Reprints Online

Why is it that countries everywhere want to ban smoking and related advertisements and also benefit from taxing its sales, both at the same time? The same goes for alcohol and other such commodities.

Smoking and drinking are universally prevalent habits. That itself is the biggest argument against any such bans. Why then would any lawmaker try to wipe it out?

The main motive behind such moves seems to be a paternalistic one - to protect others from harming themselves. As adults our personal habits are chosen by us and we are solely responsible for them. It seems there is a tendency to consider the civil population as a group or community whose welfare one is responsible for. In fact, no one can hold another person responsible if somebody dies of smoking induced cancer, except that person himself/herself.

If the above is true, than why would anyone think of imposing such bans? If the victim is solely responsible for his/her actions, then why should such actions become a subject for regulations, unless they are considered harmful to others?

This last point has in fact been explored in case of smoking, and passive smoking is one argument made in favor of banning public smoking.

Several habits are a matter of personal freedom and these must be kept out of reach of bans and impositions.

A just point made by someone on the internet was that smokers do not continue to smoke due to lack of knowledge of its harmful effects. It at all it is, it is considered a vice. That is what motivates such bans.

Or is it that governments can't tolerate anything more popular than themselves?!

For more information on smoking visit - anti-smoking information

About the Author

The author is a freelance writer and associated with http://www.stop-smoking-guide.info