Ban the Butts?

About.com Civil Liberties provides arguments to both sides. Tom Head, the author of the article, said that it most likely would be constitutional to ban cigarettes federally. Another argument Head presents is the fact that cigarettes pose a major health risk to the smoker as well as the people around them. The other side of the argument Head presents is that people have the right to harm themselves as well as cigarettes being a major part of the economy. A USA Today article provided information on the health benefits of smoking bans. After smoking was banned in public places hospitalizations for heart attacks fell an average of 15%. Hospitalizations for strokes fell 16%, and hospitalizations for respiratory diseases fell 24%. The article also mentions the reduction in health care costs resulting from smoking bans.

The article from project-syndicate.org promotes an alternate solution. They recommend reducing the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to reduce the addictive quality, as well as making the cigarette more alkaline to make the smoke less easily inhaled. An article that came from the Baltimore Sun stated cigarettes shouldn't be banned because people have the right to engage in risky behaviors. They said you might as well ban dangerous activities such as football and rock climbing. My Health News Daily states that even though cigarettes kill 450,000 people a year, it would be impossible to enforce a total ban on cigarettes due to pressure from big tobacco companies, the cost of enforcement, and the inevitable rise of a black market. New York Times article "Battle of the butts" discusses expansion of the smoking ban in shared living spaces such as apartments and condominiums to prevent fires caused by smokers.