Smoking Should be Banned

My Opponent asked where I drew the conclusion that a smoker gets priority of a non-smoker in the street. Well that is simple neither the smoker nor the non smoker are breaking the law. Therefore if someone is smoking next to someone else it is up to the latter to remove himself from that situation if he does not approve. And in response to my opponent's example of comparing a man wielding a knife to a man smoking, well that is ludacris on many levels. And I believe that demonizing smokers to be "knife wielding lunatic " is unnecessary knowing said smoker did not break any laws to begin with. Defense1... my opponent stated "cigarettes themselves are not drugs, but instead are filled with drugs. Without these drugs you would not have a cigarette as there would be nothing to smoke." However if one were to remove all fillers there still would be tobacco to smoke. Which is a natural substance found all over the world. Further more I would like to thank my opponent for correcting his statement about jobs. However I would like to answer the question "would it not be commendable for a government to stop this industry and therefore free these people to pursue a more benevolent career and benefit themselves and their society in a manner which doesn't lead to the deaths of thousands of people" First I do not think I agree with your definition of free. regardless of the governments best intentions it would not at all be "free" to force these people to do something different. And further more they are in a occupation that benefits themselves or they would not be doing it. As for society Perhaps they are helping more then they are hurting by keeping the jobs that they have the right to keep. If they were forced out of their jobs then why not force out butchers for contributing to unhealthy diets? Defense 2. I am aware that poverty, starvation, homelessness are not new issues. As I have mentioned before by banning smoking it could cause economies around the world to crumble. Your example of children working for their family's in poverty stricken country's is perfect for proving my point while you see this as a bad thing, which it is. undoubtedly, but if you ban smoking your hurting that child more then if you didn't. By banning smoking your taking away that family's only job. now you have taken away their only source of income. What is to happen to them after they no longer can even afford one meal? as for the prohibition argument you claim that it would not happen because smokers are law abiding citizens and 70% of smokers want to quit anyway. You also state that comparing this to 1920's era was irrelevant because drinking was a lifestyle back then. Well first some smokers are law abiding citizens and some aren't. That statement alone proves that it could happen. But lets focus more on the 70% of smokers that want to quit. What about the other 30% they must represent some millions of people around the world, and they, the ones who do not desire to quit wouldn't take it upon themselves to profit from the banning? and as for the 70% that do wish to quit, how many of them would honestly pass up a pack of smokes if they had a chance to get some. Mind you even when they want to quit they choose not too. Defense 3. I will take this opportunity to show that yes my opponent did in fact contradict himself. In one statement it was claimed "tobacco companies have devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that this compound is properly diffused into your body" and in turn he also claims " it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans." while your first statement is suggesting that nicotine is diffused through a humans body because of the toilet bowl cleaner the tobacco companies are putting in it. Which would lead me to believe that your next statement that it doesn't matter if humans add their own chemicals because they bad stuff is already there. So if there weren't any toilet cleaner in said cigarette then by your own statement alone it would have a different chemical reaction then if the cleaner was there. Thus making it very important what humans add, and as I stated before calls for more regulations and a closer watch on the industry, however does not deserve an outright ban. Defense 4. My opponent claims that the 3 year old boy cant just get up and walk out and thus has to be exposed to second hand smoke. I agree with that statement. However I would like to argue two facts. 1. what about the hard working mothers that want their cigarettes and do not smoke in the house? should they be punished because some do? 2. Generations of people have grown up with smoke, and lived to tell about it. It should be noted that not all children die because of their parents habits. my opponent goes on to say "It is then claimed that heart disease is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. In fact, hypertension is whilst an offshoot of heart disease" Ok studies also show that a bad diet is directly involved as well. So lets go out and ban red meat, sugar, pop, candy ect.. the point I am making is that while it contributes the smoker has a choice if they want to smoke or not. and as for the stress reliving part perhaps my opponent should read a little further down in his own reference site. which could be found at http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... on that very same site it states and I quote "Depending on the circumstances and the amount consumed, nicotine can act as either a stimulant or tranquilizer. This can explain why some people report that smoking gives them energy and stimulates their mental activity, while others note that smoking relieves anxiety and relaxes them" Defense 5: My argument was solely based on an economical level. What people do with their own money is their own business and debating that it is wrong to spend any amount of personal money on smoking, is off topic, While I understand your OPINION that one shouldn't spend money on smoking. it is in their right to do so, and not what we are debating.