Smoking should be illegal

It seems my opponent and I have both exhibited poor conduct in accidentally missing a round (at least it was an accident in my case), so without further adieu I'll jump right back in to it... Pro writes, "I have clearly stated that the government has the right to criminalize cigarettes. They have done it in the past with other substances and still uphold laws with substances today." Once again, just because the government has the right in the sense of AUTHORITY to do this, I asked Pro to explain why the government SHOULD have this right. I've mentioned repeatedly that it's no secret the governments CAN criminalize cigarettes - but should they be able to? Pro says yes because they can kill about half a million people each year. Extend my arguments (they have all been ignored) about why this is irrelevant and not a good enough reason to affirm that the government should have this right. In fact, my opponent has ignored it several times now as evidenced by this paragraph from the last round: "Of course this completely ignores my rebuttal. In the last round I explicitly explained why just because cigarettes are dangerous that they should not necessarily be illegal. Pro has not responded to any of those points. For instance, I asked whether we should criminalize other things that are dangerous. Heart disease is the number one killer in the United States, even more than cigarettes. Should we criminalize eating steak because doing so is dangerous and potentially fatal by contributing to heart disease? Pro ignored this, my analysis and other analogies from the last round, so please extend them." Pro says that these analogies are irrelevant because they're about steak and surfing and not cigarettes. Perhaps my opponent does not understand the purpose of an analogy. An analogy is a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based [6]. Ergo, my examples are analogies. While they are not cigarettes specifically, my example compares potential dangers of cigarettes and their criminal status vs. the potential dangers of other things and their criminal status. Pro has not proven that the connection is irrelevant, therefore he is responsible for answering my question about these analogies or you must consider it a dropped argument and award the point in my favor. Once again, I explained that things cannot be criminalized just because they're potentially dangerous. Pro cannot gloss over this paramount contention. Pro continues, "Con also brings up the black market and how gangsters and criminals would get rich due to cigarettes being a illegal. There is no guarantee that this would happen." There is also no guarantee that people who smoke will get heart disease; however, we can use evidence to make assumptions about what effects a policy would have. It's been documented that smoking can lead to health risks just like it's been historically evidenced that prohibition yields a massive black market. In fact, nearly all criminalized or prohibited things ARE sold on the black market, so it's completely false for Pro to suggest that we can't expect this reality. It's a near certain guarantee. I've explained why, but Pro hasn't proven or explained contrary so we have no reason to accept his assertion. Pro also suggests this policy would not mandate the hiring of more police, though logic tells us otherwise. With a whole new branch of criminal activity (and people inevitably violating those laws on a mass scale - especially given the number of people who smoke), then more police would or should be necessary. Otherwise the laws become pretty useless as they'd be hard to enforce. Moreover I explained the MASSIVE overhaul (and expense!!!) that the criminal justice system would require as a result of these policies. Pro has ignored that argument as well. My opponent concludes, "Why should half a million people have to die every year so that the government can save some money? Should we just make all substances legal with big warning stickers so that everybody has been thoroughly warned and allow them to make the decision for themselves?" Again, this completely ignores my arguments from the previous rounds. It's almost bad conduct for me to have to repeat them. I explained that the government is merely a group of people making decisions for others. This is barely legitimate, and as such prohibitive laws must be kept to a minimum. The government should not be intrusive on the life of its citizens. I explained that doing so would be immoral. If people want to make unhealthy choices like eating fatty foods or smoking cigarettes, then that's their prerogative and the government has no right to tell them otherwise. It is not the government's job to make decisions for its people; merely to protect their rights -- including the right to smoke cigarettes. It seems this debate is shifting focus from the issue of smoking to specifically determining what rights the government ought to have. In that case, I invite Pro to post one last round explaining why the government should have this kind of authority. Even if Pro explains that the government SHOULD be able to criminalize cigarettes, he must prove that doing so would be the best option vs. the alternative. So far he hasn't done either. Again, extend any unrefuted arguments and good luck to Pro in the last round. [6] http://dictionary.reference.com...