Local, State, and Federal Governments should not tax tabacco products.

First of all, I think that the voters are smart enough to see by when I referred to taxes, I was talking about a tax that was specifically aimed at tobacco products. Unlike you, you are not smart enough to see that that was a simple typo and you are trying to make me look like a complete idiot; when in reality you are the one causing more harm to your own arguments by acting out of total ignorance. Opponent: He does not explain how the current government budget spends "our children's future," nor does he explain why tobacco deserves to be exempt from taxation. "Economic Stimulus" is a good answer here. Were 1.9 Trillion dollars in the hole, and we're borrowing it from China and other countries each and every day: this will certainly lead to our children having to pay for the mistakes we made. Opponent: Should the government tax everything? No. Well, if we tax tobacco what is going to stop us from taxing other items ten years in the future that today we would never tax? If you tear down one wall, what's going to stop you from tearing down the next? Opponent: Vehicles in and of themselves are not harmful to the health of individuals who use them. Car accidents are not analogous to the health concerns resulting from smoke inhalation. I beg to differ. Not only do cars kill thousands of motorists each year, but they also emit tons of carbon into the atmosphere which lowers our air quality and has lead to an increase of respiratory diseases. So, it does affect those who don't drive cars. So, shouldn't it be taxed? Opponent: Exercising is a healthy activity, and Pro does not claim otherwise. Like car accidents, people injuring themselves in the course of exercising is not analogous. Actually, people who injure themselves clog our hospitals and taxpayers (in many cases) have to pay for them. So, isn't this harm the common good? Opponent: Just as with the last two examples, night crime is not analogous. Actually, people who commit night crime are prosecuted and many of them end in prison. While in prison, taxpayers have to pay for their food, shelter, etc. So, doesn't that harm all? Opponent: Tobacco can cause health problems to non-users (in the form of second hand smoke), while fast food cannot. Actually, people with diseases related to their eating habits (heart disease, high cholesterol, etc.) do effect others who do not eat unhealthy because taxpayers are put in the position of having to pay for them when they end up in a hospital. Opponent: Tobacco is physically and emotionally addictive, while fast food is not. I do agree that fast food is not PHYSICALLY and EMOTIONALLY addictive, but they are generally speaking "addictive". Generally speaking, fast food is very cheap and very "fast". Since many people cannot afford the more healthy food and not the time to purchase and prepare it, they have to resort to fast food. Opponent: However, this burden on their income only exists if they continue to smoke. If they deem smoking to be of more importance than other monetary concerns then that is their choice. However, punishing those with a tax that they may not be able to afford is unproductive. Wouldn't state-funded education programs about the health problems associated with smoking work better and not drain those that have little money to spare. MY OWN ARGUMENT: The state doesn't have the power to dictate the health decisions that its citizens make. If citizens wish to smoke, the government shouldn't punish them with a tax. I understand that second-hand smoke is a serious problem, but if it really bothered you that much then why don't you just lock yourself up in your house and only come out wearing oxygen masks. The government, if they we're really all that against tobacco, why don't they just outlaw it? The fiscals arguments of my opponent are completely flawed. He sees that the governments main job is to make money and spend it. I do not have a problem with taxes, I have a problem with unjust taxes.