>>>A few flaws with the logic here. If there was a vaccine for the cancer caused by cigarettes then sure I'd be for that.
>
>The logical flaw is that it's apparently OK to force treatment on somebody, but not OK to prevent access to known poisons.
>
>>>Do you know anything about the Christian Science religion? They say that a person should have no medicine or medical care of any kind. Every few years there is something in the news about how some followers of this religion has let their child die simply because they wouldn't get them some very simple medical care. I think it's less invasive to give a kid a shot than to let them die.
>
>Agreed. It's less invasive again to prevent access to poisons that kill a large proportion of society. Why wouldn't you start with that?

Because it's impractical to outlaw every harmful element out of human life. Cars kill people and so does water. You keep stating that it's less invasive but I don't think that's the case. Come on - which do you think is going to work better - give a child a vaccine to prevent cancer (or smallpox or any of the zillion things wiped out by vaccines) or to criminalize cigarettes?