Cigarettes should be illegal

Opening CommentsI thank Xiao for instigating this debate.I think it will be clear to all what Pro means by saying cigarettes should be illegal, there shall be no tricky semantic arguments here. With that said we can move onto the attempted justification given by Pro for this claim.Smoking is bad for the smokerPro informs us about the adverse health outcomes for the smoker. I will not be arguing against the worse health outcomes for smokers, in Australia we have a cute little nick name for cigarettes that being "cancer sticks" need I say more? . Australian Federal and State governments have information on such health outcomes [1] and I will not be challenging such information. As such it is unnecessary for Pro to provide further evidence that smoking is bad for the smoker as I will concede that the more one smokes the more chance ones has of getting cancer. I think this concession is more than enough for Pro concerning this area of the debate.Freedom and banning everything with bad health outcomes is untenableSo with no dis-agreement on the bad health outcomes for smokers this leads to to the dis agreement of what to do about it, how shall we respond ? well in Pros case they want to make cigarettes illegal. Pro informs us that the bad health outcomes for the smoker is sufficient warrant for making cigarettes illegal. I maintain this is an unjustified and untenable response, so let me explain why.To make something illegal just because it has bad health outcomes would mean we would have to ban just about nearly everything. If we adhere to this principle we would have to ban obesity, eating junk food, mountain climbing etc etc. Before you think that is some what of drawing a long bow consider some of the bad health outcomes of obesity..."Being obese brings with it health- concerns that can be quite severe. Although tobacco related deaths are still the number one reason why most people die in the United States, obesity is slowly creeping up in the numbers.....&..."Obesity health issuesType II DiabetesHeart DiseaseHigh Blood PressureSleep ApneaOsteoarthritisGall Bladder DiseaseFatty Liver DiseaseCancerAsthmaChronic headachesVaricose veinsCoronary artery diseaseGERDHernias" [2]There is a fun little hobby some people have, its involves getting in a plane, fly a few thousand feet high then...........jumping out of it. Do I really need to spell out the risk to ones health in engaging in such activity? Shall we ban this too on bad health out come grounds ?The answer to all these questions is no, we allow people to make decisions, even decisions that have bad health outcomes for the individual cause we value freedom not to mention how untenable it would be to ban everything that has a bad health out comeWhat about the health outcomes for others ?Now Pro has a second attack for banning cigarettes, and that involves the argument that smoking is bad for others on the grounds of "passive smoking". But you don't need to ban cigarettes to deal with this problem, around the world there are bans on smoking in pubs/clubs indoor spaces etc.But of course this still allows smokers to smoke outside. Is there some health danger here to warrant the banning of cigarettes ? Well lets put this in context, car pollution according to Adam Stein gives us..." Burning one gallon of gas creates 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, and the average car emits about six tons of carbon dioxide every year" [3] I haven't been able to find how much carbon dioxide is produced by smoking a cigarette but I think its reasonable to say the amount produced at least when compared to a car is "negligible". So we are going to ban smoking cigarettes outside while allowing cars to drive outside ?. There is something hugely disproportional in this is there not ? straining for a gnat while swallowing a camal perhaps ? Again I think this proposed situation is untenable.I look forward to Pros reply.Sources[1] http://www.quitnow.gov.au...[2] http://www.healthnetwork.com.au...[3] http://www.cartalk.com...