[Barrin92]

Simple answer, because we live in a free society and the consideration for what is outlawed isn't how beneficial an activity is for the person who engages in it but how dangerous it is to others.

And so while I'm okay with banning smoking from places where others are affected, tobacco consumption in private or voluntary settings shouldn't really be an issue.

Also interesting angle in the piece to declare that tobacco has 'no benefits'. Is the author the enjoyment police? First thing that comes to mind for me is, I have a lot of Arab and Turkish friends and there's a strong cafe and smoking culture within those communities that's an important part of social gatherings.

In the world of health professionals which appear to attempt to pathologize everything this apparently doesn't hold a lot of value but for most people it does.

[Volundr]

> Simple answer, because we live in a free society and the consideration for what is outlawed isn't how beneficial an activity is for the person who engages in it but how dangerous it is to others.

To be honest, I don't see how you can look at American drug laws and come to this conclusion. It's certainly what we say we do, but when you actually look at the laws it place, be it drugs, gambling, marriage or any number of other things it becomes obvious that our "free society" only extends as far as the freedom to do those things the powers that be approve of.

[wolverine876]

> It's certainly what we say we do

It's what people say for their own vices and faults, freedom! Other people's vices should be banned.

That's why freedom isn't meaningful when we talk about ourselves. Everyone thinks themself should be free; it's freedom for others, especially those we don't like, that is significant.

[somenewaccount1]

Not really. Most narcotics lead to serious drug problems that definitely put a strain on others. I wouldn't say our drug laws are perfect, but they are aimed at reducing dangers to others, and to a reasonable degree, it accomplishes that.

[Volundr]

Sure, if only narcotics were all we were controlling. But there are plenty of other schedule 1 drugs (marijuana being the most popular) that don't have this issue, yet remain illegal. Meanwhile alcohol use most certainly has a devastating impact on others, both in terms of drunk drivers, and alcoholics committing crimes to buy more alcohol. The difference being alcohol is considered "acceptable" by the powers that be, while marijuana is not.

It all boils down to them enforcing their morality on the rest of us.

[2-718-281-828]

and those powerful people like to smoke ... cigars for example.

[kube-system]

> the consideration for what is outlawed isn't how beneficial an activity is for the person who engages in it but how dangerous it is to others.

We aren’t consistent in that regard, or at least, we often consider that someone who sells a harmful substance is harming another person.

Our laws often prohibit Pfizer from selling dangerous drugs, as well as your local street drugs dealer.

These decisions are always a tradeoff between cultural expectations and harm. There’s no hard and fast rule.

[randombits0]

If a cigarette was considered an occasional treat rather than a 20x a day ritual, it wouldn’t be a big deal. That’s my present take. I was a long time smoker that eventually quit, more from physical symptoms than anything else.

But an occasional smoke is no biggie. Six cigarettes a year has little affect. Some can’t walk that without relapse, of course. It’s different for everyone.

[ryrymcfly]

I feel like the substance should be permitted, but companies profiting from it's industrialized production should be taxed into oblivion.

[wolverine876]

> In the world of health professionals which appear to attempt to pathologize everything

What does that refer to? That's not my experience.