Smoking Should be Banned

Clarifications and definitions have not been clearly identified and agreed upon. Therefore, I will assume responsibility for doing so and will do the best that I can. All of my definitions will originate from Oxford University"s Dictionary of the English Language. Opponent"s Clarification of the Debate Topic: ""inhale and exhale the smoke of tobacco or a drug. [Sic]""Note that this is the alternative definition of smoking according to the Oxford Dictionary, although grammatically incorrect in this context. 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." Drug: "A medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body." Ban: "Officially or legally prohibit." Now: Refutations "It is the most deadly object in the world." Before addressing anything else, let's clarify that just because something kills the most people, does not mean that it is the deadliest substance or object. According to the Oxford University English Dictionary, the definition of the word deadly is as follows: "Causing or able to cause death." In this context, we must draw the distinction between something that is most able to cause death and something that causes the most deaths. There is a huge percentage of the population that smokes, thereby allowing a huge percent of the population to be exposed to various forms of harm, including the risk of death. It would also be reasonable to take into account that there are many smokers that inhale a pack or more of cigarettes a day. These statistics vary greatly from that of any other substance or object that you have included in your argument which supports all evidence that smoking causes the most deaths, rather than being something able to cause the most death among its noxious family. Still, there are more faults in the way that your argument has been constructed. Secondly, you defined smoking as the ingestion of a tobacco product or a drug. This includes any drug, legal or illegal; Marijuana, LSD, Morphine, Aspirin, Advil, Ibuprofen, and Pepto-Bismol would all make this list due to the fact that they are all drugs. If you really felt the need to smoke them, should it seriously be illegal for you to do so? Also, there was no specification as to where smoking would be made illegal so I have assumed that you meant everywhere. You wish to regulate the way that someone lives their personal lives on their own property? The US Government proposed the banning of cigarettes in particular a few years ago and has since given up the movement after so many people voiced disapproval of their government's actions. Other ideas such as the removal of all unhealthy foods have been discussed and approved by parts of authority. Banning smoking is a slippery slope that can quickly lead from one thing to another, steadily cutting back on the rights in which people are born with. Finally, what does this have to do with legal matters whatsoever? Eating junk food, driving a vehicle, and flying in a plane are all decisions that are potentially dangerous, yet not illegal. The number of people that participate in these activities does not change the fact that people have the right to continue taking the risk in doing so. Statistics are null and void here because they simply do not matter. "It affects other people." This depends on where and what we are talking about; once again, assuming that you mean everywhere, smoking cigarettes does not necessarily harm other people if smokers are careful to not expose others. There are plenty of places in which smoking is not allowed for the sake of non-smokers. Also, since there was no clarification, the smoking of other substances does not always cause harm, especially to non-smokers. Other limits and plans can be activated in order to solve the issue of second-hand cigarette smoke without banning it altogether. If cigarettes were to be banned, a large portion of the population would go into withdrawal, making for an immensely problematic result that would backfire and require another solution. However, banning something does not eliminate it; people that would not go into withdrawal would most likely be purchasing through the black market. This would not only create a longer list of drug-related criminals, but would also deepen the country's financial crisis while current smokers are actually benefiting the economy with their taxed purchases and consumption. "Even when not killing, it is harmful." Again, this illustrates the risk placed upon cigarette smokers but does not define how and/or why it should be legally prohibited. While I willingly concede that smoking can be harmful at times, this is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it should be legal. Anyone has the right to do something potentially harmful to himself if they wish to do so. "It harms the economy." Morbid or not, more dead people means more job openings for the living. With all due respect, most of this argument is built upon appeals and fallacies. Where is your information coming from? How will the prohibition of smoking prevent the corruption of science or the release of false information? The right to smoke is in the hands of the people, as is the right to sort information or have the freedom of thought and speech. As I mentioned earlier, smoking actually improves the economy. How does the vision of someone smoking hurt anyone? If Pro's earlier argument regarding the safety of children and non-smokers in the home was sincere, would it not make more sense for smokers to move to a larger, outdoor space such as a park, forest, or even a field? Parks and forests generally have many trees and plants to provide oxygen that helps to eliminate pollution from the air. Open fields may do the same if enough forage is present but are usually in areas where large pollution is already evident from factories and the like, so smoking would not affect the currently unaffected. Furthermore, since stress is usually linked to smoking, venturing outdoors would help to release the stress causing people to want to smoke and eventually lessen the amount of smokers in the world. Also, it is very difficult to take any of my opponent"s statistics, facts, or other information seriously because I have found that at least four of the sources listed--notably the ones that would have been the most reliable--are defective. http://www.cnn.com... http://www.cdc.gov... http://debatewise.org... http://musebaby.hubpages.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://heartland.org... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...