Smoking Should be Banned

I would like to ask the question as to how my opponent comes to the conclusion that a smoker gets priority over a non smoker with regards to space on a street. Additionally, if someone was wielding a knife on the street then I would deem it appropriate that this person is told to move as they may cause harm to others. The same is in the case of smoking as this causes great harm to other people. Defence 1 -- I thank my opponent for clarifying the fact that 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. Secondly, I wish to expound upon what I said earlier with regards to jobs. It is not the right of a government to move somebody into a job that they do not wish to take. I agree with this principle, but what I was trying to say was that, instead of allowing people to make these death dealing products, 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. Defence 2 -- Poverty, starvation and homelessness are not new issues. Rather they are the most pertinent of issues that effect all countries around the world and the tobacco industry aggravates the conditions. As mentioned above, the banning of smoking would mean the children of poor families living in countries like Brazil, China and India, would not have to be forced to go and contract green tobacco sickness as they go an earn a living for their family. Furthermore, how ironic is it that whilst the issues of poverty and starvation are raised, more money is spent on cigarettes, cigars and pipes in the undeveloped world than on food. The Prohibition argument is now used to claim that the what happened during this era would be repeated if cigarettes were to be banned as well. Most smokers are law abiding citizens who if cigarettes were to be banned, would not resort to criminal activities. On the contrary, as mentioned in my argument in Round 2, 70% of smokers said that they want to quit. I truly believe this number to be higher and therefore as argued previously, any ban on smoking would aid these people to stop killing themselves. Moreover, the reason for the opposition which occurred during the 1920's was in part due to the fact that alcohol was part of the American culture and way of life. People go to bars and clubs to have a drink. Not to smoke. You never hear people saying lets go and smoke tonight. Never. But you do hear them saying lets go out and have a drink. The smoking only happens because they are addicted to it. In answer to the question "is it worth taking a chance and possibly endangering hundreds of millions of lives?", I will answer by responding that it is not a chance being taken, but rather a benign and humane move to save hundreds of millions of lives. Defence 3 -- My opponent has claimed that I have contradicted myself. Firstly, the extract quoted was being used to describe what was contained within cigarettes and the fact that the tobacco companies had added toilet bowl cleaner for greater effect. Apparently, I contradict myself by then saying that "it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans...". If instead of jumping with joy at an apparent contradiction, my opponent should have took the time to re read what I had wrote and understand that I was referring to the point I had made earlier that the, "two most problematic of chemicals are already there in tobacco." This means that whether or not humans add any other nasty chemicals, the two most destructive ones are already there naturally, therefore cigarettes are inherently death causing objects. Defence 4 -- My opponent claims that it is within the control of non smokers to determine whether or not they die from second hand smoke. What about the 8 month year old baby who has a mother that smokes. Or the 3 year old toddler? Can they just up sticks and move when their parents light up. Please rethink your logic, it would make any reasonably humane person sick. 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, it is an established fact that smoking directly contributes to the damage caused by heart disease. Moreover, it is well within my right to suggest alternative methods for stress reliving. I have not enforce it upon anybody have I? I haven't demanded that my methods be accepted. More to the point, I have already demonstrated how the myth about how smoking is a great stress reliever can be destroyed. Just take the time to read it. Defence 5 -- According to my opponent I have strayed from the topic of debate. All I did was supply some figures for consideration of the impact that smoking has on the financial matters of things. It is this side that my opponent seems to be concerned with most readily and therefore I would have assumed that they would have appreciated any $$$ signs from my side.