Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, Pro's response couldn't have been more fallacious.Smoking and HealthRecall that I said that to ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too. In answering to this, Pro said "It is true that they have certain risks, but most of them don't cause danger to other, to your beauty, and to the environment. Smoking has all those things and more." This is really a bad response. Pro agrees that these things have certain risks, but claims that most of them don't cause danger to others, to your beauty, and to the environment. However, even if this is true, that still doesn't change the fact that these things are dangerous and harmful. Thus, again, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then all these things should be banned because they are dangerous and harmful.Pro also said that some illegal drugs are considered less dangerous than smoking, like for example cannabis and ecstasy. Pro claims that since those illegal drugs are considered less dangerous than smoking and are illegal, smoking should therefore also be illegal. This is a non-sequitor. Just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too. You cannot say that smoking should be completely banned just because there are other things which are considered less dangerous than smoking and are illegal. That's just bad common sense.Moreover, I contend that these illegal drugs shouldn't be illegal too, because (1) To ban something just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too, and (2) We should allow people to make their own decisions, even decisions that may be harmful to them, because the US value personal freedom of choice. These two points have not successfully been refuted by my opponent. In fact, Pro even agrees that we have freedom of choice, something which means that people should be allowed to choice for themselves as to what they want to use.Smoking and BeautyPro said that he didn't say that coffee should be banned just because it costs your beauty. This is true, but Pro did say that smoking costs your beauty. I then responded by saying that coffee can cost your beauty too. Thus, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then coffee should also be banned because it may cost your beauty. Pro didn't give any response to this.Smoking and MoneyObviously, Pro agrees that there are a lot of things that costs a lot of money. After agreeing to this, he simply just said that smoking costs a huge amount of money; basically the same thing which he said in his previous round. Recall that I said that thousands of things costs a lot of money, but that this doesn't mean that we should ban it. I also said that if the individual wants to use his own money on things that costs a lot, then that's his choice. These two points goes completely unanswered by Pro.Smoking and IQThe only thing which Pro said in this category is that those things (the examples I gave which are also bad for your IQ) are just bad for your IQ, but doesn't costs your beauty or money. However, this category is about IQ; beauty and money is therefore irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are several other things which can lower your IQ and thus, if we are to ban smoking just because it can lower your IQ, then these things should be banned too. This goes completely unanswered by Pro.Also, remember that I said that the site in which Pro referenced his claim that smoking can lower your IQ, doesn't even know for sure if it is smoking itself which lowers IQ or whether less intelligent people are simply just more inclined to smoke. This also goes completely unanswered by Pro.Smoking and FiresRecall that in my previous round, I said that if we are going to ban smoking just because it can create fires, then thousands of other things which can create fires should be banned as well. The fact that something can create fires only means that we must be careful with these things, not completely banning them. Pro doesn't give any good response to this, instead he just said that these things doesn't costs you your money and other bad things. However, this doesn't in any way refute the fact that there are still several other things which can create fires and thus, if we are to follow Pro's logic and completely ban smoking just because it can create fires, then numerous other things should be banned as well.Smoking and BabiesPro said that it is very hard for a pregnant woman to stop smoking and thus, to stop her from smoking, smoking should be banned. Again, this may be true in regards to pregnant women, but this argument cannot show that smoking should be completely banned. What about women who are not pregnant? Should smoking be banned for them too?Pro said that men also take part, because smoking near a pregnant woman can cause harm to the baby. However, this only means that men shouldn't smoke near a pregnant woman - it doesn't, however, mean that smoking should be completely banned.Smoking and ChildrenPro said that people can influence children to smoke in the future; basically the same thing which he also said in his previous round. It doesn't matter if children can be influenced to smoke in the future, as long as it is their own choice to smoke in the first place. Moreover, recall that I said that if we should ban something just because it may influence children, then numerous other things should be banned as well. Eating a lot of fatty foods, parachuting, motorcycles, and surfing are just some examples. Pro completely ignores this point.Smoking and DeathPro said that automobiles and surfing have a positive impact on us. However, smoking does also have some positive impacts on us.[1] The fact of the matter is that there is great risk for you to die in regards to automobiles and surfing; does that therefore mean that automobiles and surfing should be banned? Pro gives no answer to this question.Smoking and EnvironmentPro said that paper and other things I mentioned have a positive impact on us, but that smoking does not. First of all, as I said above, smoking does have some positive impacts on us. Secondly, even if it didn't, this wouldn't change the fact that a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers. So again, since a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers, should therefore papers be banned? Just like numerous other things, this goes completely unanswered by Pro.Also, recall that I said that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, just like it did when certain drugs were banned - and not to mention the prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s. This argument goes completely unrefuted. In fact, it seems like Pro himself agrees to this very important fact.Smoking and EconomyPro made a new argument saying that the costs of smoking are far higher than the income from cigarette sales. But is it really true that the costs of smoking are far higher than the income from cigarette sales? Well, it may be true in an indirectly way. However, nonsmokers cost the society and the government more in the long run.Why? Because nonsmokers live a longer life and thus, cost the government a lot more money in medical bills, pension plans, subsidized housing, and other programs. It is therefore not necessarily true that a smoker's health problems cost the society and the government more, because nonsmokers will live longer and thus, incur more expenses that the government would have to cover.[2]ConclusionPro's fallacious arguments have once again been refuted. Pro has ignored and dropped several points which I made in my previous round. Indeed, Pro himself admits that his argument was refuted in many categories.The resolution remains negated.Sources[1] http://www.forces.org...[2] http://financialhighway.com...