There are no benefits.
You may be thinking "I'm smoking in my home, not hurting anybody?" Well, if you live in an apartment, the smoke could travel to others. If you have a girlfriend, wife, kids, etc., they can be affected.
I believe tobacco should slowly be banned (at least the sale).
Most smokers try it at a naive phase and regret later, sometimes even after seeing their own lung pictures!
The effects of smoking are felt by everybody, not just the smoker. Therefore it is a extremely selfish habit, and that is why I am so appalled at the number of parents who smoke around their children and make no effort to quit. They evidently have a much greater interest in the quenching of their cigarette thirst than the welfare of there own child, which I find disgusting, selfish, and just plain wrong.
I'm actually going to post something serious. Smoking is not just something that affects the smoker. The smoke from cigarettes fills a room and damages other people's lungs via second hand smoking. People smoke publicly all the time and anyone that walks by them gets that nastiness in their lungs. There are plenty of areas where people smoke Comstantly on the streets. Even at the place where I work, people smoke outside but when they come inside the nicotine on them still fills the workspace and has made my lungs twice as bad as they need to be. It's okay if someone else wants to die via nicotine, but they don't have the right to choose my fate. Does smoking benefit anyone? No it doesn't. Does smoking harm anyone? Yes, it harms everyone especially the mass of people who don't smoke.
My grandpa died from cancer 7 1/2 weeks ago because of cancer from smoking. It was really sad that it had to happen to my family. It does affect everybody it also affects the people around it is called 2 hand smoking. If your family member died what would you think would you be sad happy what would you feel like? I was in that place I know how it feels to have somebody drop dead from stupid things like smoking and tobacco. So do you think it should be banned?
I'm allergic to tobacco but even if I wasn't, I wouldn't smoke. I've seen what it does to people and it's not pretty. My dad was a smoker and as he told me, those with self control are often pressured by most smokers because well misery loves company and they'll never admit it. But we're smart enough not to follow what most of society does and don't mind being different. I'm sure someday the smokers will realize what smoking can do to you in the long-run. So either have smoking banned so they can improve or let most of them have serious health problems as they get older :)
There are way to many negatives of the use of cigarettes rather than positives. I think that if people want to smoke then fine let them. However they should all be fully aware of the dangerous of smoking. In Europe they are required to put big fat labels on the packs very clearly stating that it can kill you. Another thing to consider is that we know that smoking can kill, it has been proven. If it can kill and is legal, then why is marijuana illegal? There has been no studies that prove any long lasting negative side effects from smoking marijuana. I don’t think that either are good, but if smoking cigarettes is fine then marijuana should also be.
Tobacco is a legal product, grown for the enjoyment of adults throughout the US and the world. So long as the smoker isn't blowing it in your face or that stores aren't actively selling them to minors, there is no problem.
We focus so much time on doing things faster, better and more often to the point where stress is the only logical end result. Why then in the US, land of the free, we'd even DARE talk about banning something, let alone something that helps people relax, is absolutely absurd. Some folks want to exercise to relax, others knit, some smoke! Leave them alone.
And don't spew that cost of healthcare garbage either. With the ACA and the corporations out to get their pound of flesh from every citizen, healthcare costs are going to be prohibitive no matter what.
Before the commercialization of cigarettes, they were banned in the few countries that possessed tabacco, but the ratio of smokers then was much higher now. This was due to the fact that the prohibition of cigarettes led to the increase in the value of these cigarettes. It's like telling a small child "don't", the more you say it the more they say "I will"
Millions of people smoke. We all know that but just come on. I don't smoke, but let's just say I did. Knowing that what I am doing could be the death of me, do you really think the thought of going to jail could make me quit? This is question with an obvious answer.
Come on. I don't even smoke but if I did, and the thought that what I am doing could be the death of me, and I still don't quit, do you really think going to jail will scare me away from cigarettes? This is a ridiculous question with an obvious answer.
There is actually only one cause of death: birth. I understand the distress that sooner or later you have to say goodbye to everyone and everything you love, but that is the inevitable and immitigable result of being alive. It is in no way a useful argument for or against any behavior.
We all need a way to sublimate self-hatred or self-destructive tendencies. I am a fan of smoking over bar fights, rope-free rock-climbing, sky-diving, and unprotected sex with multiple partners. The self destructive aspects are personal, targeted, and freely chosen.
I know the popular argument that smoking should be illegal is based in second-hand smoke, but that is based on a lot of fallacious thinking and poor information sets. The most notable is the assertion that even second hand smoking causes lung cancer. Saying that smoking causes cancer may be pandering to lazy and small-minded moralistic pop-culture, but it is not even remotely making a statement of fact.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO valid proof that smoking tobacco actually causes lung cancer. All of the assertions that smoking causes lung cancer are based on statistical correlation. Correlation is not causation, and it is fallacious to assert that because two things correlated, one causes the other. Studies fail to identify actual causes and mechanisms. Which chemicals cause which mutations in lung tissue, and how the chemicals do that in order to make cancerous cells is require for proof. At present all we have is still just speculation spun around statistics. It does not even remotely pass for knowledge.
Even the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is small. Less than 25% of heavy smokers get lung cancer, and less than 7% of all smokers ever get lung cancer. (http://lungcancer.About.Com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/f/Smokers-Lung-Cancer.Htm) About 15% of lung cancer patients never smoked. (http://www.Utsouthwestern.Edu/life-at/med-talks/why-do-smokers-never-get-lung-cancer.Html) These statistics do not indicate even a strong correlation.
To be fair, emphysema is different. We actually know how smoke causes emphysema. There is a known causal relationship, traceable through biochemical mechanisms. Saying smoking causes emphysema is logically valid, but the requirement for intense long-term exposure means that second-hand smoking cannot cause it.
Smoking tobacco should not be banned because of the long history it has. It has been around for 200 years, and isn't as detrimental as meth or coke. Also, if we're going to outlaw tobacco, why not outlaw alcohol? (Because we did, and that turned out to be a failure.)
Banning smoking would take the millions of smokers in the United States and criminalize them sating their craving for what they are addicted to. It would unnecessarily make criminals out of the smokers in the United States. A flat out ban is just more trouble than it is worth. There are other ways to discourage smoking, but a ban is just not implementable.
Although I do not support smoking I also don't care. People can do what they want with there bodies. The pro side would state that it effects others due to second hand smoke. This is already being controlled in the U.S. Today with things like "No Smoking" establishments. Some states or cities have banned any smoking in buildings besides home residence. I am saying not to ban people from there right to smoke, but to control when and where they do it.
Let them kill themselves, tell them your opinion. If they still continue to do it then I hope they are at peace with themselves.