The United States Should Issue a Nationwide Ban on Smoking (Either in Public or in Private)

I will defend my arguments and then attack my opponents. 1: cost: I would first like to say that my opponent ignores the annual 25 billion due to other tobacco deals. I also fail to see how it would have medical costs. The smokers would have to pay the hospital or they would be paying insurance. The unable to work costs are real but they still do not outweigh the taxes and money we would lose from banning tobacco. The morals my opponent brings up are irrelevant because we are not forcing them to do this. 2: The fact of the matter remains that people do dislike this. We really should not force all these people to stop smoking that have been doing so all their life. My opponent now goes on to talk about a bunch of statistics. I argue that in my next point."it is not unreasonable to assume that by including people who are younger than 18, who represent a non-significant proportion of smokers, the percentage of supporters would be higher." This should be common sense that people that do not smoke care less about the bill. To alienate more than 1/5 of the people entirely is still horrible. This is even ignorinng the people who are against it that do not smoke. horrible.http://www.gallup.com... 3: My opponent in attacking my second topic says"In the United Sates, approximately 3,800 young people under 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become daily cigarette smokers. In fact, more than 80% of adult smokers begin smoking before 18 years of age". This is already against the law and people do not care and they are still breaking the law. Why would they ad hear to this law when they are already breaking laws now. The resolution states that we are enacting a ban not just trying to gt the results of it. My opponent talks about industry and he ignores absolutely all of the people that would lose jobs because of this ban. My opponent talks about tax credits and this would just cost us even more money which makes my first contention even stronger. ban:Bans are formed for the prohibition of activities within a certain political territory It will be completely prohibited. My opponent is incorrect in the fact that he thinks that the ban does not have to go underground. The business would go underground and it would end up just like heroin today. I will now attack my opponents arguments. 1: "then yes it is shown to suppress appetite and eat away at your muscle" (http://wiki.answers.com...) This is one of the largest reasons why cocaine is illegal. When you become addicted this is what happens. Smoking in the terms of this debate does not do this. 2:My opponent gives another very large difference between cocaine and cigarette smoking. He talks about the need for cocaine every 5 to 10 minutes where smoking cigarettes is just not this way. They have a different main drug from nicotine to cocaine is huge. They are really not even comparable because of the very large differences. The working difference is different because of the fact that the cocaine can cause damage to muscles unlike nicotine. This is shown by my earlier link. 3: I have already proved the difference in tobacco and cocaine so I will just address cigarettes. My opponent talks about how the reaction goes and the only real problem is that it makes you want to have to much. This can be solved by many things including self control and if need be there are many medicines that help make slowing down easier. The buildup of dopamine helps add pleasure. This is not a problem. I have proved that Cigarettes are very different than cocaine and I have shown the cost to be on my side. I have shown how it hurts the American people and how this bill would not solve anything in the first place.