Resolved: The USFG should ban smoking in restaurants and bars nationwide

FrameworkOkay, BoP is on Pro. If Pro proves that the benfits of a smoking ban in bars is beeneficial, Pro wins. If he fails, I win. Also, even though you can't change the resolution of the actual debate, we can agree with that. Arguments1. Liberty/ Moral ReasonsMy first argument is that we have the liberty. There are moral reasons to not ban smoking, worldwide or bars/ restaurants. People own themselves. They are welcome to harm thereselves, as long as they will not harm others. Pro will talk about the secondhand smoke will cover this argument, but I will rebut that in the rebuttals, then this will make sense. People have the right to choose what they want to do, they have rights to harm themselves. John Stuart Mill's "harm princple" states that "The harm principle states that the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm. In other words, a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. If a person's actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government, should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. This even includes actions that a person may do that would harm the person himself. " [1]. This means that people have the right to do anything unless it harms others [1] [2]. There are many places where smoking is no allowed. If anyone does not want/ or like smoking, then they can get out of those places, making their no reason to ban smoking in the public [3]. If you think that the harm principle is right, this means that smoking should we legal. 2. Illegal cigarettesMust as I don't like smoking and also when I don't want to make a defensive argument, putting a ban on smoking will just make smoking, and tobacco as an illegal drug. Tobacco will be resold illegally, such as some other drugs like cocaine. Illegal drugs will jsut be bought, and the society will turn bad, and fail. The cost is way more if we buy illegal drugs, almost 3 times than the actual cost [4]. This will just strenghten the criminal networks [5]. Thus, smoking should be legal, or else tobacco will be a illegal drug, and society will fail. Vote for Con.3. Economic Impact/ Depending WorkersAnother half offense, and half defense argument. [6] A ban on smoking will only make the economy worse. "For example, the St. Louis Coalition for Tobacco-Free Missouri lists over 400 smoke-free restaurants" Think about an tobacco farm like this. [7] This is basically one part of an tobacco farm. There was about 180,000 tobacco farms in the US at 2012 [8]. This is a lot of tobacco farms, and a lot of tobacco. . http://static1.squarespace.com...; data-image-dimensions="900x506" data-image-focal-point="0.5,0.5" data-load="false" data-image-id="56245f88e4b0b8034f7f9c76" data-type="image" data-image-resolution="500w" /> These are different tobacco farms in different place [9]. That is a lot of tobacco plants which makes cigarettes. In 2012, tobacco companies spent 9.6 billion dollars of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco alone. This rounds to 1 million dollars one hour [8]. Now think if we ban smoking. All this money earns, not people cannot earn it if we ban smoking. The money the farms earn, they cannot earn it. That means that many people in these farms will become broke, which leads to my other part of this argument, dependency. The people will become dependent on the government for food and money, because they have no money because of the ban of tobacco. Because there are 180,000 farms in 2012, and about or over 200 people in each farm, there will be so much people who have no jobs. Then they die. A ban on smoking kills much more people than letting smoking happen. Now I will go on to my rebuttals after I include my sources[1] . http://tinyurl.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3] . http://tinyurl.com...[4] . http://tinyurl.com...[5] . http://tinyurl.com...[6] . http://tinyurl.com...[7] . http://tinyurl.com... (For Picture)[8] . http://tinyurl.com...[9] . http://tinyurl.com... (For Picture)Now I will go onto my rebuttalsRebuttals1. Secondhand smoke is dangerousPro states that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Smoke is basically pollution. There is already a lot of pollution made from cars and factories. Compared, smoking's pollution is nothing if you way the impacts of thousands of factories, millions of cars, and just few million cigarettes. Then Pro says that it is dangerous in closed places like bars. Then there is another way to rebut this, my counterplanCounterplan: My counterplan to stop secondhand smoke is by making smoking allowed in designated areas like in the following. A lot of these are in coffee shops or restaurants, where one place, there is a room where smoking is allowed. Even Pro might defend that there might be smoke in the air when someone opens a door, almost no smoke is okay. This is way little than fire burning, or cars. Pro can also defend it costs a lot, but it does not because all you do is put a wall, and a door in a open space so there is space for people to smoke. This will make a total end of secondhand smoke because the non-smokers do not go to the designated areas. So secondhand smoke is rebutted, Vote Con.2. Smoking Ban's are effectivePro says that they reduce heart attack. Yes, but then it is because the people want to smoke, and that is why their health is bad. They made the choice, and it is not moral if we take away that right. This is already rebutted in moral reasons/ liberty that people have the moral reasons and have self-ownership. Also, Pro states that a ban will make them not addicted. However, this is explained in my argument of illegal tobacco. They illegally buy tobacco, and use it. Even if we ban smoking, people will still be addicted. Even if we ban tobacco or smoking, people can still buy tobacco/ and cigarettes illegally, making no use if banning smoking for no addiction. Vote for Con. Pro also states that it saves lives if we ban smoking. However, with my counterplan, it will only save secondhand smokers. The smokers die because they want to smoke, and smoke. With the counterplan, there will be much more Because of the danger of forfeiting, I will rebut Pro's third argument in the next round.