should smoking and alcohol be illegal

The government exists to protect the rights and property of the people. One's person is their own property. Like almost everything in life, ingesting any type of drug has both its pros and cons - benefits and dangers. While it is true that smoking tobacco carries with it an increased risk of cancer, I fail to see how that should have any legal bearing whatsoever. Today the United States has many second-hand smoke laws regarding tobacco ingestion; in other words, it is only legal to smoke tobacco in designated areas or on your own property away from where it can be considered harmful to others. While it's true that alcohol and tobacco are harmful, so are a plethora of other legal things including: environmental pollutants; sun bathing; eating fatty foods; stress; lack of sleep; etc. The government cannot make everything that of which can be potentially harmful illegal. There is a certain element of responsibility in all of our personal choices. For instance, we know sun tanning greatly damages our skin AND causes cancer; however, people still choose to engage in this behavior. The same logic can be applied to the drugs in question. The government can issue general warnings and studies about the potential dangers of these drugs, and people can choose whether or not that would hinder their consumption. Not every aspect of tobacco is harmful. "A byproduct of cigarette smoke is carbon- dioxide, which in high doses is lethal. However, scientists have discovered that in low dosages, carbon-dioxide in a person's bloodstream prevents blood from "clotting". Blood clots in the bloodstream are the leading cause of heart attacks and strokes" [1]. So, some people should have the liberty of receiving the potential benefits of this drug. Again, there are pros and cons to almost everything. Driving in an automobile has risks, yet we choose to engage in that behavior. And just as the government poses restrictions on this activity, so too can they impose restrictions or other legal burdens regarding the distribution of legal alcohol and tobacco. Since the inception of this country, people have been smoking tobacco and consuming alcohol. In fact, innumerable farmers make their living from farming this crop. Why should the government have the right to deny these people this option? It is their burden to act responsibly under the influence of these drugs, and in choosing this behavior, they are choosing to accept the risks. Because people would still engage in consuming these products whether or not they were illegal, the government would have to implement a DEA like organization to crack down on these abuses and violations. First, This will cost the tax payers more money at a time where the economy is floundering. Second, not having a DEA and allowing people to make their own responsible choices means an increase in democracy and liberty. Third, there is a HUGE amount of government corruption regarding the drug industry. With these products being illegal, they will gain the same status such as other illegal drugs today: cocaine, marijuana, MDMA, etc. We should eliminate bureaucratic trouble making systems as much as possible. Legalization would mean a lower price; thus, related crimes (like theft and gangs) would be reduced. Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes. Drug dealers (including some terrorists) would lose most or all of their business. The FDA and/or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs. Finally, drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals which is not good for the individual OR the state. Source: [1] http://www.oohoi.com...