Exposing children to secondhand smoke is abuse and should be made illegal in every U.S. state.

I will start by thanking my opponent once more. For a first time debate, I appreciate the seriousness shown thus far. Okay, so I think both Pro and Con agree that secondhand smoke exposure is not preferable, and it is not ideal for children to be exposed to secondhand smoke. On that point, we can agree. Everything else Con will contest. Let’s look first at the definitions provided by Pro because they undermine the first part of the resolution. Pro claims secondhand smoke is abuse (1) Justification: because it is a “imminent health risk”: Why Pro’s argument is not supported by Pro’s definition Imminent means: “about to happen.” Example of the word imminent in a sentence: "they were in imminent danger of being swept away" synonyms: impending, close (at hand), near, (fast) approaching, coming, forthcoming, on the way, as in "a ceasefire was imminent" Does Pro establish that by that say secondhand smoke will imminently cause all the health conditions? No, here is what Pro states, “The CAPTA definition mentions that any act that causes an ‘“imminent risk of serious harm”’ is abuse.” [This is the definition Pro suggested and must defend] But then here is what Pro’s provides as an example, undermining the definition However, look at Pro’s wording of the evidence provided (a) “For children, secondhand smoke exposure can cause…” (b) “Secondhand smoke exposure can damage.” (c) “Secondhand smoke is considered neurotoxic and exposure is heavily linked to cognitive problems…” The evidence provided that it “can cause” and “is heavily linked” but nothing leads from this to the inference that “can cause” and “is heavily linked” is the same as stating, secondhand “causes imminent risk” (2) Second, Con contest the evidence, sources Pro uses to establish the link between the claim, evidence, and resolution: First, I would like to acknowledge the sources Pro relies on. There are non-smoking advocacy and lobbying groups, whose sole mission to abolish smoking altogether. Advocacy groups and lobbying groups should not be relied upon to provide neutral evidence and require voters to give such evidence strict scrutiny. Pro wants voters to think that everyone in the medical community agrees there is an imminent risk from exposure to secondhand smoke. But that is simply not true. Let’s look at peer-reviewed research from neutral medical journals Journal of the National Cancer Institute [a peer-reviewed medical journal] had an 2013 article entitled “No clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer.” As he article notes, “this is the first study to examine both active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer to incidence in complete prospective cohort of US women.”[1] Forbes magazine interviewed Gerard Silvestri about this study and he confirmed the conclusion, saying “What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great, he said.[2] As Forbes notes underlying problems with the way previous studies have been flawed: “Previous cancer studies have had mixed results, the researchers said, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still calculate secondhand smoke is responsible for 46,000 heart disease deaths and 3,400 deaths from cancer a year. The problem is many studies showing the strongest association between secondhand smoke and cancer were case-control studies that can suffer from “recall bias,” or the tendency of people with a disease that can be blamed on a past exposure to be more likely to recall it.”[3] In a 2003 study by the British Medical Journal [a peer-reviewed study][4] researchers found [see conclusion section of study] “The results do not support a causal between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmentally tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. Moreover, the research Pro uses to sustain the claim that secondhand smoking is abuse was based on an Environmental Protection Agency Report that was a federal Judge invalidated based on serious reservations about the study.[5] (3) Why the Second Part of Pro’s argument does not add up based on the information above: Given Con’s demonstration that the evidence, definitions, and arguments there is no reason to move to the second contention that states should make secondhand smoke on par with physical abuse and molestation, a felony charge. [1] Judy Peres, “No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer” Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Oxford Journals, 2013) Accessed on 5/7/2015 http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org... [2] Daniel Fisher, “Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer,” Forbes. December 12, 2013. Accessed on 5/7/2015. http://www.forbes.com... [3] Daniel Fisher, “Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer,” Forbes. December 12, 2013. Accessed on 5/7/2015. http://www.forbes.com... [4] James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98," British Medical Journal, May 2003. Accessed on 5/7/2015. The PDF of the study can be found: https://www.heartland.org... [5] Dominick T. Armentano, “The Second-Hand Smoke Charade,” Cato Institute September 28, 1998. Accessed on 5/7/2015. http://www.cato.org...