Tobacco smoking should be banned to a necessary extent

I will be arguing against the extensive ban put forward by Yvette in favor of a moderate ban, which still protects the rights of all parties involved. To make our proposals easily discernible, I'll put forward mine as well instead of ripping apart hers. I propose that smoking needs to be regulated but in such a way that property rights don't become forfeit. Since second-hand smoke is indeed dangerous, new regulations will have to be put forward to protect the non-smokers but without treating the smokers with little thought or respect. Let's begin! _________________________________________________________________________________________________ The argument of protecting the weak and innocent is not only emotional, but also very desirable. However we must look at it from the standpoint of protecting what matters to us (like the innocent) and what we stand for (like personal liberties) in a careful balance. Surely, protecting the innocent looks more desirable at the moment but let's see if, at the end of my first argument, I can assure you we can do both. => "What should force the government's hand towards a ban? It has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens (and non-citizens). A government which claims the right to rule should not usurp citizens' rights to decide what to do with their own bodies, lives, health, etc, (in fact this would be the opposite of protecting rights) but it must balance the freedoms of one citizen against the other, erring on the side of caution, protecting the most important rights as much as possible." I completely agree. This is a major argument for having moderate bans on tobacco, since then there will be minimal infringements on citizen rights while still protecting the health of others. => 1. Do minors and involuntary parties come to significant harm due to second-hand and third-hand smoke? 2. Is the right of one person to smoke more important than the right of another to live? Would either be intolerable to deny? 3. Do private property rights overrule rights to life and health? Would either be intolerable to deny? 4. Does my solution balance these rights more fairly than my opponent's?" I believe this to be a solid place to begin. SIGNIFICANT HARM? => So we face two problems. Not only is smoking around others harmful to their health, even smoking away from them is! So while we could allow smokers to smoke inside their own home, if they so much as had contact with another person they will be harming that innocent person. The only way to prevent harm, then, is to stop smoking altogether (barring situations that will not be harmful). This, however, may not be necessary. If scientists can find a level of smoke which is an acceptable amount of harm, restrictions could be cut off at this level." Let's begin with second-hand smoke. In the U.S. about 50,000 people die every year from second-hand smoke. [1] This is regrettable and needs to be changed. But let's put it into perspective first. Annually, in the U.S., Heart disease kills 631,636 people. Cancer kills 599,888 people. Strokes kill 137,119 people. Accidents kill 121,599 people. Diabetes kills 72,449 people. Alzheimer's disease kills 72,432 people. Influenza/Pneumonia kills 72,432 people. [2] Interesting tid-bit of info: Smokers are less likely to develop sepsis which accounts for 9.3% of the deaths in the U.S. annually. [3] Now, these are truly staggering figures as well, but what's being done to stop them? We've instated new Health codes to help stop heart disease but we haven't gotten rid of fast food. We have put into place countless safety regulations and checked the safety of thousands buildings, cars and boats but we haven't gotten rid of the automobile industry. We've stopped allowing the windows on tall buildings to open, but of course we didn't get rid of the windows. Now, why did we regulate but not get rid of the rights? Because in America, we are built on the promise of personal rights. Our main objective is liberty, isn't it? What Yvette is proposing not only violates personal rights but also property rights. That cannot and should not happen. What we need is a moderate approach that can still help, while protecting our rights. I propose designated smoking areas. These will be enclosed areas that the city must build either into existing buildings or new ones, so that smoking out in the open is discouraged. This will reduce exposure to secondhand smoke while also helping reduce the amount of cigarette butts that are strewn about the streets. How about third-hand smoke? From the link that Yvette has provided, it theorizes that third-hand smoke is harmful for babies and toddlers but not for the rest of society. [4] But how can we assure safety from third-hand smoke while keeping rights intact? We cannot invade houses to check for smoke. In this case, we have to trust in the judgment of the mothers. It is the same for alcohol. Alcoholic beverages are allowed in houses, and there's no punishment for underage drinking while indoors, but we trust in the parents to not allow such activity. What we should do, is expose the truth about third-hand smoke and make sure that parents know that smoking clothes can harm their children. Through TV commercials, bus ads, billboard ads, or Radio announcements that the Health Commission should fund, we can help educate society, just like we do for second-hand smoke or the dangers of drinking. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ INTOLERABLE DENIAL? ">Would preventing private property from being exempt from no-smoking laws be so terrible? This would amount to, at best, inconvenience, at worst, a violation of the right to do with one's property as one wishes. But there are limits to property rights. The right to do with your property what you wish does not give you the right to stab anyone walking in or nearby, nor does it give you the right to pollute shared water or air, and finally it does not give you the right to apply say anthrax to yourself and then walk out into a public location. Living on property not belonging to you does not mean forfeiting your rights." A violation of any right should not be taken lightly. Yes, there are limits to property rights but my opponent's comparison is unfair. When stabbing someone on private property, not only does that violate a federal law, it is also malicious intent. No one smokes to kill the people around them. That is absurd. Also, everyone pollutes air since we currently still use fossil fuel so that point is moot. Yes, no one should pollute water but is that really enforced? And if you apply anthrax to yourself and walk out in public, that is once again malicious intent. Plus, anthrax would affect anybody except third-hand smoke affects babies and toddlers. Also, most buildings and places that require work or a constant stream of people will be public, and for their safety, it should be non-smoking. Also, no smoking within 25ft. of the door to protect them when they are walking in. Now, in places like apartments or condos, those who inquire for a living space should be informed if smoking is allowed in the building. If they choose to still rent, they do so at their own risk. Those who violate apartment/condo laws by smoking when it is not allowed should be dealt with immediately and with the necessary severity. I've already addressed private property so I will not go into that again. It is the government's job to protect the citizen's healths but also their rights. What I have proposed has done both, and can easily be enforced. Resolution negated. Sources: [1] http://www.inforesearchlab.com... [2] http://community.wegohealth.com... [3] http://www.matrixbookstore.biz... [4] http://www.sciencedaily.com......