THBT smoking should be illegal

I understand that I have misread the instructions and will surrender my conduct point if needed. Many of my opponent's arguments tend to mesh together, so I will include them into many different categories. Contention 1: Privacy and Choice My opponent goes into this argument and states that it would be less pollution, but we can see that this is false. That is like attempting to banning couches so fat people will stop laying on them and being "couch pottatoes." We have to realize that this is a bonus for businesses and that they need the extra money and to ban this would cause people to lose money and more likely just smoke at home as many people do. We can see that the current smoking ban in public places really hasn't affected smoking in general, but has just moved were the smoking occurs at. My opponent then tries to state that it makes our eating healthier since we aren't also smoking, but this is incorrect. Obseity is a large problem and we don't go after it by locking people's fridges or going out taking all the food telling them when they can and cannot eat. My opponent also argues that this hurts the poor since they can spend it elsewhere, but this is a fallacy. Let's apply this to another sinario. If we ban houses then we can by more food and just live under a bridge, but the sole fact that we have food is better than having a house and we still have a roof over our heads as it's the bridge. So should we ban houses to do this? The answer is a rediculous no. The same can be applied to the fallacy that my opponent has provided. My opponent tries to state that the famer's can just grow a different crop, but when we look at the math that I provided in my last round. We can see that the farmer's tobacco growing is only 3% of their actual budget. Their food usage is 12% while their woodlen is 21%. [1] So even if we replace that 3% with food we can see that their profits would plummet as their profit is 71% from tobacco. This would harm our farmer's severally and this is something that my opponent has failed to see. Contention 2: Benefits My opponent tries to tries to shrug off my Parkinson's advantage, but this is something that cannot be taken lightly. We can see that currently over 1 million people in America have Parkinson's, but we see an increase of 600,000 new cases each year. [2] This isn't something to overlook as we need our workforce and this would help the American economy and help reduce Parkinson's disease. Though it doesn't make sense, try looking at how people with cancer are encouraged to get herpes to fight cancer. My opponent drops the obesity argument, so I'll extend that across the board. We can see that it is a major epidemic that needs help as it consums over 20% of the medical expenses in the US each year. My opponent neglects to tell you that a large portion of smoking evidence is biased. National Institute of Health mathematician Rosalind Marimont and Robert Levy have found that smoking death studies tend to neglect other factors like poor diet and excersize and have found that the numbers are inflated by 65%. [3] There are many things that they exclude. Let's look at some other smoking facts, they found that, "Sure, these plant chemicals are measured in infinitesimal amounts. An independent study calculated 222,000 smoking cigarettes would be needed to reach unacceptable levels of benzo(a)pyrene. One million smoking cigarettes would be needed to produce unacceptable levels of toluene. To reach these estimated danger levels, the cigarettes must be smoked simultaneously and completely in a sealed 20-square-foot room with a nine-foot ceiling. Many other chemicals in tobacco smoke can also be found in normal diets. Smoking 3,000 packages of cigarettes would supply the same amount of arsenic as a nutritious 200 gram serving of sole. Half a bottle of now healthy wine can supply 32 times the amount of lead as one pack of cigarettes. The same amount of cadmium obtained from smoking eight packs of cigarettes can be enjoyed in half a pound of crab." [3] So here we can see that smoking isn't as dangerous as expected and if you want to ban smoking then you need to go after these more dangerous things that are found in our everyday diet first. Contention 3: Smoking Alternatives My opponent claims that I am off topic, but fails to see that many of these things are smoking tobacco. So if we have to dismiss this argument then we have to dismiss my opponent's alternative argument in Contention 1. I extend all of this argument across the board. Sources 1. Calculated by ERS using data from 1997 Census of Agriculture 2. (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...) 3. (http://www.freerepublic.com...)