Fire_wings 50th debate: Smoking Ban

I will cover as much as I can, because we are getting ready for our trip to Paris. Please do not penalize me if I cannot get onto something, I will try to get it on the next round. I might not get to my defense, but I will try.FrameworkI will mostly go on about all the rebuttals, or I will try to cover up my opponent's case. I will not go to my defense yet, as it says in the structure. Sorry if my case is weak, I don't have lots of time. As again, BoP is on Pro. I mostly accept Pro's first premise, but then I disagree with it also. He states, "If something hurts the US more than it benefits the US, it should be banned." This is unreasonable. Even if it hurts the US more, that does not mean we should ban it.I accept his second premise.Rebuttal 1: Economics of SmokingYes, I did mention the profits of smoking. I will rebut his argument now. Pro states that the cost of the medical issues is nearly $170 billion dollars. Yes, this is a big cost of money, but however, whose medical cost is this? The smokers. The smokers can have the right to smoke, that is why they were unhealthy and that is why they went to the hospital. Not the other people's fault, it was the right if choice for the smokers.Pro says that it is the non-smokers who pay. However this does not make sense. Why do other people who do not get hurt pay? They don't, at least it most of the places. Why do other people pay of other's medical things? They do not, making this argument unsufficient.Pro states all the things that can happen, and says it is 310 billion dollars. However, over 500 billion dollars are made from smoking every year, and with that, also with the smoking ban, and the tobacco farms, there will be way more than trillions. The cost of a smoking ban is more.Rebuttal 2: Secondhand smoke"As the CDC reports, secondhand smoke causes 34,000 deaths in the US from heart disease alone. Another 8,000 deaths are caused by strokes annually from secondhand smoke (5). A study by J. Barnova and S. Glantz show that the cardiovascular impact of passive amounts of secondhand smoke is almost the same as actual smoking (80-90% as effective as smoking)(7). Another review put the death toll from heart disease as high as 42,000 (8). It's assumed nearly 7000-8000 die annually from lung cancer. The impact of secondhand smoke also includes worsening asthma and between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children."I will start rebutting this. Pro states that 34,000 deaths will be in the US of heart disease. 8000 from secondhand smoke, it says. With my plan, there will be much of a little amount of deaths.It is impossible of secondhand smoke is 80-90% because the smokers drink almost all of the smoke, and put it in their lungs.Pro says that 5.6 million people today die because of secondhand smoke. But as I said, my counterproblem. In his rebuttal he said smoking moves and shifts. Then we can have ventalized rooms."The new law restricts smoking to sealed and ventilated rooms, so smokers fear even these zones could be threatened."Also we can make the rooms so that doors are always closed. Much more people die because of other things, and with this stategy, no one will die, and even though there is not lots of smoke, it is still smaller than factories.Rebuttal 3: Economic FreedomPro says that there is a basic right for us to say no. However there is a more basic right: we get to do the things we want. The smokers can have the right to do what they want, because they have self-ownership, meaning that they can do anything they want. Why do people have to buy their product? As Pro says we have the right to say no, why not say no. His first statement had rebutted and made his second statement wrong. Why is the idea of choice a myth. It is an very important thing. Without the right of choice, we can't do anything we want. We can do what we want. If we don't want our self-ownership to be taken, vote for CON!ConclusionVote for Con. Pro thinks that we do not have the right of choice, and is going weird. If we do not have the right of choice, we cannot do anything we want. If we want the right to do what we want, vote for Con.Thank you. I appoligize for the weak argument.