one of its overlooked and easily preventable causes.

But the sixth and most important reason for abolition is the fact that smokers themselves do not like their habit. This is a key point: smoking is not a recreational drug; most smokers do not like the fact they smoke and wish they could quit. This means that cigarettes are very different from alcohol or even marijuana. Only about 10–15% of people who drink liquor ever become alcoholics, versus addiction rates of 80% or 90% for people who smoke. 11 As an influential Canadian tobacco executive once confessed: smoking is not like drinking, it is rather like being an alcoholic. 12

The spectre of prohibition

An objection commonly raised is: Hasn't prohibition already been tried and failed? Won't this just encourage smuggling, organised crime, and yet another failed war on drugs? That has been the argument of the industry for decades; bans are ridiculed as impractical or tyrannical. (First they come for your cigarettes.…) 13

The freedom objection is weak, however, given how people actually experience addiction. Most smokers ‘enjoy’ smoking only in the sense that it relieves the pains of withdrawal; they need nicotine to feel normal. People who say they enjoy cigarettes are rather rare—so rare that the industry used to call them ‘enjoyers’. 14 Surveys show that most smokers want to quit but cannot; they also regret having started. 15 Tobacco industry executives have long grasped the point: Imperial Tobacco's Robert Bexon in 1984 confided to his Canadian cotobacconists that ‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week’. 12 American cigarette makers have been quietly celebrating addiction since the 1950s, when one expressed how ‘fortunate for us’ it was that cigarettes ‘are a habit they can't break’. 16

Another objection commonly raised to any call for a ban is that this will encourage smuggling, or even organised crime. But that is rather like blaming theft on fat wallets. Smuggling is already rampant in the cigarette world, as a result of pricing disparities and the tolerance of contraband or even its encouragement by cigarette manufacturers. Luk Joossens and Rob Cunningham have shown how cigarette manufacturers have used smuggling to undermine monopolies or gain entry into new markets or evade taxation. 17 , 18 And demand for contraband should diminish, once the addicted overcome their addiction—a situation very different from prohibition of alcohol, where drinking was a more recreational drug. And of course, even a ban on the sale of cigarettes will not eliminate all smoking—nor should that be our goal, since people should still be free to grow their own for personal use. Possession should not be criminalised; the goal should only be a ban on sales. Enforcement, therefore, should be a trivial matter, as is proper in a liberal society.

Cigarette smoking itself, though, is less an expression of freedom than the robbery of it. And so long as we allow the companies to cast themselves as defenders of liberty, the table is unfairly tilted. We have to recognise that smoking compromises freedom, and that retiring cigarettes would enlarge human liberties.

Of course it could well be that product regulation, combined with taxation, denormalisation, and ‘smoke-free’ legislation, will be enough to dramatically lower or even eliminate cigarette use—over some period of decades. Here, though, I think we fail to realise how much power governments already have to act more decisively. From 1890 to 1927 the sale of cigarettes was banned virtually overnight in 15 different US states; and in Austin v. Tennessee (1900) the US Supreme Court upheld the right of states to enact such bans. 19 Those laws all eventually disappeared from industry pressure and the lure of tax revenues. 20 None was deemed unconstitutional, however, and some localities retained bans into the 1930s, just as some counties still today ban the sale of alcohol. Bhutan in 2004 became the first nation recently to ban the sale of cigarettes, and we may see other countries taking this step, especially once smoking prevalence rates start dropping into single digits.

Helping the industry fulfil its promises

One last rationale for a ban: abolition would fulfil a promise made repeatedly by the industry itself. Time and again, cigarette makers have insisted that if cigarettes were ever found to be causing harm they would stop making them:

In March 1954, George Weissman, head of marketing at Philip Morris, announced that his company would ‘stop business tomorrow’ if ‘we had any thought or knowledge that in any way we were selling a product harmful to consumers’. 21

In 1972, James C Bowling, vice president for public relations at Philip Morris, asserted publicly, and in no uncertain terms, that ‘If our product is harmful…we'll stop making it’. 22

Helmut Wakeham, vice president for research at Philip Morris, in 1976 stated publicly that ‘if the company as a whole believed that cigarettes were really harmful, we would not be in the business. We are a very moralistic company’. 23

RJ Reynolds president Gerald H Long, in a 1986 interview asserted that if he ever ‘saw or thought there were any evidence whatsoever that conclusively proved that, in some way, tobacco was harmful to people, and I believed it in my heart and my soul, then I would get out of the business’. 24

Philip Morris CEO Geoffrey Bible in 1997, when asked (under oath) what he would do with his company if cigarettes were ever found to be causing cancer, said: ‘I'd probably…shut it down instantly to get a better hold on things’. 25 Bible was asked about this in Minnesota v. Philip Morris (2 March 1998) and reaffirmed that if even one person were ever found to have died from smoking he would ‘reassess’ his duties as CEO. 26

The clearest expression of such an opinion, however, was by Lorillard's president, Curtis H Judge, in an April 1984 deposition, where he was asked why he regarded Lorillard's position on smoking and health as important: A: Because if we are marketing a product that we know causes cancer, I'd get out of the business…I wouldn't be associated with marketing a product like that. Q: Why? A: If cigarettes caused cancer, I wouldn't be involved with them…I wouldn't sell a product that caused cancer. Q: …Because you don't want to kill people? … Is that the reason? A: Yes. Q: …If it was proven to you that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, do you think cigarettes should be marketed? A: No…No one should sell a product that is a proven cause of lung cancer. 27

Note that these are all public assurances , including several made under oath. All follow a script drawn up by the industry's public relations advisors during the earliest stages of the conspiracy: On 14 December 1953, Hill and Knowlton had proposed to RJ Reynolds that the cigarette maker reassure the public that it ‘would never market a product which is in any way harmful’. Reynolds was also advised to make it clear that If the Company felt that its product were now causing cancer or any other disease, it would immediately cease production of it. 28 To this recommendation was added ‘Until such time as these charges or irresponsible statements are ever proven, the Company will continue to produce and market cigarettes’.

What is remarkable is that we never find the companies saying privately that they would stop making cigarettes—with two significant exceptions. In August 1947, in an internal document outlining plans to study ‘vascular and cardiac effects’ of smoking, Philip Morris's director of research, Willard Greenwald, made precisely this claim: ‘We certainly do not want any person to smoke if it is dangerous to his health’. 29 Greenwald had made a similar statement in 1939, reassuring his president, OH Chalkley, that ‘under no circumstances would we want anyone to smoke Philip Morris cigarettes were smoking definitely deleterious to his health’. 30 There is no reason to believe he was lying: he is writing long before Wynder's mouse painting experiments of 1953, and prior even to the epidemiology of 1950. Prior to obtaining proof of harm, Philip Morris seems honestly not to have wanted to sell a deadly product.

Summary points

The cigarette is the deadliest object in the history of human civilisation. It is also a defective product, a financial burden on cash-strapped societies, an important source of political and scientific corruption, and a cause of both global warming and global warming denial.

Tobacco manufacturers have a long history of promising to stop the production of cigarettes, should they ever be proven harmful.

The most important reason to ban the sale of cigarettes, however, is that most smokers do not even like the fact they smoke; cigarettes are not a recreational drug.

It is not in principle difficult to end the sale of cigarettes; most communities–even small towns–could do this virtually overnight. We actually have more power than we realize to put an end this, the world's leading cause of death and disease.

• Benowitz NL ,
• Henningfield J
• Hatsukami DK ,
• Perkins KA ,
• LeSage MG ,
• Peretti-Watel P ,
• Constance J ,
• Muggli ME ,
• Oreskes N ,
• Giovino GA ,
• Henningfield JE ,
• ↵ A Study of Cigarette Smokers' Habits and Attitudes in 1970. May 1970. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jyx81a00 (accessed 4 Apr 2012) . pp. 13, 18, 39 .
• Hammond D ,
• Joossens L ,
• Cunningham R
• ↵ Austin vs. State of Tennessee , Decided Nov. 19. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court , Book 45 . Rochester : Lawyers Co-operative Publishing , 1900 : 224 – 43 .
• ↵ Hill and Knowlton . Suggested approach and comments regarding attacks on use of cigarettes. 1953. Bates 3799, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tao66b00 (accessed 1 Jun 2012).
• Greenwald WF

Competing interests The author has served as an expert witness for plaintiffs in tobacco litigation.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Open Access This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Smoking should be made illegal. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fully explain your ideas

To get an excellent score in the IELTS Task 2 writing section, one of the easiest and most effective tips is structuring your writing in the most solid format. A great argument essay structure may be divided to four paragraphs, in which comprises of four sentences (excluding the conclusion paragraph, which comprises of three sentences).

For we to consider an essay structure a great one, it should be looking like this:

• Paragraph 1 - Introduction
• Sentence 1 - Background statement
• Sentence 2 - Detailed background statement
• Sentence 3 - Thesis
• Sentence 4 - Outline sentence
• Paragraph 2 - First supporting paragraph
• Sentence 1 - Topic sentence
• Sentence 2 - Example
• Sentence 3 - Discussion
• Sentence 4 - Conclusion
• Paragraph 3 - Second supporting paragraph
• Paragraph 4 - Conclusion
• Sentence 1 - Summary
• Sentence 2 - Restatement of thesis
• Sentence 3 - Prediction or recommendation

Our recommended essay structure above comprises of fifteen (15) sentences, which will make your essay approximately 250 to 275 words.

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• multilingual
• communicate
• cognitive skills
• cultural awareness
• opportunities
• globalized world
• linguistic abilities
• cultural exchange
• language proficiency
• language barrier
• foreign travel
• personal growth
• academic achievement
• self-confidence
• cross-cultural communication
• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

Some people think the manufacturers or shopping malls should sell less packaged products and others argue that people have the responsibility to buy products with less packaging. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Some people think a job not only provides income but also social life. others think it is better to develop social life with people you do not work with. discuss both views and give your opinion., some are of the opinion that people are naturally born as good leaders while others feel that leadership skills can be learned. discuss both views and give your own opinion., the percentage of overweight children in western countries has increased by 20% in last 20 years. discuss the causes and effects of disturbing trend., more and more people are seriously overweight. some people suggest the solution to this problem is to increase the price of fattening foods. to what extent do you agree or disagree.

• Listening Tests
• Academic Tests
• General Tests
• IELTS Writing Checker
• IELTS Writing Samples
• Speaking Club
• IELTS AI Speaking Test Simulator
• Latest Topics
• Vocabularying
• 2024 © IELTS 69

Smoking should be made illegal. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? v.1

Ielts essay smoking should be made illegal. v. 1.

• Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
• ? One main idea per paragraph
• Include an introduction and conclusion
• Support main points with an explanation and then an example
• Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
• Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
• Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
• Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
• Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
• Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
• Check your writing for errors
• Answer all parts of the question
• ? Present relevant ideas
• Fully explain these ideas
• Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
• ? Currently is not available
• Meet the criteria
• Doesn't meet the criteria
• 7.5 band It has been proven that smoking kills. In some countries, it has been made illegal for people to smoke in all public places except in certain areas. All countries should make these rules. Give reasons for your a v. 1 Vaccination has always been a way of preventing diseases in children. There is an ongoing debate on its necessity and harmful effect as some claimed that it is not important and has adverse consequences. This essay will discuss the importance of vaccination and the benefit in preventing diseases. T ...
• 7.5 band It has been proved that smoking kills. In some countries it has been made illegal for people to smoke in all public places except in certain areas. All countries should make these rules. v. 1 Children are the future of the nation and how they should be raised, is a debatable issue. Some people believe that they should be exposed to the physical punishment while others say constant appreciation is required for them. According to me, these arguments need proper audit before forming an opin ...
• Change your language and you change your thoughts. Karl Albrecht
• 6 band It has been proven that smoking kills. In some countries, it has been made illegal for people to smoke in all public places except in certain areas. All countries should make these rules. Give reasons for your a v. 4 It is undeniable that smoking jeopardizes human life, and that cigarette consumption is banned in most public places in a number of countries. I firmly agree that this rule should be applied in all countries and I will support my opinion with compelling arguments. To begin with, smoking in public p ...
• 6.5 band It has been proved that smoking kills. In some countries it has been made illegal for people to smoke in all public places except in certain areas. All countries should make these rules. v. 2 There is no doubt that smoking has detrimental effects has been proved by science experiments so the majority of country pass the law that smoking should be used certain place in terms of health issues and comfort of non-smoking persons. This essay agrees that all governments should make rules regar ...
• A new language is a new life. Persian Proverb
• 6 band All cars that bruns fossil fuels should be banned and electric cars should replace them v. 1
• 6 band As major cities in the world are growing today, so do their problems. What are problems for young people who are living in the cities as the result of continued growth? How problems might be solved? v. 1
• Learn everything you can, anytime you can, from anyone you can; there will always come a time when you will be grateful you did. Sarah Caldwell
• 6 band the internet has become so efficient and popular that many people rely on it for learning. some suggest that it could replace the use of books as the main source of knowledge for education. do you support or oppose the opinion? explain your position v. 1
• 6 band In spite of the advances made in agriculture, many people around the world still go to hungry v. 1
• Learn a new language and get a new soul. Czech Proverb

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Smoking — Can smoking be prevented by making tobacco illegal

Can Smoking Be Prevented by Making Tobacco Illegal

• Categories: Smoking

About this sample

Words: 495 |

Published: Mar 25, 2024

Words: 495 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Introduction:, i. economic implications:, ii. social implications:, iii. health implications:, iv. alternative approaches:, v. conclusion:.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 789 words

2 pages / 783 words

1 pages / 611 words

3 pages / 1162 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Smoking

Smoking is a habit that has been around for centuries, but did you know that it is responsible for the deaths of about six million people every year worldwide? Smoking dates back to ancient times when people used to burn herbs [...]

Smoking is a pervasive and harmful habit that affects millions of people worldwide. Despite the widely known health risks associated with smoking, many individuals continue to engage in this detrimental behavior. Anti-smoking [...]

In the "should smoking be illegal argumentative" debate, one of the primary concerns is the well-known harmful effects of cigarettes on the human body. Many people are aware that smoking cigarettes is detrimental. Cigarettes [...]

The rise of vaping has prompted significant debates and discussions surrounding its potential harms and benefits. This essay delves into the complex issue of banning vaping, exploring the reasons behind calls for prohibition, [...]

For years there has been conflicting research whether smoking should be banned or not and it is a significant issue today. Many people have given up smoking while others still continue to smoke. Smoking is the inhalation and [...]

Vaping is not a traditional smoking. Many of us don’t even consider it as a substitute of smoking. That’s why a large chunk of non-smokers get attracted towards vaping because it’s harmless, flavored, aromatic and obviously [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

More From Forbes

U.k. smokefree generation bill in danger after election announcement.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

The U.K.'s ban on smoking and vaping for young people will likely not be made law soon after Prime ... [+] Minister Rishi Sunak called a surprise general election.

Legislation to make it illegal to sell any kind of tobacco products to young people in the U.K. looks likely not to make into law after U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called a surprise election yesterday.

The " Smokefree Generation " legislation would have made it illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after the January 1, 2009, essentially meaning people born after that date would never be legally allowed to buy tobacco products. In what was seen as an unusual success for the governing conservative party, the bill had been roundly supported by a cross-partisan collection of parliamentarians.

TOPSHOT - Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak delivers a speech to announce the date of the UK's ... [+] next general election on May 22, 2024. (Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS / AFP) (Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP via Getty Images)

However, the bill looks set to fall at the last hurdle as it has not been included on the "wash-up" list of legislation to be pushed through before the dissolution of parliament and start of campaigning.

The bill had been roundly welcomed by U.K. health charities and anti-smoking campaign groups and had proceeded through parliament despite pressure from tobacco lobbyists.

“If the Government confirm the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will not make it through wash-up, this will be a disheartening day for people affected by cancer, health professionals and campaigners who have worked tirelessly on the legislation," said Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research U.K., which was heavily involved in developing and promoting the bill.

Apple Brings Back iPhone 14 Pro For First Time At Lower Price Refurbished

Janet yellen issues serious $34 trillion warning as bitcoin predicted to surge to $1 million price, alexander zverev assault allegations no 4 tennis star s appeal begins after french open win over nadal.

According to Cancer Research U.K., smoking kills one person every five minutes in the country and is responsible for an estimated 55,000 cancer deaths annually , more than a quarter of all deaths due to cancer.

The bill would have also given the government powers to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes, also known as "vapes," to children by restricting vape liquid flavors, requiring plain, non-colorful packaging and placing restrictions on how such products are displayed in stores.

"Preventing cancer and saving lives should transcend party politics. It’s vital that all parties commit in their manifestos to bring this Bill back in the first King’s Speech after the General Election. Let’s prioritise this world-leading legislation and help cancers caused by smoking become a thing of the past," said Mitchell.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Legal Weed Is Coming. It’s Time to Come Up With Some Rules.

By Maia Szalavitz

Ms. Szalavitz is a contributing Opinion writer who covers addiction and public policy.

The beginning of the end of illegal weed is here.

On May 16 the Justice Department formally moved to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to Schedule III. This move will not affect the legality of recreational use and sales on the federal level. It is, however, the biggest step yet toward abolishing the legal fiction that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin. And it puts marijuana — used more than any other illicit drug in the world — on a pathway for fully legal recreational use, which a majority of Americans support .

Nothing short of full legalization will end the injustice that leads to hundreds of thousands of arrests annually for marijuana offenses and leaves millions of people of color disproportionately scarred by criminalization.

But the recent move will ease research, permit sellers in states that have legalized to deduct business expenses on their federal taxes and allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate medical marijuana if it chooses to do so. It also offers an opportunity to start ironing out the details of what federal cannabis oversight ought to look like if the time comes — both to redress past harms and protect public health. Effective regulation requires balancing opposing risks to reduce the harm we’ve seen caused by dangerous black-market products while preventing misleading marketing from promoting excessive use.

Learning from the experiences of states that have legalized marijuana is essential. For one, they have not seen the much-feared explosion of youth use. An April 2024 study in JAMA Psychiatry analyzed survey data from 1993 to 2021 and found that teen cannabis use was no more common in the 24 states that legalized adult recreational use than elsewhere. According to a systematic review published in 2022, 10 earlier studies found increases in adolescent use, but 10 others showed no effect, and two showed reductions.

Other drug use didn’t increase, either. Use of the deadliest drugs — opioids — dropped significantly among youth as marijuana legalization spread. Prescription opioid misuse by 12th graders fell from 9.5 percent in 2004 to 1 percent in 2023; heroin use declined similarly. Most states showed little change or even a decline in opioid misuse and overdoses after passage of recreational or medical marijuana laws. And legalized cannabis products have not been linked to fatal poisonings or injuries. (Deaths linked to lung injuries from vape pens seem to have been caused by illegal products and tended to be less common in legal states.)

Legalization isn’t without risks, of course. Some studies show that it increases stoned driving, with one linking a 16 percent rise in fatalities with recreational legalization. Others, however, find no effects or even a reduction , due perhaps to people using cannabis instead of alcohol. And some studies have associated marijuana with psychosis in some populations, but there has been no spike in psychotic disorders in legalized states, as evidenced by a recent study of medical records in 64 million Americans age 16 or older.

Bottom line: The most dire predictions about legalizing marijuana have not been borne out at the state level, which bodes well for federal legalization.

One serious issue that federal regulation is needed to resolve is the persistence of the black market. Historically, West Coast states have supplied most of the domestically grown cannabis in the United States. Since federal law bars interstate sales, Western markets are oversupplied with cannabis, keeping prices low. This makes it difficult for growers to profit without diverting some cannabis to the illegal market. Individual state licensing policies have also inadvertently protected black markets: New York, for example, is now flooded with illegal weed stores because it was slow in licensing legal ones.

Experience with regulation of other substances could guide the creation of federal marijuana policy. One key finding from alcohol and tobacco research is that price matters . Taxes that elevate prices reduce youth use and lower consumption by those who have substance use disorders, in part because the heaviest users pay the most. But to be effective, taxes on marijuana must target potency and not just quantity — and may have to be adjusted regularly to deal with introductions of products with varied strengths. Regulators need to find sweet spots where prices are low enough to minimize illicit sales but high enough to discourage overconsumption.

Federal oversight also matters in managing the relative risks associated with psychoactive substances. Marijuana is generally less harmful than alcohol, tobacco and opioids — and if consumers are incentivized through pricing and regulation, some can be nudged into picking the less dangerous high. But when relative risks are ignored, disaster can strike: Cutting the supply of medical opioids pushed many people who were misusing them onto far more dangerous street drugs, and overdose death rates more than doubled.

The government can further curb risky behavior by putting controls on advertising. The opioid crisis has shown that current restrictions on pharmaceutical promotion are too lax. Alcohol and tobacco products are also too freely marketed. It would make little sense to hold marijuana alone to a higher standard, given that these other products can do more harm than cannabis does. Instead, marketing for all these substances should be far more restricted, if not banned entirely.

Regulators should also pay particularly close attention to potent new cannabis products, which some states allow without much oversight. Stronger products are more likely to be addictive and therefore pose a greater hazard to health. Protecting consumers requires finding a way to regulate these substances that isn’t as arduous and expensive as F.D.A. approval for pharmaceuticals but controls quality and minimizes harmful exposures.

On May 1 the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, reintroduced a bill that would end federal criminalization of the drug, expunge certain marijuana-related offenses and create a framework for regulating recreational-use products.

Though the bill is unlikely to pass Congress this term, the current clash between federal and state policies is not sustainable — all while public support for change remains strong. To move forward, we must find a middle ground between inundating children with marijuana advertisements and incarcerating people for smoking or selling weed. The Biden administration has taken only the first step.

Maia Szalavitz (@maiasz) is a contributing Opinion writer and the author, most recently, of “Undoing Drugs: How Harm Reduction Is Changing the Future of Drugs and Addiction.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .