Smoking Cigarretes Should Be Illegal.

Smoker's Health OK, let's get one thing straight. You take cyanide, you die. The chemicals I listed last round don't cause diseases at all, which is why my opponent's source is so eloquently able to claim that smoking rarely is the sole cause of a disease. Rather they are poisons. That is, by the way, a prime example of your sources taking facts way out of context - cigarettes are more deadly than just disease-causing. I'm not saying smoking causes people to die more frequently. Smoking makes you die younger. Cigarettes wear down your immune system until your body collapses. Sure, my opponent is right to say that we don't know how old some smoker would have become if they did not smoke. But we can almost guarantee that they'll be healthier, and not have dozens of carcinogens waltzing around their bloodstream. Finally, my statistic is correct - 14% of people die from cancer, and 30% of cancer patients are smokers. So we can logically conclude that smokers are way over-represented in cancer statistics. My source makes the first fact clear enough, and yours covers the second.You make the same error a second time - the reason why the number of smoker's deaths is low is because there aren't that many smokers. Non-smoker's Health First, I'm sorry that I cited my third source. I should have cited my fourth. The numbers are on there. My opponent says that the parents should suffer the consequences for their actions. But what about the children who did not choose to smoke? Who are the ones who will suffer these ill effects for the rest of their lives, all because of a choice they did not make? If my opponent concedes that this is a significant social harm to these children, he should admit that we should prevent parents from smoking. But it's not just parents. I should not be forced by my employer to expose myself to a toxic mix 6000 harmful chemicals. Not everyone can leave their job. There might just not be enough work to go around. Finally, I know that *they* died from second-hand smoke exposure because that's what the statisticians said. They could be wrong, perhaps. All of the studies that show harmful benefits of smoking could be wrong in theory. But the chances of any individual study being wrong is fairly slim. That's what the process of peer review is out to ensure. Freedom of Choice First, my opponent agrees that freedom of choice has limits. Perhaps they are controversial. But controversy is not a bad thing, but it doesn't mean we should just say yes. There is controversy around euthanasia, for instance, but it is (in most jurisdictions) outlawed anyway. Second, slave=person without freedom of choice, cigarette=thing that creates people without freedom of choice (because of its addictive nature). And third, no you cannot sell yourself into slavery. It's outlawed internationally. Even if you've really thought about it for a very long time. Prohibition "we can't make everything that can kill us illegal" but we can do so when there is a significant social harm. Like in the case of marijuana. Youth and Cigarettes Here my opponent appeals to authority over the common youth statement - bad stuff is good. I do not find that persuasive for reasons I have outlined earlier. But even if it were true that youth adore murderers and pedophiles, I want to prevent people being seen smoking at their age. At the very least, if it is underground, it is out of sight (to keep away from the prying cops). Again, I am sure 100% compliance is impossible. Many will keep doing it. But the purpose of my model is not to eradicate smoking but to relieve pressure on our public health system by reducing smoking among youth. Which is why crack is far more rarely seen in school parking lots than cigarettes. It is there, no doubt. But it is rare. Model OK, so cigarettes are sometimes a placebo, and ... what? If it is a relaxant for them, then great. That's no reason not to ban it. I'm sorry, I just don't comprehend this point. Maybe they'll make replica cigarettes. OK, again, that's cool. I don't mind. If there is no social harm, then don't ban it. If there is a significant social harm, then ban it. This isn't a weakness in my model at all. Summary This debate is about whether we should ban people from destroying themselves, their family, their coworkers, and even random people whom they don't know. I for one am proud to say that I am against cigarettes. Let's stand up for society! Let's liberate a people oppressed! Too long have we been in the dark abyss of smoker's rights. Smoker's rights is nothing more than millions of death certificates, not only of smokers, but of the innocent also. This is no prohibition. This is an affirmation of freedom of choice. Smoking cigarettes should be illegal. Please vote PRO ...and make it happen!