The tobacco industries have been around for hundreds of years thriving and developing into a multibillion dollar industry in the United States. Just like alcohol, tobacco is considered a drug. In fact, 400,000 people die prematurely every year from cigarettes. "[Cigarettes] kill more people than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and all other illegal drugs combined" (Newman). Why would the United States allow a drug industry to thrive off American people and target their youth? Wouldn't it make sense to just outlaw tobacco and begin a prohibition? Tony Newman uses logos to prove how prohibition would add to the crime rate of the black market and how the best way to end tobacco is regulation not prohibition. 

Its historically been proven that prohibition doesn't put an end to usage. For instance, the alcohol prohibition in the 1920s created an illegal scenery of speakeasies throughout the cities. Al Capone ran an illegal alcohol ring which boomed in the black market of the 1920s. Intercity crime became a big issue during the prohibition. The prohibition ended after little results of any effectiveness. The idea of ending a harmful substance is good but difficult to execute. "More than 800,000 people are arrested every year for marijuana, the vast majority for possession, yet all the data from studies that compare the two substances show that cigarettes are more harmful to an individual's health. If we make these other drugs illegal, shouldn't we outlaw the leading killer?" (Newman). His use of logos in the quote lets the reader wonder why would something so harmful be legal? However, Newman counters this by saying "people would still smoke, just as they still use other drugs that are prohibited, from marijuana to cocaine" consequently prohibition would only add to crime rates (Newman). Some users wouldn't stop; they would resort to doing it in the shadows of society where police would be chasing them down to fill up jails around America. Police would spend valuable time hunting down these "criminals" rather than spending their time more effectively. "The cigarette trade would provide big revenue to 'drug dealers,' just as illegal drugs do today. There would be shootouts in the streets and killings over the right to sell the prohibited tobacco plant" (Newman). Newman is right about how prohibition would ironically create crimes rather than prevent them. If we can't end cigarettes what do we do about them?

The most productive way to end cigarettes is public health campaigns for more restrictions and taxation. We might not be able to ban cigarettes everywhere but we can ban them from public areas like restaurants and schools. This makes the presence of cigarettes seem more obnoxious as you smell the fumes in public. Schools have effectively taught young students about the harmful effects of cigarettes leading to declining numbers in teen smokers. "We need to realize that drugs, from cigarettes to marijuana to alcohol, will always be consumed, whether they are legal or illegal. Although drugs have health consequences and dangers, making them illegal -- and keeping them illegal -- will only bring additional death and suffering" (Newman). Prohibiting tobacco would make money spent on hunting down people and would create nationwide crime most likely have people lose their lives like the alcohol prohibition. Regulation is a more peaceful process to the end and can be built over time hopefully to extinguishing tobacco permanently. 

Although prohibition could create a future anti-tobacco generation that is very unlikely dude to history with alcohol and marijuana prohibition. Newman uses history to prove the logic that it can't be done and most likely wouldn't be effective. He explains its more realistic to kill smoking with regulations than prohibition. Regulation can lower the amount of smokers legally. Whereas prohibition would create crime like it has in the past. Tony Newman logically explains how the end of tobacco is a process and not a ruling of prohibition.

