Hook

There is nothing worse than enjoying a lovely walk through a park or down a road when all of a
sudden the disgusting smell of cigarette smoke comes wafting your way and follows you like,
well, a bad smell. You cannot always see the culprit or hear them, but you certainly can smell
them. It takes the absolute pleasure out of breathing fresh air and ruins a peaceful state of mind
while trying to have some quality time.

Counter arguments

Let me deal first with the positive side of smoking. First, smoking undoubtedly helps many
people to relax. For some, it even improves concentration. Many people like to smoke before
exams or when they are relaxing with friends.

A further point is that governments throughout the world make huge profits from levying taxes
on cigarettes. This provides funds which are used for building schools, hospitals and other public
amenities.

The tobacco industry also employs tens of thousands of people throughout the world, particularly
in poorer countries like Zimbabwe or India. Without cigarettes, these people would have no jobs.
However, the decision as to whether to smoke or not should be for each individual to make.

Helium .com

Oh, what a wicked web we weave. In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to find any
person that does not realize how harmful cigarettes are for you. Not only can they kill the person
using them, they can harm the person next to the person using them. It is almost as if they were
designed to be a long term weapon. With the harmful side effects being common knowledge,
why then would they not be banned for the common good?

The answer is simple and can be expressed in one word. Money. California has banned cigarette
smoking everywhere in the state with the exception of your home, and your car. Yet, they will
not ban the sale of them. Cigarette smokers are being denied employment because of the known
health risks involved and the employers health insurance companies simply will not take the risk.

The answer of money is two fold though. On the first account, to many companies and people
make money from the sales of cigarettes to consider making them illegal. Think about the huge
budget shortfalls that would happen both on a state and federal level without the sales of
cigarettes. Billions upon billions of dollars would disappear instantly. There would be almost no
way to recoup the money without raising other taxes through the roof. Its a very sharp double
edged sword. Everyone pays higher health costs due to cigarettes, yet without them, everyone
would then pay higher costs in the resulting taxes imposed.

The second part of the money issue is the sheer amount of money that the tobacco companies
have. Philip Morris, now known as the Altria Group, made 18.47 Billion profit from the United
States alone during 2007, and 34.8 Billion revenue world wide in 2008. With the amount of
money they have, they can and do contribute heavily to campaigns on both sides of the isle.
Hedging their bets so that no matter who gets elected, they an ear to whisper into. They do this
for not only the presidential campaign, but senate and congress campaigns also. In 2008 Altria
Group donated 150,000 dollars between the two major parties, not including senate races. In
2006 the company spent 12.8 million on lobbying alone.

All this money spent on government officials assures the tobacco companies that they will not
have any worries in the near future with regards to tobacco laws. The states will continue to
make smoking cigarettes harder and harder, however, they will not make them illegal across the
board. There is too much money to be lost through sales, and too much pressure from lobbies
and politicians greased by the palms of large tobacco companies.

2nd essay

if society is to even live without cigarettes entirely then people need to quite using them
altogether. Cigarettes are a vast and quickly consumable product which means continuous
production is necessary from the manufacturers to provide for the customers. Cigarette
manufacturers don't want to kill people but simple give the public what they want and make a
profit. It's obvious that if people buy in such high numbers like they do then companies will keep
selling and keep making profits so going bust just won't happen.

The government have stepped in and said no to smoking in public areas and made laws for
designated smoke shelters across the country. Passive smoking is a huge killer across the world
and thousands die from it every year, these new laws have helped decrease passive smoking
however people still seem to be dieing from passive smoking. When the government introduced
these new laws of smoking there was a huge backlash of complaint from smokers, the
government cannot make smoking illegal because of the huge numbers of smokers there are in
every country across the world.

If the government were to make manufacturing cigarettes illegal there would be a huge protest
from the millions of smokers across the world. Different countries have different rules,
Amsterdam allow light drugs in cafes so it would be unethical for them to make cigarettes
illegal. If the numbers of cigarette sales were to decrease dramatically then there would be a
possibility of the companies to go bust and governments making smoking illegal completely.

The National health services (NHS) run by the government in the UK are striving to help the
addiction to smoking and nicotine. In the past few years it has been a huge priority to help
smokers stop smoking and they are doing it for free, I believe that if the government were to
decrease the number of smokers enough they at that point they would banned it completely
helping the world be a healthier place. The government cannot control people's free will, as long
as people choose to smoke and continue to consume then manufacturers will continue to make
and smoking will still be in our society.

Money and the majority always matter most in this world, there are billions of pounds in the
smoking industry in the UK alone the NHS want to help people quite and help make a health
society for everyone to live in. The world would be much better without smoking, kids will be
brought up much better in a world without cigarette on offer legally.

Banned or not?

Although I do feel that smoking should be banned from public areas, there are several reasons
why this idea is being ridiculed by many people. One of the biggest complaints about banning
smoking is that the government is infringing on peoples' rights. It is also being accused of
hurting the profits of hospitality businesses. Bars and restaurants, as well as other businesses
such as bowling alleys, are public places that were attractive to people who smoke socially.
Those places are now going to have restrictions in place that will force smoking to be done
elsewhere. However, according to a 2003 review of 97 studies performed on the economic
effects of banning smoking in the hospitality industry, it was concluded that sales actually had
not been affected by smoking bans and in some cases actually improved.
Although both sides of this controversial topic may seem to have debatable arguments, I do not
believe any argument that is against banning smoking in public is a good enough reason to risk
the health of a non-smoker. Smokers argue that they should have the right to smoke in public if
they want to, however, non-smokers should have the right to go to a public place and know that
the air is clean and not polluted with carcinogens. Parents with young infants and children should
not need to worry about bringing their children out to a restaurant or to go bowling because
smoking is permitted and breathing it will be unavoidable. Not only will banning public smoking
benefit the health of the non-smokers, it will also benefit the health of the smoking population by
hopefully raising the number of people that decide to quit or cut back on the deadly habit.
Banning smoking in public could be the start of a dramatic increase in the lifespan and health of
everyone throughout all of the United States.

however, a buyer's option to enjoy his or her cigarettes is permissable in fewer establishments
than the number of locations available for purchase.

Banning smoking from local facilities such as bars, pubs and nightclubs is extreme. Most
generally, when entering a facility like these mentioned, one can expect the facility to be
frequented by more patrons who smoke as opposed to non-smokers. These types of
establishments are exclusive to patrons who are required to be of legal age; therefore, the chance
of a minor's presence is highly unexpected and most certainly illegal; a decision constituted by
statute because of the affects of alcohol consumption. Like the combination of beer and pizza
found appealing by many Americans; cigarettes and alcohol appeals to Americans as well. A
health conscientious person entering these establishments is making the choice to place himself
or herself at his or her own risk upon entering this kind of environment. Smoking should be
permissable if rules and regulations could be amended to meet safety and health requirements;
for example; warning signs posted on these establishments suggesting patronizing could be
hazardous to your health could be added to public safety regulations in order to coincide with the
similar warning label found on cigarette packs.

Smokers claim that their taxes (from cigarette tax) pay for a majority of public health
services, but that should not be an excuse to continue smoking. Smokers drain National
Health Service resources with their illnesses and complications. But taxes, pricing and
legislation are not the only issues, as smoking will not go away with bans, restrictions, and
higher prices.

Smoking should be banned

stand by my belief that the government is only allowing cigarettes to continue to be sold to
consumers so that the tobacco company lobbyists are satisfied and the government makes tons of
money on the sales tax charge to consumers who buy cigarettes. The government uses the health
risks of cigarettes to justify the increase in sales tax by saying that it will decrease the number of
smokers. I do not believe that this is true. I think the smokers will continue to pay the taxes, no
matter how high the taxes become. The government is just trying to make it appear to the public
that they are doing something proactive to stop the use of cigarettes.

The tobacco company lobbyists are slipping money to the politicians for them to continue to
allow the sale of cigarettes to consumers. Politicians are making it appear that they are trying to
protect society by banning the smoking of cigarettes in public places. If they really cared about
society, they would just ban the sale of cigarettes altogether. Instead, the government appears to
be on the fence and acting two ways at once. They need to make up their mind and decide which
is more important society or their bank accounts.
I'm not against smoking. I think it can be a healthy pleasure. What I am against is cigarettes that
contain chemicals! Have you ever looked up the ingredient lists of America's favorite cigarettes?
Reading the list alone will kill you! Some of the most notable ingredients are Urea (a waste
produced when the body metabolizes protein), Benz-aldehyde, Yeast (which is a fungus),
Benzoin Resin, Butyl Acetate, Citronella Oil, and the list goes on and on! Some of these
ingredients and additives, when burned, create toxic, harmful chemical compounds. Over 40
known carcinogens are present in cigarette smoke. That's why it's such a hot topic these days.

Smoking should not be banned

Because smokers have rights too ... smoking is legal and people have a right to make their own
decisions even if it is bad for them. If the government were to ban everything that's bad for
people then you have to ban fast food too because that will clog your arteries and give you a
heart attack if you have too much. Cigarettes are the same sort of thing.

As for second hand smoke, it's all about ventilation. Outdoors smoke dissipates, the outdoors is a
natural ventilation system. Indoors, they can put in ventilation systems that cut down on second
hand smoke. Because places like bars and restaurants are public but are also business owner's
private businesses, those business owners should be allowed to decide whether or not they want
to allow smoking in their business. If an owner decides to allow smoking, then people that are
paranoid that the guy smoking a cigarette with his beer is going to give them lung cancer can go
somewhere else. People should all have choices.

Smoking bans are really a kind of tyranny imposed on smokers by the non-smoking majority.
While they might not approve of smoking, banning it is really rather cruel. It's as if you were
thirsty and had a bottle of water but were told by the government you weren't allowed to drink it.

The last thing I'm going to tell you is creating a smoking ban is pointless if you don't enforce it.
That means you need to create a smoking police and a system to punish smokers. That costs
money and is a questionable priority given that there are murderers on the loose.

t infringes on the rights of the person who does smoke. Why should the smoker be told what to
do just because someone else doesn't like it.

just for the record, I am an ex-smoker, and I would prefer to not have someone blow smoke
around me, I quit to better my health and would hate to get cancer because of someone else.

But Technically you are taking away a personal right, You can say that there is not solid proof
that second hand smoke causes cancer or emphysema .. It is technically speculation..the cancer
could have been caused by many things...Scientist are finding that the foods we eat, the water we
drink, chemicals that we use, even our own bodies (genetics/genes) can cause cancer. The
smoker can say that they are just looking to play the blame game. Also if a facility wants to
allow smokers they should be allowed to have designated areas away from non-smokers. Many
businesses hurt financially, because of a city ban.. bars and clubs and some restaurants for
example.

This year's World No Tobacco Day is on 31 May, a day set aside to highlight the dangers of
smoking.

The focus this year, according to the World Health Organisation, is on tobacco and poverty.

According to the WHO, smoking cigarettes does not only lead to disease and death, but drains
the already impoverished public health service of countries in Africa as the cost of treating
tobacco-related disease soars.

With tobacco advertising banned in many western countries, cigarette manufacturers are
increasingly targeting countries in Africa and elsewhere in the third world.

Last year, Tanzania banned smoking in public places.

Smoking also damages productivity and families as parents die young because of tobacco related
illnesses.

The report says that poor people spend a disproportionately high amount of their income on
cigarettes.

For example, in Kenya it an average of two hours and 40 minutes to earn enough to buy a packet
for imported cigarettes, while in the United Kingdom it takes just 40 minutes.

On the other hand, African countries such as Zimbabwe and Malawi earn a lot of money from
tobacco exports.
If smoking were banned, thousands of people would lose their main source of income and might
be unable to find another equally profitable crop.

It employs numerous low-skilled workers in the United States. It brings in profits from other countries. The loss of tax
revenues that go, or are supposed to, for education. But that's a rather small benefit to the huge costs of the roughly
hundred-thousand smoking related deaths each year.
The real reason cigarettes aren't outlawed is because of the enormous quantities of money involved with the excise taxes.
The vast majority of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is due to taxes and the states' lawsuit settlement. The supposed
reason that's usually mentioned is the failure of prohibition when it was tried with alcohol.
it would also create a black market because there are actually people WHO ENJOY SMOKING TOBACCO.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_reasons_why_smoking_shouldn't_be_banned#ixzz1C1hg8YuW