Revision

If the supreme court were to order a ban on cigarettes, it would probably pass in the court of law. To say the government has power to ban marijuana, but not cigarettes is inconsistent; if they have enough control to ban one, they can ban both. Cigarettes pose a grave public health hazard. If the government cannot restrict or ban dangerous and addictive substances that pose a personal and public health risk, then how can the enforcement of anti-drug laws be justified? It can be argued that although the government can ban public smoking, there is no legitimate basis for laws restricting private smoking; the individual right to privacy should allow people to harm their own bodies with dangerous drugs, should they chose to do so.

There is little dispute that if the Supreme Court were to order a ban on cigarettes, the law would probably pass.  It would be inconsistent to say the government has power to ban marijuana and not cigarettes; with control to ban one, they have control to ban both.  Cigarettes pose a great hazard to the health of the public.  If the government cannot restrict or ban dangerous addictive substances that pose both personal and public health risks, then how can the enforcement of anti-drug laws be justified? A common opposing argument for the illegality of cigarettes is that there is no legitimate basis for laws restricting private smoking; the individual right to privacy should allow people to harm their own bodies with dangerous substances if they chose to.