While it's obviously not healthy so is a bunch of things we don't even know about that we come in contact with everyday.

And while we may not know about those things we know about smoking. And we CHOOSE to continue to smoke.

It's a choice, it's not like anyone is forcing anyone to smoke, and we know the effects.

People say the only reason why it's not is because the tobacco companies pay so much money to the government. I agree that in an ideal world, cigarettes would be banned, but in the worlds current state, I have to disagree.

In the US, the government takes around 16 billion USD, just from cigarette tax. On average, that's about a third of the cost of a cigarette packet, there's then the corporate tax on the companies, the wages, the advertising, there's simply a huge amount of money in it. Even if they wanted to, most governments would have big problems banning cigarettes.

And yes, I know this question was probably meant in from a social aspect, but if you want it to be realistic, you have to look at every aspect. And also, I don't smoke cigarettes, I'm not defending smokers.

If they want to do it, let them do it. If you wanna go around banning everything harmful to the human body you may as well just nuke us all and be done with it; because almost everything is harmful to the human body in one way or another.

I think that people have the right to have vices, because control over one's body regardless of others' objections is important in a free society. However, it's important to recognize that whilst also recognizing that smoking imposes a social cost--medical expenses and human capital degradation due to cancers, hypertension, and other health problems, the effects of which are not confined to the smoker.

Bearing this in mind though, increasing the price of smoking generally is more effective than a blanket ban. Traditional cigarettes and cigars could also be phased out in favour of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction measure.

Smoking is a certain damage on people's health. It causes many health issues, the most spread of which is lung cancer, the reason of thousands of people's death. Yes, the fact of its unusefulness to the human body is not even debatable.

However, when it comes to the ban of smoking at all, it takes more than just an argument of health issue. In my opinion, the question of human rights outweighs the previous one. Why should some be boarded on their rights because others want it? it is up to other people if they don't want to smoke, but making other people banned on their habits is not right. Everyone should be responsible for their actions only, and stay out of somebody else's business. After all, if smokers would get negative consequences on their health, they should accept it, because they take responsibility for their decisions. And if people decide to smoke, so be it. People should respect each others' decisions, no matter how risky it can be.

Cigarette smoking is definitely an unhealthy habit, but completely banning cigarette smoking would definitely be a violation of human rights. Cigarette smoking does not effect one's ability to drive, operate machinery, hold a steady job, or be a decent parent. The only thing it does is put the smoker's health at risk. At this point, smoking is banned in all public places except the great outdoors where there is plenty of space for non-smokers to dwell while they are outside to avoid secondhand smoke. In New York, the state government is indirectly trying to ban cigarette smoking by jacking up the price of cigarettes. Four years ago, in Long Island, NY the average price for a pack of cigarettes was $4.50; now it's up to $10.00. Smokers should not have to have a hole burned through their pocket because they smoke cigarettes. So, yes, smoking is in no way good for smokers health wise, but it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do with their health and should not have to pay five dollars per pack of cigarettes in excise taxes because it is unhealthy... why not ban the sale of snack foods and carbonated beverages while you're at it?

The government does not have the right to do that .

Before I begin I will start with an observation: The affirmative of this question needs to argue that tobacco should be illegal, but the negative can still support regulations while upholding tobacco's legality.

Points:

-The fact that an item may be a risk to one's health does not mean it should be illegal. Cars kill thousands every years and are quite dangerous but still retain their legality. The government can regulate traffic laws to make cars safer without unnecessarily outlawing them. Likewise, there can be designated areas for smokers this way no one else has to intake their smoke.

-Restricting freedom in the name of safety is bad. Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean the government has the right to regulate our lives and protect us from it. Give me liberty or give me death. I do not want a body to tell me what I can and cannot do. For an example to put things into perspective: does the government have the right to listen into our phone calls, follow us, or interrogate us in the name of counter terrorism? The idea that the governing body can restrict our freedoms in the name of safety or the general welfare of society permits the restriction of freedom.

Also, another idea that I just had, a large reason why cigarettes are unhealthy is the massive number of chemicals put into them. This is done to generate a larger profit. If a government organisation, not for personal profit, created a brand of 'healthy' cigarettes, with small amounts of nicotine, and tobacco, along with paper, a filter, and some gum to keep it all together, would that be anywhere near as unhealthy as cigarettes currently are? It's to my understanding that the tobacco caused only a tar build up (which can be negated through exercise to an extent), while it was the chemicals & poisons that 'confused' cells and made them cancerous, among other things. I'm no expert at all, but I think I've read something along those lines.

I totally agree that smoking is horrible. The reason the tabaco companies still make drugs is not only to make money but to help people... in a sense. Pretend just for a moment that you have been smoking a pack a day for two years then all of a sudden no more cigarettes. They have stopped making cigarettes and not even illegally is there any way for you to smoke. Not only would you greatly suffer but you could die from loss of your pleasure. What i do suggest though is that they slowly reduce the amount of cigarettes they make and then completley stop. Forcing people to reduce their amounts of smoking and completley stop too. Then i think the gouvernment should be able (from the thousands of dollars they have gained from tabaco) to give each smoker 1000$ each for any sicknesses they might need to pay for.

Everyone has the right to do whatever they want to.

Smoking? Yes, that is an act of killing oneself.

But the question is, is there a need to BAN it?

Why can't we just make a law that forbids smoking in places where there are more than 40 people?

I don't see the necessity of banning such an act.

There are so many people who rely on smoking for relieving stress and people who have smoked for several years.

If we suddenly ban it, what would happen to them?

They would SUFFER!!!!

Would people who have been addicted to smoking suddenly become normal citizens who aren't addicted to smoking? No

Since there are people who are addicted and since banning won't benefit the society, there is no need to ban smoking as a whole.

If I got a dollar for every time this question was asked on here, I would be $20 richer. Look at any number one of those for my response.

no it should not. many people would be angered by this. what we need to do is ban it from public places so that it hurts no one but the smoker. i know many of you will say who cares if it angers people but thats not the only thing we need to consider. in an ideal society people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. so educate people about smokings health issues ban it from public places but ultimately the person should have the right to smoke by themselves. not to mention the money the government gets from smoking.

I choose not to smoke because its on healthy. But to ban completely because someone in congress thinks they know whats best for me?? I DONT THINK SO... In America, we are meant to be free of ridiculous laws and regulations like this. That's why thousands of Americans gave up their lives in ridding the colonies of the British regime.

Besides, if tobacco is banned, its just going to start an underground market for it, creating a lot of unnecessary violence over something as silly as cigarettes.

I don't smoke. I think it is a disgusting thing that has influenced the world in bad ways only. However, what happens if it gets banned? Won't everyone just get sudden nicotine cravings? The only solution in my mind is to slowly up the price on tobacco until it is removed from the shelves for good.

While it's obviously not healthy so is a bunch of things we don't even know about that we come in contact with everyday

It's only a choice for the people smoking. What about the children at home that develop asthma because dad was exceeding his rights? Or people in linking places you didn't choose to have lung problems?

It's not fair to those who are forced to inhale second hand smoke by no fault of their own and despite their choice to be free from it.

Smoking is a certain damage on people's health. It causes many health issues, the most spread of which is lung cancer, the reason of thousands of people's death. Yes, the fact of its unusefulness to the human body is not even debatable.

I totally agree that smoking is horrible. The reason the tabaco companies still make drugs is not only to make money but to help people... in a sense. Pretend just for a moment that you have been smoking a pack a day for two years then all of a sudden no more cigarettes. They have stopped making cigarettes and not even illegally is there any way for you to smoke. Not only would you greatly suffer but you could die from loss of your pleasure. What i do suggest though is that they slowly reduce the amount of cigarettes they make and then completley stop.

We can't ban smoking entirely. Some people are saying that it's bad for heatlh (which I think is mostly said), but it's truly someone's choice whether to smoke or not. We should only ban it in public places. Smokers will suffer greatly if they can't smoke anymore;they smoke to relieve stress and relax their minds.

No smoking should not be banned, as people we should have that freedom, I understand that smoking should be restricted in libraries and public areas. But to completely ban it? No. I believe that all drugs should be legalized, on the package it will say all the side effects and people will be aware of the negative results but we should have the freedom of choice.

It isn't my choice to tell you what to stick in your mouth. However, I struggled with smoking for many years and managed to quit. I could never go back to that stressful way of living. People should be allowed to do that but please, keep it out of everyone else's faces.

no, its addictive, do you know how much revenue is generated from the sin tax alone?

-btw I don't smoke.

Smoking is legal. Also, States make plenty of revenue from the taxes levied upon cigarettes.