Smoking is a habit that claims many lives and is a great drain on health services. One way to combat smoking would be to make it illegal. What are the pros and cons of such a government policy? What alternative strategies can you suggest to combat smoking?

There are a number of methods known to reduce the habit of smoking, whose effect has been detrimental, resulting in loss of lives and increased work output amongst medics.The government instituting laws to illegalize

this

act is one

such

strategy. The pros and cons of

Such

policy and alternative measures would be

further

expatiated on. On the one hand, a government ban on inhalation of active substances would be at an advantage to Individual and the community at large because people maintain a healthy state with nil adverse effects of smoking.

Furthermore

, doctors aren't overwhelmed with work and are more productive.

Conversely

, a policy against drug use would likely increase its rates in hiding, thereby increasing its cost.

Secondly

, people with health complications would deter from seeking professional care.

This

could result in poor quality of life. In my view, there are other techniques to prevent psychoactive substances use that would not necessarily result in loss of lives. They include

,

Remove the comma

apply

show examples

cessation of all substance production by drug manufacturing companies with huge financial charges as punitive measures.

Secondly

, a policy that prevents farmers from planting Indian hemp leaves should be set in motion. In conclusion, smoking is an act that would eventually result in poor health, reduced quality of life or loss of lives, measures to eradicate

This

habit should be sanctioned.