4 of 16

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

result is a fairly massive immediate shift in culture, moving towards the dreaded "nanny state," a group of citizens addicted to a substance immediately deemed criminal, a tax base erased, a new massive law enforcement expenditure is incurred and popular social programs are left unfunded. Or, the government could slowly implement small scale smoking bans in public places, where children are likely to be, etc. The result is that the public is involved, as nearly all current bans are the result of ballot effort, not direct legislative action. The tax base remains high, as purchasing tobacco products would remain above board no matter how difficult it would be to find a place to use them. There would be no new gargantuan law enforcement program to stamp out smoking entirely, and popular social programs would remain funded.

Given the choice between the two disjunctive courses of action and how unhealthy tobacco use really is, it seems fairly logical to assume the government would embark not on an outright ban with it's negative collateral problems, but rather the government would embark on the measured incremental bans that enjoy positive tangential outcomes.

* http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2 006/86_11_2006.htm
* http://www.medicalnewstoday.co m/articles/92071.php
* http://www.philly.com/philly/c olumnists/20070326_Stu_Bykofsk y___Smoke-easys_ignore_the_tob acco_ban.html

Learn more about this author, James Griffin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

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