Advertising Cigarettes should be banned

Ok orville, in your last argument you stated, "I never stated in my argument that banning such advertisements will decrease the smoking rate of the people" but at the very end of that same paragraph you say, "it[banning smoking advertising] will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but[buy] a pack of cigarettes and smoke". Just so you know, if you lower the number of people that smoke, you lower the rate. And you essentially said the same thing in your first argument by saying the government should ban advertising because people are getting lung cancer... So lets say for a second that you don't think smoking adds would diminish smoking rates, ok? what exactly are you arguing? that government should ban the adds for no reason? what is their reason for banning the adds if it doesn't decrease smoking? You stated government has reason, because people will be healthier, well if the ban does lower smoking rates how are people going to be healthier? does a ban in adds mean a cure for lung cancer? no. Ok back to reality. you also had a argument about condoms, and stated how the commercials cause people to have underage sex, and therefore are going to be banned in the Philippines. Are you really naive enough to think that people want to have sex because they saw a condom commercial? Hormones, peer pressure, puberty, porn, lifestyle, media, all have more impact than a condom commercial. i have seen more risque material on shampoo commercials then for condoms. But anyways back to cigarettes, you have still given no proof to your claim. The examples i used against condom use can carry over to this. lifestyle, peer pressure, education, stress level, movies, all have a much more significant impact then adds. And let me make one thing clear, in all of these forms, there is no warning on the dangers of cigarettes. At least in the adds you can see a warning that says cigarettes cause cancer. then finally you mention that, "it will only prove that democracy and the crying out of the parents who has scolded their children who has engaged in smoking cigarettes and voiced out their concerns has room for the government`s ears" This just does not make sense. I am going to assume you want the government to listen to parents who do not want there kids smoking. Well a democracy is not run by parents who are un able to control their children. and also, why are you holding the tobacco adds totally responsible. Its the person who buys cigarettes that are the most responsible. so again here are my points that i would now like to elaborate on: 1: it violates the first amendment - i do understand that you are in the philippenes, but this does not mean freedom of speech is less important. 2: it would allow government to ban all unhealthy ads - you say you dont advicate this, but unfortunatly your rational does. 3: personal prejudice does not allow someone to control another persons business - cross apply this with your statement with mothers unable to control children 4:you have not provided the link between the ban and low smoking rates -this is crucial, i urge you to at least try 5: your personal beliefs are not as important as the other arguments but i think they do require an explanation - this is outside of the debate, yes i know, but please if you can, explain it