Should smoking be banned

Answer 1

Yes, because it is very bad for your health.

First, The problem with banning smoking everywhere is that those who do not smoke don't have any sympathy about the idea that smoking is an addiction. They shouldn't have much to say about it because they have never been in those shoes. First off, smoking may or may not cause someone to die. People who smoke are not guaranteed to die from it nor guaranteed to have major health problems from it, it's just more probable that they will. Not even half of those who smoke will die from it. Try to stay in touch with that.

Second, there are benefits to smoking. It helps round the edges in life, just like any other drug that modifies chemicals in our bodies. It's helps those with ADHD, Alzheimer disease, and Parkinson disease. Although there are more detriments than benefits, anyone one who tells you there is no benefits from smoking is closed minded and doesn't do their research on the subject.

Third, in a society where individual choices are respected, governments should never interfere with personal decisions. This is a dangerous place to be playing with governing policies because it squeezes freedom that allows people to express them selves as they desire to. In the same essence, a government could force everyone to cater to smokers. How would people like to own their own business and be forced by law to allow smokers to come in and smoke up their business? It goes both ways! A business should not be forced to cater one way or the other, but should be able to decide for themselves who they wish to cater to.

Fourth, the only exception to the fore mentioned ideas is an extreme crisis situation. A lot of health organizations are trying to make smoke exposure a crisis, but the science just doesn't support it. It's a shame to see these respected firms advertise such far fetched ideas. Honestly I didn't really know how many lies could be published, until I looked into this particular debate. It's kinda funny, deep down inside ourselves we all know from life experience and seeing others who smoke, that not everyone dies from it, and those exposed are not dying from it either. Why do we listen to others who contradict what we see with our own eyes everyday? We should know better.

Here's the science cases on second hand smoke exposure that you will never see publicly published. Most of these organizations who do science studies on the effects find a limited to absolutely no connection between exposure and health concerns but then turn around and do a press release saying that there is no doubt that it does.

The 1993 Environmental Protection Agencies linking health concerns to second hand smoke was thrown out by a district judge for cherry-picking their information, even with the bias they could only conclude:

"The studies showed that for any given nonsmoker, the lifetime risk of getting lung cancer remains small: 4 to 5 in 1000 ordinarily, and 6 to 7 in 1000 if he or she has been living with a smoking spouse."

That's 100% exposure indoors over a lifetime.

BMJ did the longest most in depth study and concluded:

"Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

The smoke campaigns also like to bring up the idea that it's for the safety of the workers, This shows waitresses in smoke filled bars are exposed to only a 5th of what the EPA considers hazardous:

The EPA also states the following:

"Studies that support a CASUAL association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer."

"the chance of declaring these increases statistically significant was small."

"EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk."

"The lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking"

So as you can see the science behind the health concerns of others over second hand smoke are practically impossible to even been seen in case studies, let along be justification enough to pass any bans. This information needs to be shared with the world, so the lies from the campaigns don't influence people to be vote stupidly. Like the quotes goes, "If you hear a lie long enough, eventually it becomes the truth." Also at Forces international they publicly display all the scientific cases done on the matter at:

Answer 2

YES! Smoking is one of the leading killers in the world and innocent people shouldn't die because of it. For years most people have been smoking and thinking 'it's my body, I can do whatever I want to do with it, but now that it has been proven that smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those people around him or her, this is called "passive smoking". Smoking can cause health problems like: lung cancer, heart disease and stroke.