argumentative essay cigarette smoking should banned

Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

• Arguments against the Issue
• Arguments for the Issue

For the recognition of whether or why cigarettes should be banned, this essay should start with a bit of history.

Cigarettes are made from tobacco leaves. Their use started in Central America around 6,000 B.C. After 5,000 BC, the Mayan community started chewing and smoking tobacco leaves and used them for medicinal purposes like healing wounds. Later on, people invented pipe smoking, which was followed by the manufacturing of cigarettes in the mid-1800s (Smoking, 2010).

On this page, the author won’t explore why smoking should be banned. The essay will evaluate arguments for and against cigarettes in particular. Many people smoke them to lighten up and enhance their concentration at places of work. Meanwhile, some claim that this relaxation method is too harmful to enjoy.

So, should cigarettes be banned? This essay attempts to find out.

Why Cigarettes Should Be Banned: Arguments against

Smoking cigarettes helps people to relax and get better concentration. Mental illness symptoms such as anxiety and Schizophrenia are alleviated by smoking (Russo, 2011); this has been medically proven. Smoking cigarettes helps in socialization as it sets the mood of a smoker into being jovial.

Governments obtain huge amount of money from cigarette manufacturing industries in form of taxes. These industries also create employment opportunities for many people. Banning of cigarette smoking would mean loss of thousands of jobs as well as revenue for the government (Fix, n.d.).

Smoking cigarettes helps in weight management due to the reduced appetite induced in the body by cigarettes. Therefore, smoking is a good and effective weight loss aid (Auctions, 2010).

Why Cigarettes Should Be Banned: Arguments for

Smoking cigarettes is one of the major causes of deaths. About 443, 000 people die out of cigarette smoking related illnesses in the U.S. every year (CDC, 2011 ). Cigarettes contain many harmful chemicals; it was found that cigarettes have more than 4,000 chemicals. Most of these components are known to cause cancer.

Smoking is known to cause lung cancer, bladder cancer, stomach Cancer, kidney cancer, cancer of oral cavity and cancer of the cervix. Ammonia, Tar and Carbon Monoxide are found in cigarettes and are very harmful to human body (Society, 2010).

Cigarette smoking has great effects on reproductive health. It is known to cause infertility, still births, low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). In addition, it affects the bones by reducing their densities. Hip fractures in female cigarette smokers are higher than in female non smokers (CDC, 2011 ).

Banning of cigarette smoking would come with many benefits. First people’s health would be improved. Health benefits of stopping to smoke are more than the emotional or psychological comfort that are brought by smoking. Banning cigarette smoking would be of great benefit to the young people.

Those in their thirties, in terms of age in years, would still benefit from the reduced risks caused by cigarettes. Old people who would wish stop smoking cigarettes would not be late to do so. Banning of cigarette smoking will be beneficial to all smokers regardless of their age (Society, 2010).

Many cigarette smokers are at higher risk of being infected with different types of cancer. These include: “Lung, Larynx, Oral cavity, Esophagus, Kidney, Cervix, Bladder, stomach among other cancers” (Society, 2010, p. 1).

Smoking induces stress. A research in London showed that a group of people who stopped smoking had reduced stress than those who had continued to smoke after one year; this was because those who continued to smoke greatly depended on cigarettes.

A smoker is more prone to be stressed if he/she is not in a position to quench a thirst for smoking therefore failure to smoke will subjected smokers to stress (Benson, 2010). Banning of cigarette smoking would therefore reduce stress levels in people. Peer groups will be made of non smokers. People will look for other ways to cope with stress and anxiety other than smoking.

Economic burden on countries will be reduced by banning of cigarette smoking: “in the year 2000, 8.6 million people in U.S suffered from at least one chronic disease that was associated with cigarette smoking” (CDC, 2011, p. 1). Majority of these people ailed from more than one of the diseases caused by cigarette smoking (Society, 2010).

Though smoking cigarettes creates employment and contributes to government’s revenues, it causes more harm than good. The quality of life led by cigarette smokers is lowered. Furthermore, their quality of work is decreased because they might not attend to their duties regularly in extreme cases of being affected by ailments caused by cigarettes (Society, 2010).

Banning of cigarette smoking would eliminate exposure of the human body to harmful substances. Tar is carcinogenic. Nicotine is the addictive substance in cigarette that causes mental and emotional dependence on cigarettes (Society, 2010). Nicotine also elevates cholesterol levels in the body.

Carbon Monoxide takes oxygen from the body of the user and this may cause Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (Netdoctor, 2005). Banning of cigarette smoking will reduce the above risks which are the main causes of poor health in cigarette smokers.

Reproductive health of people will to some extent be guaranteed by banning of cigarette smoking. Tobacco related infertility in women and impotence in men would be no more. Risks of miscarriage, premature births and still births would be reduced thus saving lives of babies (Society, 2010).

Cigarette smoking is a major health challenge. It causes many health problems including reproductive disorders, cancer, stress, heart diseases and stroke. Banning of cigarette smoking would largely benefit people’s health.

Auctions, G. (2010). Advantages and Disadvantages of Smokinng . Web.

Benson, J. (2010). Smoking increases stress levels . Web.

CDC. (2011). Smoking and Tobacco Use . Web.

Fix, W. Should Smoking be Banned . Web.

Netdoctor. (2005). Smoking Health Risks . Web.

Russo, J. (2011). Health Benefits of Smoking Cigarettes . Web.

Smoking, H. (2010). The History of Smoking . Web.

Society, A. C. (2010). Cigarette Smoking . Web.

• Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?
• Cigarette Smoking Side Effects
• Smoking Should Be Banned Internationally
• Importance of the Medical Records in Medicine
• Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP)
• A Worldwide Problem Shortage of Healthcare Professionals
• Importance of the Documentation with Regards to Patient Care
• Healthcare Information needs at Presbyterian Hospital
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 10). Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-cigarette-smoking-be-banned/

"Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay." IvyPanda , 10 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/should-cigarette-smoking-be-banned/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay'. 10 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay." October 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-cigarette-smoking-be-banned/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay." October 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-cigarette-smoking-be-banned/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay." October 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-cigarette-smoking-be-banned/.

Should Smoking Be Illegal?

Should smoking be banned? What are the pros and cons of banning cigarettes in public places? If you’re writing an argumentative essay or persuasive speech on why smoking should be banned, check out this sample.

Smoking Should Be Banned: Essay Introduction

Reasons why smoking should be banned, why smoking should not be banned: essay arguments, why smoking should be banned essay conclusion.

Smoking involves burning a substance to take in its smoke into the lungs. These substances are commonly tobacco or cannabis. Combustion releases the active substances in them, like nicotine, which are absorbed through the lungs.

A widespread technique through which this is done is via smoking manufactured cigarettes or hand-rolling the tobacco ready for smoking. Almost 1 billion people in the majority of all human societies practice smoking. Complications directly associated with smoking claim the lives of half of all the persons involved in smoking tobacco or marijuana for a long time.

Smoking is an addiction because tobacco contains nicotine, which is very addictive. The nicotine makes it difficult for a smoker to quit. Therefore, a person will become used to nicotine such that he/she has to smoke to feel normal. Consequently, I think smoking should be banned for some reason.

One reason why smoking should be banned is that it has got several health effects. It harms almost every organ of the body. Cigarette smoking causes 87% of lung cancer deaths and is also responsible for many other cancer and health problems. 

Apart from this, infant deaths that occur in pregnant women are attributed to smoking. Similarly, people who stay near smokers become secondary smokers, who may breathe in the smoke and get the same health problems as smokers. Although not widely smoked, cannabis also has health problems, and withdrawal symptoms include depression, insomnia, frustration, anger, anxiety, concentration difficulties, and restlessness.

Besides causing emphysema, smoking also affects the digestive organs and the blood circulatory systems, especially heart arteries. Women have a higher risk of heart attack than men, exacerbating with time as one smokes. Smoking also affects the mouth, whereby the teeth become discolored, the lips blacken and always stay dry, and the breath smells bad.

Cigarette and tobacco products are costly. People who smoke are therefore forced to spend their money on these products, which badly wastes the income they would have otherwise spent on other things. Therefore, I think that smoking should be forbidden to reduce the costs of treating diseases related to smoking and the number of deaths caused by smoking-related illnesses.

However, tobacco and cigarette manufacturing nations would lose a lot if smoking was to be banned. I, therefore, think that it should not be banned. Some nations largely depend on exporting cigarettes and tobacco products to get revenue.

This revenue typically boosts the economy of such nations. If smoking were banned, they would incur significant losses since tobacco companies are multi-billion organizations. Apart from these, millions of people will be jobless due to the ban.

The process by which tobacco and cigarette products reach consumers is very complex, and it involves a chain process with several people involved in it. Banning smoking, therefore, means these people will lose their jobs, which most may depend on for their livelihoods.

In conclusion, the ban on smoking is a tough step to be undertaken, especially when the number of worldwide users is billions. Although it burdens nations enormously in treating smoking-related diseases, it may take a long time before a ban can work. Attempts by some nations to do this have often been met with failures.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 12). Should Smoking Be Illegal? https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/

"Should Smoking Be Illegal?" StudyCorgi , 12 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Should Smoking Be Illegal'. 12 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Should Smoking Be Illegal?" January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Should Smoking Be Illegal?" January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Should Smoking Be Illegal?" January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/should-smoking-be-banned/.

This paper, “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: November 8, 2023 .

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.

• Social Issues

Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Argumentative Essay

Each year, nearly half a million Americans die prematurely of smoking as well as exposure to secondhand smoke. Another 16 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking . The reason why smoking cigarettes are so hard to stop is because the substance contains nicotine, which is very addictive. People use this as their way of feeling normal, and it's really taking a toll on their bodys and their general health. I believe that cigarette smoking should be banned because it causes too many health concerns for both smokers and nonsmokers. 

Smoking is one of the worst possible actions an individual can do to their body. One little six inch object of tobacco is one of the deadliest objects in our world today. Thousands of chemicals are inserted into your lungs after smoking. Now picture that 10 times a day, everyday, for the rest of your life. People are basically poisoning themselves to an early death. The tragic fact about smoking is that tobacco use can actually cause cancer anywhere in the body. This is the leading cause of lung cancer as well as many other cancers and diseases. One third of all cancer deaths in the U.S are related to smoking. If nobody smoked, one of every three cancer deaths in the United States would not happen.

There is no reason to continue to allow the use of a product that is killing so many people. Smoking kills thousands of people a year and at this rate, this is a number that will grow before it shrinks. Millions of people even live with a serious illness which is caused by smoking. I believe that as a nation we are doing good with helping stop this problem, but were not doing good enough. More people should talk about this problem because it's only getting worse, especially with young people. More teens are using nicotine everyday and don't truly understand what they're doing to their bodys. As we all know smoking causes the lungs to turn completely black, like a chimney. Schools should definitely try to prevent their young students from stopping now while they can, before it gets bad.

Most smokers don't even enjoy their habit. The problem isn't that they don't know it's a bad habit, it's that they are addicted to nicotine. This is mainly the reason why individuals cant stop smoking. If one were to try to stop, the symptoms of withdrawal include cravings, anxiety, depression and cognitive/ attention deficits. The symptoms can begin within a few hours; driving the smoker to have another cigarette. There are a lot of positive things to come if one were to stop smoking. Quitting smoking cuts cardiovascular risks. Just 1 year after quitting smoking, your risk for a heart attack drops tremendously. 

Another reason why cigarette smoking should be banned is because of how much money people are wasting for these tobacco products. Tobacco companies are getting richer by the day, and are swimming in pools of cash while tobacco users are gradually dying. The cost of cigarettes is already high and what people don't think about is how much more money they're going to spend later on in life for life insurance.

Cigarette smoking has led to many health concerns even for those who are right next to the smoker. Everyone is at risk because the general public is often exposed to secondhand smoke. This can be dangerous to those who have no intention to smoke at all. The sad reality of our world is that even the people making the right decision by not smoking, are still being exposed to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke causes stroke, lung cancer, and  heart disease in adults. Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, middle ear disease, more severe asthma, respiratory symptoms, and slowed lung growth. 

 Even a person who inhales second hand smoke without consent is in harm of dangerous diseases and cancers. This is an ongoing problem, especially with young children. Parents who smoke are allowing their children to receive poisons everyday. It's a horrible fact especially understanding that children's organs are a lot more sensitive than the average adult. Therefore, children are prone to become addicted a lot faster, and this means that they are most likely to continue that habit when they are older. There's no reason or excuse to why people who try to avoid smoking are the ones being affected by this issue. Cigarette smoking should be banned in public areas because it is an exposure to secondhand smoke, causes cancer, and premature deaths among people who do not smoke. 

In conclusion, Cigarettes should be banned because of the ongoing number of premature deaths, many health concerns and the wasted money spent on cigarettes alone. Millions of people are dying each year because of cigarette smoking and in all reality we are doing nothing to fix this problem except giving our money away to these tobacco companies.  Unfortunately, many people are at risk of losing their lives at a young age if we don't come together and help stop this issue.

Related Samples

• Research Paper Example about American Poverty
• Circuses Should Be Banned Essay Example
• The Issue of Gender Inequality in the United States (Essay Sample)
• Essay on The Problem Of Foster Children
• Essay about Global Homogenization
• Essay Sample about Army Sharp
• Should Orcas Still Be Kept in Captivity in 2022 Exploratory Essay Sample
• Research Paper on Death Penalty
• Research Paper about Domestic Terrorists Threat on America
• Being an Anti-Racist Essay Example

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Question: Should We Ban Cigarettes?

Readers Question: Using data and your economic knowledge assess the case for and against a government completely banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes. AQA (15)

1. Cigarettes are a demerit good. People underestimate the costs of smoking, e.g. lower life expectancy. It has been suggested that the true cost of a packet of cigarettes is over $200. Therefore, the government is justified to try and stop people consuming goods which harm them.

2. Cigarettes have negative externalities on the rest of society. For example, it creates health problems of passive smoking. This leads to over consumption and is another justification for banning smoking.

3. Tax is insufficient for reducing consumption of cigarettes. Demand is very price inelastic because people become addicted. Therefore, banning cigarettes may be the only way to reduce consumption.

Problems of Banning Cigarette Sales and Consumption

1. It would encourage the black market. People are addicted so they would find a way to keep smoking. This would encourage criminal activity which the government would need to try and police. The potential profits for criminals would be very high. It could be a similar situation to prohibition in the 1920s and 30s in the US. Banning alcohol led to big rise in organised crime.

2. The government would lose all tax revenue. This amounts to over £7 billion. It would require other taxes to be increased.

3. It would cause unemployment amongst cigarette companies. However, South Korea is suggesting to bring the complete ban after 10 years. This gives people the chance to change their habits.

4. There are several alternative measures for discouraging cigarette sales. For example, banning cigarettes in public spaces has been quite effective in reducing consumption and discouraging people from starting to smoke. Also advertising to make people aware of the dangers of smoking (e.g. putting warnings on packets of cigarettes)

Cigarettes are definitely harmful to health. In some ways they are more likely to kill than other drugs which are criminalised. However, because cigarette use is so widespread, banning cigarettes completely would lead to very large black market and lose the government substantial tax revenues. It would make many ordinary people more likely to commit a crime to feed their habit. See also:

• Should Taxes on Cigarettes be Increased? 

6 thoughts on “Question: Should We Ban Cigarettes?”

cigarettes are harmful at certain stages. e cigarettes have given the right solution for it.

Both of them are deadly for health. There isn’t one better than the other.

how would you bring elasticity into this type of question ?

You could say the govt could use a tax to reduce demand for cigarettes. However, demand is very inelastic therefore a tax is insufficient. Therefore, banning it may be only solution to prevent people consuming this demerit good.

Do you people not see the bigger picture here. It’s about control and telling you what you can and cannot do. They won’t stop at cigarettes. Think about it you idiots.

The government gave our war veterans cigarettes to help with stress now they are telling us it is unhealthy and we are forced to give up. We are living in a communist country where we are not allowed to make our own decisions about our health or lifestyle. I have smoked all my life, worked hard paid huge amounts of tax and the way you have discriminated against smokers and treated us like leper’s is very degrading and I am not proud to say your a fair government if you thought of how smokers felt at all it would have been more acceptable but as per usual you treat the average workers as mere specks of dust

Comments are closed.

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/

Argumentative Essay on Banning Cigarettes: Do You Support It?

No more second-hand smoking!

It is a well-known fact that second-hand smoking is one of the cancer causes. Second-hand smokers receive the same amount of harmful nicotine and other chemicals as the real smokers. Once smoking is banned, the amount of people who suffer from second-hand smoking will be reduced. Make sure to support your viewpoint with the statement that second-hand smoking reduction will also minimize the risk of cancer.

Cigarettes banning will help smokers to quit

Each smoking ban leads to a decrease in the number of cigarettes. With every banning law more and more smokers make a decision to quit altogether. In accordance with the information provided by the Mayo Clinic Nicotine Dependence Center representatives, the number the brain receptors that are longing for nicotine increase from the inhalation of tobacco. Once the number of receptors begins to decrease the need to have “just one more cigarette” decreases too, which, in turn, results in no smoking. All the bans also give smokers one more reason to quit smoking for it is really inconvenient to spend hours searching for a place where smoking is allowed.

No more heart attacks!

In accordance with the Journal of the American Heart Association, the cities where smoking in public places is banned have less heart attacks in comparison with the areas where smoking is allowed everywhere. Make sure to give enough space for statistics within your essay. It is recommended to mention that almost 225 000 cases of heart attacks (per year) can be prevented by means of smoking bans. Provide real-life examples of the fact that smoking bans tend to lower the risk of heart attacks not only among smokers, but also among the people who do not have this habit.

Our statistics

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• English Language
• Writing to Argue, Persuade and Advise

Argumentative Essay about Why Smoking Should be Banned

Page  |

Ban Smoking in Public Places

        Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in the United States, and doing it in public is even worse because smokers not only harm themselves, but also those around them.  I remember how my great uncle would always smoke in his house regardless of his surroundings. When his daughter visited him for a vacation, she brought her three year old daughter with her. The baby was healthy before coming to her grandpa's house, but in less than two weeks, she had developed ear infections and started to cough. When they went to the doctors' office to find out how she had gotten it, the doctor linked it back to the second hand smoke that she was breathing in. When my great uncle found out about it, he finally started to care about where he was smoking and who he was with, and decided that he would smoke in a secluded place where no one but him may be affected. Like my great uncle in the past, many smokers think they could do whatever they want because it is their body, but to me, their right ends where my health begins.  I believe that smoking in public places should be banned at a federal level because even the smallest wisp of smoke can do a lot of damage to the people around them and the environment.

This is a preview of the whole essay

        Smoking has been proven to have many deadly effects on humans and the environment that it would make sense to ban people doing it in public.  Cigarettes negatively affect the environment in many ways that not many people seem to realize.  According to a study by Tree Hugger “ more than 4.5 trillion non-biodegradable filter-tipped cigarettes are thrown away annually somewhere in the world” (McLaren).  Most cigarette butts are not thrown away properly because many can be easily found on the streets and even near bodies of water.  “It takes about 18 months to 10 years for cigarette butts to decompose” (McLaren).  It would make it easier for trash to keep on piling up, making the world a dirtier place.  Not only does the trash make the environment look unattractive but it also affects animals.  When a cigarette butt is thrown near a water source, it may contaminate an aquatic ecosystem.  According to Tree Hugger , cigarette butts have been found inside the stomachs of birds and fishes (McLaren).  It is horrible to know that some of the fishes that we have eaten may have been contaminated by cigarette butts.  Though many smokers already know of the health risks that come with smoking cigarettes, but what most of them do not, is how secondhand smoking can affect other people.  “Breathing in low doses of secondhand smoke can increase a person’s risk of heart attack” according to a study by Dr. Meyers, a professor of Cardiology and Preventive Medicine at University of Kansas (Sciencedaily.com).  Smokers should not risk non-smokers for something that they do.  In continuation of Dr. Meyers’ study is that, “secondhand smoking increases the likelihood of a heart attack by making the blood “sticky”, making it more prone to clotting, and reducing the amount of good cholesterol in the body” (Sciencedaily.com).  Non-smokers should not be worrying about paying more medical bills, especially in today’s economic situation.  Many businesses provide health insurance to their employees.  According to a statistical data collected by Live Strong,  employers spend an extra $49 million in medical costs for employees who are exposed to secondhand smoking in their jobs (Nelson).  Employers would be able to hire more people with the money that is being used to pay for medical bills that could be prevented.  Smoking banned in public places may lead to less pollution, non-smokers not getting harmed, and employers saving money from unneeded medical bills that could be used to hire more employees.

        Whenever I ask a smoker why they smoke, many respond in something like, “It’s my own body; I can do whatever I want with it.”  According to a report by Dr. Stillman, co-director of the Institute for Global Tobacco Control at Johns Hopkins University, says, “Inhaling the complex mixture of compounds in tobacco smoke can cause cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung disease” (Shrieves).  Though it is their own body, we all share the same air, and the smoke that cigarettes produce is contaminating our air, which may also harm a other people.  Most people think that smoking and bars go together like two peas in a pod, and many think that by banning smoking in public places will lead to a decrease of revenue in some businesses.  According to a report collected by the CDC, “a smoke-free indoor air ordinance that was passed in El Paso, Texas, proved that there were no statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues after the smoking ban took effect” (CDC.gov).  It is more beneficial to people to ban smoking seeing as there is no change in revenues and it would not affect the economy.  Ban of smoking in public places in a federal level is much more favorable to non-smokers and makes no significant changes in revenues in businesses.

        Smoking in public should be banned at a federal level without question.  Smoking negatively affects people, the environment and businesses.  There are no logical reasons to allow smoking in public places and doing so does not benefit anyone but cigarette makers.  Smokers should have secluded areas where they could smoke where no one may be harmed.  The government should provide trash cans in these areas so smokers would not just throw their cigarette butts on the floor.  Anyone caught smoking in public places and littering their cigarettes should be fined.  Smoking endangers people who chose not to engage in the same reckless behavior, like my baby cousin who had gotten so sick because of my great uncle’s smoking.  It also dirties our environment and harms other animals that are in search of food.  Businesses who provide health insurance to their workers affected by second hand smoking are wasting money that could be used to hire more employees.  Banning smoking in public may lead to a better way of life and a healthier place to live.

Document Details

• Author Type Student
• Word Count 1096
• Page Count 4
• Subject English
• Type of work Coursework

Related Essays

Why should smoking be banned?

Argumentative Essay - Smoking.

Should Smoking Be Banned?

Why smoking should be banned throughout the UK

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
• Scholarships to Study in USA
• 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
• PR Courses in Australia
• SOP for Australia Student Visa
• 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
• IELTS requirement for Canada Student Visa
• Canada Visa Interview
• Top cities in Canada for International Students
• 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
• Jobs 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
• PLAB Accepted Countries
• 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
• Most Demanding Engineering Fields

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
• Germany Post Study Work Visa
• Post Study Visa in USA
• Packing List for Indian Students
• 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
• Canada Vs India
• 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 30 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.

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

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

Call us to clear your doubts at:

• 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
• Cost of Living in Singapore
• Cost of Living in Netherlands
• 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

Log in using your username and password

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

You are here

• Volume 42, Issue 5
• The case for banning cigarettes
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Kalle Grill 1 ,
• Kristin Voigt 2 , 3
• 1 Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies , University of Umeå , Umea , Sweden
• 2 Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK
• 3 Institute for Health and Social Policy & Department of Philosophy, McGill University, Canada
• Correspondence to Dr Kristin Voigt, Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF; kristin.voigt{at}ethox.ox.ac.uk

Lifelong smokers lose on average a decade of life vis-à-vis non-smokers. Globally, tobacco causes about 5–6 million deaths annually. One billion tobacco-related deaths are predicted for the 21st century, with about half occurring before the age of 70. In this paper, we consider a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes and find that such a ban, if effective, would be justified. As with many policy decisions, the argument for such a ban requires a weighing of the pros and cons and how they impact on different individuals, both current and future. The weightiest factor supporting a ban, we argue, is the often substantial well-being losses many individuals suffer because of smoking. These harms, moreover, disproportionally affect the disadvantaged. The potential gains in well-being and equality, we argue, outweigh the limits a ban places on individuals’ freedom, its failure to respect some individuals’ autonomous choice and the likelihood that it may, in individual cases, reduce well-being.

• Population Policy
• Public Health Ethics
• Public Policy

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102682

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.

Introduction

Lifelong smokers lose on average a decade of life vis-à-vis non-smokers. Globally, tobacco causes about 5–6 million deaths annually. 1 This number is expected to grow: a total of one billion deaths are predicted during the 21st century, with about half occurring before the age of 70. 1 , 2 It is against this background that we will argue for a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes. While our argument focuses on tobacco cigarettes, which in many countries are by far the most popular tobacco product and in the aggregate the most harmful, we think it could be extended to include other forms of combustible tobacco as well.

As with many policy decisions, the argument for a ban requires a weighing of its pros and cons, including its impact on different individuals, both current and future. The weightiest factor supporting a ban, we argue, is the often substantial well-being losses many individuals suffer as a result of smoking. These harms, moreover, disproportionately affect the disadvantaged. The potential gains in well-being and equality, we argue, outweigh the limits a ban places on individuals’ freedom, its failure to respect some individuals’ autonomous choice and the likelihood that it may, in individual cases, reduce well-being.

The idea of a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes is not new. Bans were in place in 15 US states from 1890 to 1927, and Bhutan has had a ban since 2004. 3 Bans on the sale of (at least some) tobacco products have also been endorsed by members of the international tobacco control community. 3–6

In order to bring into focus the fundamental normative issues surrounding a ban on sales, we will simplify our discussion in two ways. First, we assume that a ban would be effective. In the real world, of course, any all-things-considered judgement must be informed by an assessment of a ban's likely effectiveness in different contexts, with due consideration of problems such as smuggled cigarettes and black markets. Second, we focus on a complete ban on sales, comparing this only to the status quo and not to the full range of policy alternatives. i We believe that the necessary debate about different policy instruments in various contexts will be greatly facilitated by consideration of the principled argument for a perfectly effective ban, which is what our paper seeks to provide.

We discuss smoking as a global problem, although most real bans would likely be implemented domestically and our argument might have to be adapted to reflect the situation of individual countries or regions. In rich countries, factors such as the greater availability of cessation resources and information about the risks of smoking make a ban less warranted than in countries where much of the population may be unaware of the risks associated with smoking. We therefore focus our discussion on rich countries in order to tackle the most challenging case for our position. This should not detract from the fact that the majority of death and disease a global ban would prevent will occur in low-income and middle-income countries.

We begin by considering the impact of smoking on health and well-being (section ‘Health and well-being’) and the egalitarian effects of a ban (section ‘Equality’), both of which will be central to our argument. We then discuss how individual freedom and autonomy are affected by a ban in the section ‘Freedom and autonomy’. The sections ‘Voluntariness’, ‘Irrationality’ and ‘Preferences and endorsement’ consider three putative aspects of smoking choices that have been emphasised in the literature: non-voluntariness, irrationality and inconsistency with smokers’ endorsed preferences. These aspects do strengthen the argument for a ban, but their role is different from what is often proposed. In  ‘Banning cigarettes: pros and cons’, we bring together these various considerations and explain why overall they speak in favour of a ban. The final section concludes by briefly commenting on how e-cigarettes could help address some of the problems and opposition facing a ban on conventional cigarettes.

Health and well-being

The health risk of smoking naturally varies with the extent of tobacco use. Long-time smokers face significantly increased health risks, including higher risks of lung and other cancers, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Significant differences in mortality rates between smokers and never-smokers become apparent from middle age onwards. 8 Studies suggest a 10-year to 11-year difference between the lifespans of long-term and never-smokers. 8 , 9 In addition, smoking is implicated in causing many non-fatal conditions that can substantially lower individuals’ quality of life, ranging from asthma, tuberculosis, digestive problems and gum disease to vision problems, reduced fertility as well as impotence. 10

While heavy tobacco use is of course more harmful than light use, even light use, when long term, yields substantial health risks, in some respects approximating those of long-term heavy use. For example, ischaemic heart disease risk is similar in light, intermittent and heavy smokers. 11 With respect to lung cancer, for men smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day, the risk is three times that of never-smokers; for women, it is five times as high. 12

Conversely, cessation—which an effective ban would ensure—is associated with substantial health benefits. While for those who quit before their 30s excess mortality is reduced almost to the level of never-smokers, even those who quit at the ages of 40, 50 and 60 gain about 9, 6 and 3 years of life expectancy, respectively. 8 , 9

We believe that a comprehensive argument for a ban should look beyond health to overall well-being: improving health outcomes would not be worthwhile if this left people worse off overall. Many health risks are quite reasonably considered worth taking by the individuals concerned because of the benefits they bring in other, non-health areas of their lives.

While there may be disagreement in specific instances, on most accounts of well-being both the premature mortality and various diseases associated with smoking will reduce lifetime well-being. On hedonist views, the pain and frustration associated with non-fatal diseases typically decrease well-being with no countervailing benefit. Regarding mortality, life is, with some tragic exceptions, on balance a positive experience, and so more life is better. On preferentist or desire-based views, more of a person's most important preferences will typically be satisfied, and fewer frustrated, if she lives longer and has better health. A longer and healthier life also advances typical objective list entries such as developing and sustaining human relationships, and various moral and rational pursuits. Even if one refrains from specifying the nature of well-being, in line with liberal neutrality, long life and good health are all-purpose means that contribute to the pursuit of almost any life plan.

Importantly, we do not deny that smoking can also promote well-being in certain respects; in fact, we will emphasise below that it can do so and consider the possibility that there may be individuals for whom smoking leads to an overall gain in well-being. However, in the aggregate, the negative well-being effects of smoking are likely much larger than its positive effects.

Smoking also contributes to inequality. Most obviously, smokers are, to varying degrees, worse off than non-smokers because of the health risks and the monetary costs associated with smoking. Less obviously, because of the denormalisation of smoking, smokers are increasingly stigmatised and discriminated against. 13 , 14

What makes smoking particularly problematic from the point of view of equality is that it disproportionately harms people who are disadvantaged in other regards. In many rich countries, smoking rates are significantly higher among low-income groups. In the UK, for example, smoking prevalence in routine or manual occupations is 30% while in managerial and professional occupations it is 16%. 15 Among the most deprived groups, smoking rates reach >70%; among homeless people sleeping rough, 90% are smokers. 16

Of course, not all disadvantaged people smoke, and not all smokers are disadvantaged, socio-economically or otherwise. In the aggregate, however, a ban could help reduce inequalities in health outcomes. Studies suggest that, in Europe, smoking could be the largest single contributor to socio-economic inequalities in health, particularly among men. 17 In the UK, tobacco is considered the cause of about half of the socioeconomic status difference in death rates. 18

Many factors may contribute to unequal smoking rates. Smoking norms vary substantially across different groups. 19 In deprived communities, smoking often plays an important social role. 20 Support with cessation, including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), counselling and medical advice, may also be more accessible for those from better-off groups. Further, the tobacco industry has specifically targeted disadvantaged populations, for example by placing its advertising disproportionately in low-income and ethnic minority neighbourhoods 21 , 22 and devising marketing strategies with particular appeal to the homeless and those with mental health problems. 23 These factors may help explain differences in cessation rates: studies suggest that across social groups smokers make similar numbers of cessation attempts but those in better-off groups are more likely to succeed. 24 It is an ongoing concern that many tobacco control strategies have greater effects on cessation rates among better-off groups vis-à-vis disadvantaged groups; 25 ii an effective ban would enforce cessation equally across social groups, avoiding these inegalitarian effects.

The idea that a ban would enhance equality in health outcomes assumes that those who quit as a result of a ban will substitute smoking with something less harmful to their health. The fact that, as we noted above, cessation is associated with such substantially improved health outcomes suggests that those who quit do so in ways that are overall beneficial for their health. It is not implausible that many of those who would quit as a result of a ban (many of whom, as we note below, are very motivated to quit) would see similarly improved health prospect. However, much will depend on how exactly a ban is phased in and the extent to which it is accompanied by measures to help smokers quit.

Our assessment of a ban should be based on its likely effects not only on health inequalities but on inequalities more broadly conceived. One important concern is that, while unequal smoking rates across different socio-economic groups mean that the health loss averted by a ban should be much greater among disadvantaged groups, a ban could also impose additional burdens on these smokers. As Gostin emphasises, a complete ban would leave many highly addicted smokers in withdrawal and distress, 26 many of them from vulnerable populations, including the poor, prisoners and the homeless, as well as those with mental health problems, for whom the immediate effects of quitting might be more complicated and/or more difficult to deal with. 27

More generally, being disadvantaged—be it socio-economically or in other ways—may also affect people's ability to respond or adapt to a ban. Different ways of ‘phasing in’ a ban might help address these concerns, as could the availability of suitable substitutes, such as e-cigarettes. For example, a ban could be accompanied by free NRT for those on low incomes, prison populations or those in mental health institutions.

For some smokers, the burdens imposed by a ban may be so significant that they will not be compensated for by the benefits cessation would bring; smokers in their 80s or 90s might be a case in point. Limited licensing schemes might be a suitable strategy for this group. Importantly, as we explain in more detail below, these concerns arise in relation to the current generation of smokers and will have much less significance with respect to future generations, who—because of the ban—would not become smokers in the first place. We return to this issue in the  section ‘Banning cigarettes: pros and cons’.

Freedom and autonomy

An important concern about our proposal is that a ban would pose an undue restriction on individual freedom and autonomy. Regarding freedom, we accept that any restriction of the available opportunities reduces freedom of choice. iii However, more freedom is not always better, nor is it always preferred. The disvalue of a particular restriction on freedom depends both on the interest people have in using the opportunity that is being removed, and on the interest people have in having or keeping the opportunity as an opportunity , whether or not they use it. Even non-smokers may have an interest in having the opportunity to smoke: this might be quite a specific interest (eg, in resisting temptation) or a more general interest in having a wide range of options.

Autonomy we understand here as self-direction, involving both an internal and an external aspect. Internal autonomy is the absence of internal obstacles to self-rule, such as ignorance, poor self-confidence or sense of self-worth, incoherent desires or preferences, and various psychological conditions such as clinical depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. External autonomy is the absence of external obstacles to self-rule, most obviously various malign influences from others to manipulate one's deliberations and so undermine one's independence. iv So understood, a ban will not necessarily reduce autonomy. Quite to the contrary, to the extent that a ban frees many smokers of a debilitating addiction, it strengthens their internal autonomy.

A ban may fail to respect individual autonomy. Respecting autonomy, we propose, requires abstaining from frustrating the choices of relatively autonomous people. We accept that there are strong reasons to respect autonomy in this sense. While significant shortfalls from full autonomy reduce our reasons to respect choices, they do not fully eliminate such reasons; interference still requires some justification. v Indeed, since people are typically quite prone to make choices that are far from fully autonomous, we think that almost any choice should warrant some respect. Note that one may choose something even if one does not find the freedom to do so important, or indeed even if one would prefer not to have this freedom. Such choices indicate some sort of inner conflict, but it may still be disrespectful of others to interfere with them.

Freedom and respect for autonomy, as we have described them, can pull in different directions when it comes to evaluating a ban on cigarettes. An autonomous smoker may choose to restrict her own freedom to smoke. For example, she may engage her partner in keeping their shared home free of cigarettes. If someone prevents her from making this arrangement, this protects her freedom to smoke but fails to respect her autonomy. Similarly, smokers may try to engage their government in keeping their society free of cigarettes (in fact, many smokers would welcome a ban imposed by the government; we return to this issue in the section  ‘Preferences and endorsement’); for these smokers, a ban, by restricting their freedom, will respect their autonomy.

Respect for autonomy can also part ways with well-being considerations. A person may autonomously choose to smoke because she does not care about her future well-being or because she falsely believes that a shorter and less healthy life will not decrease her well-being (eg, because she believes, at 21, that she will never want to live past the age of 40 anyway). We have reason both to respect this choice and to protect this person's lifetime well-being.

The next three sections address three related considerations that have been taken to strengthen the case for a ban: the degree to which smoking choices are less than fully voluntary, the limited rationality of these choices and the fact that many smokers do not endorse their smoking choices. Sometimes, these factors are explicitly invoked in relation to freedom or autonomy, sometimes they are invoked as arguments in their own right. As will become apparent, we believe that these considerations can indeed play an important role in the argument for a ban; however, their role has been overstated in the literature and must be qualified in various respects.

Voluntariness

The most comprehensive philosophical argument for strict regulation of smoking (though not explicitly a complete ban on cigarettes) has arguably been put forth by Robert Goodin, especially in his 1989 book, No Smoking: The Ethical Issues . One of Goodin's central arguments for tobacco regulation starts from the idea that because smokers typically have not fully appreciated the risks of smoking, and because smoking is addictive, the associated risks are not voluntarily assumed. This, in Goodin's argument, makes interference with smoking choices much less problematic than interference with other kinds of choices.

Goodin proposes that people are often not sufficiently informed about the consequences of smoking. Being sufficiently informed, on his account, requires not only being able to state the relevant probabilities about risks but also to ‘appreciate them in an emotionally genuine manner’ (ref. 33 , p. 24, citing Gerald Dworkin 34 ). Goodin does not seem to believe that being uninformed completely removes any reasons against regulation, but rather that the less informed a choice is, the less reason we have to abstain from frustrating it (ref. 33 , p. 21).

We share Goodin's concern that smokers must know the risks associated with smoking if we are to fully respect their choice to smoke. Knowledge of the risks of smoking is now well spread in developed countries, but much less so in many developing countries, 35 making the concern about involuntarily incurred risk highly relevant in these countries. This is important not least because 82% of the world's smokers currently live in low-income and middle-income countries. 36

However, Goodin's claim that in order to be sufficiently informed we must also have an emotionally genuine appreciation of these risks amounts to a very strong requirement. It may be very difficult for a 20-year-old to appreciate, ‘in an emotionally genuine manner’, the suffering she might endure as a victim of emphysema 40 years later, especially if she lacks experience of major illness in herself or those close to her. Such a demanding requirement may be more reasonable for choices with immediate effects, but one of the problems with smoking is precisely that people typically start young and suffer the consequences much later. Goodin's criterion of what counts as informed choice may turn out to be too high a bar to clear for most of the choices people make, including our most important choices, such as whether and with whom to have children. On Goodin’s account, we have strong reasons to interfere with such choices if we believe them to be unwise. It is beyond the scope of this article to fully engage with Goodin's arguments on its own terms. However, we believe that the best argument for a tobacco ban does not depend on such a controversial interpretation of informed choice. We think that the argument for a ban can succeed even if we accept that we have strong reasons to respect the choices smokers make, even if they do not fully appreciate the risks of smoking.

The second factor Goodin emphasises is the addictiveness of smoking. He argues that while it is not impossible to overcome addictions, what matters normatively is whether the addictiveness makes it ‘unreasonably costly’ (ref. 33 , p. 25) to do so: if the addiction is so strong “that even someone with ‘normal and reasonable self-control’ would succumb to it, we have little compunction in saying that the addict's free will was sufficiently impaired that his apparent consent counts for naught” (ref. 33 , pp. 25–6, citing Gary Watson 37 ). This condition, Goodin argues, is met in the case of smoking. Thus, a smoker's continuing to smoke cannot be taken as consent to the risks involved. Further, many smokers become addicted below the age of consent and so, Goodin argues, they cannot be taken to have consented to the risk of becoming addicted to nicotine.

While we share some of Goodin's concerns about the implications of addiction, the heterogeneity of smokers means that his argument applies to fewer smokers than Goodin suggests. Consider first the matter of age. It is often claimed that the quota of smokers who become addicted below the age of 21 is extremely high; Goodin puts this number at 95%. However, these numbers are typically based on studies that ask respondents at what age they first started smoking. This question may lead them to focus on their first ever cigarette, which need not indicate the beginning of addiction. Studies that instead ask respondents when they started smoking regularly indicate that the number of smokers who took up smoking as minors is substantially smaller. Surveys of UK smokers indicate that 55–66% start before the age of 18 (ref. 38 , p. 42, ref. 39 , p. 11).

Even regular smoking, however, is not necessarily a good indicator of addiction. Some adolescents may be able to maintain intermittent smoking without developing dependence. 40 Among adults, too, not all smokers become dependent. One study finds that almost 40% of daily smokers fail to meet the criteria of nicotine dependence (though they may exhibit individual symptoms of addiction, such as difficulties abstaining from cigarettes). 41 While there is disagreement about how to define addiction and what proportion of smokers meet the required criteria, there may be a significant proportion of smokers to whom this part of Goodin's argument does not apply.

Furthermore, it is not clear that addiction fully undermines the voluntariness of smoking in all regards. Even if addiction makes it ‘unreasonably costly’ to abstain from one's next cigarette, there may still be scope for devising a longer-term cessation strategy. This kind of long-term planning is arguably less susceptible to the forces of addiction. The addictiveness of tobacco may of course still thwart any cessation attempts smokers do make (we return to this below); but Goodin's argument, by not addressing this issue, proceeds too quickly.

Finally, irrespective of the degree to which addictiveness undermines the voluntariness of smoking, we are more concerned than Goodin that we have some reason to abstain from frustrating even those choices that are substantially non-voluntary. As John Christman notes, “I might know that a person is to some degree under the sway of external pressures that are severely limiting her ability to govern her life and make independent choices. But as long as she has not lost the basic ability to reflectively consider her options and make choices, if I intervene against her will (for her own good), I show less respect for her as a person than if I allow her to make her own mistakes”. 42

Our scepticism about Goodin’s argument should not be taken to imply that we think addictiveness is irrelevant. It is certainly true that many smokers are addicted and have become addicted in their youth; we agree that we have less reason to respect these smokers’ choice to smoke. Moreover, the addictiveness of smoking is often an intermediary cause in people becoming long-term smokers and thus facing substantial health risks. However, the lack of consent argument may apply to a smaller proportion of smokers than Goodin suggests.

More generally, we think that the broader concern here—whether or not smokers voluntarily accept the risks of smoking—should play a somewhat different role in the argument. On the one hand, as we have said, the degree of voluntariness affects the degree to which the choices involved are autonomous and so to what degree we have reason to respect them. At the same time, though, even if risks were accepted in a fully voluntary manner, this does not mean that the resulting harm is not undesirable or that we should not seek to prevent it.

Harms can be undesirable even if they result from risks that are voluntarily assumed. If, for example, I risk my health by donating a kidney to a relative, this does not detract from the undesirability of any ensuing harms. There may be an exception for harms that are actively sought out: a person may want to die, or want to amputate an arm, where this is not merely instrumental to some aim that can be reached in less harmful ways. However, when a person simply accepts a risk of what is for her an undesirable outcome, this is clearly not by itself a reason to disregard the risk or outcome.

Jason Hanna makes a persuasive argument against tying the justifiability of paternalism to voluntarily assumed risks. 43 Hanna gives the example of a reckless hiker who voluntarily abstains from gathering information on which bridges in the area are dangerous. Later on, the hiker unknowingly starts to cross a dangerous bridge, not because he wants to court danger but simply to finish his hike. If respect for autonomy precludes from moral consideration voluntarily assumed risks, then a bystander has no reason to intervene, which seems an unacceptable conclusion (ref. 43 , pp. 424–5). Similarly, we cannot conclude that we should abstain from intervening with smoking simply because smokers have voluntarily assumed the health risks.

Irrationality

A further concern in the normative debate about smoking and about how governments ought to respond to it is that smoking choices are in some sense irrational. This is the argument Sarah Conly pursues in her recent book, Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism , where she argues that we should often disregard, at least to some extent, smokers’ apparent preference for smoking. Goodin takes similar considerations to bolster his argument from lack of consent. The argument from irrationality can start from either impairments in the decision-making of smokers (in particular, cognitive biases) or, relatedly, from a discrepancy between smokers’ own goals and their choices.

Invoking impairment, Goodin argues that intervention into the choice to smoke is especially warranted if smokers’ false beliefs are caused by cognitive biases. Goodin points to evidence that smokers are subject to three biases, which are now most often called optimistic bias (‘wishful thinking’), the availability heuristic (‘anchoring’) and hyperbolic or temporal discounting (‘time discounting’). 33 As is more thoroughly researched and more widely appreciated now than when Goodin wrote his book, these biases are quite general, and not particular to smokers. 44 Therefore, either of two conclusions are possible: either the charge that smoking choices in particular are impaired loses its force or the charge is expanded to very many decisions we make. The latter option is the one pursued by Conly.

Conly cites a wide range of research in behavioural psychology and concludes: “We generally suffer from many flaws in instrumental reasoning that interfere with our ability to make effective and efficient choices” (ref. 45 , p. 23). The same conclusion has motivated Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein to promote what they call libertarian paternalism—benevolent structuring of choice situations that does not significantly affect the outcomes of the various options in the choice set. 46 , 47 Conly argues that libertarian paternalist measures are insufficient to ensure that people's choices promote their well-being and that we have no good reason to abstain from coercive measures. Her argument, however, is thoroughly consequentialist and does not give a role to respect for autonomy as we understand it. Instead, she assumes that we have reason to respect autonomy only if this is an effective means of promoting some other goal: “the basic premise of liberalism […] is that we are basically rational, prudent creatures who may thus, and should thus, direct themselves autonomously” (ref. 45 , p. 30). Conly rejects this premise and draws the conclusion that “when it comes to respect for autonomy, we can see that our belief that autonomous actions should not be interfered with was based on a mistake” (ref. 45 , p. 192).

Since we believe that there is reason to respect an agent's choices, even when these choices do not promote the agent's well-being, we find the argument from irrationality unpersuasive. Behavioural research may have proven that poor instrumental rationality is a general aspect of human decision-making. This, however, does not necessarily undermine our reasons to respect choices that are about as autonomous as choices typically are. What would be more relevant is if smokers in particular were prone to irrationality. There is some evidence that addiction causes behaviour that may be deemed irrational, though this is disputed. vi

We now turn from the proposal that poor instrumental rationality is an impairment to the more consequentialist observation that poor instrumental rationality, impaired or not, is prone to create a discrepancy between goals and actions. It is clear that people make choices that do not further their own well-being. What has been open to interpretation and debate is whether this means that people fail to effectively promote their goals or whether, instead, they might have goals other than furthering their own well-being. The extensive study of cognitive biases has given us some reason to favour the first interpretation: if people are under the constant influence of cognitive bias, we can expect that they will not effectively further their own goals. Therefore, the fact that they do not promote their own well-being need not indicate that this is not their goal.

Conly argues that “[w]hat we need to do is to help one another avoid mistakes so that we may all end up where we want to be ” (ref. 45 , p. 2, emphasis added). Where we want to be, Conly assumes, there are no cigarettes. She describes smoking as a “bad course[] of action” (ref. 45 , p. 8) and an instance of people “choos[ing] poorly” (ref. 45 , p. 9). Smokers, she says, “spend a disproportionate amount of their income on a habit that will probably leave them in worse health and possibly shorten their life without bestowing compensating benefits ” (ref. 45 , p. 33, emphasis added). Goodin similarly argues that “what is involved here is a weak form of paternalism, working within the individual's own theory of the good and merely imposing upon him better means of achieving his own ends ” (ref. 50 , p. 23, emphasis added).

While we agree that we should be concerned about a possible discrepancy between smokers’ goals and their choices, Conly's argument does not give sufficient weight to the fact that many people find smoking pleasurable and enjoy the taste or the buzz and relaxing effects that come from nicotine. As summarised in a recent study, “nicotine induces pleasure and reduces stress and anxiety. Smokers use it to modulate levels of arousal and to control mood. Smoking improves concentration, reaction time, and performance of certain tasks” (ref. 51 , p. 2298). The behavioural components of smoking may also be experienced as relaxing. 52 It is certainly not obvious that the net effect of smoking on well-being is necessarily negative. While Conly briefly discusses pleasure in the context of tobacco and acknowledges the pleasure addicted smokers experience from cigarettes (mainly the pleasure of alleviating withdrawal symptoms) (ref. 45 , pp. 170–1), she dismisses too quickly the possibility that those who smoke but are not addicted can derive substantial pleasure from cigarettes. vii This is particularly important because, as we noted above, a significant portion of smokers may not in fact be addicted.

Could these pleasures indeed outweigh the risks and so make smoking consistent with the goal of furthering one's own well-being? This, we think, can vary, depending primarily on an individual's level of tobacco consumption. Consider lung cancer, which is one of the most severe conditions associated with smoking (though, of course, not the only one; lung cancer causes less than half of the excess mortality among smokers). 8 For heavy, life-long smokers, studies estimate the risk of developing lung cancer over the course of one's life to be up to 25% compared with 0.2–1% for never-smokers. 54 For these smokers, it seems plausible to claim that the benefits could not possibly outweigh the risks. However, this is much less clear at lower levels of consumption. Though smoking 1–4 cigarettes a day, as noted above, increases the risk of lung cancer by 3–5 times, 12 this must be seen in relation to the very low risk for never-smokers. Further, while the literature emphasises that there is no ‘safe’ or ‘risk-free’ level of tobacco consumption, those who quit before age 30 appear to avoid almost all of the excess mortality risk associated with continued smoking. 8 , 9 , 55 Given that smoking can further such goals as pleasure, manifesting a romantic nonchalance and social belonging, these risks seem potentially quite acceptable. viii Moreover, given that the cost of cessation is typically higher than the cost of not starting, it may be more rational to keep smoking than to start.

Further, even when the harms of long-time smoking and the limited benefits it brings combine to make smoking apparently irrational for the typical smoker, it does not follow that we should completely disregard these choices. Some limited irrationality is common and should not automatically undermine respect for individuals’ choices. At the same time, outright irrationality, caused by smoking-specific cognitive failures or simply inferred from severe lack of goal orientation, may remove or significantly weaken our reasons to respect choice. To the extent that smokers display such irrationality, this strengthens the case for a ban. However, the degree to which this concern applies to individual smokers will vary and we should be cautious in giving it too much weight in our argument.

While the irrationality of smoking has played an important role in arguments for tight tobacco control, we have emphasised two broad concerns in this section: first, smoking choices may be more rational than is often assumed and, second, even irrational choices warrant more respect than is typically allowed in the literature on smoking. Our argument for a ban on cigarettes focuses instead on the well-being losses it would avert; that people may be irrational and not secure these benefits for themselves in the absence of a ban is an additional consideration in its favour but should play a much smaller role in the argument than it does for Goodin and Conly.

Preferences and endorsement

A further factor supporting the case for a ban is that smokers often do not endorse their preference for smoking: They have a preference to smoke but also a preference about that preference : they would prefer not to have it. In a 1991 article, Goodin argues that public policy “can hardly be said to be paternalistic in any morally offensive respect [if] the preferences which it overrides are ones which people themselves wish they did not have” (ref. 56 , p. 48). For Goodin, the fact that smokers typically go through many failed cessation attempts shows that their preference for smoking is often not endorsed. The preference for quitting, on the other hand, typically has second-order endorsement (ref. 56 , pp. 47–48).

Studies indeed suggest that the majority of smokers want to quit. US data puts this proportion at 70%, 57 UK data at 64% of smokers. 39 Further, in a study with participants from Canada, the USA, the UK and Australia, about 90% of smokers agreed with the statement, “If you had to do it over again, you would not have started smoking”. 58 This indicates that many smokers themselves do not find smoking consistent with their goals, lending support both to concerns about irrationality and non-voluntariness, which we discussed above. It also indicates, more directly, that many smokers are unhappy with their smoking.

However, if (endorsed) preferences are to guide policy decisions, then a policy designed to prevent smokers from smoking may also need to be evaluated based on smokers’ preferences about that policy : it is quite possible that I would prefer not to prefer to smoke, but that I also prefer that the government not prevent my smoking. In fact, Goodin seems to assume that smokers will themselves be opposed to regulation (ref. 56 , p. 42). It is not clear why, on his account, such preferences about policy would not tell against a ban.

Looking at preferences about a ban, a somewhat different picture emerges. Many smokers would welcome a ban, though not a majority. Studies from the USA, England, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the Australian state of Victoria suggest that among current smokers about 25–38% would support the introduction of a ban over the next 10 years or so. 59–63

Where does this leave the argument for a ban? Though Goodin’s treatment is not sufficiently sensitive to vast individual variations, the high degree to which smokers want and try to quit certainly weakens those reasons against a ban that are based on respect for autonomy and the value of freedom: it is arguably more important to respect choices that are endorsed by the chooser, and people generally have a greater interest in preserving options that they would like to make use of. We must also consider smokers’ preferences about the ban. As noted, studies from several countries indicate that about a third of them support such a proposal; for these smokers, respect for autonomy actually tells in favour of a ban.

Importantly, people will not have equal ‘stakes’ in this decision. On the one hand, those supporting the ban may be heavy smokers who find themselves unable to quit, seeking to free themselves of a substantial burden on their health, well-being and finances. On the other hand, those who are not addicted and enjoy the occasional cigarette may find that a ban removes a source of pleasure for them. Non-smokers, too, may value the opportunity to smoke; as we noted above, people can value opportunities even if they have no intention of making use of them. However, if—as seems likely—very few non-smokers actually have any intention of using this option, their interest in keeping it open should weigh much less heavily in decisions about tobacco control. Simply ‘adding up’ these different preferences may, therefore, not be an appropriate way to give them the respect they are due. ix

Banning cigarettes: pros and cons

It is time to bring together the various strands of our argument and consider how they inform the desirability or otherwise of a ban on the sale of cigarettes. Much of the literature on strict tobacco regulation focuses on various ways in which smoking choices are significantly less than fully autonomous—involuntariness, irrationality and lack of endorsement of smoking choices are the most prominent considerations in the literature, as we discussed in the preceding sections. We agree that these factors are crucial; however, contrary to how they are viewed by other proponents of strict tobacco regulation (such as Conly and Goodin), these factors do not by themselves establish that a cigarette ban is justified, for two reasons: first, many smokers and/or smoking choices do not in fact meet the identified criterion: a significant proportion of smokers may not be addicted, not all smoking choices reflect an irrational assessment of benefits and risks, and so on. Second, when smoking choices do fall short of requirements of autonomy in these ways, interference with these choices becomes more acceptable but it does not become wholly unproblematic. As we discussed above, the primary concern for us is the well-being loss that is associated with cigarettes. We accept that a ban would interfere with some (reasonably) autonomous choices as well as restrict individual freedom, but these negative implications are far outweighed by the well-being gains a ban would imply for both current and future generations.

What speaks against a ban is, first, its negative effects on freedom, in terms of the loss of a valued opportunity to smoke and, second, its failure to respect the autonomy of the many smokers who apparently choose to smoke. With respect to the first concern, we noted that non-smokers have an interest in keeping the option of smoking open and a cigarette ban will involve a restriction of their freedom, even if they have no intention of consuming cigarettes. While it is important to acknowledge this point, we must also emphasise that this is a fairly minimal cost, especially relative to what is at stake for smokers.

The degree to which smokers value the freedom to smoke is likely to vary. Indeed, about a third would favour a ban, which indicates that they do not value the opportunity to smoke very highly, or at least that this value is outweighed by other considerations. Furthermore, it seems that the majority of smokers plan to quit and wish they had never started. Therefore, the freedom to smoke may be unimportant for many—possibly the majority of—smokers.

Regarding autonomy, we noted that by removing a source of addiction a ban would contribute to many current smokers’ internal autonomy. This is, of course, a strong reason in favour of a ban. At the same time, a ban fails to respect the choices of the many people who currently smoke, especially those who wish to continue. We have discussed how lack of voluntariness, irrationality and lack of endorsement may mean that many smoking choices warrant less respect than choices typically warrant. Of these facts, lack of voluntariness due to early smoking initiation and due to addiction, lack of second-order endorsement of the preference to smoke and a positive preference for a ban strike us as the most significant. However, many choices to smoke are not burdened by any of these factors, and even when they are, they warrant some respect.

These concerns with freedom and autonomy must be weighed against what we considered the two main considerations supporting a ban: first, the well-being gained by averting substantial health losses that many individuals would otherwise face. This includes averting the expected increase from the current 5–6 million annual premature deaths from tobacco, many of which occur in middle age, and eventually reducing this number to zero, as well as avoiding many non-fatal but severe health conditions. Second, the positive effects on equality achieved by removing a source of poor health that disproportionately affects those who are already disadvantaged.

We recognised that some smokers’ well-being might be negatively affected by a ban. This is most likely for two kinds of smokers. First, those who enjoy smoking and only smoke occasionally and thus face much smaller health risks that are outweighed by the pleasures they gain—think, for example, of people who like to smoke a cigar a few times a year. Second, those who, despite substantial cigarette use, will not see substantial benefits from cessation, for example, because they are very old or fatally ill. Cessation support and limited licensing schemes may help this latter group but do not necessarily address this concern fully. While these burdens should not be downplayed, it must be noted that a ban would lower well-being for only a small minority of people and only for the current generation.

The group that stands to gain the most from a ban, on the other hand, are lifelong heavy smokers for whom the pleasures of smoking are not worth the risks and who, because of tobacco's addictive properties, find it extremely difficult or even impossible to effectively act on their preference not to smoke. These smokers are often among the most disadvantaged in society in other regards. Significant well-being gains can also be expected for those who smoke less, and even much less—as we noted above, even low levels of tobacco consumption can be associated with significant health risks.

As far as the current generation is concerned, then, four factors speak in favour of a ban: first, very large benefits in aggregate well-being. Second, reduced inequality in well-being because the benefits accrue largely to the disadvantaged. Third, improvements in internal autonomy for those who would prefer not to smoke. Fourth, respect for the autonomy of that proportion of the smoking population who want a ban (the evidence we cited suggests that this is about a third). These considerations stand against three opposing considerations: first, diminished well-being for those smokers whose well-being is improved by smoking (which we consider to be a small number of smokers). Second, a reduction in freedom that, as we argued, should be given less weight where non-smokers are concerned, and which is unimportant to many smokers (at least to those who want a ban and perhaps also to many who do not but who do not want to smoke). Third, a ban will fail to respect the autonomy of current smokers—though some of our reasons for such respect are weakened by lack of voluntariness, irrationality and lack of endorsement. This failure of respect is arguably greatest with regard to that proportion of smokers who do not favour a ban (about two-thirds). To us, despite the weighty considerations opposing a ban, the balance is very much in its favour.

Consider now all those potential future people who have not yet faced the choice of whether or not to smoke. With an effective ban, these people will not be tempted by the presence of cigarettes. They will not encounter social settings where smoking is advantageous. They may simply regard smoking a historical curiosity. While their freedom is restricted by a ban, it seems likely that the lost option will be quite insignificant to most of them. Some future people might have improved their well-being by smoking, some will surely oppose the ban and some will think they would have liked to smoke. For some of them, the choice to smoke may have been rational and/or endorsed. We expect, however, that this group will form a small minority and a significantly smaller section of the population than is the subsection of the present population who smoke and oppose a ban. For future people, therefore, the arguments against a ban are much weaker than for current people. The arguments for a ban, on the other hand, are just as strong: well-being and equality will be promoted by preventing the harms of smoking, for future people as for current people. With respect to future generations, therefore, the case for a ban seems even more clear-cut than for the current generation.

Some of these future people, it should be noted, are already alive, in the form of children who are too young to have faced the choice of whether or not to smoke. Especially in poor countries, this group is not as large as one would like since children encounter smoking very early. Still, >600 million people are below the age of five. x This group will supply many of the 10 million annually who are expected to face premature death from smoking from 2050 and on. For them, as well as for future people, the case for a ban seems overwhelming.

For those who consider freedom and/or respect for autonomy more important than we do, or promotion of autonomy and/or well-being and/or equality less important, taking a more long-term perspective is likely to shift the balance of reasons to favour a ban. Indeed, it seems to us merely a matter of how long a perspective one takes. If we consider all the people who will be born in this present century, it is hard to see how prevention of the more than one billion expected premature deaths and the substantial individual suffering that comes with it could be outweighed by respect for the choice of some present (and some future would-be) smokers and concern for the restrictions on freedom involved.

One concern we might have about making the case for a cigarette ban is that of a ‘slippery slope’: once we acknowledge the possibility that cigarettes should be banned, what would stop us from banning, say, certain types of food, alcohol or risky sports? In response, it is crucial to emphasise that arguments about banning or legalising any particular substances or activities need to be made on their own terms and focus on the characteristics of the activity or substance in question. Much of the argument we present here relies on a combination of features that is specific to cigarettes and could not be easily extended to other substances—such as the high risks for long-term users and the high level of addictiveness. At the same time, we think that the broad strategy we pursued here—going beyond questions about individual freedom to consider the well-being impact of smoking on different individuals—could be helpful in discussing the status of other substances and activities.

Philosophical arguments for bans typically focus on particular features of smoking choices—that they are irrational, non-voluntary and/or unendorsed—that are taken to make it (fairly) unproblematic for policymakers to interfere. However, these arguments are too quick in two respects: first, many smoking choices do not, in fact, share the identified characteristic. Second, while irrationality, non-voluntariness and lack of endorsement may weaken our reasons for protecting choices, they certainly do not remove them entirely. Much of the opposition to bans rests precisely on the understanding that we have reason to respect people's choices, even when these choices are problematic in various respects. Our argument has sought to stake out a more nuanced position, which acknowledges and gives substantial weight to the potential of a ban to disrespect individual autonomy and restrict freedom but emphasises the well-being losses such a ban could avert.

Of course, the argument for a ban faces not only philosophical but also political opposition. However, the idea is slowly gaining traction in the tobacco control community and various ways of phasing in such a ban are being explored. What is more, electronic cigarettes and the debate surrounding them could provide a helpful entry point towards a serious discussion about a ban on conventional cigarettes. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine to users in a way that is much more similar to conventional cigarettes than other currently available nicotine delivery systems. While the jury is still out on the harmfulness of e-cigarettes to users and bystanders, 65 there is a decent chance that these devices will turn out to be much less harmful than conventional cigarettes. Appropriate regulation could help ensure that these harms remain below acceptable levels. To the extent that e-cigarettes can provide a substitute for conventional cigarettes, many of the costs associated with a ban—in terms of limiting freedom and forcing current smokers to quit—would be alleviated. At the same time, many of the concerns about e-cigarettes—for example, that they would act as a ‘gateway’ to conventional cigarettes 66 and that they would ‘renormalise’ smoking 67 —would fall away if conventional cigarettes are effectively banned.

Some readers may not agree with the weighing we have given to the different pros and cons of banning cigarettes. For these readers, a more cautious conclusion is that it is important to recognise the variety of considerations at stake, as well as the fact that the costs of a ban would diminish with respect to future generations as these would grow up without cigarettes. Our conclusion, however, is that in light of the substantial death and disease it could avert, the case for a complete and effective ban on the sale of cigarettes is very strong.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Adina Preda for helpful comments on an earlier draft. KG's work is supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (grant no. 2009-2189). KV's work is supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (grant no. 172569).

• McDaniel P ,
• Walters EH ,
• Boreham J , et al
• Reeves GK , et al
• ↵ ASH . Smoking statistics: illness and death. ash.org.uk. http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_107.pdf (accessed 14 May 2015 ).
• Schane RE ,
• Bjartveit K ,
• Richardson K ,
• Mackenbach J
• Hiscock R ,
• Amos A , et al
• MacAskill S ,
• MacKintosh A , et al
• Barbeau EM ,
• Naumova E , et al
• Yerger VB ,
• Przewoznik J ,
• Apollonio DE ,
• Clifford D , et al
• Schroeder SA ,
• Dworkin G ,
• Abdullah A ,
• Chaloupka F ,
• Corrao M , et al
• Fernander A ,
• Rayens MK ,
• Zhang M , et al
• ↵ USDHHS . Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: a report of the surgeon general . Atlanta, GA : US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion , 2012 .
• Christman J
• Sunstein CR ,
• Benowitz NL
• Fagerström K
• Brennan P ,
• Zaridze D , et al
• Ramasundarahettige C ,
• Landsman V , et al
• Hammond D ,
• Laux FL , et al
• Connolly GN ,
• Healton CG , et al
• Lam TH , et al
• Edwards R ,
• Peace J , et al
• Wakefield MA ,
• Benowitz NL ,

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

↵ i Note that many proposals are not alternatives to a ban but rather strategies for its implementation. This includes gradual phase-out schemes, such as the Tobacco Free Generation legislation currently under consideration by Tasmania’s government. 7

↵ ii A possible exception to this appears to be increased taxation. However, taxation comes with a set of egalitarian concerns of its own; see Voigt 19 for further discussion.

↵ iii This is in accordance with the mainstream liberal tradition whose proponents include Isaiah Berlin, 28 Joel Feinberg 29 and Ian Carter. 30 This is, we believe, a quite intuitive way to think about freedom.

↵ iv By defining autonomy negatively, we hope to remain somewhat neutral between various more substantial accounts. Sometimes, external autonomy is taken to require freedom (ref. 31 , p. 204). Since we consider freedom separately, we will leave this possibility to the side here.

↵ v For an extensive treatment of respect for less than fully autonomous choice, see Grill. 32

↵ vi For a range of perspectives, see Elster and Skog; 48 for a convincing case that addicts do display some particular irrationality, see Rachlin. 49

↵ vii The idea that smoking might be pleasurable typically receives little attention in the literature. For an interesting discussion of how the relationship between harm and pleasure is viewed in public health discourses about smoking, particularly in the context of e-cigarettes, see Bell and Keane. 53

↵ viii This should not detract from the concern that unfair inequalities can affect the costs and benefits associated with smoking and thereby the extent to which the risks of smoking become acceptable. For example, as we mentioned in the section ‘Equality’, social norms around smoking vary across social groups, with smoking often playing an important social role in disadvantaged communities but much less so in affluent ones; this means that not smoking can come with a cost for those in disadvantaged communities that does not exist for those in wealthier ones. That this can make the risks of smoking more acceptable in some social groups than others should be viewed as an unfair disadvantage. 19

↵ ix On respect for divergent preferences in groups, cf. discussion on group consent by Grill. 64

↵ x CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

Linked Articles

• Mini-Symposium: Regulating smoking Ethics of tobacco harm reduction from a liberal perspective Yvette van der Eijk Journal of Medical Ethics 2015; 42 273-277 Published Online First: 26 Nov 2015. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-102974
• The concise argument Paternalism on Mars Dominic Wilkinson Journal of Medical Ethics 2016; 42 271-272 Published Online First: 25 Apr 2016. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103598

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Other content recommended for you.

• Heterogeneity in the measurement and reporting of outcomes in studies of electronic cigarette use in adolescents: a systematic analysis of observational studies Carlos Echevarria et al., Tobacco Control, 2017
• Reducing the addictiveness of cigarettes Jack E Henningfield et al., Tobacco Control, 1998
• Public support for tobacco endgame policies in South Korea: Findings from the 2020 International Tobacco Control Korea Survey Heewon Kang et al., Tobacco Control, 2024
• Pharmaceuticalisation as the tobacco industry’s endgame Yogi Hale Hendlin et al., BMJ Global Health, 2024
• Analysis of FDA’s IQOS marketing authorisation and its policy impacts Lauren Kass Lempert et al., Tobacco Control, 2020
• Cigarettes, heated tobacco products and dual use: exhaled carbon monoxide, saliva cotinine and total tobacco consumed by Hong Kong tobacco users Xiaoyu Zhang et al., Tobacco Control, 2023
• Predictors of electronic cigarette use among Swedish teenagers: a population-based cohort study Linnea Hedman et al., BMJ Open, 2020
• Prevalence and predictors of heated tobacco product use and its relationship with attempts to quit cigarette smoking among Korean adolescents Seo Young Kang et al., Tobacco Control, 2020
• One of several ‘toys’ for smoking: young adult experiences with electronic cigarettes in New York City Emily Anne McDonald et al., Tobacco Control, 2015
• Double standards and arguments for tobacco regulation Jessica Flanigan, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2016

How bad is vaping and should it be banned?

Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne), Curtin University

PhD Candidate (Psychiatry) & Research Assistant, University of Newcastle

Disclosure statement

Nicole Lee works as a consultant in the health sector and a psychologist in private practice. She has previously received funding by Australian and state governments, NHMRC and other bodies for evaluation and research into alcohol and other drug prevention and treatment.

Brigid Clancy is an Associate at 360Edge, a drug and alcohol consultancy company.

University of Newcastle and Curtin University provide funding as members of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Vaping regularly makes headlines, with some campaigning to make e-cigarettes more available to help smokers quit, while others are keen to see vaping products banned, citing dangers, especially for teens.

So just how dangerous is it? We have undertaken an evidence check of vaping research . This included more than 100 sources on tobacco harm reduction, vaping prevalence and health effects, and what other countries are doing in response. Here’s what we found.

How does vaping compare to smoking?

Smoking is harmful. It’s the leading preventable cause of death in Australia. It causes 13% of all deaths , including from lung, mouth, throat and bladder cancer, emphysema, heart attack and stroke, to name just a few. People who smoke regularly and don’t quit lose about ten years of life compared with non-smokers.

Nicotine, a mild stimulant, is the active ingredient in both cigarettes and nicotine vaping products. It’s addictive but isn’t the cause of cancer or the other diseases related to smoking.

Ideally, people wouldn’t be addicted to nicotine, but having a safe supply without the deadly chemicals, for instance by using nicotine patches or gum, is safer than smoking. Making these other sources available is known as “harm reduction”.

Vaping is not risk-free, but several detailed reviews of the evidence plus a consensus of experts have all estimated it’s at least 95% safer to vape nicotine than to smoke tobacco. The risk of cancer from vaping, for example, has been estimated at less than 1%.

These reviews looked at the known dangerous chemicals in cigarettes, and found there were very few and in very small quantities in nicotine vapes. So the argument that we won’t see major health effects for a few more decades is causing more alarm than is necessary.

Is ‘everyone’ vaping these days?

Some are concerned about the use of vaping products by teens, but currently available statistics show very few teens vape regularly. Depending on the study, between 9.6% and 32% of 14-17-year-olds have tried vaping at some point in their lives.

But less than 2% of 14-17-year-olds say they have used vapes in the past year. This number doubled between 2016 and 2019, but is still much lower than the rates of teen smoking (3.2%) and teen alcohol use (32%).

It’s the same pattern we see with drugs other than alcohol: a proportion of people try them but only a very small proportion of those go on to use regularly or for a long time. Nearly 60% of people who try vaping only use once or twice .

Smoking rates in Australia have declined from 24% in 1991 to 11% in 2019 because we have introduced a number of very successful measures such as restricting sales and where people can smoke, putting up prices, introducing plain packaging, and improving education and access to treatment programs.

But it’s getting harder to encourage the remaining smokers to quit with the methods that have worked in the past. Those still smoking tend to be older , more socially disadvantaged , or have mental health problems.

Read more: My teen's vaping. What should I say? 3 expert tips on how to approach 'the talk'

Should we ban vapes?

So we have a bit of a dilemma. Vaping is much safer than smoking, so it would be helpful for adults to have access to it as an alternative to cigarettes. That means we need to make them more available and accessible.

But ideally we don’t want teens who don’t already smoke to start regular vaping. This has led some to call for a “ crackdown ” on vaping.

But we know from a long history of drug prohibition - like alcohol prohibition in the 1920s - that banning or restricting vaping could actually do more harm than good.

Banning drugs doesn’t stop people using them - more than 43% of Australians have tried an illicit drug at least once. And it has very little impact on the availability of drugs.

But prohibition does have a number of unintended consequences, including driving drugs underground and creating a black market or increasing harms as people switch to other drugs, which are often more dangerous.

The black market makes drugs more dangerous because there is no way to control quality. And it makes it easier, not harder, for teens to access them, because there are no restrictions on who can sell or buy them.

Read more: Learning about the health risks of vaping can encourage young vapers to rethink their habit

Are our current laws working?

In 2021, Australia made it illegal to possess and use nicotine vaping products without a prescription. We are the only country in the world to take this path.

The problem is even after more than a year of this law, only 8.6% of people vaping nicotine have a prescription, meaning more than 90% buy them illegally.

Anecdotal reports even suggest an increase in popularity of vaping among teens since these laws were introduced. At best, they are not helping.

It may seem counterintuitive, but the way to reduce the black market is to make quality-controlled vapes and liquids more widely available, but restricted to adults. If people could access vaping products legally they wouldn’t buy them on the black market and the black market would decline.

We also know from many studies on drug education in schools that when kids get accurate, non-sensationalised information about drugs they tend to make healthier decisions. Sensationalised information can have the opposite effect and increase interest in drugs . So better education in schools and for parents and teachers is also needed, so they know how to talk to kids about vaping and what to do if they know someone is vaping.

What have other countries done?

Other countries allow vapes to be legally sold without a prescription, but impose strict quality controls and do not allow the sale of products to people under a minimum age. This is similar to our regulation of cigarettes and alcohol.

The United Kingdom has minimum standards on manufacturing, as well as restrictions on purchase age and where people can vape.

Aotearoa New Zealand introduced a unique plan to reduce smoking rates by imposing a lifetime ban on buying cigarettes. Anyone born after January 1 2009 will never be able to buy cigarettes, so the minimum age you can legally smoke keeps increasing. At the same time, NZ increased access to vaping products under strict regulations on manufacture, purchase and use.

As of late last year, all US states require sellers to have a retail licence, and sales to people under 21 are banned. There are also restrictions on where people can vape.

A recent study modelled the impact of increasing access to nicotine vaping products in Australia. It found it’s likely there would be significant public health benefits by relaxing the current restrictive policies and increasing access to nicotine vaping products for adults.

The question is not whether we should discourage teens from using vaping products or whether we should allow wider accessibility to vaping products for adults as an alternative to smoking. The answer to both those questions is yes.

The key question is how do we do both effectively without one policy jeopardising the outcomes of the other?

If we took a pragmatic harm-reduction approach, as other countries have done, we could use our very successful model of regulation of tobacco products as a template to achieve both outcomes.

Read more: It's safest to avoid e-cigarettes altogether – unless vaping is helping you quit smoking

• Tobacco control

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Technical Assistant - Metabolomics

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

Head, School of Psychology

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays
• Ban Smoking Essay

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay

This is a  ban smoking in public places  essay. It is an example of an essay where you have to give your opinion as to whether you agree or disagree.

The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

It is always a good idea to present a balanced essay which presents both sides of the argument, but you must always make it very clear what your opinion is and which side of the argument you support.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer:

Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.

Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke where they wish.

However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sites in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas.

In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.

(290 words)

This essay is well organized and presented.

The introduction is clear - note how it follows the ban smoking in public places essay question - it paraphrases the information in order to introduce the topic and the argument.

The argument against a ban on smoking in public places is presented first. It is made clear that it is not the authors opinion by the topic sentence:

• "Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons".

And also by the use of the word 'they' to refer to the opponents.

The writer then clearly shows they are moving on to the other argument which is their own (and it has clearly been stated in the thesis that this is their argument):

• "However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban".

In this paragraph, 'they' is dropped because it is now the writers opinion.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay: Should we all be vegetarian to be healthy?

Vegetarianism Essay for IELTS: In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Human Cloning Essay: Should we be scared of cloning humans?

Human cloning essay - this is on the topic of cloning humans to use their body parts. You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts, and what reservations (concerns) you have.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 30% Discount Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

IELTS Bundle Writing eBooks: 30% Off

Jun 01, 24 09:55 AM

House Sitting

May 31, 24 03:59 AM

Key Phrases for IELTS Speaking: Fluency and Coherence

May 26, 24 06:52 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

B.C. woman fuming that seniors' advocacy group CARP in bed with Big Tobacco company

Carp calls b.c. critic ‘woke’, won’t say how much rothmans, benson & hedges paid for sponsorship deal.

Partnership between CARP, Big Tobacco leaves senior fuming

Social sharing.

Ellen Gould joined the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) — Canada's largest advocacy group for older adults — because she considered it a "trustworthy organization" that advocates for seniors' health.

So when an email arrived from CARP, inviting the Powell River, B.C., resident to take part in a focus group on smoking habits in Canada, Gould was intrigued.

The email said CARP members would discuss "smokeless alternatives" to cigarettes, including vaping products — commonly known as e-cigarettes or vaping pens — which are battery-operated and heat up a liquid solution into an aerosol for inhalation.

But when Gould scrolled to the bottom of an accompanying survey, she discovered the project was funded by Rothmans, Benson & Hedges (RBH), a Toronto-based tobacco company owned by giant Philip Morris International, one of the largest tobacco companies in the industry.

"It is such a shock to me that CARP would be acting as a shill for Big Tobacco," said Gould. "I just found that so offensive."

Got a story you want investigated? Contact Erica and the Go Public team

RBH claims on its website that it wants to stop selling cigarettes by 2035 and has shifted its focus to vaping products. They don't emit smoke, but they do contain nicotine and according to Health Canada, the aerosol can contain potentially harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde, chromium and aluminum. 

"CARP should be advocating for smoking and vaping cessation programs, rather than giving Rothmans a new lease on life by promoting vaping to seniors," said Gould, a public policy researcher who, in 2019, decided to investigate the health effects of vaping devices to help write a smoking and vaping bylaw for her condo building.

A prominent tobacco researcher and health policy expert says CARP's partnership with RBH lends legitimacy to a company that realizes tobacco cigarettes are waning in popularity and wants more people to vape.

• VAPE FAIL 'Are they safe to inhale?': Vaping liquids in Canada contain potentially harmful chemicals, tests show
• Vape Fail 'It is not harmless:' Dentists voice concern over vaping

"They're continuing to try to addict people to their … products," said Robert Schwartz,  executive director and principal investigator at the University of Toronto's Ontario Tobacco Research Unit. 

"How would [CARP] even think about co-operating with a tobacco company." 

CARP declined an interview request from Go Public. 

In an email , CARP president Rudy Buttignol wrote that RBH approached CARP about a partnership and the advocacy organization agreed, because smoking "had fallen from view as a societal issue" and it "found the idea interesting."

Buttignol declined to say how much money the tobacco company provided for access to CARP members.

A spokesperson for Rothmans, Benson & Hedges said in an email  that "research of this kind is … legal and appropriate" and that no specific RBH products were referenced as part of the discussion with members of CARP. 

Tobacco companies 'not trustworthy'

An estimated 3.2-million Canadians smoke cigarettes daily, according to the federal government , which also notes that 125 Canadians die every day from smoking-related illnesses — more than the combined deaths from alcohol, opioids, suicides, murders and traffic accidents. 

Big Tobacco has a controversial history of downplaying the significant health risks associated with its products. 

Back in the 1950s, tobacco companies tried to cover up growing evidence that smoking caused cancer. Some tobacco outfits hired doctors to endorse their products. Other companies falsely promoted "light" cigarettes as being healthier than cigarettes already on the market. 

"So, just on principle, they're not trustworthy," said Gould. "And [CARP] shouldn't be getting into these kinds of partnerships if they want to maintain their credibility."

In addition to still selling cigarettes, RBH is also promoting vaping products and is behind a campaign called "Unsmoke Canada."

The Unsmoke Canada website calls on governments to recognize "the harm reduction potential" of smoke-free products and change legislation so that those products are not subject to the same regulations as tobacco products. 

Currently, smoking and vaping are banned in all public spaces, public transit facilities and workplaces — including restaurants, bars and casinos. Since e-cigarettes don't burn tobacco and emit smoke, which contains high levels of harmful chemicals, the Unsmoke website argues that changes to legislation are needed.

"We need to work together with the government to create policies that differentiate smoke-free products from cigarettes," it says. 

• Second Opinion Health Canada 'missing in action' on youth vaping crisis, experts say
• Tobacco and nicotine industry 'hooking the next generation,' WHO report says

Schwartz has examined the Unsmoke campaign, and believes it's just Big Tobacco's attempt to stay alive by promoting alternatives to cigarettes that he says can also have serious health consequences. 

"It's the tobacco industry using every possible way that it can think of to increase the marketing and the availability of their really dangerous products," said Schwartz. "And I think that would be a terrible thing if the Tobacco Act no longer applied to e-cigarettes."

The Tobacco Act was overhauled in 2018, when it became known as the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act and applied many of the existing tobacco regulations to vaping products.

It also prohibited the sale of vaping products to minors and restricted "lifestyle" advertising for vaping products, the use of testimonials, or any reference to e-cigarettes as healthier than standard tobacco products.

If you don’t vape, don’t start, says tobacco expert

Schwartz has co-authored peer-reviewed research that shows that vaping leads to nicotine addiction and increased respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing and phlegm. 

According to Schwartz, there are also "biomarkers of potential serious respiratory disease and potentially cardiac issues and cancer."

He says research also shows that 85 to 90 per cent of smokers who try e-cigarettes in order to quit smoking do not succeed.

"They either return to being exclusive cigarette smokers, or they become dual users of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes," he said. "And that's even worse."

Schwartz says rather than changing legislation, Canada could be a leader on the vaping issue by making it necessary to have a prescription for e-cigarettes and only giving prescriptions to people who are trying to quit smoking.

CARP funding decline, partnership troubles

According to CARP's website, the non-profit organization relies on revenue generated from membership fees, subsidies and sponsorships.

When Go Public crunched the numbers from CARP's financial statements over the past 10 years, it revealed a drop in membership fees of about 25 per cent and a steep decline in sponsorship and other revenues — from almost $1.56 million in 2014 to $199,727 in 2023, an approximate 85 per cent drop.

This isn't the first time CARP has come under fire from members over a partnership. 

Following a deal CARP made with ComparAction, a Montreal-based company that promises savings on long-distance phone calls, the group's members flooded the organization with complaints. They ranged from members saying they had been signed up for contracts to which they never agreed, to being unable to cancel their memberships after promises of savings weren't delivered.

The Better Business Bureau's website says ComparAction has an "F" rating, largely due to "a pattern of complaints concerning sales practices."

CARP spokesperson Buttignol told Go Public the partnership with ComparAction was terminated in January. 

He also declined to say whether the relationship with RBH was going to continue.

Gould says she was so dismayed when she learned CARP had teamed up with a tobacco company that she fired off an email to the organization, cancelling her membership.

"I was really, really furious," said Gould.

Go Public asked CARP about Gould leaving the organization. In an email, Buttignol wrote, "Shrug. We have about 250,000 members." 

He went on to call Gould "woke" and asked, "Does she quit her family every time she has an argument?"

Gould says she may join a competing seniors' advocacy organization because CARP has lost her trust.

"You can't advocate for the well-being of seniors and then get in bed with Big Tobacco," she said. "That's a total conflict."

Submit your story ideas

Go Public is an investigative news segment on CBC-TV, radio and the web.

We tell your stories, shed light on wrongdoing and hold the powers that be accountable.

If you have a story in the public interest, or if you're an insider with information, contact  [email protected]  with your name, contact information and a brief summary. All emails are confidential until you decide to Go Public.

Read more stories  by Go Public.

Read about our hosts.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Investigative reporter

Erica Johnson is an award-winning investigative journalist. She hosted CBC's consumer program Marketplace for 15 years, investigating everything from dirty hospitals to fraudulent financial advisors. As co-host of the CBC news segment Go Public, Erica continues to expose wrongdoing and hold corporations and governments to account.

Bangor Daily News

Maine news, sports, politics, election results, and obituaries

President Joe Biden’s dithering on menthol cigarette ban will cost Black lives

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on  bangordailynews.com

Richard Boykin is a former Cook County, Illinois, commissioner. He wrote this column for the Chicago Tribune.

Perhaps fretting political backlash from Black voters in November, President Joe Biden has indefinitely delayed the Food and Drug Administration’s recommended ban on menthol-flavored cigarettes. Biden fails to understand this issue is not about the left or right. This is a moral issue that requires leadership to do what is right.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, menthol-flavored cigarettes enhance the effects of nicotine on the brain — making the product highly addictive. Tobacco companies have heavily marketed menthol-flavored cigarettes in the Black community, and they have targeted young people.

“In 2023, 40.4 percent of middle school and high school students who currently smoked cigarettes reported using menthol cigarettes,” according to the CDC. The CDC also notes that 70 percent of Black adult smokers age 18 to 34 smoke menthols compared with 39 percent of white adults in the same age group.

Tobacco-related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion each year, and it is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year, the CDC reported in 2021. Kristina Hamilton, Illinois advocacy director for the American Lung Association, notes menthol cigarettes claim 45,000 Black lives every year.

Biden is struggling to gain the support of Black men, according to a recent survey. Wall Street Journal polling from last month found that 30 percent of Black men in seven swing states said they were either definitely or probably going to vote for former President Donald Trump. In 2020, the former president received just 12 percent of the vote from Black men nationwide. The former president is also doing well with Black women, according to the WSJ poll. This has Biden’s campaign team in full-blown panic mode.

In an apparent effort to pander to Black men, Biden recently delivered the commencement address at Morehouse College, a historically Black men’s school. I imagine famed alumnus the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is turning over in his grave knowing that Biden is putting politics ahead of health. Perhaps Biden will be reminded of what King said regarding courage: “There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”

The president, while addressing the news media regarding anti-Israel protests on college campuses, said: “This isn’t a moment for politics; it’s a moment for clarity.” The same logic must be applied to the ban on menthol cigarettes. This is personal for me, as my mother passed away last year from lung cancer, and my father is one of the more than 18 million people who are addicted to menthol cigarettes.

Biden’s decision-making breeds cynicism among voters and may have the unintended consequence of people staying home on Election Day. As for those civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, who argue that a ban would unfairly target Black smokers, to me their argument lacks credibility. The proposed rule targets manufacturing and distribution — not Black smokers.

Black leaders must stop blatantly selling out Black people. It is worse than Judas selling out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. For Sharpton to suggest that a ban may cost Biden Black votes is unconscionable. Sharpton and others have given Biden unwise counsel.

Black voters actually respect authenticity and courage to do what is right. It is insulting to think that delivering a speech at Morehouse College will move Biden’s anemic polling numbers among Black men. In 2009, then-President Barack Obama had an opportunity to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes, but he demurred. But as King said: “The time is always right to do what is right.”

I urge the president to follow the science and the lead of multiple states that have banned menthol-flavored cigarettes.

Massachusetts and California have fully banned the sale of flavored tobacco products including menthol cigarettes. A ban on menthol could save up to 650,000 lives over the next 40 years, including 255,000 Black Americans, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids reports. Gov. J.B. Pritzker and the Illinois Legislature should enact a full ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. This is a matter of life and death. The city of Evanston has already banned the sale of flavored tobacco products including menthol cigarettes.

Biden and his advisers cannot effectively govern if they are all consumed by polls. Biden must see that Black lives matter more than votes. The pain of families watching a loved one die from a preventable tobacco-related disease is unbearable. The president’s dithering on this question will surely cost more people their lives.

I urge all Americans who are concerned about tobacco companies targeting minorities and young people to call the White House to urge a ban on menthol-flavored cigarettes.

More articles from the BDN

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Smoking Ban — Reducing the Risk of CAD: Why Smoking Should Be Banned

Reducing The Risk of CAD: Why Smoking Should Be Banned

• Categories: Smoking Ban

About this sample

Words: 1144 |

Published: Apr 11, 2019

Words: 1144 | Pages: 3 | 6 min read

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

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 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

1 pages / 452 words

1 pages / 595 words

1 pages / 563 words

6 pages / 2592 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 Ban

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 [...]

Smoking has numerous health effects, both short-term and long-term. Some of the short-term effects include bad breath, yellow teeth, and decreased sense of taste and smell. The long-term effects, however, are much more severe. [...]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today, I would like to talk to you about the dangers of smoking and the impact it has on individuals and society as a whole. Smoking is a prevalent habit that has been around for centuries, [...]

Smoking has been a prevalent issue in society for decades, and despite the numerous health warnings and anti-smoking campaigns, it continues to be a significant public health concern. Anti-smoking quotes have been used as a [...]

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 [...]

As a middle schooler, my father warned me of the dangers of smoking. His incessant resistance to cigarette use began after he saw its deteriorating effects on my late grandmother. Both his warnings and her struggle to breathe [...]

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