Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA

In what follows now, I will refute Pro's arguments and show why they are fallacious. Smoking and HealthPro said that smoking can give over 25 health problems to the smoker. In short, smoking is dangerous and harmful for you. However, although it is true that smoking is dangerous and harmful, it is also true that there are many more other things which are dangerous and harmful, like for example rock climbing, rag racing, motorcycles, surfing, eating a lot of fatty foods, and skate boarding. What would be more reasonable: Completely banning all these things, or just give out the information that these things can harm you and then let people decide for themselves how they want to make use of their freedom of choice? You decide. The fact of the matter is that thousands of things are dangerous and harmful for you, but this doesn't justify the government to take away our personal freedom of choice. The government should only protect us from harm which its purpose is to feel pain - not harm which makes you feel good and happy, and which its bad effects will only come to you many decades latter. To ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too. Moreover, we should allow people to make their own decisions, even decisions that may be harmful to them, because the US value personal freedom. Of course, smokers should not be allowed to smoke in public places where it may be non-smokers, but they should surely have the right to, for example, smoke at their own home if they choose to do so. Smoking and BeautyPro said that smoking costs the smoker's beauty. However, so does coffee. [2] If we are to follow Pro's logic, then coffee should be banned. In fact, numerous things should be banned, because there are numerous other things that can cost your beauty. Moreover, I don't see how we are justified in completely banning something just because it may cost your beauty. Of course, the government should give the information that this and that may cost your beauty, but not taking away people's freedom of choice. It's your beauty, and if you choose to harm your own beauty, then no one should forcibly stop you from doing that. Smoking and MoneyPro said that smoking costs the smoker's a lot of money. However, should something be completely banned just because it costs a lot of money? This is surely an unreasonable and absurd argument. Thousands of things costs a lot of money, but this doesn't mean that we should ban it. If the individual wants to use his own money on things that costs a lot, then that's his choice. Smoking and IQPro said that smoking can lower your IQ. However, if you read the site in which Pro referenced this claim to, you will read that "It is unclear whether smoking causes IQ levels to drop or whether less intelligent people are simply more inclined to smoke. " [3] So basically, the site in which Pro referenced his claim that smoking can lower your IQ, doesn't even know for sure if it is smoking itself which lowers IQ or whether less intelligent people are simply just more inclined to smoke. This claim by Pro is therefore extremely weak. Moreover, even if we assume that it is true that smoking can lower your IQ, this wouldn't in way mean that smoking should be banned. Numerous other things can lower your IQ as well, like for example alcohol and artificial food colorings. [4] Should we completely ban all these things too? Of course not. Smoking and FiresPro said that smoking can create fires. Again, although this is true, in no way does this mean that smoking should be banned. If we are going to ban smoking just because it can create fires, then thousands of other things which can create fires should be banned as well. The fact that something can create fires only means that we must be careful with these things, not completely banning them. Smoking and BabiesPro said that smoking can cause stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight to babies if their mothers smoke during pregnancy. This may be true, but this argument cannot show that smoking should be completely banned. If anything, it can only show that smoking should not be used by a women when she is pregnant. Also, remember that there exist men too. Men don't get pregnant and thus, this argument cannot apply to them. Thus, again, this argument fails to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US, something which means that nobody - be it a women or a man - can smoke. Smoking and ChildrenPro said that smoking can influence children to smoke. But so does, for example, eating a lot of fatty foods, parachuting, motorcycles, surfing etc. Just because something may influence children, that doesn't therefore mean that we should completely ban that thing. If anything, it only means that we should try to smoke less next to children. Moreover, even if a child is influenced to smoke, it would be very hard for that child to smoke since you must be at least 18-years old in order to legally purchase cigarettes in the US. Smoking and DeathPro said that smoking causes approximately 600,000 deaths of passive smoker. It is true that many people die from smoking, but I contend that this doesn't justify completely banning it. Why? Because if we are to ban something just because it may kill you, then numerous other things should be banned too. For example, there is about 6,000,000 auto accidents in the US every year. Does that mean that automobiles should be illegal? People who surfe always have a risk of dying by drowning. Should we therefore ban surfing and not allow people to surfe? Of course not. Although something can kill you, it should be up to the individual if he wants to buy this thing. We should not stop people from taking risks for themselves, and nor should we take away their personal freedom of choice. Smoking and EnvironmentPro said that to produce cigarettes, trees, energy, and water is wasted. But this doesn't mean that we should ban cigarettes. Of course, things are being used in order to produce cigarettes, but this is true in regards to pretty much everything else. For example, a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers - since a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers, should therefore papers be banned? Of course not. Pro also said that smoking causes air, land, and water pollution. Although this is true, there are also several other things that cause air, land, and water pollution. For example, cars and trucks put a lot emissions of gases into the air. All animals release gases, like methane, which also pollutes the air. If we are to follow Pro's logic, then all animals, cars, trucks, and many other things should be banned because they harm the environment. The fact of the matter is that there is numerous things which are bad for our environment, but this doesn't justify banning it. Moreover, even if we ban smoking, this would help the environment in a very low level. Why? Because millions of people would still smoke. Indeed, smoking is so common now that there is hardly any chance that banning it would stop people from smoking, just like banning some kind of drugs haven't stopped millions of people from still using these drugs. In fact, banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, just like it did when certain drugs were banned - and not to mention the prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s. [5]The resolution is negated. _______Sources[1] . http://www.forces.org... Though the risks of smoking are highly publicized, the medical benefits of smoking are rarely mentioned. [2] . http://www.realbeauty.com...[3] . http://doctor.ndtv.com...[4] . http://www.increasebrainpower.com...[5] . http://idebate.org...