Smoking Ban

PrefaceI had a lot of debate topics like this one, one was with tejretics of a debate of smoking ban. I was Pro on this topic, so in this debate, I get a new chance to debate on the other side of the topic. This is not that good for me, because I do not know this side well, but much good of an experience for me because I get to know more about smoking ban. Next of all, I had a taxation of cigarettes increasing debate. I was Con on this debate also. I wish my opponent good luck, and let'shave a nice debate. FrameworkAs I said, I never tried this side before, so please do not be sad or mad if I screw up. I will be talking about if we should ban the use of tobacco. BOP is equally shared, Pro has to prove why tobacco should be banned in the US, when I say they should not ban tobaccouse, or the tobacco in the US. If I fill the BOP, I win. If my opponent does, he wins. What is tobacco? I know that it was a rule of Pro's that I accept the definitions, however I know that most of our definitions will be similar. Okay, what is tobacco? Tobacco: a preparation of the nicotine-rich leaves of an American plant, which are cured by a process of drying and fermentation for smoking or chewing. Okay, so the main argue of this debate is if we should ban tobacco, which is a plant which is not healthy, and you smoke. I will be arguing we should have tobacco, when my opponent will argue we should ban tobacco. ArgumentsOkay, here comes to my first argument.1. EconomyMy first argument will be about the economy. The economy will become low if we ban smoking. Smoking makes a lot of money if smoking. There are many tobacco farms. They get more than a million dollars a hour, and about 28 million dollars a day. That is a lot of money just for smoking. However, what happens if we ban this? Okay, this is the chart. As you can see, if you ban smoking, the economy turns in that state. This is because the US earns a lot of money because of tobacco, in tobacco farms, and also everywhere else. They use this tobacco make cigarettes, people buy them, and the government earns the money. However, the bad thing is that if we ban smoking, there will be no money for smoking, no one buys it, and the government earns less money because of this. If we ban smoking, the economy will be at risk, and turns bad, so that is why we should not ban tobacco.2. LibertyOkay, this argument is about the right to choose, liberty. Why the smokers are smoking? Because they want to. The government does not 'force' the citizens to smoke, it is the citizen's or person's choice. They can just quit smoking, however they aren't. They want to smoke because of some reasons. Why do we ban smoking to people who want to smoke? It is their decision, and we need to have the right to choose what we want to do. The people who smoke, all have the right to do this, because it is harming no one. Pro might say that there is a problem, so I will explain that in the next argument. Our point is that the smokers want to smoke, they are not forced. They need the right to choose what they want to do, and not always get controlled by other's decisions, or the government's decisions. This shows that we need liberty, and do what we want sometimes, and not always be int he government's hands. We can't ban anything that is not that good sometimes. We should not ban tobacco in the US.3. My solutionThis is not really, an argument, just my solution to fix this why we should not ban tobacco. Solution: Pro might argue that smoking is bad for your health, and other's health in the environment. So there is a solution. Ban smoking in public places, however make more spaces for yes smoking. This does not approve the resolution in any way. The resolution says, "Tobacco use should be banned in the US. " We do not ban tobacco use. We ban it in public places, so that there is no bad pollution in the environment from smoking. Another way is that make more private places or spaces to allow smoking. If we used this solution, why would anyone smoke outside if there is a smoking center right next to the place, and you pay money? This solution will increase lots of smoking in the environment, making smoking okay, and doing no damage to non-smokers.4. DependentDefintinon of Dependent: needed something else for support. This argument is about if we ban smoking, some people will be dependent of the government. Who gets the tobacco? The farms will get tobacco. Who makes cigarettes? Companies do. What happens if we ban smoking? The people who make money by tobacco selling like the farms, have no jobs, the companies have no jobs because of the ban. The people will become dependent on the government. About 5 million people in the US work on the tobacco farms. These 5 million people will have no jobs, and will become dependent on the government. ConclusionWe should not ban tobacco because it harms the economy. It also bans the people's right of liberty, and to choose what they want to do. I made a solution, and people will become dependent. These are my 4 main arguments. Thank you. Sources . http://www.cdc.gov...www.pages.drexel.edu/ ~jcb64/Pros%20vs. %20Cons. htm. http://thefederalist.com...http://statenews.com...http://www.spiked-online.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com... www. cdc. gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/