Smoking should be banned

1. Personal right Con ignores my arguments on second hand smoke and the fact that marijuana is less harmful than smoking. My arguments still stand."If we pass laws forcing smokers to change their behavior "for their own good, we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day?"The problem is these only affect the people who do the actions, not others around them. Plus, as argued in round 1, the ones that do affect others in the above list are necessary risks. “Banning smoking may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as he pleases. In addition, basing this prohibition on health reasons may be hypocritical when other substances that may pose similar or greater threats to health, such as alcohol and fattening foods, are allowed. “ This ignores my first argument which showed that marijuana is less harmful than smoking, which by con's logic means that smoking should be banned since marijuana is banned. Plus, in an utilitarian society, personal rights can be reduced to benefit society as a whole. For example, hate speech can be banned but is not a violation of freedom of speech. 2. Second hand smoke Con uses an argument from authority by quoting a single expert and using it to "debunk" established, peer reviewed reports. Con ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of studies support a casual link between second hand smoke and childhood asthma, stroke, and lung cancer. Con uses a single example instead of looking at the overwhelming majority of studies. (http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org...)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)(http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...) The above are meta-studies which aggregate results of many studies. 3. Buisiness Con ignores my previous argument, which proved that smoking bans do not affect businesses. Con restates his case instead of providing new evidence. My original argument from last round: Con claims that establishments such as bars and restaurants will get reduced profits if a smoking ban takes place. However, this is not the case: restaurant profits stayed the same, and pub profits dipped slightly but increased in the long run. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) This proves that economic issues do not result from smoking bans. 4. Taxation While the highest amount of tax per pack of cigarettes is $6.16 in the U.S., the estimated cost of a single pack of cigarettes on society caused by reduced productivity and deaths is $7. Many smaller cities have lower tax rates for cigarettes than $6.16. This shows that even with taxation, smoking is not worth it. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 5. E-cigs Con's argument goes like this: P1. If people can quit smoking, smoking should not be banned. P2. People quit smoking with E-cigs. C. Smoking should not be banned. This does not make sense, as even if people are able to quit smoking, smoking is still a risk. People can quit illegal drugs, but illegal drugs are banned. By con's logic, I can argue that: -People can quit drugs by slowly reducing the amount of drugs they take. -Gradual reduction requires the drugs to be continued to be taken during the quitting period. -Illegal drugs should be legalized because the treatment requires small amounts of them. Conclusion Con has not successfully refuted my arguments, and in one case restated a debunked argument without using sources or new evidence. I believe that I have met my burden of proof.