Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA

Many thanks to Pro for his response and for this great debate.Smoking and HealthPro said that the examples which I gave of dangerous things are not as dangerous as smoking. Really? Just one mistake in rock climbing, and your life will end in seconds. Moreover - even if we assume that the examples which I gave of dangerous things, are not as dangerous as smoking - it would be very mistaken to say that it doesn't exist things which are more dangerous than smoking. Indeed, there are numerous other things which are more dangerous than smoking. In fact, even drinking a lot of Soda can be more dangerous than smoking.[1]Pro said that I contradicted myself. This claim by Pro is ridiculous. Yes, I did say there are other things that also give negative impacts on your money, health, beauty, and the environment. And yes, I did say that just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too. But did I contradict myself by saying this? I don't see how I did. Pro doesn't explain how I contradicted myself; he merely just claimed it.Pro said that he agrees on freedom of choice, but that the government should care for the people's welfare. That's true. However, although the government has a responsibility to protect its people and their welfare, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. Thus, since the government has a responsibility to protect its people, it should give out the information that this and that can harm you. But since the government also has a responsibility to defend the people's freedom of choice, it should also allow the people - after giving out the information that this and that can harm you - to choice for themselves if they want to use this thing or not.Smoking and BeautyPro said that coffee just costs you your beauty, and that he clearly didn't say that something that causes only this should be banned. But this is clearly not what Pro said in his second round when he first presented this argument. What Pro said when he first presented this argument is simply just that coffee costs you your beauty. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then coffee should be banned as well. And if Pro wasn't trying to say that smoking should be completely banned just because of the fact that it can cost you your beauty, then why at all mention this in an debate that is about if smoking should be banned in all states in the US?Smoking and MoneyPro said that buying a cigarette is a waste of money, because it's like buying poison. Sure, but it should still be the choice of the individual to buy a cigarette by his own money if we wants to. Pro also said that other things that cost money can benefit us, like foods, homes, and clothes. However, as I have said previously, smoking can also give us some positive benefits and impacts.Smoking and IQPro said that the things which I mentioned are just bad in a couple of aspects, but that smoking is bad in many aspects. The things which I mentioned that can also lower your IQ, is alcohol and artificial food colorings. Sure, smoking - in contrast to these two things - is probably bad in many more aspects. However, this category is about IQ, so smoking being bad in many aspects really doesn't matter. Pro is trying to ignore the real case of this category. What Pro first said in this category is that smoking can lower your IQ. That's it. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then alcohol and artificial food colorings should also be banned. And if Pro wasn't trying to show that smoking should be completely banned when he said that smoking can lower your IQ, then why mention it at all in the first place? This debate is about if smoking should be banned in all states in the US, so why give an argument if its purpose isn't to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US? Smoking and FiresPro said that these things that can create fires have a few positive impacts on us. But this doesn't matter! What Pro first said in this category is that smoking can create fires. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then numerous other things which can create fires should be banned as well. It doesn't matter if these things that can create fires have positive impacts on us or not.Smoking and BabiesPro said that women that are not pregnant can get pregnant in the future. Of course, this is true. However, I really don't understand why Pro is pointing out this self-evident fact. Pro also said that people are usually not aware that there are pregnant women near them, so not smoking in the first place is better. This may be true in a place where there is many women. However, what about a place where these is only men? Shouldn't we be allowed to smoke then? This is why this argument fails to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US, something which means that people should not be allowed to smoke at any place - be it a place where there is only women or a place where there is only men.Smoking and ChildrenPro said that smoking doesn't just influence children, but that it can cost numerous other things that is bad too. But so does many other things as well, like for example eating a lot of fatty foods or drinking a lot of Soda.Smoking and DeathPro said that despite the risks of automobiles and surfing, if we are more careful, the risk can be lowered. Of course, the risk to die can be lowered if we are more careful. However, just with smoking, there is always a risk to die in regards to automobiles and surfing. So again, if we are to follow Pro's logic and ban smoking just because it can kill you, then these two things (although it can lower your risk to die if you are careful with these two things) should be banned as well. Moreover, it really doesn't matter if smoking can kill you, as long as it is your own choice in the first place to smoke. It's your life, and the government shouldn't tell you what you can't do with your own private life. Smoking and EnvironmentPro said that paper has a much more positive impact on us than smoking. However, I didn't say that paper doesn't have a much more positive impact on us than smoking. I only said that smoking does also have some positive impacts on us. In Pro's third round, Pro said that paper and other things which I mentioned have a positive impact on us, but that smoking does not. This is why I pointed out that smoking does in fact also have some positive impacts on us. It seems like Pro agrees with this now.Pro also said that banning smoking can help people who are trying to quit smoking. However, just completely banning smoking is not the only option that we have. For example, using nicotine replacement therapies and other medicines can very much help people who are trying to quit smoking. Moreover, what about people who are not trying to quit smoking? Should smoking be banned for them too?As for my argument that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, this argument goes unrefuted. Pro only said that he know that crime is a side effect, but that the punishment shouldn't be tough, such as fines. This, however, has nothing to do with my argument that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime - let alone refute it.Smoking and EconomyPro said that it is very hard to say whether smoking is good or bad for the economy, because nobody knows exactly how much money non smokers take from the government. Of course, we cannot know exactly how much money non smokers take from the government. However, we can still know that they take more money from the government than smokers. I explained why in my previous round, and Pro didn't give any response to it.The resolution has been negated. Vote Con._______Sources[1] http://www.alternet.org...