Should smoking be banned in public places? There are people who smoke and people who do not. It is in public places that individuals from these groups inevitably meet and are forced to interact. And in such places, whose will is to prevail — smokers or the non-smoker.
There are people who insist on their right to smoke. They might tolerate state-imposed health-advise, but being entirely prohibited from smoking might cause them to no longer vote for the politicians who supported the ban.
There are economical interests. Forbidding companies from selling them would mean that those people who work in cigarette production, distribution and sales would lose their jobs. Many countries impose an additional tax on tobacco products which generates quite a lot of tax income.
Banning smoking would cause this income to disappear, which would mandate cuts on government spendings or a higher deficit. Yes, this is indeed a paradoxical situation.
On the one hand, the state introduced the tax to discourage people from consuming a specific product, but on the other hand, the existence of the tax motivates the government to encourage people to consume more of it. As the US alcohol prohibition in the 20s or the current world-wide drug prohibition proves, banning any kind of intoxicant does not work very well in practice.
It leads to a hard to control black market which requires significant government resources to suppress. Black trade with illegal luxury goods is also a catalyst for organized crime-syndicates to form which then tend to commit various other crimes.
For these reasons, most governments refrain from outright banning smoking, and rather use a long-term strategy of gradually undermining social acceptance.
Making the society aware of the risks through advertising is one part of the strategy.
Gradually imposing more and more bans on smoking in public places is another, because seeing less people smoke in public makes smoking appear less like an integral part of our culture. It doesn't seem like a state-enforced ban when everyone in your surrounding tells you not to smoke.
You might not enjoy being a social outcast, but you are unlikely to make the government directly responsible when they still theoretically allow you to smoke as much as you want. Companies have time to react on the gradual decline in tobacco sales and move to other markets.
The government also has time to adapt to the gradual decline in tobacco tax revenue. It might actually work and not just turn the legal tobacco consumption into illegal tobacco consumption of the same volume which then needs to be suppressed by law enforcement personnel which needs to be hired for this purpose.After all, people would still smoke, just as they still use other drugs that are prohibited, from marijuana to cocaine.
But now, in addition to the harm of smoking, we would find a whole range of. Research consultancy and policy advice to reduce heart disease, cancer and smoking, and promote better nutrition. Read 10 Reasons Why Cigarette Smoking Should be Banned. Smoking is not a new pastime.
This habit has been around for generations in many forms. Bans on items like tobacco are difficult to enforce, and usually do not stop all activity. Illegal selling of cigarettes .
Bài luận về "should tobacco be prohibited". Should the same laws which prohibit the sale and consumption of heroin be applied to tobacco? Recently, a hostile debate arouse when a few well reputable health organizations suggested the application of a .
Smoking in public places should not only be banned, it should come with heavy penalties, such as outlandish fines, criminal charges and, if possible, public beatings. Due to the health problems associated with smoking cigarettes, due to smoking being a fire hazard and offensive to non-smokers, smoking in public places should never go under the.
This section explores the concept of packaging as a promotional tool ( and ).It summarises the history of plain packaging as a policy response ().It briefly outlines research that suggests that plain packaging would increase the effectiveness of health warnings, reduce false health beliefs about cigarettes, and reduce brand appeal .