Banning smoking would be a yet another slippery slope down the road of overzealousness leading to a nanny state if we aren't in one already. Given that a significant amount teachers and schools are chafing at the bit because of health and safety regulations and worrying about. What's next alcohol? There are some groups calling for that to happen, does the government ban alcohol with all the consequences that would bring.

Cigarettes have like a 2 dollar tax, assuming that even if 20,000,000 people in the USA alone smoke, thats 40,000,000 dollars every time they buy a pack a cigarette.

Walking outside in a polluted city like San Francisco or Karachi or LA or a city in china(16 of the world's most polluted cities are in China)^[1], you are already damaging your lungs from all the CO(carbon monoxide fumes) put in the air from car emissions and all the people exhaling Carbon Dioxide(why are very polluted BIG cities, very populated too? people use cars and aeroplanes/airplanes(used by people vacationing to places with cleaner air and traveling businessmen) which cause a lot more pollution than cars^[2]). Cigarettes release chemicals that are bad of course, but they are a preferable means of getting your smoke. Electronic vaporizing cigarettes do not produce second hand smoke and are hugely unpopular but won't be for long. It's better to be the smoker than to be the person whose face is being smoked into(statistically passive smokers are at a greater risk) .

1. ^ http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028,00.html
2. ^ http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html

It's a great idea but in practice how would it work? Taking them out of the shops will leave greater problems since many people smoke because they are addicted and not because they enjoy it.

Making something illegal is of course easier than it seems. We must weigh in not only the reasons why, but also how are we going to implement a certain set of provision. We have to realise that making something illegal does not automatically solve a problem, instead it might create even more problems as a repercussion to such a decision.

Making illicit drugs such as heroine, cocaine, etc. was agreeably a good decision. However, the consequences of making such commendable decisions also involve the allocation of large amounts of state resources (read: tax payer money) to combat illegal drug trafficking. Apparently, making these drugs illegal did not really stop people from using the drugs (fyi: drugs are still a lucrative business, if not why would people risk their lives to smuggle it). That said, the same goes for cigarettes, I don't see any strong reason that making cigarettes (or smoking them) illegal to be of any use in the context of making people quit the bad habit.

People who smoke are addicted to it, and as those people who are addicted to illicit drugs, they will always find ways to circumvent the law. Making smoking illegal does not automatically make the business less profitable. As I see it, the demand for cigarettes are still high everywhere, and this kind of policy would only create "black markets" for the item. This in turn would put burden on the law enforcement to combat such black markets (read: more personnel, more funds needed), and of course these burdens would be passed on to tax payers who pays for all the cost of faithfully enforcing such a new law.

I believe that the restrictions and requirements which are already in place (i.e. restricting smoking areas, limited advertisement methods) are sufficient enough to tackle the problem. Moreover, the current approach is right on track where the government should sponsor and support policies that would decrease the demand for cigarettes (if the demand for cigarettes were to fall substantially, the business would be less lucrative, and soon enough nobody will be in the cigarette business). This is not a policy that would effectively reduce the demand, simply making it illegal is not addressing to the demand problem.Thus, what I see in this is another burden for the state budget, with little or minimal impact on the real issue at hand.

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. ... Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."^[1]

The principle that only those actions which harm others should be legislated against is being eroded by legislation on obesity and narcotics in particular. Certainly, it is true that there is an extent to which something such as smoking falls into the category, for it has demonstrable negative effects on others in certain cases. However, these are the cases that have already been legislated against with the ban on smoking in public, indoor places. At the point at which the extension of the ban on smoking crosses the line from protecting others to controlling the behaviour of the individual, it transgresses the principles upon which a liberal democratic society is based

1. ^ J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1859. Chapter 1. see http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html