The Smoking ban.

As the rules in round one say, I'll only make arguments this round and wait until the next to make my rebuttals to pro's case. Before I begin I'd like to establish what a smoking ban would entail so that everyone is on the same page. The definition of ban is as follows: "To prohibit, especially by legal means". [1] So a ban on smoking would essentially be a law that makes smoking completely illegal. Contention 1: With all details considered, smoking is not harmful to society Smoking actually provides many benefits to society, which outweigh any drawbacks they cause. Cigarettes are heavily taxed, which essentially makes up for any harm caused by them. [2] Banning smoking would actually *harm* society, as it would mean that the government no longer collects taxes from smokers, resulting in a huge loss of money that could have been put towards roads, schools, and many other useful things. It also would mean the firing of everyone who works at the companies that produce cigarettes, (Over 800,000 people) heavily hitting the economy in a negative way. [3] In addition, a ban on smoking wouldn't be enough to stop smoking. Many popular drugs that have been banned in the past are still commonly sold on the black market. the government forfeits any right to regulate these when they put a ban on smoking, resulting in even more health risks as people no longer have to follow laws on what you can put into cigarettes is they're already selling them illegally. Contention 2: Smoking is a right, that should not be taken away Smoking bans violate the rights of smokers. As shown above, smoking is not very harmful to society and in fact helps society. A ban on smoking would take away from one's fundamental right to regulate what they put into their own body. Smoking bans also fail to respect the private pretty rights of individuals. Many businesses (Mainly restaurants) actually want their establishment to be a place where smokers can be free to smoke, and the business themselves should be able to decide whether or not it's allowed. In addition, the customers of said restaurants can choose if they want to experience a smoke free experience or not by either going or not going to said business. Contention 3: The health risk of forcing all smokers to go "Cold turkey" on smoking While it may seem surprising to many, recent studies have found that forcing smokers to stop smoking by going "cold turkey" is actually worse for their health than it would be to allow them to continue to smoke. Health.com notes in an article highlighting the effects of going "cold turkey" that: "[The smoker's] bodies experience withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, insomnia, and depression, which can last up to three months".[4] Although this has already been proven through various studies , it has also been confirmed by the smokers themselves. Evan Rabinowitz (Who, like many smokers, has tried and failed at going "cold turkey" multiple times) has stated that "The withdrawal symptoms were unbearable", and that he "became incredibly agitated and irritable every time [he] tried to quit". [4] The article also states that "But only about 3% to 10% [Of smokers who attempt to go cold turkey] are actually able to kick the habit...",[4] further proving the difficulty of quitting by going cold turkey. As mentioned earlier, a smoking ban would essentially force all smokers to go through this incredibly tough process, forcing them to either continue smoking (And face risk of getting caught and sent to jail) or undergo extreme drawbacks to both their mental and physical health. Obviously, it's unreasonable to force smokers to go through such a rigorous process, and is even less reasonable to punish those that are unable to do so. The smoking ban would be unfair to those who are addicted, and would lead in unnecessary health hazards, arrests, and even suicides for those who are unable to handle the side effects of going cold turkey. In conclusion, I have shown why smoking is actually beneficial to our economy, society, and health overall, and have revealed the major drawbacks of having it banned. As mentioned in my first few sentences of this round, I can't make rebuttals to Pro's case until round three; so I end my round here. Thank you for reading, and good luck to you Pro! Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://policybot.enginez.com... [3] http://healthliteracy.worlded.org... [4] http://www.health.com...