Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places.

Rebuttals of the Rebuttals:Your Source may have given "WHO" gave the statistic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is right, nor does it explain why other sources give other statistics. You have failed to give an adequate reason as to why your source was factually sound other than "It came from a trustworthy person".You have not won this point. Though useless to the subject, the Government does pay some of our Health insurances in the U.S.A. (Obamacare). As for prohibition, the comparison is even enough. It cannot be debated that if you ban an everyday house-hold item that hundreds of thousands of people use, you are bound to have both Rioting, and Legal troubles. this can without question be compared to prohibition, and though they are not completely similar, they both have roughly the same attempt: to lessen the use of harmful products that lots if not most people use.Only a weakling would claim that the slightest smell or breath of Tobacco is poison. You are not breathing poison while walking around the streets, nor does is permanently effect you if you don't do it on a constant basis. You had previously suggested that by walking in the streets by a smoker, you would get cancer. "Just smoke at home, and not in public where people don't want to inhale cancer."- Pro cedes to my point that my previous arguments were not straw-man. Pro clearly wants smokers to smoke at home, which extremely hazardous to guests, and Family. Pros Idea will kill more than it saved. a whiff of smoke outside is harmless, but inside, it can build up and cause Thousands of dollars in Damage, and it can permanently injure anyone inside the home.On to the definition of Manslaughter. Smokers do not smoke with the intent of killing other people, and therefore is not manslaughter. Not every piece of town has smoke in it, and very rarely are you forced to be in a certain narea at a certain time that has a substantial amount of smoke to give you cancer, or any other lasting disease.Moving on to the payments of the U.S. Government. Pro has clearly shown the amount paid by the U.S. Government to pay for it's citizens health, but has failed to prove that it is Morally correct, nor constitutional to take away cigarrettes. Pro's view is not possible logistically, is not accepted socially, and is not allowed constitutionally. Pro's idea will overstep the bounds of Government, cause mass lawsuits between the states and Government, and will also bring rise to protests and riots, as does every other arguable law (judging by how much protesting happens from taking a flag off of a building, I would expect Thousands of more to protest for something that is actually used today).Pro has failed to understand that the private industry is seperate from Government expenditures. By removing one brick from the private industry, you will cause many more to tumble down as well. The Tobacco industry is a very large brick at that, supporting the Farming Industry, Convienient stores, and over 2 Million jobs according to: "The Economic Impact of the Tobacco Industry on the U.S. Economy", Price Waterhouse.Next, you did not give any sources for how many people have died from Tobacco, nor can we know how many will die in the future. Judging by your statements, you do not appreciate history. Because of this you will fall into the same pitholes people did 100 years ago (especially in prohibition, which is undenyably similar and the same in many aspects). As someone who studies History, Law, and politics (As i am planning on becoming a historian), I can safely tell you that banning Tobacco will have many un-intended consequences.Small children eat everything. You cannot blame cigarettes exclusively for children eating them. This argument is irrelevent, as toddlers choke off of Hotdogs more than they do cigarettes.You do not constantly inhale toxic fumes in the city. City dwellers will tell you that many cities (excluding ghettos, tennaments, and slums) the area is relatively smoke-free. People have been living in cities for hundreds of years while people have smoked, but yet the life-expectancy for someone in the city is just as long as someone in the country.In Conclusion, We can conclude based on superior evidence (and not just "Smoking kills you" that 1) Banning smoking in all open public places violates rights of the owner of the public place, 2) will perminately damage the private industry, costing thousands if not millions of jobs, 3) Banning smoking "Worldwide" is not possible in the first place, as it requires the power of a tyrant or dictator and 4) History tells us that Pro is wrong. Prohibition cannot be ignored or downplayed, as it is a perfectly valid point.