Tobacco should be banned

Thanks for your response. It is important for the voters to note that the entirety of my opponent's argument rests on the argument that second-hand smoke is bad for non-smokers, and it is for this reason that tobacco should be banned. In this round, I will address this argument and thoroughly refute it.There is no evidence that links second-hand smoke with adverse health effects.To date, there is no significant scientific evidence that actually links second-hand smoke with adverse health effects. While smoking tobacco has been around for hundreds of years, the question of whether smoking had adverse health effects has only been around for a hundred years, and the question of whether second-hand smoke has adverse health effects for non-smokers has only been around since the early 70s. The first major study on the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke was published by the EPA in 1993, which concluded that second-hand smoke has a causal link to lung cancer in non-smokers[1]. In fact, this is one of the only studies ever done on this subject, and it is because of this particular study that non-smoking laws have been on the rise since the mid 90s. It is also worth considering that almost every single health and science organization that discusses the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke, such as the Surgeon General, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Hearth Association, all cite this specific study as their primary source [2].So if almost every health and science organization in the world cites this study, then the facts this study presents must be true, right?Wrong.This study done by the EPA was actually overturned by a federal judge in North Carolina [3]. The judge ruled that the EPA's findings in this study were based on limited evidence and the study "adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency's public conclusion". In fact, the EPA published the conclusion for this study before it was even over [4].Dominick Armentano, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, analyzed the study and concluded that: "The EPA simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions." [5]I don't know about you, but to me, this sounds pretty terrible. The EPA put its own interests before any sort of scientific integrity and flat out lied to the public. And because of this display of complete dishonesty, hundreds of anti-smoking laws were put into place to account for the non-existent danger of second-hand smoke.At this point you may be thinking, "The EPA study couldn't have been the only significant study done on second-hand smoke". And you would be right. The World Health Organization also published a study in a 1998 press release entitled "PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU". However, upon actually reading the attached report, anyone could read the conclusion which clearly stated: "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure." [6][7]To summarize, there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence that can causally link second-hand smoke to adverse health effects, such as lung cancer. I'm not proclaiming that there are no adverse side effects to second-hand smoke, but there is no evidence of it. And because there is no evidence to suggest that any of Pro's claims are true, then no law should be made banning tobacco based on these claims.To conclude my argument, I will answer Pro's question. No, I do not smoke. I hate the smell of smoke and I am pretty disgusted when walking into bars or restaurants that allow it. But just because I don't like a certain activity, it does not give me the right to ban it for everyone else as well. My personal comfort is much less important than the freedom of others. Ultimately, smoking is an activity that individuals are free to participate in if they so desire. And yes, there is plenty of scientific evidence that demonstrates that smoking is pretty bad on your body, and will drastically shorten your lifespan. But this country is based on the principle that you are free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't impact the well-being of others. And because there is no evidence that second-hand smoke is actually bad for non-smokers, it would be completely ridiculous and unconstitutional to put a law in place that bans smoking.Citations:1. http://oaspub.epa.gov... 2. http://www.dailymotion.com... 3. http://money.cnn.com... 4. http://www.davehitt.com... 5. http://www.cato.org... 6. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org... (full report)7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (abstract of report with the conclusion)