Should the same laws which prohibit the sale and consumption of heroin be applied to tobacco?

There have been arguments and counter arguments on whether same laws which prohibit sale and consumption of heroin should be applied to tobacco. My argument is to the affirmative, yes, they should. The same laws should be applied; tobacco contains nicotine which after prolonged exposure leads to addiction results to overdependence just as heroin does. When nicotine is absorbed by the lungs, it’s transported to the brain through the blood stream. With time, the brain becomes overly dependent on nicotine and cannot function effectively when not adequately available. That’s why some people complain of headache if they stay for a long duration without smoking. The laws must be the same for all addictive products. Tobacco and heroin use have similar effects on the user, both present a danger of addiction and same laws should be applied to protect the public from these substances. Tobacco must not be protected by the government due to the high tax remittances cigarette companies make every year, the citizens need to be protected too. Tobacco is so dangerous, it affects even those who do not consume it; research shows million of Americans die every year due to exposure to smoke emitted by tobacco smokers. Same laws if not stricter laws should apply to tobacco just as in heroin. Not all natural products are good; tobacco should not be treated any better. Just like tobacco, cocaine is a product from nature cultivated in some parts of South America. Its effects are well known and laws have been implemented to restrict overuse of the substance. It is popular drug and used for medicinal purposes something I haven’t heard from tobacco. Restriction on cigarette selling will lead to a decline in tobacco smoking. Sometimes people smoke due to easy access of tobacco products. If similar laws were applied, temptations to smoke would be less.