Challenge

Definitions: [1] Ban: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done Refutations and arguments: Adressing your first point: You said: "It is the most deadly object in the world." This is incorrect, cigarettes are not even near the most deadly object in the world. The world's most deadly toxin is The botulinum toxin[2] [3], it's incredibly deadly, in fact injecting just 2 billionths of a gram, or inhaling 13 billionths of a gram, will kill an adult. In addition many drugs are deadlier, cigarettes aren't the most deadly simply because they cause the most deaths and they don't even belong in the top five of the most lethal drugs.[4] [5] [6] You said: "Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year and is the #1 cause of preventable death in the U.S." The keyword is preventable, meaning the person could have prevented their death by not smoking. People have free-will and the capability of making their own decisions and if that wasn't enough people are now informed of the risks printed directly on cigarette packages[7] and taught in schools. If someone wishes to smoke then they should be allowed to, the government shouldn't dictate your life and punish you for making decisions that cause self-harm, taking away this basic right from a citizen would be no different than banning alcohol because it caused self-harm which failed miserably when the U.S. attempted to ban it, in fact it lead to increased crime, here are some statistics from albany.edu[8]: - Police funding increased by $11.4 Million (This sounds low, but this is without factoring in inflation.) - Arrests for Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct increased by 41% - Arrests of Drunken Drivers increased by 81% - Thefts and Burglaries increased by 9% - Arrests for homocides, assaults, and battering increased by 13% - The fedal convict total increased by 561% - The federal prison population increased by 366% - Total penal institution expenses increased by 1,000% Prohibition was also expected to aid the economy but that theory proved false. [9] Adressing your second point: When people smoke in a private setting or in a designated smoking area (provided that these areas are located far enough away from doorways, windows and ventilation systems to prevent smoke from entering buildings and facilities.) it is completely safe and I believe limiting the area citizens are allowed to smoke is the best option available and would be a great compromise. [10] Addressing your third point: As shown in my refutation in your first point, citizens have free-will and therefore the ability to decide whether or not to smoke. One can fully understand the risks which are now printed on cigarette cartons[7] and taught in schools. Adressing your final point: You claimed that tobacco industries have corrupted science, this is a false claim. Some buisnesses have however made possibly cherrypicked information public in order to distract the public view, however these releases of possibly cherrypicked information are no longer important as studies have been compiled and have shown their are risks to smoking, As I have stated earlier risks and now printed on cigarette cartons[7] and taught in public schools. In conclusion the government should not ban cigarettes because of your claim that cigarettes kill people as the risks should instead be taught since humans have free-will, or because it harms those that don't smoke. The government should instead make laws and policies enforcing the use of designated smoking areas and make laws that work with non-smokers and smokers alike. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.wnd.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://elitedaily.com... [5] http://drbenkim.com... [6] http://www.allvoices.com... [7] https://www.tobaccofreekids.org... [8] http://www.albany.edu... [9] http://www.pbs.org... [10] http://www.tcu360.com...