Analysing pro-smoking and anti-smoking campaigns reveals that the two are very common. Over the years, the campaigns have led to both the increase and the decrease of smoking all over the world. The drives use different strategies to send out their messages. This essay conducts an analysis of anti-smoking campaigns. It discusses the theories that have been employed in pushing forward the campaigns. Moreover, the paper analyses some of the strategies that governments have been using to reduce smoking in their countries. History of anti-smoking campaigns The history of anti-smoking goes hand in hand with that of smoking. The two operations have always borrowed from each other in order to sway the public to either side. In the recent past, many smoking drives have focused on scaring people in an attempt to make them stop smoking. Bektas, Ozturk, and Armstrong (2010) assert that numerous campaigns list the side effects of smoking as a way of telling people why they should quit the practice. The use of fear to appeal to some aspects of emotions is called the ‘Fear Appeal’ (Gurtman 2009). It is arguable that this form of campaign works. Kotler and Keller (2009) reveal that the smoking drives took the initiatives a notch higher and introduced more pronounced warnings on the dangers of smoking. The warnings were printed on the cigarette packs, yet they did not stop people from buying cigarettes. Kaynak (2013) argues that threatening people to quit smoking was the worst form of anti-smoking promotion because it could be proven wrong. There were people who would come out and claim that they had been smoking for a very long time, yet they were not sick. People also came up with different tips on how to avoid getting sick from smoking. The second type of anti-smoking campaign employed was the use of celebrities to encourage people to stop smoking. The ‘smoking is cool’ drive initiated by the cigarette companies used well-known persons in the society to encourage tobacco use (Iverson 2013). They would take, for example, a musician and make an advert around the musician, while still making the artist smoke their brand. The initiative was very successful in the younger adults. Consequently, the anti-campaign model tried to use the same strategy. They took celebrities and showed how they had prospered without smoking (Kerin 2012). In the same breath, an adverse campaign was made to guilt trip cigarette smokers. The anti-campaign showed how secondary smoke affected other people. It was also in the same initiative where pregnant women were informed of the dangers that smoking caused to their unborn children. Paetzold (2010) agrees that it was one of the best anti-smoking initiatives ever created. The main pro of this drive was the guilt tripping it made the smokers experience. They were informed that they were not only destroying their health, but they were also causing harm to the health of others. Whereas there are those who quit smoking entirely, others were restricted to smoking in particular areas, commonly referred to as the ‘smoking zones’. Smoking areas made it nearly impossible for the smokers to influence other people to start smoking (Oberecker & Diamantopoulos 2011). It is arguable that the anti-smoking initiatives have he