Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places.

Hmm. Rebuttals: First off, my source for the 600,000 thousand included a link to WHO, which is a very reputable source. Next, your argument was absolutely a strawman. I never stated that people would have to smoke indoors, but just not in public. They can smoke outside, by their home. I fail to see how this is "playing dumb". Your next point is another strawman. I said "We" spend the money on healthcare. I never said the government pays for it. I win this point. As for prohibition, the comparison is not even. In prohibition, the law was not enforced and they completely banned alcohol. If you ban smoking in public, the law will be easily enforced, as people will easily see you, and we are not completely banning smoking, so there won't be mob problems, as it isn't illegal to own cigarettes or smoke them. You only can't smoke in public. Really? "you ALWAYS have a choice as to whether or not to be by smokers. It is very rare that you are forced to be by a smoker for a long period of time." It is no secret that many people smoke in public. Many people have to walk in public, to their jobs, to lunch, to businesses, and that is every person in America. You can state, "Well, they shouldn't walk outside then." But shouldn't we make the people causing the problem have to change? Just smoke at home, and not in public where people don't want to inhale cancer. Manslaughter is not intentional, as the definition shows. So if you smoke in public, and people die from the fumes, then that was manslaughter. Very simple. Yes, I agree that if you hang near smokers and you die, then that is partially your fault, but that is not the case in public. You are minding your own buisness. You should be able to expect to walk to a cafe from your job without inhaling poison. " Lastly, you assume that all of the U.S. Healthcare payments are for smoking, but the amount of money lost in the government is much less than you think. In fact, you failed to realize that even though it may save the U.S. government some money, it would perminately damage the private industry, and lead to borth Farmers and convenient stores going out of bussiness" First off, citation needed. Next, how is the money spend on second hand smoke less than I think? I posted a source showing that second hand smoke costs us 156,000,000,000 dollars on lost productivity and healthcare costs. Your source showed that the tobacco industry payed 15 billion to workers. Simple math shows us we will be saving at least 100,000,000,000 dollars from banning public smoking. Next, it is completely irrelevant to the resolution on what the tobacco industry did in the past. Honestly, I value the 100,000,000 lives lost to tobacco in the 20th century, and the 1,000,000,000 people who will die in the 21st century over the fortunes tobacco has made. "In Conclusion, I will address your "environmental argument". I am not particuarly in favor of ruining our planet, but smoking does not give a significant amount of harmful chemicals in the air. What I AM in favor of, is protecting an endangered species called "job creators", because most products are moving to China or Mexico who unlike us have NO CONCERN whatsoever for the environment and sadly, banning tobacco will not help our "Golbal warming" dilemma." Another strawman. I never mentioned air pollution, or "golbal warming" was called by Con. What I did mention was litter, which is undeniably a problem public smoking contributes too. You also dropped my other point about how small children eat discarded cigarette butts. Just to empathize this point, as I have shown earlier, tobacco smoke lingers for 4 hours. Many people smoke all over public areas. So if you walk around a city, you will constantly be inhaling toxic fumes. To conclude, I have made my counter arguments, and I have shown that many of Con's arguments are strawman arguments. My main points stand: 1) We will save hundreds of billions by banning public smoking worldwide 2) We will save tens of thousands of lives 3) Litter will be reduced 4) The common "prohibition" arguments don't apply. Good luck!