Smoking all-out ban

A public smoking ban is definitely a positive direction for improving the environment for the secondhand smoke. Several countries in Europe have already implemented a total smoking ban in public areas. Since the 15 of August 2007 a legislation has been valid in Denmark concerning smoking where people who move among and stay indoors on workplaces schools, universities, public institutions and restaurants have a legal claim on not to become exposed to secondhand smoke. Although this legislation has caused some criticism it has also resulted in a positive development. In fact nine out of ten private companies in Denmark have as a result banned the employees to smoke indoor. That's what I've been saying throughout my arguments and I agree with you wholly. It would be more beneficial for our nation if we had a public smoking ban, rather than a full-out ban on smoking altogether. I'm glad that you've listed a country that's done this and how the benefits of a public smoking ban can have positive and substantial changes. With that information, I'm not sure why you're still trying to advocating for a prohibition of cigarettes, as it seems that the benefits of just a public smoking ban are enough to eliminate second-hand smoke. Going off of what you've written below that post, you're now treading on the "It's dangerous for people, so we should get rid of it" argument. Which, true, cigarettes are dangerous, but you're not going to get anywhere with a prohibition. Cigarettes will move underground, in the Black Market, just like alcohol did during the Prohibition years ago. In fact, these cigarettes might actually become more dangerous than what they are now. For the people that won't use the Black Market, they might turn to something even harder and more detrimental. My point is, there's always going to be a way to get cigarettes, regardless of how threatening they may be. Even if you get rid of them, people will still continue to put horrible things into their bodies, you just can't stop it - it's an impossible endeavor. However, it seems that your main concern is the second-hand smoke, which you've already said can be ousted with a public smoking ban - there's really nothing else you can do, as these chemicals, as I've said, will always be available. It seems morally incorrect that the state and federal collections' budget are dependent on the income of the cigarette sale. It seems wrong that the state should own money from a product, which makes people addicted and that harm themselves and the surroundings. If money were considered so important for the society and moral less meaningful than a legalization of drugs would be beneficial for the budget as well. I never said that it was morally correct, but we're taxing people for the dangerous habit that they're going to indulge in anyway. We can't stop people from getting cigarettes, so we might as well drain them of money as another potential negative to their expensive habits - same goes with alcohol. My point remains, though: Cigarettes, alcohol, and other dangerous chemicals are going to be used (widely) and there's nothing that you, or I, can do to effectively wipe it from our society. People will turn to something else or simply make it on their own. I mean, hell, look at marijuana - it's completely illegal (in most places), but we're still growing it and it's all over the place now. It is unclear to me how a total smoking ban would result in a decrease in respect for religion. I think that it is wrong not to take action against a project which would benefit the whole society due to fear of what might happen (reference to above bullet points) instead of facing the consequences as a challenge which can be defeated.It is unclear to me how a total smoking ban would result in a decrease in respect for religion. Well, back then, the Prohibition was advocated by religious people. I don't think that it would cause a decrease either, I think I must have just listed that on accident, my apologies. Anyway, it has nothing to do with fear (although, the detriments certainly outweigh the benefits, as I've stated above). It has more to do with the fact that an all-out smoking ban would just result in people turning elsewhere for their cigarettes, other than just buying them at a gas station. We've made hard drugs illegal, but people still get them. We've made marijuana illegal, but people still get it. We've made certain chemicals illegal, but people still get them. What makes you think that, by having an all-out Prohibition on cigarettes, wouldn't just result in people finding them elsewhere? Making cigarettes isn't difficult, either, which means it's even more probable that people would just make their own - and sell them for a profit! Not to mention, we have the internet. You don't think that others will just Google "How to make a cigarette" and go from there? I'll summarize my main point again our of fear of being verbose. If you make an all-out ban on cigarettes, you will drive people to go elsewhere for the same habit. It could be dangerous to get them and could cause a lot of unrest among people, without actually solving the addiction that people face. It would be a much more sound plan if you instituted a public smoking ban. You mentioned that Denmark has this and it's worked wonders for them. So, if we can't make people stop their addiction and we can't pull these things off the shelf due to it's dangers, then a public smoking ban is the most that we can do to help people who don't smoke. ...because, let's face it, the people who smoke are going to continue regardless.