Smoking Should be Banned

I would like to start by clarifying my usage of the word choice. It is a smokers choice weather to smoke or not, weather it be in public or private. As for the person walking behind me who innocently has to breath in the smoke well he also has a choice. There is no reason he cant move or stop and let said smoker get more in front of him so he can have clean air. It seems inappropriate to tell someone they cant smoke because it harms someone else when someone else can easily make the choice to remove them selves from the situation if they see it as a threat to their body. rebuttal 1... While I agree with the opposition that there is a vast amount of money spent dealing with the negative consequences of smoking, banning cigarettes would still in fact ruin economies. Maybe larger ones might be able to survive the economic stress this would cause, but weaker economies around the world would have a much greater chance at crumbling. Also on the top of jobs my opponent stated and I quote: "On the topic of jobs, would it not be commendable for a government to stop people from making death dealing drugs and instead move them into a job or career where they could actually benefit their nation and contribute to the strain placed upon their hospitals." First off cigarettes are not classified as a drug. Second off and in my opinion more importantly, I do not believe it is the government's place to "move" any person into a job/career that the had no intention on taking up in the first place. I am aware that my opponent is not from America but that is a core fundamental of America. It is no place for the government to "move" anyone into doing anything they do not desire to do. rebuttal 2... my opponent stated "The economic aspect is dealt with in Rebuttal 1 but I would like to make the point as to whether money is more important than 6 million human lives a year." I would like to first state that money is not more important then human life, however if the economy were to collapse due to banning smoking. then we would face new issues. such as poverty, starvation, and homelessness just to name a few this would cause a much greater strain on our hospital's then smoking. Also by banning cigarettes your creating a black market effect on them as was the case during Prohibition. Which in turn would cause a great strain on are law enforcement industries as well as our courthouses. So in turn if you were to take the 6 million deaths a year and compare this to the amounts of death that could happen to everyone, not just those who choose to smoke. I have to ask is it worth taking a chance and possibly endangering hundreds of millions of lives? rebuttal 3... My opponent states "Tobacco contains a compound called nicotine. This compound is what causes the addiction and tobacco companies have devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that this compound is properly diffused into your body" Sounds pretty nasty right? However after stating this my opponent then goes on to contradict himself by stating " it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans..." However by the oppositions own admission states tobacco companies devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that the compound called nicotine is properly diffused into your body. So yes it does matter if humans add their own chemicals. perhaps there should be tighter regulations and more of a watchful eye on these companies, however calling for a ban on cigarettes in general is not the answer, and as I stated in rebuttal 2, could just lead to more problems. rebuttal 4... my opponent states "I'm not sure if my opponent didn't read the statistic that 600,000 non smokers die from smoke each year or just doesn't care but there is no light side to something that is the leading cause of preventable death in the world" First of I would like to stress that I absolutely do care that many people die each year due to second hand smoke. however as I previously had pointed out, it is within their control to rid themselves of that exposer if they deem it to be dangerous to their body's. Further more I would like to point out that smoking is not the leading cause of preventable death in the world, that in fact would be heart disease. and before anyone jumps on that statement saying that it is not preventable I would like to point out that a majority of people that die of heart disease each year are statistically overweight and not in great health. which is absolutely preventable by eating well and exercising. Furthermore I do not think it is up to the opposition to suggest alternative methods for stress reliving. I brought this point up because smoking is a legal way one can achieve this. My opponent also states that " that the total cost a year on killing yourself would be ï¿½5110. I leave it to you to think of what else could be done with that money" which in turn I would like to state as I have before already. that It is not up to the government or any other person on how anyone decides to spend their money. This debate is not about how much money one spends on smoking each year, or as my opponent stated how much it would cost to "kill yourself." Very few people know how they are going to die. someone can smoke for 90 years and get hit by a bus. Smoking did not kill them. so that argument is invalid, and would like to ask my opponent to stick to the debate at hand. re-cap of points made in my rebuttal's... 1. smoking does not always kill a smoker, nor does it always kill a second hand smoker 2. It is not the government's job to make choices for us the people. 3. there should be tighter regulations and a more watchful eye on the tobacco industry.