cars are dangerous take them away because people get killed using them just like people get killed smoking. Once again the silppery slope (i know its a cliche) but its rite here. Let people make their own decisions on how they want to live, communism and totalitarianism died a long time ago.

Then lets put an end to tobacco subsidies so that I'm not paying for slimebags to make cancersticks for idiots to smoke.

__________________
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

-George Carlin

Hey, if we're going to do that, then we also need to completely drop health insurance coverage for smoking-related health problems. If smoking is a "choice," then that choice should come with all the other risks and consequences. I don't want MY insurance deductable going up, just because Brunhilda, who sits next to me at work, chokes down two packs of heaters a day. She knows darn well that they're bad for her.

Except how do you prove that the cancer or whatever comes from smoking and not from some other factor.
Rather smokers should have higher premiums... The hard part is figuring out how to get people to admit it... or maybe that's where the taxes on cigarettes should go. Then the heavy taxes on cigarettes would be something no one can complain about.

__________________
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

-George Carlin

First, I don't know why this got moved to the "Human Rights" section. I understand that there are elements of this that suit "human rights" descriptions, but I don't think that it is in any way a hard-core or medium-core human rights issue. Practically all of politics has some elements of a people's opinion of human rights. This should either be in "Other Political Issues" or "Health Care" or something like that.

Response to JavaBlack's post:

I don't think that cigarettes should be as taxed as they are because smoking is not a moral determinant. That is, smoking doesn't make people immoral or violent or otherwise harmful to society; it just (possibly?) makes them less healthy. As for insurance premiums, I think that is for the insurance companies to decide for themselves. The smoker will then choose the best insurance plan for their situation, just like everybody else. With regard to what I would do if I were in charge of an insurance company, I would consider and analyze all the health statistics related to cigarettes, smoking, tobacco, and related circumstances just like any other successful insurance company would. If I find that more people who smoke and use tobacco die earlier or suffer more health complications than non-smokers, I will charge smokers more for my service because I would have to work more and spend more time on their case than on my other, non-smoking customers. However, if I determine that smoking doesn't, in and of itself, promote bad or worse health than not smoking, then I wouldn't require a higher premium from my smoking customers than from my customers who do not smoke. The faulty logic, of which I do not accuse you, Mr. Black, comes when somebody decides that a person who smokes should pay more based upon some "moral" or self-righteous or some personal assessment of people who smoke as "icky."

__________________
Through any and all LEGAL means necessary, the Obama Administration's existence must be neutralized and cancelled out.
-----------------

If you are on the chopping block, just contact me. You don't need to be banned. Contact me even if I hate you.

I know of people who are deathly allergic to smoke. Not to mention that most science seems to point to a connection between the smoke and lung cancer. Unlike other things people do to themselves, smoke travels in the air.
Smoking isn't a moral issue. But I still think smokers are inconsiderate in making a decision for me whether or not I can breathe in a public place without possibly dying from it. It's not smoking so much... It's how people do it. You do it in your own home FINE (though anyone else living in the house may have a legitimate complaint). So I honestly see no problem with legislation that limits smoking in public areas. When you smoke, so do the people around you.

But it's time for one of my rants about smokers. This doesn't apply to all smokers... but from my experiences it covers a whole lot of them. These are the moral weaknesses of smokers:
It seems to me the smokers that whine the most about their inability to smoke every second of every day are also the most inconsiderate bastards the world has ever known. They complain about not being able to smoke in your house or on your porch (I am to the point where I send them a mile away- Screw 'em). They complain about sitting in non-smoking sections of resturaunts because GOD FORBID they have to go an hour or two without lighting up. They take MORE and LONGER off-the-record breaks at work, leaving the poor responsible suckers to do their jobs. They blame addiction for their lack of willpower (sorry, folks, I understand it's tough... but if you want to quit, don't give up because you think it's "too hard". It's easily within human ability. It's much easier than, say, escaping the ghetto or finishing college or plenty of other things people manage to do. My parents both did it when I was a kid)... And the worst offense of all:
They complain about not having money!!!
Of all the %%@#% nerve! For this alone I say tax the %#@ out of 'em! If people are stupid enough to buy something inessential to the point where they can't afford actual necessities- use this to its maximum effectiveness. Improve our schools! Pay for national defense! These people obviously want to die!
Of course that was a bit satirical.

But still... It seems clear to me that smokers (not all) have a certain sense of entitlement. They feel entitled to their addiction. They feel so entitled that they can put my life in their hands by polluting the air around me. They feel that it is a crime for me to suggest they keep those cancersticks the hell away from my property and that I will not subject my family to sitting with them in a smoky death trap just so that they can keep from having to go an hour without lighting up.

Maybe it's more a stupidity issue than a moral issue... But I don't believe smokers have any place to complain for all the damage they do. We don't let people dispose of human waste in public places (maybe in the restrooms).
Frankly I think smokers have been spoiled by having entire sections and whole bars where no person who enjoys breathing dare enter. Maybe public places should have a single smoking vault: a windowless small room with padded walls where they have to get up and walk over to in order to light up.

But even without all that I'd say I gave a pretty good way to tax smokers. Tax 'em and give it to the insurance companies so that these smokers can finance their own cancer treatment! Oh yeah. They feel entitled to the same insurance premiums I have too. It would be one thing if they just wound up with a nasty disease or something they can't help- but if you smoke several packs a day, expect cancer!

__________________
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

-George Carlin

Wow, sounds like an essay :/. Okay, so I read most of this discussion, and here's what I've got.

1. Smoking is a choice. No one is making you do it, and no one is going to kill you if you don't.
2. Smoking should be legal, as well as *most* other drugs.
3. There should NOT be nationalized health care. All this will result in is poor medical care, and people not getting the care they need when they need it (I refer to long waiting lines). Nationalized medical care will just result in mediocre medical care.
4. Smokers should be held completely responsible for their actions and addictions. People are capable of having the willpower to stop - but some people have a more addictive personality than others.
5. Smoking is already banned (in my area) inside most public buildings.
6. Smoking should NOT be banned outdoors. To be fair, and I realize this is a horrid analogy, but people are deathly allergic to peanuts, and we see products containing thereof everywhere - point is, just because an allergy exists, is no reason to ban something.

There you have it.

The issue is not about legality.
"Freedom of conscience" will always be the root-tip of one's mind. Even if we set rules and regulations for one's good, we cannot force everybody to follow. In short, we cannot tie and chain freedom. So, both legality and illegality are useless.
However, my dear fellow forumers, the issue is about health. Don't you know that smokers brings twice damage than the non-smokers?..Hope you'll find out.

Let's just say in Wisconsin, nearly every high school student chews. I go through 2 tins a week. Usually Skoal Citrus or Grizzly Wintergreen. I'd be pretty pissed if they made it illegal (technically I can't buy it anyway ) but people will find a way to get their buzz. I know it has a ton of terrible health effects, but something has to kill you. That's my take on life, live. Don't worry about stupid (*)(*)(*)(*).

While we're at it, let's make spitting illegal...and mowing the lawn...Harmful to the environment and other people. What if your spit gains enough speed and hits someone in the eye. They could have blurry vision for possibly a minute or more.

__________________
"Duty is the most sublime word in our language. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less." - Robert E. Lee