Smoking ban in public areas

Your first two paragraphs appear to me to be irrelevant, because I've already said that I agree with the fact that smoking is not healthy. Everyone agrees with the fact that smoking is not healthy. There simply isn't a tenable position that smoking is healthy, which is why I'm not arguing that and why that's not at all what we're debating. Smoking certainly does contain many chemicals and cause many diseases (even more than the ones you have listed!), and it is a given fact that if no one smoked, the world would certainly be a healthier place. But again, as I opened my first argument, you're not providing a solution (and neither is banning smoking in public places!). Your third paragraph is simply not verified by any measures. It MAY help people refrain from smoking and SOME ARGUE that there'd be a decline and a ban COULD increase people going out and there MAY also be a sudden realization and it MAY cause people to take another look at the situation. Sure, but NASA may have faked the moon landing and I could be Harrison Ford. The cold truth of the matter is that not permitting people to smoke in public areas will not help people refrain from smoking. Like I have already stated, the prohibition did not stop people from drinking and many countries right now are examining the idea that making drugs against the law does not actually stop people from doing drugs. Here (http://www.leap.cc...) is a related article, geared towards drugs but still synonymous. Namely: "History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed". According to a study done in 2013 (http://www.drugabuse.gov...), "55.8 million Americans" are addicting to cigarettes (and likely many more who aren't admitting to an addiction). Banning smoking entirely isn't going to stop these people from smoking, and banning smoking in public places is just going to have them smoke in private places. In many municipalities, bars and restaurants are considered private as they are privately owned and operated (just like the property they are on), and so a ban on smoking in public places could push people to these, in reality more populated, places to smoke. I can't interpret your fourth paragraph to be in any way different from your first two: sure, smoking costs people who smoke a lot of money. I agree that they could buy something more valuable and more healthy, and that even your non-backed statement about the correlation between displaying cigarettes and cigarette sales likely true, but neither of them seem to have much relation to the debate of whether or not smoking in public should be banned. You did ask, "But that else can be the solution [to smoking being a prevalent addiction] if not limiting people [by banning it in public places]?" to which I will respond: the solution to this problem, rather than passing laws that say "you can't do that" from an ivory tower (which in paragraph 2 I have shown to not be an effective method) is the proper use of rehabilitation centers for addicts. Addiction is a sickness, and they need help- saying "well you can't do that, specifically just in this place" isn't going to help them.