The title is "Smoking: Why It Should Not Be Banned."

It is a five page essay that basically states why smoking, even though it's un healthy, should not be banned.

In today's world, being a smoker is a pretty difficult task. Modern day protestors have brought many restrictions to the smoking industry. These restrictions include numerous non-smoking areas, a ban on cigarette television commercials, and a high tax on cigarettes. Even with these restrictions, many people choose to smoke. More than 47 million people in the nation continue to smoke cigarettes. This stands as proof that a great number of individuals want to smoke. But the fact that Americans have this desire is not enough to stop our government from pushing for a cigarette ban. Our nations leaders, such as Senators John McCain and Tim Rossin, have pushed for an all-out ban on tobacco smoking. There is even a push on campus, led by the Resident Hall Association, to prohibit smoking in dorm rooms. Protestors of the tobacco/smoking industry cite many reasons for wanting to ban cigarettes, including economical, environmental, and health reasons. However, it should not be up to the government to decide whether or not people can smoke.

The first huge reason why smoking should not be made illegal is because it has been proven that prohibition does not work. In 1920, alcoholic beverages were banned in the United States. The reasoning behind outlawing alcohol was that the less alcohol consumed, the less crime committed, and the better off the society would be. While this does seem like a fairly logical idea, one thing was overlooked. By banning alcohol, the government created a huge black market for the intoxicating substance. And in a time when money was tight and people would do anything to make ends meet, people viewed that black market as an opportunity to make money. When people started to make illegal alcohol, several things happened. First, alcohol became more available since a lot of people (attempting to make money) made it. In addition to that, the illegal alcohol was much stronger than the alcohol that existed in pre-Prohibition days. Since the alcohol was illegal and unregulated, anything could be mixed into it and the beverage could be as potent as the buyer wanted. Finally, bootlegging helped crime rise in the United States. This was due to the fact that the bootlegging industry was so profitable, people started to highly organize the business. The organization of the industry gave rise to organized crime. These same things may happen if tobacco is made illegal. Tobacco may become available to more people, including children. Illegal tobacco may become even more potent than today's tobacco. And the organization of the illegal distribution of tobacco may give rise to a new era of organized crime. If these results did occur after a ban, cigarette prohibition would cause more harm than help.

Still, the past failures with prohibition are not enough to counter the antismoking crusade. Antismoking organizations make numerous claims about smoking and the smoking industry. Again, many of the claims made by these organizations seem logical and noble. However, upon deeper analysis, these allegations can be proven to be faulty. The first such claim that is frequently made by opponents of smoking is that the smoking industry kills. According to these critics, any industry that kills people would be out of business in a short time. For example, if a toy were made that caused thousands of children to die, that product would immediately be pulled off the shelves. Another example would be that if a certain soda caused death in adults, production of that product would be halted without delay. However, there is a difference between the two example products and cigarettes. If people were to die from the toy or soda, they would have done so without knowing the risk that was presented to them by using the product. But with cigarettes, the user voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risk associated with smoking. There is a Surgeon General warning directly on the pack, and it is common knowledge that cigarettes have been linked to cancer. By smoking, users acknowledge that they are taking a risk and they must deal with the consequences of their actions.

Another contention made by smoking objectors is that cigarettes are made even though they are knowingly addictive. Initially, this seems like a valid point. However, the addictiveness of nicotine is so questionable that the term "addiction" was rarely used in reference to smoking until the 1980s. Even the Surgeon General resisted to calling cigarettes "addicting." But in the 1988 Surgeon General's Report, C. Everett Koop promoted a redefinition of addiction that would include tobacco. This was most likely done to help backup the claims of antismoking organizations. For arguments sake, consider that nicotine is found to be addictive. While addictions may be hard to break, they are not impossible to break. In fact, nicotine addictions may not be as hard to break as it is publicly perceived. Tens of millions of people have quit smoking since the Surgeon General first documented the risks of smoking in 1964. Presently, there are almost as many people who are ex-smokers as there are people who still smoke. These statistics prove that the addictiveness of cigarettes may be greatly exaggerated. If cigarettes were as addictive as previously thought, there would not be such a great number of people who are able to quit. Until more thorough studies are conducted about the level of addictiveness of cigarettes, the anti-smoking organizations are arguing a moot point.

It is also argued that underage smoking is a reason smoking should be banned. It is general knowledge that's many of today's smokers started smoking before they were 18, which is the legal age to smoke in the United States. In fact, over 80% of current smokers started before they were 18. Again, the tobacco industry does not deny this fact. However, the above statistic is not completely the tobacco industry's fault. First of all, it is the responsibility of cigarette vendors to check for proper ID and to do their part in preventing children and teenagers from obtaining cigarettes. Knowing this, the government cannot place all the blame on the companies. In addition to this, children are not innocent when it comes to underage smoking. If minors commit a severe crime, such as murder or robbery, many people would say that they are responsible for their actions. Some would even ask for the minor to be tried as an adult, citing that even children know right from wrong. It is that same logic that should be applied to underage smoking. Minors who smoke cigarettes know that what they are doing is wrong, but they choose to do it anyway. This is not to say that all of the blame lies on them, but at least some of it does.

Thus far, it becomes clear that smokers know of the risks of smoking, and they accept them. However, anti-smoking organizations claim that secondhand smoke is as deadly as directly smoking. They also argue that is wrong for smokers to endanger others with secondhand smoke. However, policies have already been put into place to solve this problem. In many public buildings and enclosed places, there is a designated smoking area, and smoking in other areas of the building is prohibited. Outside, smoke is free to float away harmlessly, so there is no problem. In addition to this, if smokers are asked to put out their cigarettes for a while, they will usually do so. While there is an exception to every rule, this holds true for many smokers. So, this claim made by opponents of smoking, while valid, is already being treated.

The final anti-smoking argument that is often used by opponents of smoking deals with civil responsibility. Those who want to ban smoking declare that the ban would be for the good of the nation. They state that people should encourage others in their society to live healthy. Using that reasoning, fast food, alcohol, caffeine, and even too much exposure to sunlight can be made illegal. These things are all knowingly bad for one's health. The fact that most things can be made illegal under this reasoning proves that the argument is faulty. However, this case also has a sub-argument to it. While fast food and alcohol may be dangerous when used to excess, they are not harmful when used in moderation. Quite honestly, neither are cigarettes. One does not start smoking at the age of 16 and get cancer a year later. It takes years of excessive use to acquire cancer. In addition, it was just recently discovered that there were benefits to drinking a glass of alcohol per day. Perhaps one day benefits to smoking a cigarette a day will be discovered.

I am a smoker, and I admit that it is a bad habit. Smoking is linked to cancer, is bad for one's health, and it is an overall dirty practice. Those who do not smoke definitely should not start. But, being forbidden from smoking is a step towards a more controlling government. A government that controls the habits of it citizens is virtually a dictatorship. If I want to smoke in a situation that does not affect others, I should be allowed to do so. The United States prides itself on being the "land of the free." Being told that I can't do something because it's unhealthy for me does not fit my definition of "free." If we are to keep our reputation as a free country, we must refrain from telling people what to do in their personal lives, no matter how unhealthy it is.