In and article by Gene Boris called “Tobacco Timeline” he explains how far back the history of Tobacco goes. Tobacco smoking started in the 15th century so I’m sure by now in the 21st century we all know the horrible effects that smoking tobacco can have on us and society.  Because of these problems there has been a lot of controversy about whether smoking tobacco should be legal or not. Of course at first thought many people will say ban tobacco for good, and others will say absolutely not, but we all need to take a little look at the long and short term effects that the ban of smoking tobacco or keeping it legal could have on the world and society. I took it upon myself to do a little research by reading, breaking down and analyzing several sources that argue each perspectives. After my careful analyzing of the articles I came up with an opinion of my own.    The first three sources I found for this paper all agree on the conclusion that tobacco should be banned. The first source is a lady by the name of Norma Chew. Norma Chew has her masters degree in health care administration. This leads me to believe that she has the education level to understand and write about this subject. She argues that tobacco has many bad health effects and it also “puts a financial burden on society” (Norma Chew).  Norma Chew backs this information up with statistics and numbers from other very reliable sources.  The flaws in this information she provided was that the statistics and numbers were mostly all rounded, making them slightly less reliable.  The next source I studied is a man named Tom Head. Tom Head has PhD in religion and society and a M.A. in humanities, he has also written 26 books. I believe that he also has a great educational background to argue this question. Tom Head states that  “a federal ban of cigarettes passed by Congress would almost unquestionably be constitutional.” (Tom Head).  He uses facts and quotes from the constitution to make his point valid.  He also states that “Cigarettes pose a grave public health hazard.” (Tom Head) and goes on to argue this point.  Although Head does tell that he got these facts from Larry West, he does not ever tell who Larry West is, this worries me because we do not know how credible Larry West really is. The last source that is for the banning of smoking tobacco is Robert Proctor.  Robert Proctor is a Doctor from Stanford university, leading me to believe he is also a man with great educational background and good credibility. In his article Robert Proctor gave a lot of numbers and statistics to explain the severity of how deadly cigarettes can be.  His article was very informal and convincing but he never told where his information was coming from, leaving us with no source for him. The numbers and statistics were also rounded and not precise, making them less reliable.  Although these sources had some pretty compelling arguments, it’s not the only side that we need to look at.  There are most definitely flaws in all of the sources arguing for smoking bans but these are all very credible people with some good arguments and points.  The next few sources are arguing against these ones above.   The next three sources that I have found all believe that smoking tobacco should not be banned. We will start off by analyzing an article called  “9 Pros And Cons of Smoking Bans” this article argues that smoking bans “impinge people’s freedom”,  “they are sometimes not effective”, “they reduce the amount of taxes that the government collects”,  and that “they can destroy businesses ”  (unknown). Although those can be built into good arguments there are many flaws in this article and source. The website does not have an author for this article so we do not know about the person who wrote it or how educated and credible they are. This greatly diminishes the credibility of the whole article. Also there are no numbers, statistics or even sources to back up anything this author wrote. The second source arguing this perspective is a man by the name Brady Cremeens. Cremeens has a B.S. in theology and a B.A. in media communication. I believe that Cremeens has a good educational background and is a good person learn from. One of the many points that he makes in his article is that it would reduce the amount of taxes collected. He provides a lot of persuasive information but does not however tell where he gets his facts from, also leaving us with no sources for him.  A third source that argues perspective B is someone named Rashida Khilawala.  She argues that smoking bans will have a negative economic impact, they will affect personal rights, and they can be difficult to implement.  Although those are a few great points I was unable to find Khilawalas background education so we do not know how credible she actually is.  Also her argument was very weak.  She does not have any sources for the information she provided. Khilawala also uses the logical fallacy slippery slope when she states that smoking bans can lead to businesses permanently closing.  The sources listed above might have had some good points but many of them were not backed up with sources, statistics, or credentials, making them less compelling and able to trust.   Everyone has the right to their own opinions but I believe that one should do their research and really study the subject before forming one. After reading these articles, analyzing these source, and doing my research my opinion on this subject was not changed.  I hands down still have to agree that tobacco should be banned.  The sources that argue for tobacco bans have great credentials, sources, proof, and facts to thoroughly argue their beliefs.   The sources that did argue against smoking bans had a few compelling points and a few strengths, the sources, facts, and credentials were just not there.