We should end Smoking

Thanks, Pro. Pro first notes that drunk driving is responsible for 30% of California's driving accidents, and drunk driving is already illegal. A few things: First, Pro provides no source for this statistic. Second, we have no reason to accept statistics from California alone randomly (?). Third, this has little relevance to my actual point. In the last round I made the argument that just because a lot of people die from car accidents doesn't mean cars should be illegal. Similarly just because people die from smoking related effects doesn't mean smoking should be illegal. Perhaps I should give a few more analogies. For example, a lot of people are allergic to peanuts, don't know it and die upon ingestion. Should peanuts be illegal? A lot of people are obese. Should we criminalize junk food? Some people get violent when listening to certain music. Should we not allow particular types of music to be played? Quite obviously I advocate personal responsibility; I'm waiting for Pro to respond to that direct argument. Next, Pro contends that thin and healthy people live longer than fat and unhealthy people (quite obviously) and thus smoking should be illegal since it's unhealthy. However Pro's own source completely NEGATES his point! The article he cites points out that since smokers die about 10 years earlier than non-smokers, their premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs. Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings, and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net SAVINGS of 32 cents [1]! This means that people smoking is GOOD for the economy. Again Pro's very own source just completely destroyed his own contention. In fact Pro himself argued in my favor. He pointed out that costs for smokers were about $326,000 compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people. In other words, costs for healthy people were MORE. Furthermore, the fact that cigarettes can be as expensive as up to $13 a pack [2] for a product that costs pennies to make proves that smokers are being taxed incredibly high as a 'punishment' for smoking. The fact that they are taxed for making what some deem a bad personal decision is abhorrent in the first place; however, considering the tax is so high it would - as the article suggests - actually be ripping off most of the smokers. I'd also like to bring up a new argument: Pro never mentioned what exactly he wanted to be illegal to smoke. For instance, smoking crack is probably more dangerous than smoking pot. I'll assume he's referring to smoking ALL substances then, in which case I'd point out that people could easily eliminate the harms and dangers of smoking by smoking with a vaporizer. By vaporizing, you don't consume the the chemicals that smokers inhale - toluene, benzene, carbon monoxide, etc. Because it doesn't involve combustion, it doesn't produce the unwanted combustion by-products that smoking does. Thus, cancer-causing agents are eliminated and smoking is much healthier. Vapor is also much cooler than smoke, and therefore less damaging to throat and lung tissue [3]. If the risks associated with smoking can be greatly reduced, and smokers also contribute positively to the economy, then why should we end smoking? That coupled with individual rights and freedoms ought to negate the resolution sufficiently. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://globalgrind.com... [3] http://www.articlesbase.com...