Smoking ban is unacceptable

=Rebuttals=Pro claims that "asphalt is as dangerous as smoking", however, the resolution is exclusively about smoking and not anything else that could potentially be dangerous. The difference between asphalt and cigarette smoking is also significant. One of them is essentially what people do for pleasure [as with alcohol consumption,etc.] while the other fulfills a practical purpose and is a basic necessity if we are to have roads and pavements. Pros argument is entirely negated by the fact that asphalt is an integral part of construction. Without it, we would not have the same transportation, recreation [I.E play/sports grounds], agricultrure, and builing construction such as floorings that we currently do have. [4.] There are countless objective advantages to asphalt, the main one being that it enables everyday commuting and is cost efficient. Overall, asphalt is also safe; meaning that Pro has outlined a rather large fallacy. Asphalt is regularly come into contact with and no way has it ever negatively impacted people to the same extent that smoking has. And once more, I'll reiterate that it does fulfill a practical purpose. A total of 90% of all paved roads are are paved with asphalt. [5.] Unlike asphalt, cigerette smoking is directly inhaled and is thus one of the most widely reported on health concerns there is. Pro also states: "You say that smoking is the main cause of births and asthma exacerbations, but it is only one of many."Firstly, I didn't actually say that it was the "main cause". Rather I included actual studies that found second-hand smoke to one of the larges components in premature birth and asthma attacks. The studies concluded that there was a 10% reduction in premature birth/asthma exacerbations, as well as a 5% one in children being born unusually small. Another study conducted by the American Heart Association and Journal of American College of Cardiology found that there was a 17% reduction in heart attacks in European and American cities that had implented a ban. [6.] "Smokers are not only an expense for the government because all of the money we use on cigarettes is basically taxes."Not exactly, as highlighted in the previous round; the financial costs to smoking are extremely high. Pro further argues that a ban would lead to less financial benefits, but again fails to link a source that *really* supports this assertion. Not do smoking bans have huge financial benefits to the health sector, one could also argue that it benefits public business as people who do not smoke are more likely to come to restaurants and bars that disallow it, therefore actually adding to customer. It's unlikely that workplaces would be as impacted as Pro seems to imply, particularly in "aiding" hospitals as these are the places that have benefited financially with a smoking ban. On the contrary to losing money, they would gain it. The figure $92 million, in America alone, offers good proof of this. Two years after a ban had been implented, another British report concluded that: "Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry." [7.]I'd point out again that Pro has yet to support earlier arguments made. Namely that "it is a human right to smoke." Along with "We are allowed to be the person we want to be and we make our own happiness."Pro should particularly expound on how it is a "human right" to smoke. Both statements are clearly built on fallacies. [4.] http://www.eapa.org...[5.] http://www.eapa.org...[6.] http://edition.cnn.com...;[7.] http://www.bbc.co.uk...