Paul Goodman Why Banning Cigarettes

Today, there is more and more discussion pondering the legality of cigarettes. It seems that there are several illegal substances and drugs that do not maintain anywhere near the number of negative effects that cigarettes cause, yet they are legal. Because there are countless statistics and proven facts depicting the detrimental consequences of cigarettes, why are they still legal? This issue is argued for and against by three exceptional writers: Robert N Proctor, who is a professor in the department of history, at Stanford University wrote “Why Ban the Sale of Cigarettes? The Case for Abolition”, Paul Goodman, a bookseller, librarian and freelance writer who composed “Should Cigarettes Be Banned Completely?”, and Peter Singer, who penned

Goodman takes a glance at the successful business and industry of tobacco products. He voices that smokers pay more tax than non-smokers due to the high tax on cigarettes: banning cigarettes would mean a reduction in taxation revenue for the government (3). Also, Goodman asserts that the tobacco industry produces thousands of jobs worldwide (3). Proctor maintains contrasting thoughts and claims throughout his article. Apart from reducing human suffering, abolishing the sale of cigarettes would result in savings in the realm of healthcare costs, increased labor productivity, lessened harms from fires, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, and a smaller global carbon footprint (Proctor 1). Proctor has several very strong points here if smoking was reduced, doctors’ visits and healthcare costs would be immensely reduced. In addition, think about how the environment would be able to blossom and develop. While there could be immediate negative effects on our economy, isn’t it worth it to take the chance to ban something that is killing hundreds of people every day? Overall, Goodman and Proctor have varying perceptions on the business side of the tobacco industry, and ultimately, one’s thoughts may be determined by either viewing the positive or negative effects these products have

Tobacco products are popular worldwide, so how likely is it that they could be banned? Goodman is confident that the banning cigarettes would almost certainly be as unsuccessful as prohibition was when alcohol was made illegal in the US back in the ‘20s and ‘30s (1). Singer also brings up the prohibition era; he shares that another argument for the status quo is that a ban on tobacco might result in the same kind of fiasco as occurred during Prohibition in the US. That is, like the effort to ban alcohol, prohibiting the sale of tobacco would funnel billions of dollars into organized crime and fuel corruption in law-enforcement agencies while doing little to reduce smoking. Although, Singer believes it may well be a false comparison because after all, many smokers would actually like to see cigarettes banned because, like Obama, they want to quit (3). On the other hand, Proctor mentions the history of the illegalization of cigarettes, as this has been a hot topic for several decades now. The Stanford professor concludes that as a country, we fail to realize how much power the governments already have to act more decisively. Proctor goes on to present that from 1890 to 1927 the sale of cigarettes was banned virtually overnight in 15 different US states; in Austin v. Tennessee (1900) the US Supreme Court upheld