Smoking all-out ban

While your heart is in the right place (eliminating second-hand smoke, protecting the public, et cetera), this wide-spread smoking ban that you're trying to execute would be more of a detriment than a benefit. What you're insinuating is borderline prohibition which, in the past, was not that bright of an idea. Starting in 1920, there was a nationwide ban on the importation, transportation, production, and sale of alcoholic beverages throughout the United States. This movement was led by several groups of prohibition supporters, but they were given the nickname "drys", as they were vehemently against anything in regards to alcohol. I think you are very similar to them; your heart is in the right place, as the "drys" only presented this for public morals and health, but failed to recognize the unintended consequences of such constitutional banning. ...and these said consequences could be very dangerous, even more dangerous than alcohol consumption itself. Organized crime was influenced heavily by the Prohibition, which encouraged Mafia groups to respond to the ban on alcohol by using organized bootlegging. In short, bootlegging was used as a way to black market alcohol and the black market only brought about more crime. Studies show that, in over thirty major U.S. cities during the years of 1920 to 1921, the number of crime increased by 24%. Quoting the study: theft rose 9%, homicide by 12%, assaults by 13%, drug addiction by 44%, and police resource costs were raised by 11% - all a result of black-market violent. The same black market that only bootlegged in response to the wide-spread alcohol ban. Then came the illegal speakeasies, establishments that sold alcoholic beverages illegally. So, regardless of this ban on alcohol, people still had the desire - and the place - to drink. Even though the "drys" set out to take away this dangerous and controlling substance, people were still finding ways to use it - whether it be through the speakeasies that littered the country, or through the black-market run by violence and crime. Remember, this is in the 1920's, when technology hadn't even surpassed the typewriter. It was more difficult back then to run alcohol illegally, especially through the Mafia. Think about now - 2015 - and how we have so much more technology than what we had back in the twenties. Think about the Mafia now and how it's been replaced with more malicious and crime-ridden groups. So, we still need to keep in mind how dangerous it was to ban alcohol back then and how it would effect us today if we had that same prohibition stance against smoking. In short, I understand that you want to help people with smoking, but certainly prohibition is an overstepped facet of that solution. We'll only be driving people to do it more - and do it illegally. We will likely find cigarettes being smuggled around easily (given how our technology is today) and we'll find people doing it illegally just as much as they're doing it now. We'd be forcing people into a corner and there's nothing good that can come out of that. Instead, we should find better alternatives to get rid of smoking. Also, keep in mind that cigarette smoking has been on a steep decline since 1965. In 1965, the percent of adults that smoked was a staggering 42.4% and since the recent 2011 charts, it's come down to a wonderful 19%. So, I think we're doing all right with keeping it legal and I think we'd do even better without a prohibition. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cdc.gov...