Political Science

Smoking is one of the oldest habits in the society. Before the advent of modern society, smoking used to be a symbol of power and social status. A powerful man would just hold a cigarette to intimidate lesser people around him. In the modern life, smokers attribute their habit to the need to clear the clutter in their brains to induce a feeling of calm after the stresses accrued on account of their daily routine (Clayson, 2007). In recent history, lobby groups have pushed for the banning of this old age habit, presenting solid arguments on why smoking, or at least smoking in public places, should be banned. On the other hand, tobacco companies and other interested parties have presented counter-arguments on why smoking should not be banned. Here is an analysis.

In support for the opinion that smoking should be banned, medical research has linked tobacco to a number of life threatening conditions. Smokers are statistically a lot more likely to suffer from heart attack and heart failure, cancer of the lungs and other chronic ailments (American Cancer Society, 2009). Worse, people around smokers are, according to research under a more serious threat than smokers themselves to develop tobacco-related conditions due to exposure to second hand smoke (Clayson. 2007). An unhealthy population percentage not only lowers the overall productivity of the society but also drains resources for their medical care and rehabilitation.

Smoking has serious health implications. If it is not banned, a lot of innocent children in the streets and other public places are going to be impressed, raising the probability that they will become smokers when they grow up (Locsin, 2010). This will only serve to sustain the vicious circle that has been going on since time immemorial, making the future generations more prone to serious health complications that have plagued their predecessors before them, maintaining the continuous loss of productive lives and time and monetary resources required to maintain victims of tobacco related diseases. If smoking is banned, more and more smokers will lack a place to engage in their habit. The discomfort and inconveniences caused by lacking a suitable place to smoke will definitely influence more and more people to quit smoking, making the American public healthier.

A ban on smoking will render the habit a morally wrong habit as well as an illegal activity (Clayson, 2007). In as such, more teenagers will be dissuaded from engaging in the habit at a time when young adults are at a risk of copying their older counterparts and ending up with serious alcohol and other drug related problems. In addition, a smoking ban would make social places like discotheques, bars and public parks more user-friendly and safer to frequent since the stuffiness caused by tobacco smoke will be a thing of the past (Clayson, 2007). In addition, the number of patients with heart problems and lung diseases has significantly dropped in the face of reduced smoking rates as realized through the ban on smoking.

The ideology opposing the ban on smoking steps from several arguments, the strongest being that the government raises a lot of revenue through taxation of tobacco products. In addition, the tobacco industry employs so many people in the cigarette manufacturing industry as well as in the tobacco farming plantations. Banning smoking would therefore render these people jobless at a time when the government is striving to create more employment opportunities (Locsin, 2010). Another argument is that whether banned or not, sly smokers are evading the law and smoking indiscriminately therefore the motivation behind the ban is lost eventually. Commentators opposed to the ban on smoking have argued that most bar patrons like to accompany their drinks with cigarettes and banning smoking has made entertainment investments gradually lose their client, decreasing profitability and jobs in the sector (Locsin, 2010).

Another argument is that a ban on smoking only attracts attention to the habit making curious youths to take up the habit to experiment on it (Clayson, 2007). On their part, sociologists point out that the ban, having made smoking illegal, has induced a lot of stress in smokers through withdrawal symptoms causing confrontations at home and work increasing the probabilities of dismissal and divorce (Clayson, 2007). Politically, the government is supposed to respect each individuals right to liberty, and passing prohibitive acts contravenes the provisions of the constitution.

Considering the prevailing conditions, it is unlikely that we are going to have a smoking ban in the US. Political patronage and affluence of the heavyweights in the tobacco industry has made it hard for activists to realize their mission to have smoking banned (Clayson, 2007). Furthermore, the governments objective to improve revenue collection will suffer a significant setback should smoking be illegalized. There is little indication that the government is willing to take risks or compromise its objective. In addition, the government does not have the moral prerogative to bar adult citizens from making choices concerning their adult lives such a move would embody the denial of liberty and individual freedom as stipulated for in the constitutional order of the United States.