smoking

Thank you for approaching this argument with reasonable claims: First on your claim of second hand smoke: The evidence for second hand smoke is very slim, because very few controlled studies having been carried out. It may be true that those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. If a child is riding in the car with a smoker, a window is very suitable for getting rid of unwanted smoke, and unless a person is completely brain-dead they will know not to blow some in the direction of a helpless baby or infant. It is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option. Restricting smoking in public places may sometimes be appropriate. So if you are a non-smoker, you are more than welcome to not enter an environment where people are smoking cigarettes. Not everyone who smokes is willing to quit, everyone knows the danger of smoking cigarettes...yet they continue to do it. So why would they all of a sudden be okay with the government taking away this choice they had, and have to give up a habit cold turkey? As I showed earlier, there is proof that after the ban of alcohol the crime rates went up and it caused riots. If everyone went to the gym instead of indulging in an unhealthy diet, the world would be a much skinnier place. You cannot tell someone to quit smoking and instead expect them to go to the gym, it is very unlikely. As for cigarettes being addictive- yes they are but the knowledge that so many smokers give up this habit every year is testament to this. Many other substances and activities can be addictive (shopping, caffeine, cleaning) but this is no reason to make them illegal. People are able to abstain if they choose to live a healthier life, but many enjoy their use as part of their everyday existence. The government is not worrying about the health of people who choose to smoke, having cigarette companies is not only a tax revenue builder as I stated earlier, but it creates thousands of jobs for people in our country. From the farmers, to the production, to delivery to sales, cutting these jobs would be more harmful to the overall health and well being to our country than to ban smoking altogether. As far as having a healthier country, the government is better off advocating smoking than banning it "The National Bureau of Economic Research recently released a study by RAND Corporation researchers that looked at two of the major health swings of our lives—tremendous reductions in smoking and alarming increases in obesity. Common sense might argue that less smoking would reduce government spending and obesity would increase it. Wrong. Both trends cause higher government outlays, the researchers found. In fact, from a purely fiscal standpoint, they concluded, a truly cost-effective policy would be to help people to lose weight—by taking up smoking! " http://www.usnews.com...... Banning smoking would cause a tremendous upheaval, and add more problems to our countries already problematic state.