Identify in the following argument these fallacies, and say briefly why each is a fallacy in this argument:

-the golden mean fallacy
-the straw person fallacy
-a fallacious appeal to authority
-an abusive ad hominem
-a circumstantial ad hominem
-a fallacious slippery slope

The current proposal to ban smoking in outdoor areas is unbelievable! If we accept the implementation of this proposal we know what to expect next: one by one our rights to the peaceful consumption of legal products will be removed until we can neither smoke nor eat nor drink any of the things that, somehow, we are still able to purchase - no smoke today and no smoky bacon tomorrow. If the government wants to ban smoking it should ban the production of cigarettes rather than their consumption. But governments are always too spineless to confront industry and too greedy for the revenue from taxes on cigarettes. The Minister for Health said that as smoking is responsible for the greatest proportion of preventable cancers, the reduction of passive smoking was one of the most effective public health interventions the government could make. But cancer will never be wiped out by stopping people from smoking outside their local café or in the park or at the beach.

The Minister for Health just says these things because that is what ministers of health are supposed to say these days in the nanny state Australia has become. Some of the finest Australians smoked all their lives. Bill Hunter was one of Australia's finest actors and he smoked throughout his life. Why can't the government just leave people alone? I'm no extremist though. I wouldn't have the government force people to smoke just as I wouldn't have the government ban people from smoking. Allowing people to smoke outside public premises but not inside is the right thing to do because it represents a middle position in the debate about smoking in our society.