Should cigarettes/tobacco be illegal?

those that choose not to smoke gets killed by those who choose to smoke, ciggarettes kills people

yea i know. they are having a tough time right know but you dont need to ban it just because its not fair. you make it fair! tobacco can be banned because it kills people

true to that, but the one that made this post asked a qeustion and i answered it. simple as that. i respect your opion but i will defend my opion.

no, i always tough babys was born with ciggarettes in thier mouths and you had to get them to quit!
i understand the subject and i have a opion on it. you dont have to understand it to have a opion about it.
i dont care if you smoke, you can smoke intill you die for all i care. you and all your smoker buddys can have all the ciggarettes in the world for all i care as long it doesn't hurt anyone else. why i only want those who are already addicted to ciggarettes to be able to get to them is because they should only be able to buy ciggarettes for themself. ciggarette addiction id often introduced in young age and the next generation shouldn't be able to get it! not all smokers gives away ciggarettes or buys them out but some do.
and you are the one that is being ignorant

You make as much sens in this comment than a guy who go naked in the street with half a grapefruit on the head shouting : "i'm a hamster" ...

If that's the case we should start halting the manufacture of junk foods, fast foods, and the like because that also shortens life. We all die anyway so why not go out with a fat cigar and guns blazing.

hahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hahahahah

oh lol

If you have nothing to add, say nothing at all -SD rules-

Those people who smoke are already old enough to know what are the consequences if they smoke. So no ban to smoking. I also smoke.

Explain yourself briefly by saying "they couldn't control themselves".

But in this case, not only active smokers suffer from cigarettes, second-hand smoke does harm people more than smoking its cigarette itself.

The point of this thread is whether cigarettes should be banned due to its effect towards smokers and non-smokers.

In my opinion if people wanna smoke they should smoke.

I am a none smoker and both of my parents smoke, so they go outside or away from me when they smoke.

The right to smoke should never be harmed, but if it does to much harm to none smokers or whatever nearby, there should be respect and limits to where you may smoke perhaps?

Anyway I voted no.

Pretty much this. And some earlier replies, like the weight tobacco products have on the economy.

So, what I'm trying to say is that smoking is a personal choice and should not be restricted by the government.

I'm not smoker and i don't really care. The more illegal the more people seek

The only logical reason to ban cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco related products in the "healthcare" argument which is that tobacco related products increase the likelihood of lung cancer/other diseases and that the cost of fighting those diseases could or does outweigh the economic boost from tobacco production, distribution & sale.

Other than that there is no argument against tobacco that can't be easily dismissed by the basic argument of a person should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property (in this case their own body) as long as they are no harming anyone who is not consenting.

Even though , this is not a logical arguement because you don't consider that i will one day probably have to get treatments for something else , it just shorten the time before i need them .

Please enlighten me as to how lung cancer or emphysema can shorten the time span before your in the hospital for Alzheimer's, diabetes or any other non-cancer illnesses. I'd be interested in hearing the link between them with sources please.

I don't know what happened when you read my text but you got lost somewhere , read it again plz >

If a smoker could magically NOT cause me bad health effects as a result of their smoking, than I would have voted "No."

Unfortunately, that is not the case, so I voted "Yes."

It wouldn't become illegal because of the tax dollars collected on it. The issue is all the tax dollars wasted on the useless dying people in the hospital whom were affected by it severely.

It's obvious that a person will have to visit a hospital and that is not what I was arguing. Since you've failed to comprehend what I was referring to. Allow me to restate it for your convenience in simpler and more detailed terms.

The legality of tobacco products and the resulting diseases such as lung, mouth, throat and gullet cancers along with emphysema, some cardiovascular diseases and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) could produce a net drain of the healthcare system that outweighs the economic benefits from the tobacco industry.

In layman's terms, the diseases resulting from smoking could cost the population more money (in healthcare costs) than they gain from the taxes from the tobacco industry. This is particularly important to countries that have government run healthcare such as Canada and the United Kingdom.

Now, please elaborate on why that argument is not logical simply because you will have to visit the hospital sometime during your life for something else entirely.