Smoking ban is unacceptable

Pro states that: "Smoking is a choice that the individual make, and therefore it should be up to the individual person if he or she wants to smoke or not. "Which still fails to explain *why* smoking should not banned. Literally anything can be an individual choice, but that does not mean it should be a legal or fully accessible one. Technically, taking recreational drugs is an "individual choice", but again, that provides absolutely no valid reason as to why they should not be banned. "I earlier mentioned that it was a human right to smoke and failed to explain why. America is a land of freedom and liberty; we have the right to speak and to do what we want. Our society tells us that we need to pursue our own happiness but it does not tell us what kinds of happiness we are allowed to pursue and which we are not allowed to pursue." As with round one and two, this still isn't outlining how smoking is a "human right". For it to be that, it would have to be universally categorized as "rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons." [8.] Cigarette smoking is in fact no more of a human right than alcohol consumption or any other commodity that is not considered a neccessity. Pro claims that those living in America have the right to "speak and do what they want", which is quite evidently not the case. People cannot say anything they want [9.] nor can people do anything they want without expecting any repurcussions. An example would be if someone wanted to rob a business, in doing so, they are a breaking the law and thus face a penalty. "Therefore we need make those choices of what we think will make us happy ourselves and then try to get that. There are some who wants to owe a mansion and some who wants loads of children and then there is us who finds smoking a greatness in our life."Once again, smoking making people "happy" fails to provide an objective reason in support of Pros resolution. More importantly, Pro hasn't even proved that smoking does in fact in make people happy, and exclusively relies on personal opinion. The same also applies to showing how smoking is a "greatness" in ones life. It being a "greatness" to one person certainly doesn't mean it is to others, nor does show how it should be legal. "If we kept smoking legalized then people should think more and ask the question to themselves: do I or do I not want to smoke? This would make people use their brain more and make them stronger instead of just being afraid of everything that are dangerous."Again, does this clearly outline why smoking should be legal? The answer is naturally no. Just because people would be able to make the decision to smoke; it does not mean it should not be banned. As previously argued, people can make the choice to do anything but that doesn't exactly show why they should be able to do it. Likewise, this certainly doen't mean they're doing any brain work or are "stronger" for making that choice. =Conclusion=Pro has made a number of unproved statements and has failed to fulfil his BoP. All arguments made by myself have included reliable sources in support and each point of Pro has been fully negated, therefore, vote Con. [8.] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[9.] http://thefreethoughtproject.com...