essay on why cigarettes 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.

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Smoking — Should Smoking Be Made Illegal: Argumentative

Should Smoking Be Made Illegal: Argumentative

• Categories: Smoking Smoking Ban Tobacco

About this sample

Words: 674 |

Updated: 8 December, 2023

Words: 674 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Works Cited

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm
• Chatterjee, K., & Chatterjee, K. (2014). Secondhand Smoke: Are We Protecting Our Children? Lung India, 31(4), 369–377.
• Foulds, J., Ramstrom, L., Burke, M., & Fagerström, K. (2003). Effect of Smokeless Tobacco (Snus) on Smoking and Public Health in Sweden. Tobacco Control, 12(4), 349–359.
• Hatsukami, D. K., & Stead, L. F. (2020). Tobacco Use: Prevention, Cessation, and Control. Oxford University Press.
• Hu, T.-W., Lee, A. H.-Y., Mao, Z., & Ong, M. (2016). China at the Crossroads: The Economics of Tobacco and Health. World Scientific Publishing.
• National Cancer Institute. (2020). Harms of Cigarette Smoking and Health Benefits of Quitting. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/cessation-fact-sheet
• Peto, R., Lopez, A. D., Boreham, J., Thun, M., & Heath, C. Jr. (2016). Mortality from Smoking in Developed Countries 1950-2010: Indirect Estimates from National Vital Statistics. Oxford University Press.
• Schick, S., & Glantz, S. (2005). Philip Morris Toxicological Experiments with Fresh Sidestream Smoke: More Toxic than Mainstream Smoke. Tobacco Control, 14(6), 396–404.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
• World Health Organization. (2019). WHO Global Report on Trends in Prevalence of Tobacco Smoking 2000-2025, Second Edition. World Health Organization.

Video Version

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 789 words

1 pages / 611 words

6 pages / 2528 words

3 pages / 1162 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Smoking

Initial impressions of a person smoking Association of smoking with wealth and maturity Irony of anti-smoking education Relaxation and stress reduction Taking breaks and social interactions Life skills [...]

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

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

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

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

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

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

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

Be careful. This essay is not unique

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

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

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

Please check your inbox.

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

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

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

Log in using your username and password

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

You are here

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

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

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

• Population Policy
• Public Health Ethics
• Public Policy

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

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health and well-being

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom and autonomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voluntariness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrationality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preferences and endorsement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banning cigarettes: pros and cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linked Articles

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

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Other content recommended for you.

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

• Social Issues

Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Argumentative Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Samples

• How does helping people help you?
• Impacts of Immigration in the Us in the First Half of the 19th Century
• Reflective Essay Sample about Sexism
• Essay Sample on The Problems of Overpopulation
• Frederick Douglass Slavery Essay Example
• Child Tracking Essay Sample
• Essay Sample on Animal Research: A Necessary Evil
• The Heartbeat Bill Law Is Unjust Argumentive Essay
• Distracted Driving Research Paper Example
• The Second Amendment and Gun Control Essay Example

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Argumentative Essay on Banning Cigarettes: Do You Support It?

No more second-hand smoking!

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

Cigarettes banning will help smokers to quit

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

No more heart attacks!

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

Paper title: Argumentative Essay: “Learning To Save Energy”

Academic level: College (3-4)

Discipline: Sociology

Paper Format: APA

Paper title: Argumentative Essay: “The Problem of Consuming Resources”

Discipline: Environment

Paper Format: MLA

Paper title: Argumentative Essay: “Graduating University and Further Recruitment”

Discipline: Education

Our statistics

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.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 628 , 695-696 (2024)

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

Related Articles

• Public health

Japan can embrace open science — but flexible approaches are key

Correspondence 07 MAY 24

Beware of graphene’s huge and hidden environmental costs

Countering extreme wildfires with prescribed burning can be counterproductive

Bird flu in US cows: where will it end?

News 08 MAY 24

US funders to tighten oversight of controversial ‘gain-of-function’ research

News 07 MAY 24

We need more-nuanced approaches to exploring sex and gender in research

Comment 01 MAY 24

Faculty Positions in School of Engineering, Westlake University

The School of Engineering (SOE) at Westlake University is seeking to fill multiple tenured or tenure-track faculty positions in all ranks.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

High-Level Talents at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

For clinical medicine and basic medicine; basic research of emerging inter-disciplines and medical big data.

Nanchang, Jiangxi, China

The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

Technician / Senior Technician in Structural Biology of Membrane-Less Organelles

Job description APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: June 15th, 2024. Human Technopole (HT) is a distinguished life science research institute founded and sup...

Human Technopole

Research Associate (part-time) / Ph.D. candidate in Surface Science

The University of Bonn is an international research university with a wide education and research profile. With a 200-year history, approximately...

Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen (DE)

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d) - Department of Physics

Department of Physics - Institute of Experimental Physics   Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d) with 75 %part-time job limited up to 4 years salar...

Berlin (DE)

Freie Universität Berlin

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Should we ban the purchase of cigarettes for life? A US town is trying

Brookline, Massachusetts, is barring those born after 2000 from buying the products. Is a paternalistic approach always right?

M ary Jo began smoking when she was 12 years old, sneaking behind her church and picking up cigarette butts off the ground. As she got a little older, she would steal cigarettes from her brother and, by 15, she was buying her own packs – a proud Marlboro smoker.

“I smoked for 30 years,” she tells me. “I smoked when I was pregnant.” She was desperate to quit, or at least cut down the number of cigarettes, but nothing worked. “The guiltier I felt, the more I smoked,” she continues. “I would just hide my belly so that people couldn’t see.” Her younger son was born premature at only 5lb. “I cried because he was so tiny.”

Mary Jo is now a 58-year-old housekeeper living in Wilmington, Massachusetts, and back in 2006, she finally quit smoking. It took her four tries. (On average, it takes smokers eight to 14 attempts to permanently quit.)

On her first try, she was crossing the street when an enormous truck came by. Mary Jo remembers thinking, “Go ahead and kill me. I don’t care.” Cigarettes, after all, were what got her out of bed. Without them, the depression was overwhelming, like a soaking wet blanket wringing her body. She’d hallucinate cigarettes flying past, her hand reflexively reaching out to grasp them.

In the end, the stop-smoking pill Chantix and a water bottle were what allowed her to quit. The medication helped with the depression while the water bottle – with a picture of “a good lung and a bad lung on the front and a picture of my boys on the back” – quenched her cravings, a sip for every time she needed a cigarette. She must have drunk three gallons a day.

“It was the hardest thing I ever did in my life,” Mary Jo says. “I would rather go through childbirth a hundred times over than quit smoking again.”

All this suffering will never happen to Mary Jo’s grandchildren – at least, if Katherine Silbaugh has her way.

Silbaugh is one of 255 town meeting members in Brookline, Massachusetts, an urban-suburban “island inside Boston” – its neighboring boroughs have long been swallowed into the city. The town’s 63,000 residents are 70% white, with a median household income of $122,000.

Two years ago, Silbaugh and her neighbor Anthony Ishak passed an ordinance banning anyone born after 1 January 2000 from ever buying cigarettes in their town. The measure took effect in September 2021. The idea was to curb youth smoking rates without yanking anything away from people already addicted, essentially grandfathering out tobacco. Every year, there’d be a smaller slice of the population that could buy cigarettes, until one day no one would be left. At least, that was the vision.

In tobacco’s heyday in the mid-20th century, 45% of US adults smoked. Fast-forward to 2020, after decades of aggressive anti-smoking campaigns, and the rate was down to 12.5% . It’s progress, to be sure, but cigarettes still kill roughly half a million people in the US every year – more than car accidents, alcohol, murders, suicides and illegal drugs combined . If current trajectories persist, tobacco will kill 1bn people in the 21st century, or one person every three seconds.

So it’s hard to imagine that a world without cigarettes would be a bad thing. Prohibition might fast-track it and help avoid needless suffering, as public health officials will remind you. But at what cost? There’s obviously no enumerated right to cigarettes, but there is a right to live our lives as we see fit, so long as we don’t infringe on others’ ability to do the same.

While the tobacco endgame – smoking rates below 5% – seems ultimately inevitable, getting the timeline right is the $1.85tn question . Should cigarettes die on their own, or at the hands of the state?

T o light up a cigarette seems almost Promethean: the individual steals fire from the igniter and offers it to humanity via the smoldering tip. Although tobacco will continue combusting on its own, you must blast a current of air into the cigarette to feed its flames. During a puff, temperatures rise from 400C to 900C – think red-hot steel.

As the tobacco leaves and their additives burn, thousands of chemicals are released in a motley collection of gases and particulates known as cigarette smoke. This toxic fog gets vacuumed down the airway and into tiny air sacs in our lungs called alveoli – they look like clusters of grapes, surrounded by dense cobwebs of blood vessels.

Nicotine, the addictive chemical in cigarettes (but also found in tomatoes, eggplants and potatoes), can then pass through alveolar walls, hitch a ride on the circulatory system, and rapidly flood the body. Ten to 20 seconds after a puff, nicotine hits the head. “Inhalation is the fastest way of getting a drug into the brain,” says Scott Lukas, psychiatrist and director of the behavioral psychopharmacology lab at McLean hospital. “It’s faster than IV.”

Our brains are peppered with “nicotinic” receptors, parking spots typically reserved for the chemical messenger acetylcholine, which is involved in memory, movement and learning – but activated by this chemical impostor as well. It sprinkles the brain with adrenaline to improve alertness while also spotlighting neural circuits for better concentration, as the Stanford neuroscientist Andrew Huberman describes it.

Nicotine’s main claim to fame, however, is how it hijacks our brain’s reward system to increase levels of the pleasure neurotransmitter dopamine, both stepping on the gas and cutting the brakes. “One molecule that can trigger activation of all the circuits for focus and motivation in one fell swoop?” Huberman says. “That is remarkable.”

Over time, though, nicotinic receptors become less responsive to the drug, so the brain starts to create more of them. And these multiplying receptors are like petulant baby birds, incessantly crying to be fed. Go too long without a cigarette, and withdrawal’s sure to follow – irritability, depression and cravings galore. Of course, there’s no gun to the head, but smoking another cigarette takes the pain away and offers an immediate sense of pleasure, if only for a short while.

The biology is interesting and all, says Carl Hart, a neuroscientist and professor of psychology at Columbia University, but it alone can’t tell us what the boundaries of public health should be – whether prohibition is proper in the name of the collective good.

Known for his controversial views on drug use (he advocates for the legalization of all drugs and wrote a book in which he admits to having used heroin regularly for the past five years), Hart wears his hair in long dreadlocks, and his hands move prophetically, a beat or two ahead of his words. He gesticulates with indignation as he tells me that any vision of a tobacco endgame is that of sick or naive zealots.

“Our declaration of independence, the first founding principles of the country, says that we are free, and we have the right to these three birth rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now they’re trying to overturn those basic principles,” Hart says. “Public health is all around us to enhance safety, but not to take away the activity.”

He’s not advocating for a world without regulation – he believes in age restrictions, banning cigarettes indoors and eliminating harmful additives – but one with free choice. “I don’t smoke tobacco cigarettes, but it’s not up to me to decide what benefit other people get from that product,” Hart says. “I am not the ruler and lord of their domain.”

He adds that history is teeming with failures of similar policies. Alcohol prohibition was meant to reduce domestic violence and poverty but instead fueled unimaginable violence and organized crime , with homicide rates increasing by 78% . The “war on drugs” was similarly disastrous , incarcerating millions of Black and Hispanic Americans without reducing the availability of illegal drugs. “Now if we think about tobacco in the same way,” Hart says, “the people who are gonna pay the price are the same people who pay the price – poor people.”

Indeed, nearly three-fourths of all US smokers come from lower socioeconomic statuses, with those below the poverty line twice as likely to smoke as those above it. It’s not hard to explain why: the tobacco industry has long targeted underserved communities, from including cigarette coupons with food stamps to saturating low-income neighborhoods with tobacco retailers – five times as many as the highest-income ones. Smoking disparities are a large part of what drives the 15-year life expectancy gap between the richest and poorest Americans.

So one of birthdate bans’ selling points is equity, reducing high smoking rates in vulnerable communities, according to Silbaugh and Ishak, the Brookline town meeting members.

Hart dismisses that as a cruel joke. “This is what we do: we pretend to care about those communities and not really deal with the issues they face.” They need gainful employment, health insurance, and pensions, but public health exploits their deprivation to justify paternalistic bans instead.

“What the fuck,” Hart scowls. “It just blows my mind.”

T ake any set of drugs – say marijuana, heroin, amphetamines and hallucinogens – and ask yourself which ones should be legal versus illegal. There are certainly places at the extremes: Portugal, for instance, has decriminalized all drug use, while Singapore has attached the death penalty to consumption. But what exactly does the US do?

Mark Gottlieb, a public health lawyer at Northeastern University, describes how federal drug policy seems almost random, carved into stone by whoever’s in power, oddities of their own times.

Hart puts it more directly: “Whatever the white majority says is illegal, is illegal.”

The ideal, of course, would be to have society plot all drugs on a spectrum and legalize those whose benefits outweigh the harms. But it’s probably ridiculous to claim that harm reduction alone drives US drug policy, given that alcohol and cigarettes are not only legal but remarkably accessible. “I find it ironic that these two drugs collectively cause way more destruction, loss of life, loss of productivity than every other drug of abuse all combined,” says Lukas.

It might even be overly generous to lump cigarettes with alcohol. After all, when used exactly as its manufacturers intended, tobacco kills up to half its users , making cigarettes the deadliest object in the history of human civilization . And while 5% of individuals who drink are alcoholics, 90% of those who smoke are nicotinics , according to Robert Proctor, a professor of history at Stanford University. “But that’s not even a word, right? We don’t even have a word for nicotinics because almost everyone who smokes is addicted.”

Over the past 50 years, the national regulatory project has centered on shifting risk from institutions to individuals, with the tobacco industry leading the charge. Cigarettes themselves aren’t addictive, industry-funded scientists would parrot; it’s really that “ certain people just can’t take it .”

Beyond the demerits of this seductively simple framework, cigarettes might also be the only consumer product where the people who use them wish they didn’t. Seven in 10 smokers say they want to quit, and 88% wish they had never started. “There’s never been a fish in the history of the world that wanted to bite the hook,” Proctor says. “They’re going for the bait.” Addiction is not about desire but rather the usurpation of desire.

Silbaugh thus sees cigarettes as being closer to lead and asbestos than to alcohol or marijuana. But at least those products had legitimate social uses: leaded gasoline helped engines run smoothly while asbestos’s strength made it great for construction. The cigarette, Silbaugh emphasizes, has no value beyond pernicious cycles of addiction.

“T here was a time not that long ago,” says Gottlieb, “when the idea of advocating a tobacco endgame really couldn’t be discussed in professional circles.” Persuasion and regulation, sure, but prohibition was seen as excessive and, according to a former US surgeon general, riot-inducing . While a cold-turkey approach might still be off the table, a more incremental birthdate ban could chart out a middle ground between impact and feasibility.

Applying only to those born in the 21st century, the policy would help eliminate the highest-risk tobacco use – 99% of daily smokers begin before age 26 – while not denying cigarettes to people who have been legally using them (and find it almost impossible to quit). “This is designed to be a sympathetic approach with that need,” Silbaugh says, “but not let that need paralyze us.”

There are inevitably going to be some uncomfortable side-effects to the birthdate ban. After all, cigarettes are a “purchase driver” for gas stations, and the US gets over $12bn from tobacco taxes. What will happen to these small-business owners, and what’s going to fund education, infrastructure and everything else cigarette taxes bankroll? That’s not even to mention the potential dangers of the ensuing black market – smuggling, deadly additives and increasingly powerful crime syndicates – as Jacob Sullum, author of For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health, tells me.

But is the cure worse than the disease? Given the gradual implementation of birthdate bans, the economic hit would probably be spread pretty thin. Certainly, revenues would never increase, with future generations banned from buying cigarettes, but they’ll only fractionally decrease as existing smokers quit or die out.

And if birthdate bans aren’t affecting the existing market, who exactly is going to drive the contraband? I’m picturing 15-year-old dealers behind the school dumpster, packs of cigarettes laced under trench coats – but certainly not Al Capone. Of course, I know how creative teenagers can be: 22% of US high school students used marijuana and 29% drank alcohol in 2019. But the fearmongering that the harms of a black market would be nastier than cigarettes themselves seems overstated.

“We shouldn’t ban lead paint – that’ll create a black market,” says Proctor, mocking the freedom worrywarts. “We probably shouldn’t ban anything. In fact, we probably shouldn’t have any laws because laws are all bans. And bans erode freedom.”

“I ’m going to give you an answer that I suspect you haven’t heard before,” Kenneth Warner says when I ask where birthdate bans should fit into the tobacco endgame. “I think it’s cute. I don’t think it’s very meaningful.”

How about Brookline’s policy?

“It’s almost silly.”

Warner is a world-renowned economist, former dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health, and passionate advocate for tobacco control. He just doesn’t think birthdate bans would expedite cigarettes’ demise. After all, the policy would only affect young smokers or would-be smokers, and their cigarette use is already very low – about 2% of middle school students and 5% of high school students in 2020 .

“Anything that affects a single birth year cohort takes many years to have an impact on the overall smoking rate,” he explains. What Silbaugh sees as regulatory cleverness, Warner considers a fatal flaw.

In Brookline’s case, Warner laughs at how easy it would be to bypass the ordinance: you could just bike over to Boston or Cambridge or Newton, or any other city in the county to purchase cigarettes – if you so desired. And with the town’s adult smoking at only 6.8% , “there aren’t that many people who are going to want to get them anyway,” he says.

Implemented only at the local level, the ban is probably a bit performative. But maybe that’s not such a bad thing. As Gottlieb, the public health lawyer, reminds me, the history of tobacco control is one of gradual progress, with local leadership pushing forward radical policies, from banning cigarettes in restaurants to raising the age of purchase to 21 .

In fact, for seven years, Needham, Massachusetts, was the only town in the country to lift the smoking age, no one else daring to follow suit. But this bet paid off. As Gottlieb reported in the New England Journal of Medicine , Needham’s high school smoking rates were halved between 2005 and 2010, triple the reduction of its neighbors. Now, these students could also have biked over to Boston or Cambridge or Newton, but even incrementally raising the barrier to purchase was enough to dissuade many of them.

The Needham pediatrician Alan Stern, who first proposed raising the age of purchase, tells me that they had no specific evidence the policy would work, but “sometimes you make decisions because it seems like it’s the right thing to do”. In 2019, Tobacco 21 became federal law .

While Gottlieb can see Massachusetts adopting the birthdate ban, he’ll be the first to tell you that he can’t imagine Congress will follow suit. “Individual responsibility, individualism, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, these are certainly baked into the American culture and politics,” he says, “and the most important thing that’s baked into American politics is the influence of money.”

But Proctor’s more bitterly optimistic. He tells me that, from 1890 to 1927, 15 states fully banned cigarette sales, and the power to do so is still vested in local communities and state governments. “What we’re starting to do is recover an imagination that was fully present 100 years ago,” Proctor says. “The history of the world is a history of corrupted imagination.”

B irthdate bans are far from perfect, and it’s impossible to say how much they will reduce smoking rates – if much at all. But at the very least, they could offer a start. Of course, we’ll still need to consider difficult questions like how e-cigarettes should fit into the endgame, or how this goal rubs against the broader drug decriminalization movement. And we’ll still need policies to reduce poverty and help existing smokers quit.

But none of these questions are insurmountable, and none of the efforts are mutually exclusive. New Zealand, for instance, plans to reach the tobacco endgame by 2025 by combining birthdate bans, very low-nicotine cigarettes and drastic sale restrictions to pummel tobacco from all directions.

Addiction is what really restricts freedom, Mary Jo says. It’s been 16 years since she quit smoking, but she still fights her cravings every single day. “Cigarettes are the worst drug,” she says, “because it stays with you.”

She’s excited about Brookline’s birthdate ban because it could protect her grandkids. But Mary Jo also says: “I pray to God that they just take it away, that they would never make one cigarette.”

• Tobacco industry
• Massachusetts

Most viewed

14 Central Pros and Cons of Smoking Bans

Smoking ban policies are implemented in some American states and cities but the contentions on whether they are necessary and relevant are still heard from supporters and critics. Restrictions on cigarette smoking can be traced back as early the 16th century and up to now, this issue remains to be controversial.

Smoking ban is a policy that prohibits smoking in public places like restaurants, workplaces, parks, malls, government offices and schools, among others. There are policies implemented statewide and there are some that only restrict smoking in public places but not in enclosed areas.

To get an idea on how people are taking smoking bans, here are some of the views expressed by proponents and opponents.

List of Pros of Smoking Bans

1. They reduce the risk of second-hand smoke. Advocates for smoking bans claim that passing a law to prohibit smoking in public places can lessen the possibility of second-hand smoke being inhaled by non-smokers. Second-hand smoke, according to experts, can lead to increased risk to emphysema, cardiovascular disorders and respiratory problems. By restricting the places where smoking is allowed, this can be prevented.

2. They lessen air pollution. Supporters also say that states and cities which have non-smoking policies and prohibited smoking in restaurants and public indoor spaces have better indoor air quality as opposed to cities which still allow smoking public.

3. They improve work productivity. Proponents point out that not all people smoke at the office. If smoking is allowed, non-smokers can still inhale the smoke and it can be bothersome for them to smell the smoke. On the other hand, if it is prohibited, employees can be more productive. They also added that smoking can cause respiratory infections and smokers are prone to these. If employees smoke less, chances are, the risk of getting sick is minimized.

4. They reduce healthcare costs. Advocates maintain their position about the benefits of smoking bans by saying that reports indicate reduced health costs in cities were smoking are restricted. And since health care costs take around 9.3% of the country’s GDP, reducing it can affect the economy in a positive way.

5. They decrease the possibility of fires. Smoking can increase the risks of fire in places with highly flammable materials. There have been instances of fires which started from lit cigarettes. Moreover, accidents related to explosions at work sites can also happen if smoking will not be prohibited.

6. They reduce wastes. Cigarette butts are non-biodegradable and can clog water systems if thrown recklessly. With banning smoking in public places, there will be lesser cigarette butts and lesser toxic garbage that can be stuck in water systems.

7. They contribute to lower energy consumption and personal expenses. If smoking is banned in public places such as malls and restaurants, there will be lesser need to use ventilation and this can result to lesser energy consumption and in effect, lesser expense. As for smokers, advocates say that an individual who smokes a pack a day spends less than $20 each day and around $720 a year. With smoking bans, it can reduce the expense for cigarette purchase of a smoker in half.

8. They result to cleaner areas where food is prepared and manufactured. With restricting smoking, supporters posit that this can ensure cleanliness is observed in food preparation in restaurants and in the streets. Moreover, smoking bans in workplaces and pharmaceuticals also contribute to cleaner indoor quality as well as maintaining cleanliness.

9. They lessen the chance of influencing others to take on the habit. Supporters for smoking bans claim that cigarette smoking is also considered a status symbol and some teenagers can be influenced to smoke just to fit it. If these young people will be exposed to smoking less, they will not be easily tempted to try.

List of Cons of Smoking Bans

1. They take away freedom from people. Some critics see smoking bans as a violation on one’s personal liberty. They argue that people should have the autonomy to decide on what kind of lifestyle they will have. Although they are not totally against banning smoking, they say that it should be a personal choice.

2. They can affect businesses. Business owners who are not in favor of smoking bans as well as smokers who are used to smoking in public places such as restaurants and coffee shops argue that restricting smoking in these places can drive customers away and this can be harmful to businesses. And as for establishments which are already smoke-free, competition will be higher. It will also be harder for them to leverage since there will be more businesses that are smoke-free.

3. They are not effective. Groups not really in favor of smoking bans say that they are not effective since smokers will just be usually told to leave and that penalties are not stiff. Smoking ban policies do not have enough teeth since repercussions are not harsh enough.

4. They drive people to smokers to smoke somewhere else. Some critics contend that banning smoking in some places just leaves smokers no choice but to do it somewhere else. They mentioned that this can even lead to increase cases of DUI fatalities since smokers might drive to other places just so they can smoke.

5. They result to lesser tax revenues for the government. People against smoking bans are concerned on the effect on government revenues if the push for smoke-free states will be implemented. They say that the government earns from high taxes paid by tobacco manufacturers and smokers. If cigarettes will be reduced, this would mean lesser taxes and lesser revenue for the government.

The controversy on smoking bans is not to leave the debate arena soon. There will always be people who will advocate for banning smoking in public places for concerns on health issues and fire hazards. However, there are also those who are firm in opposing it. And although there is a higher percentage of people who are behind smoking bans, imposing these policies nationwide is not going to happen in the near future because the views of people will always be divided.

The pros and cons of a total smoking ban

Plans to phase out the sale of tobacco completely have won cross-party support

• Newsletter sign up Newsletter

Pro: saving lives

Con: black markets, pro: avoiding poverty, con: risk to civil liberties, pro: environmental protection, con: losing tax revenue.

Rishi Sunak's plans to phase out the sale of cigarettes appears to have gained cross-party backing, making a total smoking ban in the UK a real possibility.

The prime minister used his Conservative Party conference speech to announce plans to raise the age at which people can buy tobacco in England year by year until it applies to the whole population. This would mean a 14-year-old today will never legally be able to buy a cigarette, putting England on a par with the likes of New Zealand, which introduced a similar law last year, in having "some of the strictest smoking laws in the world", Sky News reported.

While an outright ban – even one introduced over several decades – may prove controversial, its chances of coming into law have received a boost after it won support from Labour, as well as Welsh and Scottish governments, where laws on smoking are devolved.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

"Political instincts on this issue are coalescing around a similar position," said BBC political editor Chris Mason, meaning the plan could be both "profound and long-lasting".

Almost six million people in England smoke, and tobacco remains the single biggest cause of preventable illness and death. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, stroke and heart disease, with smoking-related illnesses costing the NHS £17 billion a year, according to campaign group  Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

An independent government-commissioned review , which last year recommended proposals similar to those announced by Sunak, argued that tackling tobacco use and supporting smokers to quit would help prevent 15 types of cancer – including lung cancer, throat cancer and acute myeloid leukaemia. Recent data showed that one in four deaths from all cancers were estimated to be from smoking.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4 's "Today" programme, the prime minister said his proposals represented the "biggest public health intervention in a generation", a claim backed up by England's chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, who stressed how beneficial the health improvements would be.

Simon Clark, of smokers' lobby group Forest, told the BBC that "creeping prohibition won't stop young adults smoking" but it will "simply drive the sale of tobacco underground and consumers will buy cigarettes on the black market where no-one pays tax and products are completely unregulated".

The illicit trade in tobacco products "poses major health, economic and security concerns around the world", according to the World Health Organization , which estimates 1 in every 10 cigarettes and tobacco products consumed globally is illicit.

Writing for The Conversation , Dr Brendan Gogarty, of the University of Tasmania, argued that "laws that rely on prohibition to reduce the prevalence and harm from drugs generally fail to achieve their aims".

Smoking causes a disproportionate burden on the most disadvantaged families and communities, last year's independent review found. The average smoker in the North East of England spends over 10% of their income on tobacco, compared to just over 6% in the South East.

This mirrors research from 2015 conducted by University of Nottingham, which found parents who smoke were "plunging nearly half a million children into poverty", The Independent reported.

As smokers quit, said Sudyumna Dahal for The Conversation , household budgets "become easier, facilitating what a study in the British Medical Journal describes as an income transfer from male smokers to females and other family members".

Therefore, argue anti-smoking campaigners, banning smoking would bring greater benefits to the less well-off.

Smokers and the groups who advocate on their behalf argue that their habit is a civil right, even if it kills the smoker. In a report published in 2019, the smokers’ group Forest argued that "smokers are the canaries for civil liberties".

It added that the call for a ban "directly violates the harm principle that assumes a person has autonomy over their own life and body as long as they do not hurt other people".

As The Spectator editor Fraser Nelson pointed out on Twitter , plans to phase out the sale of cigarettes could lead to the absurd situation where pensioners will have to produce ID to prove which side of the ever-moving line of legality they are on.

"I'd love to live in a smoke-free world," wrote Rachael Bletchly in the Daily Mirror . "I wish people would stop wrecking their health with cigarettes. But I don't think it's the job of politicians to police other grown-ups' filthy habits. And I fear that Rishi Sunak's new smoking ban is just well-meaning, populist puff."

Cigarette smoking has several negative environmental impacts and banning smoking would bring these to an end. Smokers release pollution into the atmosphere, cigarette butts litter the environment, and the toxic chemicals in the residues cause soil and water pollution.

Tobacco is commonly planted in rainforest areas and has contributed to major deforestation, said Conserve Energy Future .

A 2013 report in the journal Tobacco Control found that cigarette manufacturing “consumes scarce resources in growing, curing, rolling, flavouring, packaging, transport, advertising and legal defence” and “also causes harms from massive pesticide use”.

Taxation on smoking raises more than £8.8 billion per year for the Treasury, noted Politics.co.uk . The TaxPayers’ Alliance rejected the argument that smokers also cost the taxman more due to their health burden, arguing that smokers who suffer major health problems are more likely to die prematurely, reducing expenditure on state pensions and other age-related benefits.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

Speed Read The Ministry of Defence became aware of the breach 'several days ago'

By Arion McNicoll, The Week UK Published 7 May 24

The Week Recommends Enjoy freshly cooked food within sight of the sea – whatever the weather

By Adrienne Wyper, The Week UK Published 7 May 24

The Week Recommends Detox like a true European in the South Tyrol region of northernmmost Italy

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 7 May 24

In Depth The former president is planning to fundamentally flip America's civil rights protections if he wins a second term in office

By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published 9 April 24

Today's Big Question US, UK and Australia seek to expand 'game-changer' defence partnership ahead of Republican's possible return to White House

By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published 22 March 24

Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day

By Harold Maass, The Week US Published 21 March 24

Today's Big Question PM's pledge to deliver economic growth is 'in tatters' as stagnation and falling living standards threaten Tory election wipeout

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 16 February 24

By Harold Maass, The Week US Published 1 February 24

The Explainer Across England, local councils are suffering from grave financial problems

By The Week UK Published 28 January 24

Talking Point The Telegraph launches 'assault' on PM just as many Tory MPs are contemplating losing their seats

By Keumars Afifi-Sabet, The Week UK Published 26 January 24

Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 17 January 24

• Contact Future's experts
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

The Actual Harms of Vaping

In a moment of national panic, what is the safest way forward?

When a deadly virus swept the U.S. in 2009, killing thousands of people, panic felt especially necessary. A variant of the influenza that spreads every year, the “swine flu” made headlines as new reports of deaths rolled in. Graphic, tragic tales of lives lost spread fear.

Many Americans still remember that winter as particularly treacherous. But swine flu ultimately did no more damage in the country than any typical flu virus. In fact, the year that swine flu struck was one of the lightest flu seasons in recent history. Influenza killed about 12,500 Americans that year. The average annual death toll over the past decade has been closer to 50,000 .

Social scientists have since explained the panic as a matter of “ risk acceptability .” What made that flu stand out in people’s minds? In part, who it killed. Unlike in most years, swine flu hospitalized many young adults . Cases involved people who are not supposed to die of the flu—not just the grandparent with emphysema, but the high-school athlete. Despite any ongoing plague of death and destruction, this sort of new, unanticipated danger invariably captures national attention.

Anxiety is a powerful motivator, but by definition it exists around risks that are not deemed acceptable. Anxiety can mobilize people to swift and decisive action, of the sort no longer considered for more dangerous threats that society does accept. Smoking tobacco, for instance, kills some 480,000 Americans every year. But it does so gradually with cancers and heart disease that strike after decades of use. The annual death toll is now so expected that it does not constitute news. Similarly accepted are the fatal effects of inhaling chemicals in air pollution, which kills about 7 million people around the world annually.

Read: Contesting the science of smoking

At the moment, the leading public-health issue in the news is vaping. Push alerts mark incremental tallies in people hospitalized with serious respiratory illnesses related to vaping. So far this year the number is 805—with a median age of 23—according to a widely discussed report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week. The week prior, 530 hospitalizations had been reported. The number of deaths related to vaping has grown to 12.

In September, President Donald Trump announced a commitment to ending the vaping scourge: “We can’t allow people to get sick, and we can’t have our youth be so affected.” In addition to the youth of the victims, uncertainty about exactly what’s causing this spike in sickness has fueled an emotional public response. A mix of political momentum and genuine will to protect kids has led to calls for bans and absolute avoidance of vapes. Massachusetts temporarily banned the sale of all vaping products. Walmart announced it would stop selling all vaping products. California allocated $20 million for a “vaping-awareness campaign.”

There appears to be a unanimous consensus that something should be done to better understand and prevent this vaping-related harm. The message from many in the public-health community simply has been to avoid vaping. Last week the CDC told Americans as much. But as bans are actually being implemented, some experts are realizing the potentially dangerous effects of misplacing collective anxiety.

“What we’ve seen in the past several months is unique,” says Brian King, the CDC’s deputy director for research translation on smoking and health. After the recent, jarring uptick in serious cases of vaping-related lung illness, he has been trying to discern the exact extent of the harm. He believes that the agency is close to having a full accounting. “It’s possible there is an influence of stories in the media—that people may be more likely to report or to suspect vaping was the cause of lung disease,” King says. “Even so, the rates are markedly higher than in past years, so it’s likely something new is going on.”

Read: Vaping’s plausible deniability is going up in smoke

Abigail Friedman, who studies tobacco use at the Yale School of Public Health, points out that the majority of the most popular vaping products have been on the market for at least a few years. The question is not whether vaping itself is safe or unsafe, she emphasizes, but what elements of the practice are causing these acute diseases: “An e-cigarette is fundamentally a device, not a substance. One thing that I think is really confusing people is that vaping just means using an e-cigarette. It doesn’t tell you what people put in it. You could put water in an e-cigarette, right?”

Vaping water should be a harmless, if curious, thing to do. Adding nicotine to that vapor, on the other hand, noticeably affects the cardiovascular system and brain. The addictive properties of nicotine can alter neural functioning permanently, especially in younger people—that’s why every medical institution advises against vaping. But nicotine alone should not acutely cause the sort of severe inflammatory lung disease that is being seen.

Identifying the actual compounds that are causing people’s lungs to shut down is the real challenge for researchers and doctors. For those unacquainted with vaping, this means the “juice” that’s in the cartridges. These can be filled with anything at all, technically, if not legally. Some people concoct their own juice, or buy it by the gallon and refill old cartridges. Some cartridges are sold legally, and others on the black market. “People are modifying cartridges to accommodate other substances,” King says.

The lung diseases are especially common in people who have vaped THC-containing products, both manufactured and modified. (THC is the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis.) But he says the CDC has not ruled out harms from nicotine-only products. In all cases, some element (or elements) in the liquid is getting into people’s lungs and causing a severe inflammatory reaction. Some have been traced to a vitamin E compound. Other cases have involved vegetable glycerin, a common ingredient in skin-care products. Friedman notes that just because an ingredient is “natural” or is safe to smear on one’s face, or to eat, does not make it safe to inhale.

To broadly condemn vaping for these illnesses may be akin to blaming injections instead of heroin, or coffee cups instead of arsenic-laden coffee. Damage to the lungs is technically a result of a person’s immune system attempting to eradicate the foreign invader. Identifying which compound triggered any given reaction involves the variability of individual immune systems, meaning some people have severe illnesses after inhaling something that others tolerated—like gluten in the bowels of a person with celiac disease. This could make illnesses harder to trace than if the problem were due to a single, universally poisonous contaminant (like bootleggers cutting their THC with cyanide). While regulatory agencies have a general sense of what compounds are safe to eat and drink, there is no such historic repository of wisdom or data on what compounds are safe to vape.

Amid so much uncertainty and harm coming from the mushrooming market for novel, unregulated products, some researchers raise the concern that banning legal vapes would make the problem worse, not better. Some nicotine-addicted people would be driven to the black market. Others could switch from vaping to smoking cigarettes. In a 2015 study , Friedman and colleagues found that vaping bans increased rates of teenage smoking. “Electronic and conventional cigarettes are economic substitutes,” Friedman says. “If the price of one product goes up, demand for a substitute is expected to increase.”

Friedman uses Diet Coke drinkers as an analogy: If Diet Coke were banned, people would likely switch to Coke or Coke Zero or Diet Pepsi, not water. This replacement principle would be especially true for nicotine users, because the substance is even more addictive than Diet Coke.

Sunny Shin, who studies tobacco use at Virginia Commonwealth University, says his colleagues are seeing cases of young people switching to cigarettes because they are scared of vaping, a sort of warped perception of overall harms. “Some e-cigarette companies targeted young people [with marketing], and people in low-income communities, and many in those targeted groups started to think they should avoid smoking because it causes cancer, but they thought vaping was harmless,” Shin says. Now that trend could be reversing, and people who got addicted to nicotine because of marketing by vaping companies stand to suffer yet more if they transition to smoking or vaping homemade products.

For years, vaping products were rolled out with essentially no oversight. Not until 2016 did vaping devices come under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. While the big vaping companies face distinct controversies over targeted marketing , flavored products , and drawing countless people into long-term nicotine addiction, mainstream products might be the least likely to be the source of recent spikes in disease.

Read: Vaping falls in Trump’s crosshairs

The most radical solution could also be the most responsible and careful. If you ban it, you can’t regulate it. At least metaphorically speaking, the juice cannot be put back into the cartridge.

“This is a good moment to establish the regulatory structure for these vaping products that should have been in place since the beginning,” Shin says. He emphasizes that ideally no one would be using nicotine regularly, and that the emotional impulsivity that underlies tobacco use is an effective target if a society truly wants to stop people from abusing substances. But short of that sort of meaningful preventive approach, substances can at least be made as safe as possible.

When nicotine is delivered to people’s brains by way of regulated and thoroughly tested products, at least the risks become more predictable. As in the food system, contaminated or especially dangerous products can be traced, and individual products recalled or manufacturing practices banned. This would mean funding the FDA and state health departments to test and ensure the purity and safety of products. It could also involve an industry-driven approach. “You want a device that’s tamper-proof,” Friedman says. “You want a device where people can’t inject vanilla extract, or whatever they have at home to make a flavor, because they can’t buy flavored products.”

As the nebulous long-term health consequences of vaping reveal themselves, it will remain the goal of public health to minimize nicotine use altogether. Doing this will involve the common public-health approach known as harm reduction : working to make a dangerous practice as safe as possible. Drawing on the failures of approaches like abstinence-only sex education and prohibition of alcohol , harm reduction is considered whenever total elimination from society does not seem to be an option. People around the world throughout history have ingested tobacco, and the capitalist American spirit of autonomy has never had the political will to ban it altogether. If the past is any indication, the last humans on Earth will be ingesting tobacco and alcohol as the waters rise around their ankles in their survival bunkers.

In the meantime, the impulse to discontinue all sales and outright ban all vaping products may be a case of applying one big hammer to a job that requires a belt full of small screwdrivers. Meanwhile, in the mission to prevent fatal lung disease, that big hammer could be squarely aimed at cigarettes and air pollution.

Log in using your username and password

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

You are here

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

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

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

• Denormalization
• Tobacco Industry Documents

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

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

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

Six reasons to ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The spectre of prohibition

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

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

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

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

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

Helping the industry fulfil its promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary points

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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

Read the full text or download the PDF:

It’s Time to Treat Sugar Like Cigarettes

T he food we eat impacts every aspect of our lives and our bodies: our hormones, brain chemistry, immune system, microbiome; the list goes on. As consumers, we deserve the right to easily understand our foods’ nutritional value in order to make informed decisions about what we consume and how that will impact our health and well being. This is especially important when it comes to ingredients that are detrimental when eaten in excess, such as sugar. As researchers in functional medicine, longevity, AI, and nutrition, as well as inventors of health-enhancing and life-saving solutions, we have dedicated our professional lives to improving the health and well-being of millions everywhere. And while we applaud the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) taking important strides to pass mandatory front-of-package labeling for packaged foods in the U.S., this is a change that cannot come soon enough. Everyone’s health depends on it. 

The FDA recommends adults consume no more than 50 grams of added sugar per day (based on a 2,000 calorie diet), but the average American consumes closer to one-third of a pound of sugar daily, more than three times the recommended amount. To put that into perspective, the average American consumes over 100 pounds of sugar per person per year. With that much sugar consumption, it is no wonder that 49% of American adults are diabetic or pre-diabetic. What’s worse is that much of the sugar we consume occurs without our even realizing it. There are over 60 different ways sugar is identified on nutrition labels, making a consumer’s attempt to regulate their sugar intake unfairly complicated.

Extensive academic research published in medical peer-reviewed journals backs common knowledge that excess sugar consumption can lead to serious chronic conditions , as well as fatigue , anxiety , memory loss , ADHD , and even to a shorter life .

Seventy four percent of packaged foods in the U.S. contain added sugar, including seemingly healthy foods, such as salad dressing, coleslaw, and even baked beans, marinades, and yogurt; some sweetened yogurts contain more sugar than a can of soda. The fact that sugar is so biologically addictive — studies indicate it is eight times more addictive than cocaine — makes the reality that it’s hidden in so many foods even more harmful. Most of us are addicted to sugar and we don’t even know it.

This cycle of addiction is relentless and hard to break: we eat food with sugar, which then triggers a blood sugar spike, which lights up the pleasure center in our brain. When the inevitable sugar crash comes, we seek that spike again in the form of craving more sugar. Without easily discernible food labeling, shoppers unknowingly create this cycle inside their own bodies, even while they erroneously think the food they’re buying is healthy.

Read More: How the World Got Hooked on Sugar

In many countries, labels on packaged foods serve a similar function to labels on cigarette cartons: to warn consumers of risk. In Chile , a policy of “high in” labels on the front of sugary drinks dramatically reduced the consumption of those beverages. In Israel, a front-of-package labelling system , wherein a red label indicates an item high in sugar, has led to significant positive changes in 76% of the population’s food buying habits. We’re excited to see what a similar program in the U.S. would yield.

Those in the U.S. lobbying against this front-of-package change, unsurprisingly, have an interest in the continued popularity of their products. In a February 2023 joint filing , the nation’s largest cereal producers threatened a lawsuit after proposed changes would not allow them to label products as “healthy” if they didn’t meet nutritional standards.

This dynamic is similar to changes made in cigarette advertising in the 20th century. In the 1940s, a famous Camel cigarettes campaign featured the slogan , “More doctors smoke Camels.” By 1969, a mandatory warning label was added to cigarettes, giving consumers clearer access to information about risks, allowing them to make more informed choices about their health. Today the percentage of Americans who smoke is 11% compared to nearly 50% back in the day when “more doctors smoked Camels”. Life expectancy rose nearly 11 years in that span of time too, and the decrease in smoking certainly contributed.

While front-of-package labeling on packaged foods is a crucial first step towards a healthier society, education and awareness alone will only get us so far. To drive even more significant change in the way most Americans eat, a change that will lead to a healthier population, we must also incentivize the production and widespread distribution of healthier alternatives. These alternatives—a packaged cookie with healthier ingredients, for instance—must be just as delicious, and readily available as those loaded with sugar. The recently announced new standards by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that will limit added sugars in school meals can greatly help with the availability of healthier alternatives, especially when children form their eating habits. For the rest of us, though, front-of-package labeling is an important step one in this journey towards national wellness and it will also encourage producers to create healthier options for consumers; readily available healthier alternatives is step two.

FDA leadership ensuring labeling of high contents of sugar in packaged foods could increase awareness and reduce the negative impacts of sugar and help millions live healthier longer lives. This change would help us make more informed choices about our food and our health. We believe it is our right, and every American’s right, to have clear and visible information about the sugar content of the foods we are eating in order to make those decisions.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• How Far Trump Would Go
• Why Maternity Care Is Underpaid
• Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
• Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
• Why Your Breakfast Should Start with a Vegetable
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Biden administration abandons plan to ban menthol cigarettes, citing 'feedback'

Yuki Noguchi

Menthol cigarettes are popular among Black and Latino smokers, and a Biden administration official cited civil rights as a reason the ban is being dropped. Mario Tama/Getty Images hide caption

Menthol cigarettes are popular among Black and Latino smokers, and a Biden administration official cited civil rights as a reason the ban is being dropped.

The Biden administration indefinitely delayed implementing a long-awaited ban on menthol tobacco products, outraging anti-smoking advocates who say the White House is prioritizing politics over public health.

Controversy, especially within the Black community, is one reason Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra alluded to as rationale for dropping the proposed ban. In a statement, Becerra said the rule elicited "an immense amount of feedback, including from various elements of the civil rights and criminal justice movement," adding that resolving the issues "will take considerably more time."

The original ban on menthol cigarettes was proposed over two years ago, after extensive research on the effects of the minty flavoring.

Shots - Health News

The fight over banning menthol cigarettes has a long history steeped in race.

Many public health advocacy groups expressed dismay, arguing that the debate over public health was resolved decades ago.

"This decision prioritizes politics over lives, especially Black lives," said Yolonda Richardson, President and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a statement. "It is especially disturbing to see the administration parrot the false claims of the tobacco industry about support from the civil rights community."

"The administration's inaction is enabling the tobacco industry to continue aggressively marketing these products and attracting and addicting new users," said Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association, in a statement.

Menthol makes up over a third of the US tobacco sales, but is disproportionately marketed in Black communities, as well as among women and LGBTQ populations. As many as 85% of Black smokers smoke menthol cigarettes – a health risk that also explains why lung cancer rates run highest in that community. So the issue of banning menthol cigarettes – or curtailing access to them – has divided the Black community.

Some civil rights leaders, most notably Rev. Al Sharpton, have received backing from the tobacco industry and have argued that a ban on menthol cigarettes would lead to more over-policing of Black communities.

• menthol ban
• xavier becerra
• Big Tobacco
• menthol cigarettes

Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay

Introduction, arguments in favor of smoking in campus, arguments against smoking in campus, reconciliation of the two positions, campus smoking: conclusion of the essay, works cited.

The idea of smoking in colleges and campuses has developed a mixed reaction in the USA and in many other parts of the world such that it has posed a very hot and contentious universal debate.

Several campuses and colleges have tried to impose a total ban on smoking within their environs, some of them succeeding while others failing to do so. For instance, colleges like Santa Ana and Fullerton have managed to ban smoking completely within their environs, while others such as Huntington Beach and Golden West College still allow smoking in prescribed places such as in parking lots.

Fullerton College was the first to successfully impose a smoking ban in the year 2007 (Bates 57). Nevertheless, many colleges and campuses have not managed to follow suit because of some state laws which assert that smoking is only proscribed inside buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses. These laws continue to give students the right to smoke within certain areas of their campuses.

As aforementioned, section 7595 of the government code affirms that smoking is proscribed only in public buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses (Merrill 36).Therefore, the opponents of this subject believe that since it is the right of every citizen to do anything that is recognized as legal, it is very wrong to impose a total ban on smoking, especially in campuses.

The most important thing is to ensure that students follow the laid down rules and regulations such as the strict use of the recommended areas of smoking. In deed, it is very unfair to send students off campus to smoke.

In addition, the opponents of this argument believe that smoking should not be banned because it helps students to relax whenever they are in stressful situations. Concerning the health risks that are brought about by smoking, they assert that every mature citizen should be in a position to separate good behavior from wrong behavior.

They say that since there has been an integration of cigarette smoking topics in schools for several decades, by the time a student reaches campus, he/she must be in a position to understand the risks that cigarette smoking poses to their health and therefore they should be able to make informed decisions about smoking. They also argue that it is very unfair to impose an immediate ban on cigarette smoking in campus yet it is clearly understood that smoking is an additive activity which can not be stopped at once.

Even though campus students have the right to smoke within some prescribed areas whenever they wish to do so, as mandated by some state laws, they ought to realize the fact that cigarette smoking has got very serious and detrimental effects on human health. Smoking of cigarettes can bring about lung infections to both first-hand and second-hand smokers. Therefore, smokers need to recognize that their right to smoke may greatly infringe on the rights of their non-smoking counterparts.

It is obvious that students know the negative effects of smoking cigarettes. For instance, it is expensive for them and it may also reduce their lifetime. Generally speaking, cigarette smoking is just bad. Currently, at least forty three colleges in the USA have imposed a total ban on cigarette smoking in their campuses and this trend is increasing especially among commuter schools and community colleges (Merrill 40).

However, it is hard to impose such a ban in some colleges because of the mixed reactions that are held by different stakeholders about the issue of smoking, and the existing campus policies which give the smokers the right to smoke in prescribed areas. According to the research that was carried out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, 31% of college students smoke cigarettes. This figure exceeds the national general average of 25% (Longmire 15).

It is also worth to note that even though there has been an integration of cigarette smoking topics in schools for several decades, cigarette smoking has continued to attract many youths and this continues to raise a lot of alarm about their future. This is because cigarette smoking is the major contributor of the cases of lung cancer in the entire world.

Research indicates that close to eighty percent of men who die from lung cancer, and seventy five percent of women who die from the same disease do so because of smoking tobacco. Research also indicates that the risk of lung cancer increases when a person starts smoking at an early age, and with an increase in the number of cigarettes that a person smokes in a day (Robicsek 56).

Scientific research has proved that cigarette smoking is harmful to the body. The smoke that comes out of a burning cigarette is a compound mixture of several chemicals which are produced when tobacco is burned.

This smoke contains a deadly compound called tar, which consists of more than four thousand chemicals which are very poisonous, and a majority of them have been clearly identified to be the main cause of cancer. Most of these chemicals are also known to cause lung diseases and heart problems. Some of these chemicals include cyanide, benzene, methanol, ammonia, formaldehyde and acetylene (Merrill 45).

Other deadly substances that are found in cigarettes include carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide gases which are very poisonous. The most active component of a cigarette is nicotine. Nicotine is a very addictive compound. Cigarette smoking can cause several problems such as cancer, lung damage and heart infections among many other diseases.

Research also indicates that more than thirty percent of the deaths that result in the United States occur due to the use of tobacco. Cigarette smoking also causes eighty seven percent of the deaths that result due to lung cancer. Other types of tobacco-related cancers include mouth cancer, cancer of the larynx, cancer of the throat and esophagus and cancer of the bladder. There is also a very close connection between cigarette smoking and the occurrence of the cancers of the kidney, pancreas, stomach and the cervix.

Cigarette smoking can also cause lung damage which begins at the early stages of smoking. Cigarette smokers encounter many problems with their lungs as compared to non-smokers and this situation gets worse when an individual increases his/her capacity to smoke. Smoking is linked to many dangerous lung infections which are just as perilous as lung cancer. These infections include emphysema and chronic bronchitis which cause difficulties in breathing and may even cause death.

Cigarette smoking also augments the risk of heart infections which stand out as the major causes of deaths in the U.S. Out of all the risk factors of heart infections, i.e. excess cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, cigarette smoking, physical lethargy and high blood pressure, cigarette smoking remains the leading risk factor for impulsive deaths that result from heart attacks (Bates 78).

In addition, low levels of cigarette smoking which may not be able to cause lung infections are capable of damaging the heart. Therefore, second-hand smokers also stand a very high chance of getting heart infections.

As stated earlier, Section 7595 of the government code affirms that smoking is proscribed in all public buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses (Merrill 36). Even though this ruling is good, it is not sufficient because it seems to discriminate the innocent second-hand smokers who continue to suffer from cigarette smoke which pollutes the air around them.

Cigarette smoking has also very detrimental effects to the real smokers and therefore they should be able to accept this ban because it is meant for their own good. Though it is very hard to ban citizens from doing something which is legally right, smoking should be gradually banned in campuses so as to protect the non-smokers. This is because campuses are public places which consist of both smokers and non-smokers.

My stand on this issue differs significantly from my opponents who believe that smoking should be allowed in some prescribed areas in campuses. My stand is that cigarette smoking should be banned in campuses because it impacts negatively on the non-smokers. Banning of cigarette smoking in campuses would enable the non-smoking citizens to enjoy the delight of breathing unpolluted air.

Nevertheless, my stand does not include cigarette smoking in private places such as in homes. At the same time, cigarette smokers should understand that the non-smokers are not trying to be intolerant when they keep on complaining about them. Rather, they are doing it for the sake of their own health.

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.

In addition, a very short exposure by a non-smoker to secondhand smoke may have abrupt severe effects on his/her cardiovascular system thus escalating the risk for lung and heart infections. This makes the non-smoker to have a higher risk of catching infections from cigarette smoke than the real smoker yet he/she is very innocent. A more effective way of reducing smoking in campuses would be to provide tobacco termination counseling programs in the campuses.

Bates, Tim & Gordon Mangan. Smoking and Raven IQ. New York: Pocket Books, 2007.

Longmire, Wilkinson, & Torok Edgar. Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Melo, Maurice. Cigarette Smoking and Reproductive Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Merrill, David. How Cigarettes are made. London: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Robicsek, Francis. Ritual Smoking in Central America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, February 13). Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/

"Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." IvyPanda , 13 Feb. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay'. 13 February.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." February 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

1. IvyPanda . "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." February 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." February 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

• Secondhand Smoke Effect on Infants and Young Children
• Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?
• Ban Smoking in Cars
• Smoking Cigarette Should Be Banned
• Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay
• Legislation Reform of Public Smoking
• Health Care Costs for Smokers
• Understanding Advertising: Second-Hand Smoking
• Ethical Problem of Smoking
• Smoking Ban in the United States of America
• American History: The Problem of Education in American Culture
• Education in Afghanistan Before the Taliban
• Time Management: Lesson Pacing
• Truancy in Schools
• Drug Test for Teachers and Athletes in Schools

Advertisement

Supported by

Universities Face an Urgent Question: What Makes a Protest Antisemitic?

Pro-Palestinian student activists say their movement is anti-Zionist but not antisemitic. It is not a distinction that everyone accepts.

• Share full article

By Katherine Rosman

Katherine Rosman reported from the Columbia University campus.

Follow our live coverage of the college protests at U.C.L.A. and other universities.

In a video shared widely online, a leader of the pro-Palestinian student movement at Columbia University stands near the center of a lawn on the campus and calls out, “We have Zionists who have entered the camp.”

Dozens of protesters, who have created a tent village called the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” repeat his words back to him: “We have Zionists who have entered the camp.”

“Walk and take a step forward,” the leader says, as the students continue to repeat his every utterance, “so that we can start to push them out of the camp. ”

The protesters link arms and march in formation toward three Jewish students who have come inside the encampment.

“It was really scary because we had like 75 people quickly gathered around, encircling us, doing exactly what he said to do,” Avi Weinberg, one of the Jewish students, said in an interview. He and his friends had gone to see the encampment, not intending to provoke, he said. When it began to feel tense, one of the students started to record the encounter. They are not sure precisely how the protest leader determined they were supportive of Israel.

“Suddenly we are being called ‘the Zionists’ in their encampment,” Mr. Weinberg said. “He put a target on our back.”

On Thursday, the incident took on new significance when a video from January resurfaced on social media showing the same protest leader, Khymani James, saying “Zionists don’t deserve to live” and “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.”

The next day, Columbia officials announced they had barred Mr. James from campus.

Columbia has been ground zero in a national student movement against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, with protesters setting up encampments on campuses across the country. Hundreds of demonstrators — at Columbia, Yale, Emerson College, the University of Southern California and beyond — have been arrested.

Protesters occupied

Hamilton Hall early

Tuesday morning

West 114th St.

Tent encampment at

Columbia University

Faculty and staff

members guarding

access to the tents

Amsterdam Ave.

Source: Google Earth

Note: Photograph taken Monday, April 29

By Leanne Abraham; Photograph by Bing Guan

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators across the country say Israel is committing what they see as genocide against the Palestinian people, and they aim to keep a spotlight on the suffering. But some Jewish students who support Israel and what they see as its right to defend itself against Hamas say the protests have made them afraid to walk freely on campus. They hear denunciations of Zionism and calls for a Palestinian uprising as an attack on Jews themselves.

The tension goes to the heart of a question that has touched off debate among observers and critics of the protests: At what point does pro-Palestinian political speech in a time of war cross the line into the type of antisemitism colleges have vowed to combat?

If this is a matter that has vexed political leaders, university administrators and some Jewish college students, inside the encampments the very notion of antisemitism is barely discussed, in part because the demonstrators do not believe the label applies to their activism. Protest leaders point to the involvement of Jewish student activists and challenge the idea that the comfort of Israel’s supporters should be a concern.

And they draw a distinction between anti-Zionism, which describes opposition to the Jewish state of Israel, and hatred toward Jewish people in general. It is an argument many Jews see as a fig leaf for bigotry.

In a letter to Columbia students last week, university officials made clear the challenge they are facing. “We know that many of you feel threatened by the atmosphere and the language being used and have had to leave campus,” they wrote. “That is unacceptable.”

They continued, “Chants, signs, taunts and social media posts from our own students that mock and threaten to ‘kill’ Jewish people are totally unacceptable, and Columbia students who are involved in such incidents will be held accountable.”

A call for divestment

The protests beyond New York City have been inspired by the Columbia students, but they are largely diffuse, spreading via social media much like other recent movements, including Black Lives Matter and the Arab Spring.

At Columbia, the demonstration is led by a group known as CUAD — Columbia University Apartheid Divest — a coalition representing more than 100 Columbia student organizations including Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. Leadership is amorphous. The organizers communicate on the Telegram messaging app and provide media training to the activists they make available to speak to the press.

It is unclear what financial support the group receives, and from whom. When asked, one student leader declined to comment.

But supporters from across New York have responded to the group’s Instagram pleas for water, blankets, gloves and cigarettes. Last week, Palestine Legal, an advocacy group, filed a federal civil rights complaint on behalf of the protesters, arguing that they have been subjected to anti-Palestinian and anti-Islamic harassment on campus.

Student demonstrators are specifically calling for their universities to make transparent all financial holdings and divest from companies and funds they say are profiting from or supporting Israel and its government’s policies. They also want “amnesty” for students and faculty who have been disciplined by the university as a result of their protest.

At Columbia, students are also calling on the university to end its five-year-old dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University. Some also object to the presence on the university board of Jeh Johnson, who served as homeland security secretary during the Obama administration and sits on the board of Lockheed Martin , a supplier of fighter jets to the Israel Defense Force.

Mr. Johnson declined to comment.

At encampments around the country, signs also point to the broader politics of many of the protesters. They support the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which predates the war in Gaza. The students invoke historical issues of colonialism and apartheid.

Student activists who are not themselves Palestinian say that they have joined the movement for a wide variety of reasons: anguish over a humanitarian crisis in Gaza ; a rebuke of university and police response to protests; a commitment to intersectional justice where any group’s fight should be everyone’s fight; the idealistic desire to be a part of a community effort; and a sense that the fight for Palestinians is a continuation of the work started on behalf of oppressed people during the Black Lives Matter movement.

Many Jewish students taking part in the current protests say they are doing so as an expression of their Jewish values that emphasize social justice and equality. Encampments have hosted Shabbat dinners and Passover seders. At Columbia, one student said that donors have supplied kosher meals.

Samuel Law, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin who is Jewish and involved in the protests, was inspired by the encampments popping up around the country. “I strongly believe that the university should be there for us to care about what we care about,” he said.

‘They don’t feel safe’

Outside the pro-Palestinian encampments, the movement has drawn accusations of anti-Jewish bigotry and harassment — from political leaders as well as from some students, Jewish and not.

Jimmy Hayward, a Columbia freshman who is not Jewish, said that he has many friends studying at the Columbia-affiliated Jewish Theological Seminary who are unnerved. “I have friends in JTS that need to be walked to campus,” he said. “They want me to walk them because they don’t feel safe walking alone.”

Signs in and around the Columbia encampment include inspirational quotes, including “The world belongs to the people, and the future belongs to us,” attributed to Jiang Qing, a Chinese communist revolutionary. But there are also celebrations of violence, like “Whoever is in solidarity with our corpses but not our rockets is a hypocrite and not one of us.”

At the University of Michigan, some Jewish students said they felt rattled as they walked to class passing by protesters chanting, “Long live the intifada,” using the word for “uprising” in Arabic, which has been used to describe periods of violent protests by Palestinians against Israelis.

Tessa Veksler, a Jewish student at the University of California Santa Barbara was alarmed to see, at the school’s multicultural center, a sign on the door to a student lounge that said, “Zionist Not Allowed.”

Campus protesters dispute the notion that their movement has made pro-Israel students unsafe.

Nas Issa, a Columbia graduate who is supporting and advising protest organizers, sees a difference between feeling uncomfortable and feeling that you are in danger — “especially if you feel that your identity is tied to the practices of a particular state or to a political ideology.”

“That can be personally affecting and I think that’s understandable,” said Ms. Issa, who is Palestinian. “But I think the conflation between that and safety — it can be a bit misleading.”

When pressed, the protesters say they are anti-Zionist but not antisemitic.

It is not a distinction everyone buys.

“Let’s take any other ethnic or religious minority,” said Eden Yadegar, a junior at Columbia. “Would you only accept them if they were willing to denounce an integral part of their religious or ethnic identity? The answer is absolutely not. So how come it’s OK to say, you know, we accept Jews, but only if you denounce your religious and social and ethnic connection to your homeland? It’s ridiculous.”

Last Tuesday afternoon, Isidore Karten, an Israeli Jew, hopped a fence and entered the pro-Palestinian encampment at Columbia.

“I think it’s super important to go and show our side also,” said Mr. Karten, a 2022 Columbia graduate. “We should be allowed to be there as much as anyone else .”

Once inside, he unfurled an Israeli flag. A friend who had come with him toted a poster showing the faces and names of Israelis who were kidnapped into Gaza by Hamas on Oct. 7.

As they did, they were trailed by pro-Palestinian protesters holding a large black sheet to keep journalists from seeing them and the flag.

A few students, Mr. Karten said, chanted, “Burn Tel Aviv to the ground.”

And as he tried to talk with the demonstrators, he said, his efforts were blocked by protest leaders.

One of them was Khymani James, the student who was later barred from campus for his incendiary video. “We don’t engage with Zionists,” he said, according to Mr. Karten.

‘A wake-up call’

Mr. James’s video , which was publicized by a right-wing outlet on Thursday and then reported on by The New York Times and others, drew wide attention, including from President Biden, whose spokesman issued a statement saying, “These dangerous, appalling statements turn the stomach and should serve as a wake-up call.”

Others cautioned not to use the words of one activist to define a much larger group.

The Rev. Michael McBride , a founder of Black Church PAC, who has pressed for a cease-fire in Gaza, said Mr. James’s comments were not representative of the antiwar movement.

“You can go to a protest and find anything you’re looking for,” said the Rev. McBride, who leads a church in Berkeley, Calif. “If you’re looking for that, then you’ll find it.”

At Columbia, the CUAD student protest organization on Friday posted a statement on Instagram that said, “Khymani’s words in January do not reflect his view, our values, nor the encampment’s community agreements.” The statement added, “In the same way some of us were once Zionists and are now anti-Zionists, we believe unlearning is always possible.”

But for university administrators, Mr. James’s case has presented a serious challenge.

He made some of his comments about killing Zionists — including that “taking someone’s life in certain case scenarios is necessary and better for the overall world” — during a college disciplinary hearing in January.

But he was not barred from campus until the January video began to spread last week. A notification sent to Mr. James by the university and shared with The New York Times by one of his friends described it as an “interim suspension.” Mr. James, who said in a statement last week that his words were “wrong,” could not be reached for comment.

“When leadership learned of the video, it took immediate steps to ban James from campus,” a Columbia spokesman said this weekend. “We initiated disciplinary proceedings which encompass this and additional potential violations of university policies.”

It is not clear whether the Columbia administrator conducting the disciplinary hearing alerted a superior or public safety official to Mr. James’s remarks at the time — or whether Columbia policy dictated that the administrator should have.

A spokesman for the university declined to comment further.

The episode left Avi Weinberg, the pro-Israel student who was surrounded by Mr. James and other protesters at the encampment, distressed. “The university was aware that this is his mind-set, and the university put their students in danger,” he said. “That is very present on my mind.”

Eryn Davis, Neelam Bohra, Katie Glueck, Stephanie Saul, Olivia Bensimon and Karla Marie Sanford contributed reporting.

Katherine Rosman covers newsmakers, power players and individuals making an imprint on New York City. More about Katherine Rosman

Our Coverage of the U.S. Campus Protests

News and Analysis

Columbia : After weeks of student protests, Columbia University announced that it would be canceling its main commencement ceremony .

UChicago : The University of Chicago, which says that free speech is sacred, has allowed protest encampments. But they have also disrupted campus life, and the school’s leaders want the tents down .

U.S.C.:  The Los Angeles Police Department and campus police removed a pro-Palestinian encampment for the second time  at the University of Southern California.

Outside Agitators:  Officials in New York City have blamed “external actors” for escalating demonstrations at Columbia, but student protesters reject the claim .

Clashes at U.C.L.A.: A New York Times examination of more than 100 videos from clashes at the University of California, Los Angeles, shows how counterprotesters provoked the violence .

Reactions Abroad:  The world is watching what is happening on American campuses with shock, pride, relish and alarm. Here is a selection of views from outside the United States .

A Spotlight on Student Journalists:  Columbia’s radio station and other student-led news outlets have provided some of the most detailed coverage  of the turmoil engulfing campuses.