Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

People who were hit by a sober driver, it probably was an accident.Same with drunk drivers. I doubt you've ever touched alcohol in your life, but trust me, it does not turn you into a homicidal psychopath. What you've demonstrated is that people shouldn't drive drunk. That is all. By your logic, we should ban cars, as more people die from being run over than die from being run over by drunk drivers.You haven't solved anything sorry.Again, you have not demonstrated that cigarettes should be banned, only that parents shouldn't smoke around kids. You know how smoking goes right? You breathe something in, and then you breathe out a Grey smoke? That's the smoke I'm talking about.Yes, I'm not 3, and I have actually done these things before deciding to condemn them. The second hand smoke does contain some carcinogens, but so does all smoke. Wanna ban open fires, gas outlets, burning fuel? No? Why? If you don't want to inhale second hand smoke, then don't, it's really not hard. Don't stop everyone enjoying themselves because you are afraid you might raise your risk of lung cancer by like 1%.Basically, you seem to have a ten year old's understanding of civil liberties. When something's danger significantly outweighs its benefits, then maybe it can be banned. Take the earlier example. Why not ban cars? They cause thousands of deaths every year, they release harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, and it costs thousands in taxpayer's money to service roads used by cars. You tell me, why aren't they banned? It's because number one, the advantage of having the ability to travel so quickly from A to B greatly outweighs the disadvantages, and number two, we can't just ban everything that causes harm, or we'd be living inside small huts made of cotton wool, where we'd have to apply for a permit to go outside.Similarly, the happiness and fun that comes from alcohol greatly outweighs the fact that some idiots try to drive and end up hitting other people. You can't punish an entire population for the crimes of a few.Again, with cigarettes, the harm is caused almost completely to the smoker themselves. We need to treat adult humans as equals, able to make their own decisions, and we don't need some old fart politician telling us what we can and can't put in our mouths. Yes, some arseholes smoke around their kids, but we can't punish everyone in the country for those few people being dick cocks.Also, I see you have the common skewed stats about smoking risks. The biggest risk by far from smoking is actually the effect on the vascular system, which can cause heart attacks. The risk of lung cancer is much lower than the anti smokers would have you believe. Only ten percent of long term smokers actually get lung cancer. What the anti smokers do is use the backwards statistic, using the percentage of people with lung cancer who smoke instead of the people who smoke with lung cancer. This is because people are more scared of cancer. I think you think that the fact people die because of something is reason enough to ban it. You are an idiot. When you have eliminated every risk from your life, come back and tell me. This would probably require never crossing a road, never eating hot food, never using sharpened implements, never carrying heavy objects etc etc.