Smoking Should be Banned

"'There are plenty of places in which smoking is not allowed for the sake of non-smokers.' So why not push it even further, and make smoking healthy for everyone? Quitting smoking reduces risk of lung cancer and all the other diseases it causes." How would the ban make smoking healthy? Both of us have already addressed that it is not. Just because quitting smoking is beneficial to human health, does not mean that a law against it will be. Banning cigarettes would simply make it illegal, not healthy or even non-existent. Pushing this further, again, could easily turn into many other controlling laws such as the banning of unhealthy foods and drinks which would have a plethora of negative effects on the economy and government control. Privately owned places in which smoking is not allowed have the prohibition in place because the owners chose to put it in place. Publicly owned places belong to smokers just as much as they belong to non-smokers. The point is that smokers have just as many rights as non-smokers; it is their personal decision and right to smoke. "'Statistics are null and void here because they simply do not matter.' What do you mean? So you're saying tons of people dying do not matter?! What if your father died from lung cancer from his addiction to smoking? Would that not matter?" First of all, that was so much of a pointless appeal that I do not even consider it a valid argument. Would my father then become a statistic, rather than a person? Either way, I did not intend to portray that the death of many people does not matter, but simply that the numbers do not have any impact on the logic. Hence why the sentence before the one you quoted says, "The number of people that participate in these activities does not change the fact that people have the right to continue taking the risk in doing so." For example, if one person died after drinking too much milk by choice, should milk be outlawed? What if it was ten people that fatally overdosed on milk? It was still their decision to drink too much milk and its prohibition would even be greatly unfair to those that drink smaller amounts of milk when they choose to do so. "'Anyone has the right to do something potentially harmful to himself if they wish to do so.' That's true, but the big problem is the addiction to smoking. Without someone to stop them, people smoke on and on. The ban serves as a reminder not to take the harmful product with merely good mental effects." You agreed that this intentional risk-taking is a personal right, therefore a person's addiction would be none of your business at all. You are implying that people do not have the ability to stop smoking on their own which is clearly false. A prohibition is not a reminder; informed campaigns to eliminate smoking are reminders. As made public by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, banning smoking would make an activity in which over 42 million people in the United States alone participate in, illegal. That is definitely more of a control act than a reminder. In addition, your sources only support my argument! Take your first source, http://www.cnn.com......, for example. This shows that we hate tobacco and put a restriction act on it. How does this support your argument in any way? The title reads, "FDA Changes Course on Graphic Warning Labels for Cigarettes." If you read the article, you would be aware that it is written in regards to the FDA trying to prevent cigarette sales in the past and quitting so that the industry can remain legal. If the warning label idea failed, obviously people do not want this type of control placed upon them so how on earth is a worldwide ban going to be passed? How does it not support my argument? Oh, and to take it further--we have already banned smoking in many states and areas, as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org....... If it works for now, there is no reason not to take it to a world-wide level and save everyone from high risk of getting cancer or some other disease. Correction: Smoking has been banned in select areas and places, not entire states or countries. For example, a contradictory quote as taken directly from your source: "No state bans smoking in all public outdoor areas." Also, something that works now may not work well in the future and may inflict long-term damage on the economy, the government, etc. Again, in the United States, freedom of choice is a highly valued aspect of the interaction between government and society. Where in the constitution does it say anything about the government being required to keep citizens healthy? "And, your http://debatewise.org...... only helps me. A few good points I will stress are 'Evidence suggests that in spite of possible practical difficulties of the smoking ban in pubs and bars, it has been a considerable success: if we are to believe Health dept. figures, 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the ban being brought in'; and the negative health effects and terrible chemicals a single cigarette has." Since it is another debate website, the source simply presents ideas and opinions from both sides without formally and necessarily helping either side. I chose this source because it is, for the most part, neutral in that it brings forth both sides of the argument. Whatever quote(s) you found from random people is unreliable and informal. "'... if smokers are careful to not expose others' which is why smoking should be banned. It is because it cannot really be enforced in private spaces that in those specific areas they can still be allowed. By 'banning worldwide' I really mean 'in the public', as police cannot station cameras in houses." Once again, if people are only allowed to smoke in their homes, this puts their families and visitors in danger. Smoke is also trapped in a building easier than it is outside, providing a more noxious environment than it would be if smoking were allowed outdoors. I genuinely wish that you would actually address and refute my arguments rather than simply twisting them to fit your claim. My argument stands.