If you want them to dig holes and then fill them in, who's going to pay for that?
The government, taking money from people and spending it on something that doesn't cause harm to everyone involved. You'd lose some of the money due to the inefficiency of the method, but there's a chance that that would be outweighed by the alternative. Regardless the better (long term) method to both of them would be to leave those people to get jobs in the private sector in whatever part of the economy wants them.
Did you miss the part where I said a majority of the southern economy depends on the tobacco industry? Where to you expect these people to find jobs in todays economy?
No, but you evidently missed the part where I pointed to any unemployment being short term.
Littering is not banned, it is illegal. So again if you want to argue over whether or not smoking should be illegal start another thread
You're arguing over the difference between something being banned and something being illegal?!! If something is banned, then it is illegal to do it.
Also I'm arguing about banning (or making illegal, if you prefer ) smoking where it harms other people . Similar to how littering in your own home where it's just harming you isn't banned...sorry, illegal, smoking where it's just affecting yourself shouldn't be illegal. Now where does smoking likely harm other people? In public (indoor) places! It's generally good forum etiquette not to create a thread on whether smoking should be banned in public places if there's already a thread talking about the exact same thing (businesses such as pubs and bars are public places, and there aren't many public indoor places that aren't either businesses or government owned).
In fact the only person who seems consistently desperate to talk about making smoking illegal completely is you, based on the number of times you've claimed Leauki and I were talking about making smoking itself illegal (i.e. in all cases as opposed to smoking in public places/where it harms others). I can see why Leauki gave up.
And how would you enforce this type of law?
You could model the approach on how other laws relating to harming your children are implimented. You could just have the threat of some form of punishment for extreme cases, rather than worrying about enforcing it in every situation. As with any law banning making something illegal, you'd have to weigh up the cost:benefit of focusing on increasing the detection rate for that particular crime.
You can't expect people who smoke to never smoke around anyone else. It just isn't realistic. Therefore, if you think it's harmful to the point of needing a ban, why not just make it illegal?
Because you'd be penalising people who are smoking without harming others (e.g. smoking in well ventilated places, or smoking outside, or in their own home, etc.), you'd create a black market along with the negative effect on crime that it'd have, you'd lose out on the tax revenues yet still have the health costs for people affected, and plenty more reasons. A ban on businesses (and government buildings) of smoking inside places that aren't sufficiently ventilated would cover the vast majority of cases where smoking harms other people, while still allowing people to harm themselves if they want, and avoiding the other problems mentioned (such as the creation of a black market, and the loss of tax revenues when cigarettes are sold). A ban on homes would be far less practical, but then previously I was referring to the intention (prior to practical considerations) of looking to prevent smoking where it harms others. It'd be fairly simple to impliment a ban for businesses, while a ban in homes where there are children would need to be looked at to see what if anything would be worth doing.