An article I read today at AlterNet ( www.alternet.org ) suggests we ban Tobacco, claiming the adverse effects long term compared to those of banned substances.  I ask the question, should anything be banned?  Should we be prevented from using anything we want to? 

I personally have just kicked the habit of smoking tobacco, 9 days free from it so far, I understand the lack of breath, and other health reasons that smoking causes. 

"Cigarettes kill; 400,000 people die prematurely every year from smoking. When we analyze the harm from drugs, there is no doubt that cigarettes are the worst.  They kill more people than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and all other illegal drugs combined."

Instead of banning yet another free choice, we should use this as a stepping stone of removintg the war on drugs, putting that money back into the hands of the people, and stop locking away non-violent citizens simply becuase they had a little dope on them for personal use.

Most people have the ability to get and use illegal drugs, open any medicine cabinet, and there is a variety of drugs that if used in ways not directed, would be considered illegal.  Most people decide to not use drugs illegally becuase it is not for them, think of the savings, and lower taxes we could see by stopping the wasteful and worthless war on drugs.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/141723/should_we_ban_tobacco/

In a report released this week titled "Combating Tobacco in Military and Veteran Populations", the Institute of Medicine strongly recommended to the Department of Defense (DoD) to curb smoking by veterans and active duty personnel and to go as far as ban it all together.  The recommendation points to the rise in health care costs associated with smoking related disease and details how those who have served in the armed forces are 10% more likely to use tobacco products than the average 1 out of every 5 American who smokes.

As the report notes, the DoD already spends $1.6 billion per year on tobacco related care.  Couple the steadily more expensive health care costs, and "personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may be 50 percent higher [for using tobacco] than rates among non-deployed military personnel", you can see the writing on the wall for a budget crisis looming for the DoD.

This story caught the eye of Reason and Liberty becuase I wanted to pose the question, if the DoD were to ban smoking on bases,  would that be a infringing on a soldiers right to use tobacco, or is it simply a way of protecting the investment the United States Government made in training, and deploying their property in the best fighting shape it can?

(Source: Combating Tobacco in Military and Veteran Populations)