Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Well, isn't a smoker taking away my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment?Not really, the smoker isn't blowing the smoke into your face an following you around, if you don't like the smoke than leave, also your property (if you don't want it to be) is smoke free and there are many other areas that are smoke free.In this case, whose liberty weighs more? In a public place, does a smoker's liberty outweigh my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment? Am I obligated to leave whenever someone pulls out a smoke? Or is it the otherway around and the smoker is expected to not smoke if he might endanger the clear air of others?If you don't like the smoke, take a few steps back, move away from them or just leave, they aren't rubbing up against you and breathing it in your face, rather than saying that we should ban their right to smoke how about you take a more reasonable route and stand at a distance that doesn't invade their personal space.I'm against smoking for the sole reason that I'm against all drugs.I support smoking for the sole reason that its their right, I hate smoke from cigs, I hate the smell and it does damage to them, but they can do as they want.I don't find it to be ethical to have the state support self-destructive behavior.If a state allows fast food stores to open are they supporting self-destructive behavior? Its just as bad as tobacco so it is self destructive. The state isn't supporting it, they just aren't condeming it and locking people up over having a burger and fries.The state should not strive for fully fledged freedom, it should strive for the health and well-being of its citizens.The job of the state is to protect our freedom, and people would still smoke, today all drugs accept for alcohol and tobacco are illegal and they are VERY (yes, they are everywhere and cheap) plenitful, you can buy drugs anywhere. You wouldn't stop people from smoking you'd just force them to buy it from other sources and smoke it somewhere else. And again, if its unhealthy and they know it, its fine, their choice. You have no right to take away their liberties cause you don't agree.As I take it, your idea of liberty boils down to ''its their choice and you have no right to take away their personal liberties and rights because you don't like _____ (insert blank with).''No, but thats what it boils down to on drugs, its their choice, not the governments and not yours. The government is not meant to be a baby sitter that watches our every move ad tells us exactly what to do, they have no role in my life when it comes to drugs.With this principle you can allow anything.If your being niave about it, then yes. I don't support murder because that personal choice led to the death of someone else, I don't support rape because it led to the rape of someone else. Using drugs isn't hurting anyone else.While I may not like it and be personally against it, I have no right to take away another's liberty to walk around naked, shoot heroin or have sex with animals for example.Having sex with animals is different because there is a 99.99% chance the animal didn't want to have sex with the human, thus, its rape. As for heroin, again, its illegal but people still do it and its everywhere and when its illegal its not controlled, anyone can buy it and there is not quality control. I'd rather have heroin addicts shoot heroin in an a place where they know what they are taking and if they try to get help they don't have to worry about being thrown in jail.Let me turn what you said around - Does a smoker have the right to take away my personal liberty for clean air because he doesn't like the idea of not-smoking?Their not, you can walk away, you don't have to breathe in their smoke, its like saying people playing guitar in the park are violating your right for a quite park, just leave.