i think the government cannot outlaw smokers or ban them because of several reasons.
the reason about ciggie being a very lucrative industry may be one compelling reason. but i personally am someone who feels that the intangible damages outweigh the superficial benefits.
i believe the more logical (incidentally the more politically correct) reason is that the smoking addiction is not just a health issue but a societal issue. u see, a health problem can be solved by administering treatment, or therapy or medication or surgery or vaccination etc. clearly, this smoking addiction cannot be easily overcomed by the above methods, rather, it requires persuasion, conselling, the support of the friends and family, determination and total abstinence thereafter, to completely overcome the addiction. hence, a societal issue as challenging as this cannot be easily resolved by the overnight ban of smoking or outlaw of smokers.
another reason is that if the government is to completely ban smoking, they must have the conviction, resources and means to do so.
this can be analogous to drink driving. the traffic police want to erradicate drink driving, so they have media reminders in the form of tv advertisements, newspaper ads, u even see them on the noticeboards at our local bus stops. oh, and they set up road blocks to apprehend drink drivers. look at the tremendous amount of effort, money and manpower required, this is not an easy feat.
now, come back to the hypothetical scenario when the government ban smoking. alot of money and manpower will be required to enforce a complete ban on smoking. (on a side note: you might wonder where the money comes from. yup it comes from taxpayers' pocker, yup aka you. and whether the manpower comes from? well, from nsmen, like how the nsmen r being deployed with mas selamat escaped). what if, halfway thru the implementation of the ban, the authorities lose their enthusiasm and commitment, or the authorities are not firm enough in the implementation? all these may undermine the government's original intention and standing.
and assuming if the government really has what it takes to do so, we have to consider the repercussions. if smoking is banned, then r smokers criminal? how do we deal with those who defy the ban? there may be a rise in sale of contraband ciggies. ciggie smuggling, wth??? as u can see, a complete ban might lead to many grey areas, which are very difficult to address. hence a complete ban is not as pragmatic as one may think.
therefore the extended non-smoking area, coz it is the most pragmatic way to discourage smoking, as compared to the idealistic but draconian implementation of a total ban for smoking.
