Tobacco smoking should be banned to a necessary extent

In this response, I will point out my opponent's error in judgement and understanding of my position. =>Con is mistaken, my proposals not simply about "protecting the weak and innocent". I'm not sure I ever mentioned "weak", although children and infants are defenseless. The entire point of my proposal is for the government to protect the right of it's citizens to choose a healthier life, and to protect their right to life itself. " The government is entitled to protecting the right's of citizens, which is why I have put forward the idea for a moderate ban. Through this, I will show how we can phase out tobacco users, protect the innocent and protect everyone's rights. =>Again, when put this way, things are skewed. This is not a matter of purity vs. liberty. It is a case of rights to health & life of the majority AND the defenseless vs. minor property and personal rights of the minority. Even more simply put, it is vital liberty rights of the majority and defenseless vs. minor liberty rights of the minority. We are not just balancing minority and majority but the weight of these specific small liberties must also be balanced. Which is the greater affront to one's liberty, the theft of one's health, or the loss of a cigarette? If we are honest with ourselves, it is the former. " How is balance skewed? Regardless of the "weight", one's rights are extremely important, and it is the government's job to protect them. 20.6% of adult Americans smoke cigarettes, and 19.5% of High School students smoke cigarettes [1]. Although this is the minority, they still deserve to have their rights represented, and with respect. Would you be willing to look an adult or teenager in the face and say, "Look, you're smoking so your rights, in this case, are less than mine. I'm the victim. " =>"My opponent is true that perspective is important. However, the viewpoint she has presented makes second-hand smoking seem harmless because it only presents deaths, and only ones attributed to second-hand smoke (not third-hand smoke). Furthermore, let's compare smoking to something a little more similar. If my opponent's argument were to be applied to, say, domestic violence, which caused only 31,000 deaths in twenty years, then domestic violence should be fine in private households. [1] That second-hand smoke causes less death than other problems is irrelevant. It's an injustice either way. " "However, the viewpoint she has presented makes second-hand smoking seem harmless because it only presents death. ." is an absurd statement. First of all, how can something be harmless when it causes deaths? And if smoking only causes deaths, which it invariably does, how is that not enough cause to change something? Even without listing other deformities and diseases secondhand smoke causes, it is still presented as dangerous within my post and to say otherwise is a lie. What I had done was to show that there are other causes of deaths that could easily be banned, but have not been. Also, comparing secondhand smoke to domestic violence is, once again, unfair. You seem to forget the importance of intent. If I were purposely blowing smoke in the face of my spouse or child, this is abuse and could be persecuted. If I am smoking within my house while watching TV and my kid walks through, I am not trying to kill my offspring. I am smoking. .. for the purpose of smoking. There's no intent to hurt, so why treat it like I'm committing a heinous crime? =>"My opponent's comparison makes little sense. Smoking a cigarette is similar to eating fast food, true, but eating fast food does not harm anyone but the person eating it. Why would we abolish fast food for causing health problems when, and this is the key part, it doesn't cause any health problems against anyone's will? ." Eating fast food actually can hurt others and here's how. I'm hungry and decide to take my family out to McDonald's. Now I'm contributing to my child's chance of obesity while also showing unhealthy eating habits. Parents are currently being prosecuted for life threatening negligent behavior, so my comparison still stands [2]. In regards to the automobile industry comparison, no objection was made so I assume it still stands. =>"I repeat: small freedoms must be compromised for greater, more vital freedoms. To do the *opposite* would be to disrespect our values of freedom. And that is what my opponent proposes: to value the privileges of the few over the freedoms of the many. " I believe that Thomas Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could, "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. " It's not that I value the majority any less, I just happen to disagree that because there are more people on your side, that you are automatically correct. Your rights shouldn't "weigh" any more or less than a smoker. =>"I do not propose we storm into anyone's house. In fact, imagine this acceptable scenario: in addition to preventing new smokers, the government either encourages or requires smoking to occur in "smoke clubs", so long as they are not parents or children's workers. " Is that not what I proposed with "Smoking areas" that are furnished by the government? =>"My opponent proposes an education campaign. While this could be a great idea, I ask her to make a convincing case that an education campaign on third-hand smoke would be effective, especially on addicts. " What is the scariest thought for a mother? That her child can be hurt by her. And if businesses were to hear that third-hand smoke harms people, which will open them to lawsuits by angry costumers, than they are sure to impose new restrictions as well. 68.6% of businesses already have smoke-free policies [1], and I intend to add onto that by spreading the knowledge and scaring the other 31.4%. =>"When stabbing someone on private property, not only does that violate a federal law. .. " This is arguing that something should not ever be illegal because it is not currently illegal. " I am not! Otherwise I wouldn't be arguing for a ban at all! I'm merely showing that your comparison is unfair since you are comparing an illegal action to a (currently) legal one. Have I ever said that smoking should be completely legal? No, because I'm trying to restrict it as well! =>"Does a police officer, seeing a stabbing about to occur, check to make sure the stabber doesn't mean to hurt anyone before he stops it? And if the stabber's intents aren't malicious, should he allow it to occur? " Once again, you are purposely saying absurd statements to discredit my stance. By protocol, the police officer should arrest him and take him to the local precinct. He is not responsible for finding intent, only the detectives and lawyers are, so your scenario will not happen and is negated. Conclusion: My opponent has disregarded my position in favor of discrediting me with unfair accusations and comparisons. Also, no rights should ever outweigh another simply because they are the majority's. I believe that would fall under the phrase, "The Tyranny of the Majority". Also, because I stated it hurts only babies and infants does not make it any less of a concern. In your earlier post, you had implied that anyone could be hurt by third-hand smoke, and I simply discredited that notion. We must stop smoking through constant education and more restrictions and continued tax on packs of cigarettes. We have to limit second-hand smoke with designated smoking areas. And we should limit third-hand smoke through education and worker restrictions. Sources: . http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... . http://www.usatoday.com...