argumentative essay on smoking should 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.

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay

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

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

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

Simple persuasive essay about smoking

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

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

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

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

Persuasive speech on smoking outline

Persuasive essay about smoking should be banned

Persuasive essay about smoking pdf

Persuasive essay about smoking cannot relieve stress

Persuasive essay about smoking in public places

Speech about smoking is dangerous

Persuasive Essay About Smoking Introduction

Persuasive Essay About Stop Smoking

Short Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Stop Smoking Persuasive Speech

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

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

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

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

Argumentative essay about smoking pdf

Argumentative essay about smoking in public places

Argumentative essay about smoking introduction

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

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

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

Choose a Specific Angle

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

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

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

Research the Facts

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

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

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

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

Make an Outline

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

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

Use Persuasive Language

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

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

Introduce Opposing Arguments

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

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

Finish Strong

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

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

To conclude,

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

However, don't stress if you need expert help to write your essay! We're the best essay writing service for you!

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

Try it out today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

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

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

Keep reading

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

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:

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/

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

Essay Database >
Essay Examples >
Essays Topics >
Essay on Smoking

Smoking Should Be Banned In Public Areas Argumentative Essays Examples

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Smoking , Smoke , Smokers , People , Public , Public Areas , Health , Tobacco

Published: 03/08/2023

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Today the problem of smoking is very actual. There is a great number of people, that smoke everywhere. That is why, non smokers are hostage of the situation. In this case, the non smokers cannot be a side of this global disaster of society. Also, people smoke in public areas, which is not acceptable, because there are a lot of people and children that do not smoke. It is dangerous for their health. They have to defend their own rights. The smoking is a bad habit and million of people suffer from this dependence, but nevertheless it is not justification. So, what can we do to decrease a number of smokers and how can we fight this disease? I think that we have to forbid smoking in public areas and it will be the first step in order to make our world healthier. Why should we do it? Firstly, we can persuade persons not to smoke. We can tell smokers that smoking is very bad habit and it is dangerous for their life. When we forbid the smoking is public areas, there will be less situations when a small child can see a man or woman that smoke. It is very important, because if you smoke in the public place, around you there can be children who can imitate adults. Children do not understand that smoking is a bad habit and smoke does harm to health, they only see the uncle or the aunty, who dashingly start up a smoke. Of course, almost each child will want to be influenced by this doubtful pleasure. Secondly, nowadays there are two types of smoking: direct smoking and passive smoking. There are many people, who cannot tolerate the smell of tobacco. Those people go to the park, to breath the fresh air, but it is already polluted with the smell of cigarettes. Non smokers can not go to restaurants or cafes, where other people smoke, because they inhale the smoke together with smokers. It is called passive smoking. After every meeting with smoker your hair, clothes are full of this terrible smell of tobacco. Moreover, the influence of passive smoking is the same like after direct smoking. It means that you get the same dose of the tobacco into your lungs. That`s why, it is unacceptable to allow smoking in public areas. A lot of smokers can say, that it is their choice to smoke, but I think, that they should remember, that their freedom of the choice ends where starts the freedom of another person. Thirdly, I think that the government should encourage the leading of a healthier way of life through making the smoking forbidden in public areas. The state should take care of the citizens, because without health there will be no prosperity of the nation in future. The government should promote electronic cigarette and psychological help for free. Thanks to these actions, the smokers will be able to smoke a simple steam, which does not contain nicotine and will be able to rehabilitate after cigarette addiction. The government also has to forbid the advertising of smoking on TV, in restaurants and cafes and also in public areas. It will decrease the number of smokers in public areas itself. The smoking in public areas should be banned, as it is one of the best ways to make people healthier and encourage a healthy way of life. The 31st of May is the international no tobacco day. In this day you can learn more about the bad influence of smoking, but we have to do ourselves some steps to decrease the number of smokers in our city, in our country and in our world, because due to this bad habit people die. Please, choose the long and healthy life without nicotine and cigarettes. It is better than suicide by tobacco.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 402

This paper is created by writer with

ID 270496217

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Free essay on sampling, characters literature review, transcription landscape essay, free essay on americas industrial revolution, example of health fitness critical thinking, good research paper on brief background, example of research paper on praxis paper, following reasons were there which caused the failure of establishment of any joint essay samples, example of understanding becker using four part framework essay, nonverbal functions essay examples, good example of civil war essay, free self evaluation course work example, example of essay on scientific communication paper, free research paper on project and portfolio management historical current and future practices, example of sungmin cho research paper, example of an analysis of the three characters in poe 039 s stories including an analysis research paper, good world religion essay example, dear sir or madam essay example, violence essay sample, good research paper on united farm workers of america, free political violence essay example, environmental and urban economics research paper example, exubera essays, fern essays, ezrin essays, diclofenac essays, biliary essays, alkaline essays, chromatograph essays, biopsychology essays, consumer behavior argumentative essays, the chosen argumentative essays, the canterbury tales argumentative essays, elephant argumentative essays, search engine argumentative essays, common law argumentative essays, pearl harbor argumentative essays, balance sheet argumentative essays, george washington argumentative essays, precision argumentative essays, legend argumentative essays, regeneration argumentative essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Top Streams

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

Top Specialization

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

Top Universities

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

MBA in Healthcare Management in UK

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

Top Resources

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

Best Universities in Germany

Top courses.

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

Colleges & Courses

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

More About France

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

About Finland

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

IELTS Reading Answers Sample

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

IELTS Speaking Cue Card Sample

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

IELTS Essay Sample Sample

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

GRE Exam Study Material

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

Other Resources

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

Free GRE Ebooks

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

GMAT Exam Study Material

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

Free GMAT Ebooks

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

TOEFL Exam Study Material

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

Free TOEFL Ebooks

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

PTE Exam Study Material

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

Free PTE Ebooks

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

Duolingo Exam Study Material

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

Free Duolingo Ebooks

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

NEET & MCAT Exam

NEET Study Material
NEET Preparation
MCAT Eligibility
MCAT Preparation

SAT & ACT Exam

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

USMLE & OET Exam

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

PLAB & LSAT Exam

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

Application Process

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

Career Prospects

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

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

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 27 January, 2024

Anupriya Mukherjee

Sr. content writer.

IELTS or the International English language Testing System is one of the most popular and standardized tests to measure the English language proficiency of non-native English speakers. 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 to it. The should smoking be banned in public places essay has been asked multiple times in the IELTS writing test over the years.

The test-takers need to practice common topics related to general and controversial issues. The relevant essay questions may change, but the main topic often remains the same.

Applicants must develop ideas and provide relevant examples to write a winning essay on topics related to questions like should smoking 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 smoking should be banned in public places IELTS essay samples and some tips to ace the task.

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Learn more about study abroad, popular study abroad destinations, sample 1 on s hould 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 that 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.

Sample essay:

Corporate offices often see groups of individuals discussing issues while smoking. Is it a habit or does smoking actually 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 imposed restrictions on 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 the 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

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 is an analysis of facts and the conclusion should contain the opinion and summing up points.
Paraphrasing is important. It increases the readability of the essay.
Write short, crisp, and to-the-point sentences. Do not write 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 relevant 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.

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:

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 as well, especially in the food and beverages 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 for combating 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, trending searches, editor's pick, other countries.

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

Download our App

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

Top Destinations

Masters programs.

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

Study Abroad Important Blogs

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

How bad is vaping and should it be banned?

argumentative essay on smoking should 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

Deputy Social Media Producer

Research Fellow /Senior Research Fellow – Implementation Science

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Before you go...

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

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

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

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Important pages

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

Connect with us

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.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
17 April 2024
Correction 18 April 2024

Smoking bans are coming: what does the evidence say?

Carissa Wong

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Smoking rates have declined globally over the past few decades. Credit: Debbie Bragg/Everynight Images via Alamy

Nations worldwide are aiming to introduce some of the tightest restrictions ever on smoking and vaping, especially among young people.

On 16 April, UK lawmakers backed one of the world’s most ambitious plans — to create by 2040 a ‘smoke-free’ generation of people who will never be able to legally buy tobacco. The proposal is now a step closer to becoming law. The UK, Australian and French governments are also clamping down on vaping with e-cigarettes. These countries’ bold policies are currently in the minority, say researchers, but such measures would almost certainly prevent diseases, as well as save lives and billions of dollars in health-care costs.

Smoking scars the immune system for years after quitting

The UK plan would probably “be the most impactful public-health policy ever introduced”, says health-policy researcher Duncan Gillespie at the University of Sheffield, UK. The Conservative government’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak initiated the proposal. The government hopes that the smoking restrictions, alongside offering health benefits for individuals, will reduce toxic chemicals leaching from used vapes into the environment.

Smoke-free generations

The health harms of smoking tobacco have been established for decades — it substantially raises the risk of diseases including cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Increased awareness of these health risks has led to a global decline in the deadly habit in the past few decades (see ‘Smoke clearing’).

SMOKE CLEARING. Chart shows the worldwide decline of tobacco smoking among people aged 15 and over.

Source: WHO

Any drop in smoking rates saves money and reduces the burden on health-care systems, says Alison Commar, who studies tobacco policy at the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland. The WHO estimates that tobacco use costs the world US$1.4 trillion every year in health expenditures and lost productivity. “Every tobacco-related illness is adding to the burden on the health system unnecessarily,” says Commar.

The UK proposal, announced last October, would ban the sale of tobacco to any person born in or after 2009. That would prevent anyone who turns 15 or younger this year from ever buying cigarettes legally in the country. From 2027, the minimum legal age to purchase tobacco products would increase from 18 years old by one year each year — meaning that the threshold in 2028, for instance, would be 20. This strategy, the government hopes, will by 2040 create a smoke-free generation. The UK move follows similar legislation announced in 2021 by New Zealand. The nation reversed its intended ban because tobacco sales were needed to help pay for tax cuts, but the government said last month that it will seek to ban disposable vapes.

Modelling smokers

The UK government’s policies are backed by a modelling study published in December that predicts how the proposal would affect smoking rates and people over time. Its ‘pessimistic’ model predicts that the policy could reduce the smoking rate among people aged 14–30 from 13% in 2023 to around 8% in 2030. By 2040, just 5% of this age group would smoke. In the baseline scenario, 8% of 14- to 30-year-olds would smoke. In the ‘optimistic’ scenario, only 0.4% of that age group would start smoking by 2040 (see ‘Ban plan’). That model suggests that, by 2075, the policy would save tens of thousands of lives and £11 billion ($13.7 billion) in health-care costs by preventing smoking-related diseases.

These projections are based on solid evidence and are of high quality, says tobacco researcher Allen Gallagher at the University of Bath, UK.

Still, no country has ever introduced a policy that raises the minimum tobacco-purchasing age in this way — only time will tell what the effects will be, says Commar.

Vaping bans

Nations are also targeting vaping, a trend that began around 2010 and has surged among younger people. Many people have perceived it as a potentially healthier alternative to smoking — for which there is substantial evidence. But whether vaping itself harms health has long been controversial, and the evidence is uncertain.

“The results are not super clear, but certainly hint towards vaping causing damage to the lungs and other organs,” says Carolyn Baglole, who studies lung disease at the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Canada.

BAN PLAN. Chart shows UK government projections for smoking prevalence and lives saved.

Source: UK government

Vapes are made of a box filled with liquid that usually contains nicotine, a heating element that turns the liquid into aerosols and a mouthpiece to inhale the aerosol ‘vape’ clouds, which are often fruity or dessert-flavoured. Although vapes lack tobacco and most of the toxic chemicals in cigarettes, the nicotine is still harmful. Nicotine can raise blood pressure, increase the risk of heart and lung disease and disrupt brain development in children and adolescents. In turn, this can lead to impairments in attention, memory and learning.

The UK plan includes banning disposable vapes, restricting vape flavours that appeal to young users and limiting how vapes are advertised. Most young people in Great Britain use disposable vapes rather than rechargeable ones than can be refilled with liquid, according to a survey by the public-health charity Action on Smoking and Health, based in London. Rechargeable vapes would remain legal.

Global policies

The French government also wants to ban disposable vapes this year, and in December its parliament unanimously backed the proposal. And in 2021, Australia restricted e-cigarette sales to smokers who have a prescription for using vapes to quit smoking. “There is a good consensus that vaping is likely to pose only a small fraction of risks of smoking over the long term,” says psychologist Peter Hajek at Queen Mary University of London, who led a study 1 that suggested vaping safely helped pregnant women to stop smoking.

But illegal vaping is still surging among people under the legal age of 18 in Australia, according to research by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. That’s led the government to tighten rules on vape products. “This policy push should see the upswing in youth vaping contained and reversed,” says epidemiologist Tony Blakely at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

The flavoured liquid in vapes also contains solvents such as propylene glycol and glycerin. Agencies including the US and European Union drug regulators have approved these chemicals for oral consumption. But animal studies suggest that inhaling them could cause damage and inflammation, raising the risk of lung and heart disease 2 . “The issue is we don’t know much about what happens when you heat these products and aerosolize them for inhalation,” says Baglole.

One thing researchers know is that the heating element in e-cigarettes can release heavy metals into the inhaled aerosols. These particles have been linked to a raised risk of heart and respiratory disease, she says.

Ultimately, scientists seem to be overwhelmingly in favour of tough restrictions on smoking and vaping. Research is needed to establish the long-term health impacts of such policies, says Baglole. “Hopefully, different types of studies, different models, in addition to human participants, will start to paint a more complete picture,” she says.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00472-3

Updates & Corrections

Correction 18 April 2024 : The graphic ‘Smoking prevalence’ wrongly coloured the chart lines for the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. This has been corrected.

Pesola, F. et al. Addiction 119 , 875–884 (2024).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Traboulsi, H. et al. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21 , 3495 (2020).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Public health

We must protect the global plastics treaty from corporate interference

World View 17 APR 24

UN plastics treaty: don’t let lobbyists drown out researchers

Editorial 17 APR 24

Canadian science gets biggest boost to PhD and postdoc pay in 20 years

News 17 APR 24

What toilets can reveal about COVID, cancer and other health threats

News Feature 17 APR 24

It’s time to talk about the hidden human cost of the green transition

Correspondence 16 APR 24

Lethal dust storms blanket Asia every spring — now AI could help predict them

News 15 APR 24

Director of Mass Spectrometry

Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine (SSOM) seeks applicants for a full-time Director of Mass Spectrometry.

Chicago, Illinois

Loyola University of Chicago - Cell and Molecular Physiology Department

Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Biomedical Engineering

Associate Editor or Senior Editor, Nature Biomedical Engineering Location: London, Shanghai and Madrid — Hybrid office and remote working Deadline:...

London (Central), London (Greater) (GB)

Springer Nature Ltd

FACULTY POSITION IN PATHOLOGY RESEARCH

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

Postdoc Fellow / Senior Scientist

The Yakoub and Sulzer labs at Harvard Medical School-Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Columbia University

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital

Postdoc in Computational Genomics – Machine Learning for Multi-Omics Profiling of Cancer Evolution

Computational Postdoc - Artificial Intelligence in Oncology and Regulatory Genomics and Cancer Evolution at the DKFZ - limited to 2 years

Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg (DE)

German Cancer Research Center in the Helmholtz Association (DKFZ)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

On Why One Should Stop Smoking Essay (Speech)

Introduction.

Credibility material: how do you really feel when some of the problems you or your relative or even friends face due to smoking? And is it possible to stop smoking after you have been told that smoking will definitely give you serious health problems? Well, I had a friend who became a chain smoker. He used to wake and the first thing that went into his mouth was a cigarette stick, then any other thing will follow thereafter. My friend had been experiencing persistent coughs that made him suspect he might have contracted HIV virus yet he had not yet spent with a woman. But he went for HIV test which proved negative. He continued smoking as he sought out the cough issue in his own ways. One day he became very ill and the cough became even worse. As a friend I accompanied him to a local hospital where he was diagnosed with cancer. The doctor’s advice was that he should stop smoking; however, he never adhered to the doctor’s advice and later died of serious cancer. That was a sad event caused by what could be avoided.

Link to the audience: one of the people who have suffered health complications or death as a result of smoking may be somebody close to you or someone you know.
Thesis and preview: today I am privileged to have your audience and I intend to talk to you about the effects of smoking, and also I propose to give a talk on how to solve the problem of smoking.

Shift into the main section of the speech: I will begin by telling you how smoking affects us.

So many people around the world have suffered the effects of smoking. I will talk about these effects in terms of health and financial effects.

Research has found out that non-smokers are also exposed to dangers related to smoking. It can lead to increased effects of asthma on those who already have asthma, especially children. Taking for instance, available statistics indicate that in the United States of America alone, 53,000 non-smokers are killed by issues related to smoking (San Francisco Tobacco Free Project para1).
To those who have coronary diseases, second hand smoking increases the risk of the disease and can make it severe. Moreover, those who have high risk factors of the disease can easily be attacked when exposed to smoking environment for long.
Imagine that being exposed to second hand smoke for only thirty minutes is enough to cause damages to your heart and the damages are just similar to those of an actual or habitual smoker.
Smoking also affects the unborn: the fetus is affected by secondary smoke inhaled by the mother.
In women who are young and have not reached menopause, secondary smoke increases the risk of breast cancer.
Other effects are impaired learning ability of children, increased risk of experiencing spinal pain, and reduced median cotinine levels (Bonnie pp.5-21).Transition: I believe that you can now realize that smoking does not only affect the smoker, but even the non-smokers and the unborn. The problems related to smoking affects all of us, but the smokers are more exposed than non-smokers even though in some of the problems both groups suffer are just the same. Now I will tell you about the risks smokers directly face.

Habitual smokers are exposed to:

Habitual smokers are at a very high risk of cancer. It has been known that smoking is one of the leading causes of cancer. Taking the case of United Kingdom alone, approximately 106, 000 individuals die annually due to smoke related cancer.
Some of the diseases caused and or worsened by smoking include, lung cancer, diseases of the heart, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and also circulation problems.
To pregnant women, smoking is highly likely to cause miscarriages, complications, poor development of the child which may continue after birth and it may also result into still birth or death of the child in the first one week of birth (Litt 29).
Smoking also has economic and other effects on smokers. Smokers, especially heavy chain smokers, use a lot of money as cigarette expenditures. Some of other effects of smoking include, bad breath, clothes and home environment smell stale tobacco, reduces sense of taste, life insurance of smokers are damn expensive and potential employers may not like smokers due to the possibility of constant seek leave.Transition: you can see how much risk smokers are exposed to. It is important to note that these risks can potentially result into deaths. However, it is possible to avoid all these smoking related problems. Now, my last discussion will be on how to solve the problem of smoking.

The only effective way in solving the problem is to stop smoking. But the question somebody may be asking is, “How do I stop smoking?” I will give some ways on how to do so:

Will power is one of the ways to use in solving the problems but the most difficult of all other ways. One should have the courage and have undying persistence on quitting smoking.
Use nicotine-based chewing gum; even though they still contain nicotine, however, the victim under treatment is not getting the tar into the body system.
Use anti-depressants under a medical doctor’s guide.
It is important to stop smoking once diagnosed with problems related with smoking
Another way to stop smoking is to seek the intervention of a counselor who will guide you on gradual processes of stopping smoking.
Non-smokers, especially with risky diseases, should avoid smoking environments (Acts 50).

Brakelight/intention to stop: as you can realize, stopping smoking and campaigning against it will be beneficial to all of us.

Summary: I have talked to you about the effects of smoking on both habitual smokers and non-smokers and also on how the problems can be stopped or avoided. All of us must rise up and campaign against smokers or else we will gradually be affected and infected.

Link back to the audience: now that you know the effects of smoking and how to solve it will you help somebody stop smoking? How happy will you be or satisfied will you feel if someone is to come to thank you for helping him or her stop smoking? Let us take the challenge.

Concluding remark: I am going to stop here, but not before I give you a quote by somebody known as Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland. “A cigarette is the only consumer product which when used as directed kills its consumer.”

Acts, Humbler. How to Stop Smoking in 50 Days . New York: Bookway International Services, 2001.

Bonnie, Richard. Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation . New York: National Academies Press, 2007.

Litt, Iris. Taking our pulse: The health of America’s women . New York: Stanford University Press, 1997.

San Francisco Tobacco Free Project. “Untitled.” 2010.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, August 25). On Why One Should Stop Smoking. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/

"On Why One Should Stop Smoking." IvyPanda , 25 Aug. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'On Why One Should Stop Smoking'. 25 August.

IvyPanda . 2022. "On Why One Should Stop Smoking." August 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/.

1. IvyPanda . "On Why One Should Stop Smoking." August 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "On Why One Should Stop Smoking." August 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-smoking-persuasive-speech/.

Health Care Costs for Smokers
Ethical Problem of Smoking
Smoking Ban in the United States of America
Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?
Causes and Effects of Smoking
Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay
Legislation Reform of Public Smoking
Ban Smoking in Cars
Business Ethics: Smoking Issue
Cigarette Smoking in Public Places
Online Discussion and Violence Program Evaluation
Rhetorical Analysis: Elements and Concepts
Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Communities
Che Guevara: The Speech Before the General Assembly of the UN
The Public Speeches by Kennedy, Mac Arthur and King

Persuasive Essay on Vaping and E-cigarettes Should Be Banned

Nicotine is a highly addictive substance which is as hard to give up as heroin. 2.06 million teens are using nicotine on a daily basis across America. Nicotine is commonly used in vaping and e-cigarettes, and the dosage is either lower or the same as in cigarettes and tobacco products.Some believe vapes lead to drug addictions, while others say they do nothing wrong and have no effect. Vaping and E-cigarettes should be banned. Vaping is unbenefictial to a person’s health and rather targets their packaging towards young children and gives them a higher risk of developing a nicotine addiction.

The number of kids who vape is increasing, addicting new generations to nicotine and cigarettes, and introducing them to smoking. The percentage of kids who vape has gone up throughout the years, For example, "As of 2020, 19.6% of high school students used e-cigarettes, the most-used tobacco product among the age group, followed by cigars (5%)" (ProCon 1). 19.6% of high school students rely on nicotine. The nicotine in the vapes is the same as the one in cigarettes that can lead to them turning to cigarettes. Many of the students can get their friends addicted to nicotine as well, increasing the number of students who use e-cigarettes. The site also mentions that "One JUULpod contains as much nicotine as a pack of cigarettes, both of which last for about 200 puffs" (ProCon 1). Vaping can be just as bad and addictive as cigarettes. It may take longer to use the whole vape rather than a pack of cigarettes, but it's still the same amount of nicotine consumed. It is not a healthier option if it's not as different as cigarettes. Matthew Myers, who campaigns against tobacco, stated, "Like cigarette companies, e-cigarette makers claim they don’t market to kids. But they’re using the same themes and tactics tobacco companies have long used to market regular cigarettes to kids (Exploring Issues 1). E-cigarettes and vape companies tend to rely on the same marketing used to get kids into cigarettes. They use the same techniques as tobacco companies that try to get kids to buy their products. They use a confident and good looking person to say vaping is cool and desirable. Vaping attracts many new people into smoking and opens many opportunities for health issues.

Nicotine can lead to many problems regarding health. Nicotine is a very addictive substance and can damage a person's body. One way it can affect a person is "Nicotine used by young people may increase the risk of addiction to other drugs and impair prefrontal brain development, which can lead to ADD and disrupt impulse control"(ProCon 1). Nicotine can cause cravings and cause impulsive behavior if a person becomes addicted. Nicotine can lead to more drugs and can cause brain damage to a person. Brain damage can lead to disorders like ADD. Not only does it lead to brain disorders, but also long-term diseases and strokes. The article states, "People who use e-cigarettes have a 71% increased risk of stroke and a 40% higher risk of heart disease, as compared to nonusers" (ProCon 1). People who use e-cigarettes or vapes have a higher chance of having a stroke or heart disease, which could kill them. The chemicals in the products can expose a person to life-long struggles because of a stroke. Heart disease is a long-term disease that can result from vaping and is the leading cause of death in America. A main contributor to these injuries and illnesses is the chemicals inside the vape. An example of what the chemicals can do is "Some ingredients in the liquids used in e-cigarettes change composition when they are heated, leading to inhalation of harmful compounds such as formaldehyde, which is carcinogenic" (ProCon 1). The liquids can change when heated, changing the compounds in the liquid. The liquid compounds could become dangerous and turn into chemicals like formaldehyde, which can lead to irritations all over the body and sometimes even cancer. Some health conditions and problems can cause problems for the rest of a person's life, but some argue it helps people with smoking.

E-cigarettes help people stop smoking. Studies have been done many times on this topic. One study states, "A July 2019 study found that cigarette smokers who picked up vaping were 67% more likely to quit smoking" (ProCon 1). That may be true, but people can still face health issues and still ingest an equal amount of nicotine found in a pack of cigarettes. Vapes can be safer than cigarettes because of the fact that they use vapor, not smoke. The website says, "However, most scientists agree that ESDs are much less harmful to health than tobacco cigarettes" (Exploring Issues). Vapes can be much safer than tobacco with items inside, but they can also expose a person to the same health problems as tobacco. Vaping can even heat up and change the liquid compound inside of it, creating formaldehyde, which can lead to cancer and irritations. The heat in the vapes can burn holes in the lungs as well, just like cigarettes.

Vaping can cause many problems regarding health and contributes to attracting more children to turn to vaping. Vapes can be marketed the same as cigarettes and can be just as harmful. Vaping can lead to a gateway of health issues like strokes, heart attacks, ADD, nausea, and more. The liquid in the vapes can create dangerous compounds when heated up and can burn holes into the lungs. It may be different than smoking and a healthier option, but the risks are still present.

Related Samples

Stigma, mental health literacy and the nigerian youth
Social Therapy for Autistic Children Research Paper
The Effects of Divorce on Children's Mental Health
Essay On Brain Tumor
Careers in Biochemistry Essay Example
Essay Sample on The Dangerous Effects of Alcohol
Anaphylactic Allergic Reaction Research Paper
The Effect of Violent Video Games on Children and Young Adults
Essay Sample about Effects of Social Media on Self-Perception
George Washington's Teeth Essay Example

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

IMAGES

200 words essay
Sample Argumentative Essay On Smoking
Cigarette smoking should be banned argumentative essay
Why Smoking Should Be Banned in Public
😍 Argumentative essay cigarette smoking should banned. Should Smoking
Very simple easy english essay on Tobacco Should be banned

VIDEO

essay on smoking in english/dhumrapan per nibandh
BEING ARGUMENTATIVE IN LIFE
Essay on Smoking for students || Essay
Essay on smoking in public places should be banned || Essay writing in English|| essay writing
Essay on Smoking in Urdu
PROFOUND MGS ANTI SMOKING MESSAGE???? (GONE WRONG) (2SMART4U)

COMMENTS

Should Smoking Be Made Illegal: Argumentative
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 contain numerous chemical substances such as cadmium, butane, acetic acid, methane, ammonia, arsenic, methanol, nicotine ...
Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay
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).
Should Smoking Be Banned?
Reasons Why Smoking Should Be Banned. 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 ...
Smoking Should Be Banned: [Essay Example], 576 words
Why Smoking Should Be Banned Essay Conclusion. In conclusion, the ban on smoking is a challenging endeavor, particularly considering the large number of smokers worldwide. ... 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 ...
Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places? Essay
Thesis statement. Smoking in public places poses health risks to non smokers and should be banned. This paper will be discussing whether cigarette smoking should not be allowed in public places. First the paper will explore dangers associated with smoking in public and not on those who smoke, but on non-smokers.
Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Argumentative Essay
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.
Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned
In conclusion, smoking should be totally banned in campuses and colleges because of its severe health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. The health risks are much more to non-smokers because they may double up especially to those who already suffer from other ailments such as heart and lung problems.
Examples & Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking
Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking. Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. It leads to adverse health effects, including lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the respiratory tract. However, the number of people who smoke cigarettes has been on the rise globally. A lot has been written on topics related ...
Argumentative Essay on Smoking Cigarettes
The dangers of smoking cigarettes have been well-documented, yet millions of people continue to engage in this harmful habit. The debate over the impact of smoking on public health is ongoing, with some arguing for stricter regulations and others advocating for personal freedom. In this essay, we will explore the various arguments surrounding smoking cigarettes and ultimately make the case for ...
The case for banning cigarettes
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 ...
Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition
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.
Free Argumentative Essays About Smoking Should Be Banned In Public
It will decrease the number of smokers in public areas itself. The smoking in public areas should be banned, as it is one of the best ways to make people healthier and encourage a healthy way of life. The 31st of May is the international no tobacco day. In this day you can learn more about the bad influence of smoking, but we have to do ...
Persuasive Essay on Smoking Should Be Banned
By banning these products and shutting down tobacco and e-vape companies these numbers can be cut by about 75 percent. If smoking was banned it would reduce heart attacks and diseases by 26 percent a year. This would be a big improvement and this means it could prevent 154,000 heart attacks per year. This is why smoking should be banned and ...
Should Smoking Be Banned In Public Places Essay
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.
Smoking cigarette should be banned
Cigarettes smoking as a cause of illnesses and premature deaths become the first preventable cause to be controlled through imposing bans (Congress, 2005). Cigarettes have nicotine which is responsible for addiction and is attributed to coronary illnesses and nerve impairment hence, declining people's life expectancy.
How bad is vaping and should it be banned?
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 ...
Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay
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 ...
Effect of Tobacco: Why Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned
Left to 'idle' between puffs, a dropped, forgotten or discarded cigarette can start a fire. According to (WHO, 2017), smoking causes an estimated 20% of Australia and 10% of global fire death burdens. This shows that global and Australian economy are greatly affected due to consequences of tobacco smoking.
Argumentative Essay Sample on Smoking in Public Places
Provide arguments for the thesis statement. Notably, the sample essay provides several reasons for the necessity of a smoking ban in public places. The essay's second paragraph, the first part of the main body, focuses on the health issues resulting from smoking, explaining what diseases people face when they smoke.
Smoking bans are coming: what does the evidence say?
Its 'pessimistic' model predicts that the policy could reduce the smoking rate among people aged 14-30 from 13% in 2023 to around 8% in 2030. By 2040, just 5% of this age group would smoke ...
Argumentative essay
Another reason why smoking should be banned in public places is because of the garbage problem. Not many smokers throw away their cigarette butts into the trash cans. Most of them just toss it on the streets. The streets will be much cleaner if smoking is banned. In my opinion, smoking should be banned in public places.
On Why One Should Stop Smoking
One should have the courage and have undying persistence on quitting smoking. Use nicotine-based chewing gum; even though they still contain nicotine, however, the victim under treatment is not getting the tar into the body system. Use anti-depressants under a medical doctor's guide. It is important to stop smoking once diagnosed with ...
Persuasive Essay on Vaping and E-cigarettes Should Be Banned
Vaping and E-cigarettes should be banned. Vaping is unbenefictial to a person's health and rather targets their packaging towards young children and gives them a higher risk of developing a nicotine addiction. The number of kids who vape is increasing, addicting new generations to nicotine and cigarettes, and introducing them to smoking.
'Absurd' smoking ban won't help Tories avoid election wipeout, says
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has warned Rishi Sunak that his "absurd" phased ban on smoking will not help the Conservative Party climb the "electoral mountain" it is facing. The former business ...
Should Vaping be Banned: [Essay Example], 1175 words
Get original essay. A vape is a handheld battery-powered vaporizer that simulates smoking and provides some of the behavioral aspects of smoking, including the hand-to-mouth action of smoking, but without burning tobacco. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it had identified 193 potential cases of severe lung illness ...

Should Smoking Be Illegal?

Smoking Should Be Banned: Essay Introduction

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Choose a Specific Angle

Research the Facts

Make an Outline

Use Persuasive Language

Introduce Opposing Arguments

Finish Strong

Keep reading

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Introduction

Health and well-being

Freedom and autonomy

Voluntariness

Irrationality

Preferences and endorsement

Banning cigarettes: pros and cons

Acknowledgments

Linked Articles

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition

Six reasons to ban

The spectre of prohibition

Helping the industry fulfil its promises

Summary points

Smoking Should Be Banned In Public Areas Argumentative Essays Examples

Cite this page

Other Pages

Top Streams

Top Specialization

Top Universities

MBA in Healthcare Management in UK

Top Resources

Best Universities in Germany

Colleges & Courses

More About France

About Finland

IELTS Reading Answers Sample

IELTS Speaking Cue Card Sample

IELTS Essay Sample Sample

GRE Exam Study Material

Other Resources

Free GRE Ebooks

GMAT Exam Study Material

Free GMAT Ebooks

TOEFL Exam Study Material

Free TOEFL Ebooks

PTE Exam Study Material

Free PTE Ebooks

Duolingo Exam Study Material

Free Duolingo Ebooks

NEET & MCAT Exam

SAT & ACT Exam

USMLE & OET Exam

PLAB & LSAT Exam

Application Process

Career Prospects

Trending Topics

Country Guides

Exams Guides

Recommended Reads

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

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

Updated on 27 January, 2024

Anupriya Mukherjee

Table of Contents

Frequently Asked Questions

Sample 2 on ‘smoking should be banned in public places IELTS essay’

Sample essay:

Tips to write a winning IELTS essay on ' should smoking be banned in public places

How does smoking in public places affect the environment?

How does smoking affect the society & community?

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