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's writing style describes how prohibition would surprisingly be problematic because of the additional  usage of the black market and how the uncanny solution to end tobacco is regulation not prohibition. Newman strongly persuades his claim by his timeliness and tone of his writing. 

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). Newman makes the comparison to Marijuana to show that an illegal drug is less harmful to the body but has led to hundreds of thousands arrests per year. His use of logos in the quote lets the reader wonder why would something so harmful be legal?   Newman's question is for the reader to think about the comparison and persuade their view on the topic. 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). Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen, it may occur less but won't put an end to the usage. 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. So why create crime by banning cigarettes and not keep them legal? That's the unusual belief that Newman has. It's the theory that people want what they can't have (that being drugs or cigarettes). So how do you end a problem if you can't ban it? Regulate it.

Newman makes an unusual point midway through the article saying "luckily, no one is proposing making cigarettes illegal" (Newman). Because, the most productive way to end cigarettes is public health campaigns for more restrictions and taxation. Newman's message is we might not be able to ban cigarettes everywhere, but we can ban them from public areas like restaurants and schools. Eventually this will make 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). The logic of that is if we want less people to smoke cigarettes let's make it harder for smokers to buy and smoke cigarettes rather than saying they're illegal. Prohibiting tobacco would lead money spent on hunting down people and would create nationwide crime most likely resulting in people losing 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. 

The statistics make it clear that cigarettes are extremely bad for you and very addictive. Tobacco is a drug, so why wouldn't you ban something that gets people hooked like other drugs? Cigarettes even cause more deaths than illegal drugs. Newman makes the claim that just because it's illegal doesn't mean that cigarette smokers will just stop. Smokers would resort to hiding their addiction and face consequences with the law. This would most likely result in overcrowding jails and prisons similar to those who get arrested for marijuana related reasons. Although prohibition could create a future anti-tobacco generation that is very unlikely due to history with alcohol and marijuana prohibition. Newman uses history to prove the logic that it can't be done and would stir up issues that created more problems like those during the alcohol prohibition. 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. Newman's persuasive writing makes it easy to see the pros and cons of his article by introducing the statistics of cigarettes which makes the reader understand the issue, then he addresses the issues of prohibition, but ties it back with the proactive solution to keep regulating and educating future generations to finally put a stop to cigarettes.

