I don't think anyone has ever eaten some guy's face after smoking a cigarette or filling up their car with gas, so no... the same reason shouldn't be used to ban cigarettes and fossil fuels.
There are rational arguments for why you might want to ban either (and arguments for why you shouldn't), but the one you're presenting here makes no sense whatsoever.
A very small minority of these actions tho.
I mean, in human history, there have been many more incidents of egregious acts by humans to other humans...fueled by nothing more than breathing simple oxygen. People that snap...can and will do it with or without chemical help.
The VAST majority of people that use chemicals...alcohol (actually one of the more dangerous ones), pot, coke..what-have-you do not go out and harm other people. If that were the case, the world would be a smoking, smoldering pile many decades back.
The majority can and often does use these chemicals recreationally with no harm to anyone, except possibly themselves. It isn't the governments job to protect someone from their own actions, is it? If so...where is that in any of the state or federal constitutions as an enumerated function of said governing body?