The cigarette is the deadliest invention in the history of human civilization. Most of the richer countries of the globe are making progress in reducing both smoking rates and overall consumption. Many different methods have been proposed to steepen this downward slope, including increased taxation, bans on advertising, and expansion of smoke-free spaces.
“Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year, a number that will grow before it shrinks. Smoking in the twentieth century killed only 100 million people, whereas a billion could perish in our century unless we reverse course. Even if present rates of consumption drop steadily to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century.”(Procter, 1) The article goes on to list five reasons why a ban for tobacco is the move for this century.
First off, The cigarette is also a defective product, meaning not …show more content…
Pros include: “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.”(IDEA, 2007) They would therefore smoke less at home, as well as less at work. A ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up. If smoking was banned in public places, it would no longer be a social activity. Instead, smokers would have to leave their friends inside and go outside to smoke. This would be particularly unpleasant when it is cold/wet. One third of smokers in Scotland said the ban was helping them to cut down. If smoking was a less social activity, fewer people would start 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
“Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year, a number that will grow before it shrinks. Smoking in the twentieth century killed only 100 million people, whereas a billion could perish in our century unless we reverse course. Even if present rates of consumption drop steadily to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century.”(Procter, 1) The article goes on to list five reasons why a ban for tobacco is the move for this century.
First off, The cigarette is also a defective product, meaning not …show more content…
Pros include: “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.”(IDEA, 2007) They would therefore smoke less at home, as well as less at work. A ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up. If smoking was banned in public places, it would no longer be a social activity. Instead, smokers would have to leave their friends inside and go outside to smoke. This would be particularly unpleasant when it is cold/wet. One third of smokers in Scotland said the ban was helping them to cut down. If smoking was a less social activity, fewer people would start 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