4 of 16

Write now Article Tools

There are a myriad of reasons why governments shouldn't ban smoking outright, most notably the government has no moral or Constitutional authority to do so. Granted, the Constitution has not proven a mighty roadblock to government programs in the past so, there must be some practical reason why governments do not ban smoking all together.

First and foremost, an outright ban is an extreme measure to take. It's an abrupt change in the fabric of the country and people, no matter their walk of life, don't take easily to change. Look at our irrational dependence on foreign oil. It's much easier to maintain a status quo than to make a complete and rapid about face on nearly any issue. Clearly, as a nation, the United States is moving towards a complete ban on smoking, but the move is incremental, slow and surprisingly effective. As of 2007, nearly every state in the Union had a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. In 1994 California created a national backlash implementing a voter approved ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, yet a mere 13 years later, nearly everyone had followed suit. It is simply easier, practically speaking, to move the dial a degree at a time rather than violently spinning a full 180 degrees at once. People rarely realize when they're halfway down the slippery slope.

Secondly, the tax revenue generated by legal tobacco sales is enormous* and is used to provide some of the most altruistic and socially popular programs throughout the country. Voters tend to like taking revenue from something so dirty, smoking, and making a positive use of it, say in California's march towards universal health care.* If tobacco use faced an outright ban the sale of tobacco would be driven underground decimating these popular social programs. Already, in bars across the country that are ignoring the smoking ban, "smoke-easy" establishments are providing an underground culture of scofflaws who seemingly have no problem ignoring a law pertaining to their vice of choice.* When it comes to vice, there is an enormous off the books economy which costs the government heaps of money, deprives it of tax revenue and is notoriously difficult to clamp down on. The infamous "War on Drugs" is the perfect example, having been declared in 1971 without an end in sight. This trifecta of revenue loss and law enforcement embarrassment is a sorry substitute for universal healthcare for children.

The choice is fairly clear. On the one hand, a smoking ban is implemented outright. The

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Why don't governments ban smoking altogether??
We want to hear your view. Write now!