Smoking Should be Banned

I still seek to understand why the non smoker is compelled to move from an area where someone is smoking? For what reason must the non smoker move? Secondly, I didn't define free as my opponent claims, instead I said that it would be good for governments to free their citizens from making cigarettes. This means that these people can now search for a job that they want, without any input from the government unless asked for. There is nothing forceful about that. Moreover, the claim that butchers should be forced out by using the same logic is nonsense. What study has demonstrated that meat causes death? ? How many studies have conclusively proved that smoking leads to death in a myriad of manners. It is the other aspects of a persons life, or rather their lacking of exercise which leads to an unhealthy body. Therefore, butchers can keep their jobs as they supply food, whilst those making cigarettes produce products of death. Furthermore, the idea that the only job a poor family can have is growing tobacco is not true. Although it is a very sad situation in societies other than our owns where there are no jobs to go around, I would suggest that some sort of provision be made available by the government for that family until they can find a suitable source of income. Plus, I hope my opponent would agree that terminating the contracting of green tobacco sickness is a good thing. As mentioned previously, a ban on tobacco would be very different from alcohol. What I believe would be essential if such a predicament were to arise would be proper law enforcement. Strict punishments and tighter regulations would mean that the events of the 1920's are not repeated and instead people can live in peace without having to die from second hand smoke. Just to clarify this idea of contradiction, I am going to make clear this point again. Whether my opponent fails to understand the simple chemistry behind the process, or it is the semantics which have caused his confusion, I will now elucidate that there was no contradiction in what I said. Diffusion: The passive movement of particles along a concentration gradient. For example, from an area of high concentration to low concentration. Firstly, nicotine can perfectly diffuse through the human body without any external aid. Secondly, tobacco companies have added toilet bowl cleaner in order to increase this rate of diffusion and therefore increase the rate of consumption of cigarettes, meaning that the consumer purchases more. This means that the toilet bowl cleaner doesn't change the reactions that would take place, it just makes them occur faster. Next, tar is ALREADY NATURALLY found in cigarettes and is called by many health professions "the most dangerous chemical in cigarettes". Therefore, when I say that "it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals (toilet bowl cleaner) are added by humans", I am making a direct reference to the fact that although the toilet bowl cleaner aggravates the effects of smoking, the two most dangerous compounds are already found in tobacco naturally, without any human interference. Additionally, how many industries can one name that have had tight regulations placed upon them but have failed to act correctly. The media in the UK had regulations strapped to them and still hacked the phone of a dead teenage girl in the search of a story to print. If my opponent truly believes that an industry out to make money will sincerely listen to regulations if they haven't already, then they are naive to say the least. So because a mother works hard, that means she can poison her children? If I work hard, does that mean I can pour alcohol into my child's milk? Furthermore, 50% of all smokers die from a tobacco related disease. The idea that for a few to have pleasure, a lot should die is disgusting. The idea that smoking is a choice is combated through the fact that nicotine is an addictive drug. This means that after a while, smoking is no longer down to choice, but chemical compulsion. Thus, the volition of the person has been removed and they can only continue until killing themselves, someone else, or quitting. If legislation banning smoking were to exist, these people could be saved. Summary of main arguments: 1)Smoking kills 6 million people a year. 2)600,000 of those do not smoke. 3)It contributes to the continued impoverishment of the world's poor. 4)It places a huge strain on a nations healthcare system. 5)Smoking is not a real choice, but chemical compulsion. Vote to stop 6 million deaths. Vote to stop money being wasted on preventable diseases.