Tobacco should be banned

Thanks for responding. It is important at this point to acknowledge that Pro has completely dropped and disregarded his argument about second-hand smoke. It can thus be assumed that this argument is no longer a factor in this debate. The government has no right to restrict personal choice At this point in the debate, I'm having trouble understanding why Pro is still arguing in favor of a smoking ban. I have already proven that there is no real scientific evidence that links second-hand smoke with adverse health effects, which means that the only people who are negatively affected by smoking are the smokers themselves. Pro is trying to argue that because of tobacco's negative effects on tobacco users, the government should ban it completely. But what would happen if we took this logic and applied it to other things that aren't good for you? Let's explore everything that would be banned if we applied Pro's logic to everything else in the world: Food with an excess amount of sugar Food with an excess amount of sodium Food with an excess amount of fat Alcohol All prescription medicine with high-risk side effects High-stress jobs Unemployment (which leads to high levels of stress) At this point, you may be thinking "Hey, I like some of these things! Just because other people don't like them doesn't mean they should be banned completely!” I wholeheartedly agree. Everything I listed above are things with negative side effects. Sugar and salt may taste good and might make you feel better for a little bit, but using them too much will lead to obesity and other health problems. In the same way, smoking may feel good, but doing it too much will inevitably lead to other health problems, such as lung cancer. The fact of the matter is that people have the fundamental right to do what they want with their bodies, and it is this point that Pro has completely failed to address. If you want to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day and get lung cancer, you can. If you want to eat fast food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and die at age 40 of a heart attack, you can. If you want to get drunk every night and become a complete alcoholic, you can (as long as your alcoholism isn't hurting anyone else). You should be free to make these choices for yourself. The government has no right to step in and make these decisions for you. It's just a matter of simple freedoms, nothing more. Addressing Pro's argument Throughout this debate, Pro has abandoned most of his arguments, and his one and only defense has now boiled down to this statement: "Many things have been around for dozens, if not hundreds, of years, but are now illegal or discouraged to sell because of recent science". While this is true, let's take a look at the examples he has provided: Lead-based gasoline, lead crystal glass, and asbestos. The reason those three things are illegal is because they have unintended side effects for people who do not use them. You can't use lead-based gas in cars anymore because of its effects on the environment, which affects everyone, not just those driving cars. Lead crystal glass isn't even illegal in the United States, so I'm not sure what Pro's point is about that. You also can't use asbestos in buildings because of its unintended side effects and the fact that asbestos material affects everyone, not just the owners of the building. This is the main difference between Pro's examples and tobacco use. Like I have already demonstrated, tobacco use has zero negative health effects on those who choose not to use it. Sure, tobacco smoke may smell bad or irritate you, but besides that, there is nothing wrong with tobacco smoke. This is why tobacco does not fall into the same category as asbestos, because tobacco use only affects the user, not the bystander. _____________________________________________________________________________________ As far as the constitutionality of this issue, I am indeed aware that the Constitution does not literally say "Cigarettes cannot be banned". Did you honestly think that's what I meant? No, there is no literal text in the constitution that says anything about tobacco. But in this case, it isn't about your right to smoke tobacco in public places; it’s about your right to smoke it in private places. If you own a piece of private property, you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it. You could use this land to open up a store, build a house, or even erect a monument to Adolf Hitler if you really wanted to. That’s completely up to the property owner. This is called “economic ownership” of property. “The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property.”[1] What does this mean? Simply, the government should not be able to tell you how to use property that you own. Although this is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it’s a basic principle that the Founding Fathers had in mind when writing it.To summarizePro has not given a remotely adequate reason to permit the government to make these kinds of choices for us. Yes, smoking tobacco is bad for you, but so are a ton of other things that are perfectly legal to put inside your body. Until Pro is able to account for this discrepancy, this point of argument should be put into Con's favor.We can all agree that smoking tobacco is bad for the individual that chooses to do so. But as I have shown, there is no evidence that can demonstrate that smoking tobacco is also bad for the bystander. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion to arrive at is not to ban tobacco. It is a product that people should be free to use or not to use. The government has no place in making that decision for us.Citations:1. http://www.fee.org...;