The U.S. government should ban the manufacturing and selling of tobacco.

"So as to save many lives may be some of your owns. " Many of my own have died of smoking, but the argument that people can die is irrelevant, as I will show. "2:Marijuana:-Marijuana (grass, pot, weed) is the common name for a crude drug made from the plant Cannabis sativa. The main mind-altering (psychoactive) ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), but more than 400 other chemicals also are in the plant. A marijuana "joint" (cigarette) is made from the dried particles of the plant. " This is irrelevant. This debate concerns tobacco, not marijuana. My opponent has conceded an important point: 4. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to ban tobacco. I will discuss the importance of this later. PRO's arguments are a set of statistics. It it important to know that I am aware of the dangers of tobacco, as I have conceded: "Tobacco is addictive. " I am no fool, and I certainly am not "trying my best best to proove that hell is likely to be a heaven. " My oponent's case against my first point can be simplified as stating that banning tobacco will not make people mad because there are plenty of other drugs out there that are more dangerous that they can use after we ban tobacco. Says PRO: "less than 5% are only like tobacco where as others like to have beverages and other drugs so its not going to lead any riots. " So basically, my opponent argues that banning tobacco will cause people to use more deadly drugs, such as marijuana and alcohol. Going from nicotine to weed is a deadly transition. . http://www.physorg.com... . http://www.cababstractsplus.org... He is arguing my case. In doing this, he also conceded my third point. My opponent makes a silly case, saying: "you all readers that is only tobbaco creates job". Well, of course tobacco is not the only thing that creates jobs; such a monoculture is theoretically insustainable. However, it does create jobs and produce wealth. So let's see: my opponent has completely conceded points 3 and 4, which are: 3. Tobacco would still be bought and sold illegally, as we see with all other illegal drugs. 4. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to ban tobacco. 3. My opponent concedes that people will continue to buy and sell tobacco illegally. Tobacco bans, like marijuana bans, are hardly enforcable. Therefore, they are ineffective. 4. My opponent has conceded and agreed with this point. Constitutions are established among people to guarantee that governments will not outstep their lines and become tyrannies. . http://www.sobran.com... Companies are owned by people; they are property. Companies produce wealth by encourageing commerce. Commerce improves society. . http://www.scotthyoung.com... When a government outsteps the bounds that it agreed on during its founding, then the social contract has been violated. Such tyrannies have lead to other rebellions throughout history, including the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution. . http://www.newzimbabwe.com... . http://www.geocities.com... . http://home.hiwaay.net... By conceding my fourth point, my opponent has indirectly conceded my first point, "1. It would lead to riots. ", because tyrannies are crushed by riots. riots are most likely to involve the majority of the population only when government steps out of its way. My opponent has conceded three of my four points.