Smoking Should be Banned

In this debate I will taking the position that smoking should be banned, whilst my opponent will be assuming the position that smoking should remain legal. Round 1 will consist of opening arguments solely and any definitions either side wishes to post. Round 2 will be for rebuttals and any further arguments. Round 3 will be for defences and further rebuttals. Round 4 will be for a summary of arguments and conclusion with final point. Round 1: Smoking - The inhalation of the smoke of the burning of tobacco encased in a cigarettes, pipes or cigars. (1) Point 1 -- There can be no doubt that smoking is harmful to ones health. Each year, nearly 6 million people die from tobacco, with 600,000 of those people non-smokers who were exposed to second hand smoke. One person dies every 6 seconds from a tobacco related illness (2) and the American Cancer Society has stated that more people die from smoking than AIDS, car crashes, alcohol, drug abuse, fires, suicides and murders combined each year. This startling fact should not come as a surprise to anyone who understand the effects that the some 4,000 chemicals in a typical cigarette have in the human body. Tar is a sticky black substance that forms deposits inside the lungs of those who inhale the smoke, causing lung cancer and a myriad of respiratory diseases. Carbon monoxide is a compound that reduces the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells leading to respiratory problems and can also damage the linings of the arteries, allowing fat to build up inside them, leading to a potential heart attack. These are just 2 of the other 200 "toxic" chemicals found in tobacco smoke. (3) Smokers are 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Moreover, smoking accounts for 14% of premature deaths and 10% of all infant deaths. It is clear from this evidence that smoking is extremely harmful to the human body and a responsibility of governments is to protect its people from harmful things. It is for this reason that cocaine, rape and speeding are all illegal and if the same logic was to be applied to this subject than tobacco products would join that group. Point 2 -- As briefly alluded to in some of the statistics above, smoking doesn't just effect smokes, it also affects those around them too. 600,000 non smokers die every year due to inhaling someone else's tobacco smoke. Why do they have to die? Moreover, 28% of children who died in 2004, had deaths attributable to second hand smoke. Is it fair for someone who wants to remain healthy, to have to share the street with a smoker who has no regard for the problems that their disgusting "habit" causes. If the claim to personal freedom is made, then why is the claim of non smokers being ignored? Point 3 -- Smoking also leads to impoverishment of those in lower income countries. 80% of smokers live in middle to lower income countries where the health care is at best, inadequate and therefore they carry the greatest burden. (4) In families from countries that fall into this category, children are sent out to work on the tobacco in order to gain money for the family. They are exposing themselves to the risk of contracting green tobacco sickness which is caused by absorbing the nicotine through the wet leaves. Additionally, the plethora of deaths caused by smoking means that families are left without a means to provide an income and this leads to them being trapped in the poverty cycle as a direct effect of smoking. All the while, the CEO's of these multinational tobacco companies are living green of the billions that they are making from this sickening trade. If political leaders condemn the actions of Mubarak and Gaddafi, then they are guilty of first degree hypocrisy if they do not include Michael Szymanczyk in the same breath. I wish my opponent all the best in this debate. References: (1) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2) - http://www.who.int... (3) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (4) - http://www.who.int...