The USFG and state and local government should increase the punishment to age restriction violators.

There are a couple of things you missed from my first post that I will discuss now before I answer your arguments. First, you failed to prove why underage smoking is a significant problem now. The study that I have cited has been going on for 33 years, and shows that there are several trends that have lead to the decrease in teen smoking. You also failed to answer my argument about how the shift in advertising for smoking has shifted away from the belief that children are the target market. This means that there is no need to increase any type of punishment. You have failed to cite any actual studies that show that smoking is increasing or as big of a problem as it has been in the past. This means all of the voters should favor my arguments on this point alone. Next, the 8th amendment. While you may be correct that we are abandoning our stance against torture domestically, we still receive a lot of flack abroad from allies and other international entities. There also may be a different picture painted of THE UNITED STATES TORTURING CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS WHO SMOKE. It may be justifiable in the name of "utilitarianism" to torture people who are suspected terrorists (although this is debatable itself) but everyone would agree that it is morally repugnant to justify the abuse of children in the name of anti smoking. This would be akin to saying yeah its awesome that those chinese kids get to make those fireworks in schools in china and possibly die, but thousands of people around the world get to see the pretty colors, or, it sucks that kids are sold in to slavery for sweat shops, but at least I get to wear my nikes. And, even if we are lessening our stance on torture, we are increasing our stance in banning cruel and unusual punishment. This is proven by moves to ban different aspects of the death penalty. Here is a similar court decision that eliminates a form of cruel and unusual punishment. "In Robinson v. California (1962), the Court decided, 6-2, that a California law authorizing a 90-day jail sentence for "be[ing] addicted to the use of narcotics" violated the Eighth Amendment, as narcotics addiction "is apparently an illness", and California was attempting to punish people based on the state of this illness, rather than for any specific act." You could argue that smoking is the beginning of an addiction, which could be labeled an illness, which means if you cannot go to jail for use, you shouldnt be burned for smoking. Next, you talk about your father. While I can be sympathetic to see that it sucks to have your health deteriorate because of smoking, it is also a choice. What makes you think that these children will stop smoking after one burn, and then decide when they turn 18 to smoke again, which means their addiction is inevitable. You have also provided no convincing evidence or even proof that a cigarette burn means you quit smoking. I am a smoker and I have burned myself numberous times while smokin, yet, there has been no change in my behavior. In terms of an amendment, this argument just makes you look like an idiot. There have been hundreds of amendments proposed to the constitution, and we only have 27 amendments. This means it is almost impossible to have an amendment for smoking. In terms of child abuse, you say someone else can do it. However, you then still will be torturing the kids as discussed above. Or, you are still abusing the children, even if not by their parents. I as an educator can lose my job for hitting a student in the name of child abuse, which means regardless of the source, there is still abuse. You have conceeded that this is still abuse, which means there is a risk that the children will either start or continue smoking. Next, you ask will they really start smoking? Um yeah, I also give another psychological study of children who have been abused and they are more likely to participate in risky behaviors, which means drugs and alcohol. This means there is only danger that you will reverse the current successful trends aimed at reducing teen smoking. Finally, you say that I should trust you or there are ways in determining that children smoke. However, it is impossible to determine how many cigarettes someone smoke or if children are even smoking. It is true that some will get caught in public, but what about those whom are sneaky and dont get caught? You could cause increase in paranoia of parents, which could destroy familial relations. In terms of wishing death upon me, neither of us are saying that smoking is a good thing, nor do I really disagree that we should stop kids from smoking. However, it is your method that is problematic. I believe, I have used sufficent evidence (which you have none) to show that your solution is illegal, and actually runs the risk of making your problem worse. Finally, you say that even you could start smoking when you turn 18 and die. This takes out your utilitarianism argument by showing that smoking is inevitable since we all have the choice as adults, which means there is no greater good when people can still choose to smoke and possibly die. In the shortest of terms....you lose.