Why smoking should not be banned

Owyang, M. August Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 4. Cardador, M. PHD, Stanton. American Journal of Public Health 5. Bast, J. Smokers rights. January Leave thse poor smokers alone!. Get Access. Powerful Essays. The War on Tobacco. Read More. Good Essays. Cigarettes Should be Banned. Smoking Bans. Satisfactory Essays.

Less tax revenue for governments There are high taxes on tobacco throughout Europe, though the precise percentage of taxation varies between member states. In this way, governments make a lot of money.

If smoking bans lead to fewer cigarette sales, that could mean that governments have reduced revenues from tobacco taxes. Friends of Europe Europe's World Google Open Society Foundations Fondazione Cariplo By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. Furthermore, we do not know how many of these former smokers will relapse. Massachusetts is the only U. Unfortunately, sales in nearby Rhode Island and New Hampshire rose 18 and Total cigarette sales increased in New Hampshire by 46 percent, and menthol sales rose by 90 percent.

Total cigarette sales in Rhode Island rose 20 percent, and menthol cigarette sales climbed by 29 percent. Combining the increased sales of non-flavored cigarette sales in Massachusetts, which amounts to 15 percent, with the rising cigarette sales in Rhode Island and New Hampshire, cigarette sales are up overall since the prohibition came into effect.

Similarly, a study of menthol prohibition in seven Canadian provinces between and shows the vast majority While Menthol cigarettes are no more safe or more dangerous than non-menthol cigarettes. This lower risk of lung seen among menthol smokers is generally attributed to the fact that menthol smokers use fewer cigarettes a day than non-menthol smokers. Supporters of menthol prohibition frequently claim that menthol cigarettes are more addictive and regular cigarettes.

But the evidence for these claims is incredibly weak. If menthol cigarettes were more addictive, we should expect to see menthol smokers using more cigarettes per day than non-menthol smokers, but the reverse is true.

We should also expect populations among which menthol disproportionately popular to have higher smoking rates but again this is not the case. A review of the literature on how methylation affects initiation, dependency, and cessation by the American Council on Science and Health concluded:.

Menthol bans are unnecessary thanks to safer nicotine alternatives like e-cigarettes. Prohibition is the most draconian policy option available to reduce menthol smoking. In many countries, governments pay all or some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. This means that governments should have a right to discourage smoking. It is legal to smoke tobacco, so governments have no right to try to make people stop.

It is therefore wrong to argue that a ban on public smoking should be introduced to encourage people to give up. Smokers fund their own healthcare through the high taxes they pay on tobacco. In any case, heavy smokers are unlikely to give up since they are addicted to nicotine. People will not smoke more at home.

Smokers need to maintain a certain level of nicotine in their blood to remain content. A ban on smoking in public would force them to smoke less while at work. Over time, this would lower the level of nicotine they need to feel content. This would reduce how often they need to smoke. They would therefore smoke less at home, as well as less at work. Banning smoking in public will encourage people to smoke more at home. This will harm other people in their house, particularly children. This is important, since children are not old enough to choose freely to smoke passively.