Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

I thank kingkd for his arguments.FrameworkBoP is shared, and I need to say why we should not ban smoking, from moral reasons of liberty, and also that my plan which was about we sohlud ban tobacco in public places. This does not harm the resolution which is banning tobacco use. We still use tobacco in the spaces, according to my plan.RebuttalsRebuttal 1: CostIt is not the government's fault that people pay the money for these bills. The other people in the society pay their own money to buy these products. The citizens have the right to buy what they like. If we remove this right, there is absolutely no point of why we should have money. We spend money because we want to, not forced. Pro also states that the non-smokers need to pay for medical bills. This is all, and will be explained in my counterplan I addressed in round 1. The counterplan is that we should ban smoking in the public. This does not negate the resolution of saying that we should ban tobacco use. We still use tobacco. This counter-plan does not harm to pollution and also to non-smokers. Thus, we don't need to worry about the non-smokers because they will get no harm. Even though the cost for the smokers is same, it is their right to do what they want, which goes to liberty. They have moral reasons of what they want to spend, and in that case, this is tobacco use. They spend their own money. If this right is removed there is clearly no use of money.Rebuttal 2: For the Users themselves/ addictionPro states that the tobacco is addictive, so then liberty is rebutted. However, this argument does nothing about why we should ban smoking. Just because it is addictive does not mean that we should not ban smoking, however liberty explains why we should not ban smoking, because it is unfair to ban things people like to do, and it is the people's choice. This arguments does not support why we should ban smoking.Also, this argument is wrong. Studies show that nicotine is not addictive, meaning that people can stop smoking when they want, meaning if people don't stop smoking, it is their choice that they actually want to smoke.The references for nicotine is not addictive. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...Okay, that was my sources of the addiction rebuttal. Clearly, that argument makes no relation with why we should ban smoking, and does not rebut my liberty point, and third of all the argument is false, and is wrong, meaning that nicotine is not addictive. Pro clearly made a bad argument, and also could not rebut my liberty point in his argument. Extend my liberty point.Rebuttal 3: Secondhand smoke.Okay, this is Pro's third and final argument. This argument is rebutted through my counterplan. My counterplan was that we ban smoking in public places, and put more spaces where we can smoke, like small rooms in some buildings. This totally rebuts Pro's arguments because Pro's argument is about the non-smoker's health, however, because of my plan, there can be less smoking pollution that harms the non-smokers because of the spaces that smokers can smoke, and ban public use of tobacco. This does not harm the resolution in any way which says that "Tobacco use should be banned in the US. We are not banning the total tobacco use. If my plan works, then the non-smokers will have no problem of the harms from them when people smoke. No non-smokers will possibly go in these places because this harms their health.All of Pro's arguments were rebutted, when my wern't. I alerady made my defense from my arguments.DefenseOkay, this will be really short because Pro had not clearly rebutted any of my arguments.1. EconomyPro does not rebut this argument at all. Pro says he felt he adressed this, however he did not. Pro never rebutted my argument that if we ban smoking, the government will have a big loss of money because of smoking, because smoking does big jobs for the economy in the US.2. LibertyThis argument is not addressed also. Pro says that this argument is addressed in addiction, but I clearly rebutted that the people have done smoking because they wanted to, no one forced them. Pro argues that nicotine makes people addicted, and people cannot stop smoking, says that rebuts liberty. However I easily rebutted that nicotine does not make you addictive. This means that Pro's argument is easily rebutted, when my is defended, and still dropped from my opponent.3. PlanOkay, my opponent says that my plan is not effective, however it is very effective. With this plan, non-smokers can get no harm from smoking, no pollution from smoking, and also non-smokers do not need to be worried for their health if we have this plan. There is no harm from smoking from people who do not smoke, which does rebut all of Pro's secondhand smoke, and also does not harm for anyone who does not like smoking.4. DependentPro fails to rebut this also. My defense is also from my plan. For my defense, no non-smokers will get harmed. The only people who might get harmed is the smokers. But as I said in my liberty argument, they want to smoke, no one is forcing them or they are not addicitve. It is a moral reason that we should let these smokers to do what they want. However there is no moral reason why we need to not care of these workers. The workers are just doing their job, the smokers choice. Pro fails to rebut my argument of the consequences of the ban of smoking, then people will have no jobs. This is not morally acceptable, that we should leave these people alone when they are doing their jobs.Arguments1. CorruptionThis argument will be very short because of the lack of charecters.Okay, my argument is that tobacco creates corruption. Corruption: Dishonest behaviorSmoking Ban will increase corruption. This will be bad because corruption is a bad thing, as said in the defintion at front. Corruption is very bad, however if we ban tobacco, there will be a increase of corruption it says, so we should not ban smoking.I thank my opponent. Thank you.