Tobacco smoking should be banned to a necessary extent

This round, I will respond to Con's previous post. I will point out here that my opponent has provided no argument against phasing out the number of tobacco users, nor against requiring children's/public workers to quit smoking. RESPONSES Con is mistaken, my proposals not simply about "protecting the weak and innocent". I'm not sure I ever mentioned "weak", although children and infants are defenseless. The entire point of my proposal is for the government to protect the right of it's citizens to choose a healthier life, and to protect their right to life itself. "We must look at it from the standpoint of protecting what matters to us (like the innocent) and what we stand for (like personal liberties) in a careful balance. " Again, when put this way, things are skewed. This is not a matter of purity vs. liberty. It is a case of rights to health & life of the majority AND the defenseless vs. minor property and personal rights of the minority. Even more simply put, it is vital liberty rights of the majority and defenseless vs. minor liberty rights of the minority. We are not just balancing minority and majority but the weight of these specific small liberties must also be balanced. Which is the greater affront to one's liberty, the theft of one's health, or the loss of a cigarette? If we are honest with ourselves, it is the former. Re: Perspective. My opponent is true that perspective is important. However, the viewpoint she has presented makes second-hand smoking seem harmless because it only presents deaths, and only ones attributed to second-hand smoke (not third-hand smoke). Let's review what second-hand smoke does: causes cancer, breathing problems, lung infections, worsens asthma, ear infections, illness, and low-weight births. This list of deaths would not include deaths which are not obviously attributable to tobacco smoking (ie, caused by problems over time, or caused by the symptoms such as asthma) and it does not include the people who suffer from second-hand smoke. The long term effects may not be as obvious. Even when death has not occurred, health problems do. Simply because having a health problem is less severe then dying does not make it alright for one person to sap another's health for no better reason than, "I want to smoke". It is not legal to punch a person, regardless if that punch causes death. Furthermore, let's compare smoking to something a little more similar. If my opponent's argument were to be applied to, say, domestic violence, which caused only 31,000 deaths in twenty years, then domestic violence should be fine in private households. [1] That second-hand smoke causes less death than other problems is irrelevant. It's an injustice either way. "We've instated new Health codes to help stop heart disease but we haven't gotten rid of fast food. We have put into place countless safety regulations and checked the safety of thousands buildings, cars and boats but we haven't gotten rid of the automobile industry. " My opponent's comparison makes little sense. Smoking a cigarette is similar to eating fast food, true, but eating fast food does not harm anyone but the person eating it. Why would we abolish fast food for causing health problems when, and this is the key part, it doesn't cause any health problems against anyone's will? We respect the freedom of people to partake in fast food because the action doesn't violate any liberties. My opponent's comparison to buildings only harms her own argument. As I argued earlier, property rights and liberty do not extend so far as to allow people to build faulty cars or buildings, no matter how badly they want to. Con simply names an example of freedom compromised for greater, more vital freedoms. I repeat: small freedoms must be compromised for greater, more vital freedoms. To do the *opposite* would be to disrespect our values of freedom. And that is what my opponent proposes: to value the privileges of the few over the freedoms of the many. "In America, we are built on the promise of personal rights. Our main objective is liberty, isn't it? " If we wish to fulfill the promise of personal rights, the most vital rights for the largest amount of people should be protected first. "What Yvette is proposing not only violates personal rights but also property rights. " If by violate you mean restrict, yes. But only to the point that a building code or a law against punching someone could be considered a violation of rights. At best, they are light in weight on the scale of rights. "How about third-hand smoke? From the link that Yvette has provided, it theorizes that third-hand smoke is harmful for babies and toddlers but not for the rest of society. " The story itself, as opposed to the title, shows it is not just a guess: "Our study shows that when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid it forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs. .. TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco. " And, of course, that smoking can continue to harm small children and infants is hardly the small problem my opponent makes it sound. We should be alarmed that minors are being exposed to and harmed by smoking even when it occurs nowhere near them. This only shows that simply sectioning off areas for smokers does not protect the rights of children to their health is not enough. I do not propose we storm into anyone's house. In fact, imagine this acceptable scenario: in addition to preventing new smokers, the government either encourages or requires smoking to occur in "smoke clubs", so long as they are not parents or children's workers. Re: Education. My opponent proposes an education campaign. While this could be a great idea, I ask her to make a convincing case that an education campaign on third-hand smoke would be effective, especially on addicts. "When stabbing someone on private property, not only does that violate a federal law. .. " This is arguing that something should not ever be illegal because it is not currently illegal. Re: Malicious intent. While the punishments for stabbing someone should certainly be worse than the punishments for breathing smoke into someone's face, intent has no impact on how much another's rights are violated. The point is prevention of harm, not punishment of wrongdoing. Stabbing a person will harm them regardless of intent, and should be prevented regardless of intent. Does a police officer, seeing a stabbing about to occur, check to make sure the stabber doesn't mean to hurt anyone before he stops it? And if the stabber's intents aren't malicious, should he allow it to occur? CONCLUSION My opponent does not address key parts of my proposal, makes a series of inaccurate representations, and I feel weighs minor rights of minorities more heavily than major rights of majorities. Finally, I contend that simply because something only has a serious effect on infants and toddlers doesn't make it less of a concern. SOURCES 1. . http://www.aardvarc.org...