Smoking all-out ban

Seen from my point of view it seems wrong to prevent the prohibition of smoking, which would cause a positive and healthy development in many peoples lifestyle, due to a possible increase of criminality. A smoking ban will of course result in difficulties but these difficulties should be coped with and solved. Fortunately history will help us to anticipate the possible issues, which are likely to develop and in that way we will be more prepared. The effectiveness of the smoking ban, once enacted, would be efficaciously erased by this "possible increase in criminality". If you go back to the Prohibition, you can clearly see that there was little-to-no point for their alcohol ban. Many of the "drys" took it upon themselves to raise the same questions you're asking now (health and moral issues), but it really only expanded criminality for that short period of time until the ban was repealed years later. Is it really that much of a stretch that this happens again after we ban cigarettes? We're also not talking about a couple percentage points more criminality, we're talking huge strides in lawlessness. Aside from the obvious organized crime from the Mafia and it's bootlegging in the Black Market, we can show that there were plenty of other drawbacks to this ban, such as: " Disrespect for the law. " Decrease in respect for religion. " Permanent Corruption of Law Enforcement. " Overburdened police, courts, and penal systems. " Changed our country's drinking habits for the worse. " Prohibition was phenomenally expensive. Regardless of whether or not you believe that a smoking ban would have more healthy benefits, it would no doubt cause these things to happen. Maybe not to the severity of Prohibition, but these are definitely things to keep in mind when throwing out such a wide-spread ban on a nation's favorite habit. Preparing for this won't be easy, anyway. It's hard to prepare for something that is going to be so staunchly opposed. It's going to cost some serious time, money, and effort. Things that, in the current state of affairs throughout the world, nations simply don't have. I don't think any nation, in 2015, is ready to deal with a Prohibition-type outrage, even with the health benefits you tack onto the ban. That's just from my own perspective of how things are operating right now, but it's not too outlandish to say that this type of embargo would lead to disaster, one way or another. At least 250 of 7000 chemicals, which have been identified in secondhand smoke, are harmful. Approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have because of exposure of secondhand smoke died due to of health problems since 1964. These are innocent lives, which could have been spared with a smoking ban. Well, here's something we can consider to aid your secondhand smoke issue. Instead of having a Prohibition and banning smoking everywhere, why don't we institute a banning of smoking in public? We're already banning public smoking in certain areas, so would it really be that difficult to get a public smoking ban everywhere? Think about the benefits of this public smoking ban. We can continue to tax people for cigarettes, which is a helluva lot of money, might I just add. Back in 2010, we received twenty-five billion dollars in federal collections and ten billion in state collections. If we ban smoking in public, I can't say these won't go down, but federal and state collections will still see a large chunk of change in their wallets. Then, with this ban, we can protect people from secondhand smoke. In fact, many people are already on board with this decision. A poll in early 2014 said that over half of America's population was for a public smoking ban, whereas another half was against the banning of it completely. This means that we can effectively rid public places of secondhand smoke, but still allow people to smoke at their own leisure without history coming back to bite us in the butt. Even so, I understand your concern for people and, while it's great to try and look out for other people, they're still going to put harmful chemicals in their body. We can't change how easy it would be to get cigarettes after this smoking ban and we also can't change the amount that chain smokers will use after this embargo - but, what we can change, is where these people do it at. That, I think, is a good enough solution for both the smokers and the people that experience secondhand smoke in public. Sources. http://www.patheos.com... http://www.gallup.com... http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com...