smoking should be illegal

I agree to his definitions of smoking and Illegal. I would now like to rebut my opponent's case. In his first point he said that America is a free country. But look at all the consequences of smoking! Even if it is a free country, I think that if the government want the best for his people, then he should get rid of smoking for it is very harmful to the human body also in my opponent's case he asked the following questions Do you think that the government should ban chocolate cake because it is bad for you? Do you think the government should ban spray paint because some people inhale it? These questions doesn't relate to the topic, smoking tobacco can get you addicted, but chocolate cake wouldn't. Smoking tobacco have long term-consequences while chocolate cake has short ones. In his second point he described taxes from tobaccos. But why can't we build some other factories other than tobacco making. We are wasting tons of materials, and lives by making something this dangerous. In his third point he described about criminals. Once we ban tobacco, people at first who are addicted might do something illegal and lose their life. But think about all the lives lost each day from people smoking tobacco; cancer and other sickness often comes up. In the end there would be smokers but to the minimum amount, so more lives are saved each day. In his fourth and fifth point he described the prison costs adn mass job losses. But if the government got rid of all the drugs, then the people who smoke would be to the minimum amount. The government can build other jobs for the people. It will to better to save lives and spent a little moeny then having the smokers kill themselves and the other people around them. Now I will present my points. Scientists agree that smoking is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer, strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker – it also harms people nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called "passive smoking"). Smokers choose to smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively. People should only be exposed to harm if they understand the risks and choose to accept them. A complete ban on smoking in public is needed to protect people from passive smoking. The opposition is wrong to say that people choose to smoke passively. In many places, there are no non-smoking bars or restaurants. Unless people refuse to go out with friends, they cannot avoid passive smoking. People who work in smoky workplaces (e. g. bars) often do not freely choose this sometimes no other jobs are available. In most countries, safety standards do not allow workers to be exposed to unnecessary danger, even if they agree. Workers should not be exposed to other people's smoke, since they may not have made a free choice to do so. A ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up. If smoking was banned in public places, it would no longer be a social activity. Instead, smokers would have to leave their friends inside and go outside to smoke. This would be particularly unpleasant when it is cold/wet. One third of smokers in Scotland said the ban was helping them to cut down. If smoking was a less social activity, fewer people would start smoking. In many countries, governments pay all or some of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases. This means that governments should have a right to discourage smoking. It is legal to smoke tobacco, so governments have no right to try to make people stop. It is therefore wrong to argue that a ban on public smoking should be introduced to encourage people to give up. Smokers fund their own healthcare through the high taxes they pay on tobacco. In any case, heavy smokers are unlikely to give up since they are addicted to nicotine. People will not smoke more at home. Smokers need to maintain a certain level of nicotine in their blood to remain content. A ban on smoking in public would force them to smoke less while at work. Over time, this would lower the level of nicotine they need to feel content. This would reduce how often they need to smoke. They would therefore smoke less at home, as well as less at work. Thank you, and I look forward to your response. :)