Smoking should be banned

1. Personal rights Con said that "The problem is these only affect the people who do the actions", I already talk about it in the 2nd round. Everyone as human has right to choose what they want to do. This is personal rightCon misrepresents my case. I was responding to "for their own good, we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day? "Even, The World Health Organization"s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) formally classified outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic (PDF). "The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances," the IARC"s Kurt Straif told the South China Morning Post. "We consider this to be the most important environmental carcinogen, more so than passive smoking. Just because environmental pollution also causes cancer, does not mean we should not ban smoking. This is the same logic as not banning drunk driving because non-drunk people also cause traffic accidents. So, if government should keep people from harm : marijuana, vehicle, alcohol and more should be banned. Not only smoking. But, you know that is so illogical. So, con failed to break my argument about personal right and it's also answered about second hand smoke. WRONG! Con misrepresents my argument again: I argued that because marijuana is less harmful than smoking and is not banned, smoking should be banned. I never argued for marijuana legalization. About banning vehicles: see my case about necessary risks in the first round. Con also claims that he has adequately addressed second hand smoke, even though he just put up the opinion of a single person against several reliable metastudies showing that second hand smoke is indeed very harmful.2. About BusinessI already explain this very clearly that based on the fact in the 2nd round. I think here, con ignores my argument that based on the fact. We can"t close our eyes that banned smoking give bad influence for economy impact. So, my argument about business and taxing are very clearly and con failed break my argument. So many way to protect people non smoker rights without decrease smoker rights. Government can make regulation about special room for smoker. Except con has not explained it very clearly/ In the second round, all con did was make an unsourced assertion that smoking does impact the economy, when I have shown that credible sources debunked that claim. Having non-smoker rooms is just like having non-drunk driver lanes. CONCLUSIONCon has falsely claimed that he has adequately addressed the issue of second hand smoking, when he did not. All he did was put a single opinion against dozens of research papers, aggregated by metastudies linked to in the last round. Con also has falsely claimed that he has adequately addressed the economic impacts of smoking, when in the last round I have clearly shown that to be untrue. Con only made assertions while I used reliable sources. Because the second hand smoking argument was addressed by no more than a handwave and unsourced quote, and my case for second hand smoking was backed up by multiple metastudies each studying multiple study papers made by real doctors each studying many real people, the second hand smoke argument was proven and it is proven that smoking is not a personal right. Also, con blatantly misrepresents my case and ignores multiple facts based on reliable sources from the last round.