Fire_wings 50th debate: Smoking Ban

Thank you Con for letting me accept this honorable debate.Premise I: Harms v Benefits.As is the basis of most debates, and many philosophies, such as utilitarianism and the Harm Principle (the centerpiece of all, or close to all, arguments on the Con side), this is a vital premise I shall base my cases on. If something hurts the US more than it benefits the US, rights and freedoms included, it should be banned.Premise II: Limitation of Rights.Rights aren't the end game. They aren't the goal of Government, or the People. The endgame is a balance of law and rights. Freedom of Speech is the prima facie example of this. I may not say I wish to bomb my school, or reveal the location and name of US spies because the harm is greater than any benefit. Rights end where the impact on others is greater than the reward.Argument I: Economics of Smoking.Con will likely bring up the profits of smoking. Let me do so first. The Smoking industry is very profitable. It returns revenues of $35 billion for the US (1). At best, this provides taxes of $4 billion+ (2). These numbers are vast, indeed, but not hard to counter. The economic truth of smoking is that it is related directly to millions of illnesses in the US, annually. The cost of these medical illnesses, as reported by a late 2014 study (Xin Xu, Bishop, et al), is nearly $170 billion (3). It takes the cigarette tax revenue of the US over 42 years to pay the medical costs of one year of smoking (although the costs of smoking would exceed $7.1 trillion in 42 years, inflation excluded). The costs far exceed any profits by a vast margin. Of the costs, 60% ($102 bn a year) is federal in origin. Since the majority of smokers are poorer (4), it's the non-smokers paying this cost.Of course, there are many deaths from smoking. I'll detail them further in Argument II, but until then, let's move on. The economic impact of smoking from illnesses and death exceeds $140 billion, from causes such as lost productivity, lost spending power, and importantly, death (5). These costs, when put together, equate over $310 billion in negative impacts to the economy. The costs from death and illness is an actual loss, and not just negative spending. It is made of lost spending, lost work, and lost revenue. The $140 billion is the equivalent of over $24.5 billion in taxes, based on taxes relative to GDP (6). This far exceeds the $4 billion brought in from smoking. The thing about lost economy is that it does not end that year... The $140 bn+ hit to the economy is huge, and takes away investable capital and growth. This leads to a domino effect. $145 bn in 2015 leads to $50 bn in growth lost from 2016, leading to $80 bn in loss growth the year after. Since 2005, the US would have lost $1.45 trillion in economy, costing us perhaps $2 trillion in investments, capital growth, and economic stimilus. The impact of smoking would be trillions in the making each decade, every decade.This impact hurts non-smokers far worse than it hurts current smokers. Due to the impersonal nature of medical costs and government spending, smoker's aren't just making the choice for them, they're making it for everyone. Smokers come out of this with the least harm. Taxes on smoking would have to exceed 885% just to make the cost. [1] http://www.worldlungfoundation.org...[2] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...[3] http://www.prevent.org...[4] http://www.gallup.com...[5] http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...[6] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...Argument II: Secondhand Smoke.As the CDC reports, secondhand smoke causes 34,000 deaths in the US from heart disease alone. Another 8,000 deaths are caused by strokes annually from secondhand smoke (5). A study by J. Barnova and S. Glantz show that the cardiovascular impact of passive amounts of secondhand smoke is almost the same as actual smoking (80-90% as effective as smoking)(7). Another review put the death toll from heart disease as high as 42,000 (8). It's assumed nearly 7000-8000 die annually from lung cancer. The impact of secondhand smoke also includes worsening asthma and between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children.It's assumed that there are 5.6 million children today who will die prematurely due to the impact of secondhand smoke on their bodies (5). There is a study claiming that secondhand smoking does not lead to lung cancer. This one study, up against the array of literature on the subject, only rated house wives who had very passive contact with smoking. This doesn't account for people with a lot of contact, or children living in a house with two parents who smoke.The impact of secondhand smoke is vast, and invasive. Smoking does more to infringe on the bodily autonomy, right to life, and right to security of self and future, of anyone who is harmed by secondhand smoke from drugs.Banning the act of smoking publicly is laughably ineffective. Most of the 5 million children listed above would die from secondhand smoke caused by parents in the household. Smoking outside does little to prevent the effects, as the smoke contaminates the surrounding area around, and inside, the home (9). Smoking inside, alone, also does nothing, as the smoke travels. So much so that the user can effect houses nearby. A study by San Diego State University shows that smoke will contaminate nearby apartments (10). Other studies show the same (11). Even third-degree smoke is considered a thing, now, as non-smokers can pass on secondhand smoke to those around them.The only way to prevent secondhand smoke is to ban smoking. The effect on others far exceeds the "rights" of those using the product. The "freedom of bodily choice" far from compares to the severe deterioration of other freedoms caused by smoking.[7] http://circ.ahajournals.org...[8] http://www.cancer.org...[9] http://www.nature.com...[10] http://www.usatoday.com...[11] http://tobaccofreeca.com...Argument III: Economic Freedom.Smoking is, at it's roots, a violation of our most basic right... The right to say no. More important than the right to say yes to a product, is the right to say no before and after using it. Legalization allows companies to violate our bodily autonomy, and make us HAVE to buy their product, at $7,000 profit a death (12), or face major physical withdrawals.The freedom of choice only exists if the choice to say no exists. Without it, the idea of choice is a myth.[12] http://www.techtimes.com...Summary:The cost of smoking is SO FAR above the economic profits of smoking that it is considerably one of the greatest economics disasters of all time. The impact on others make smoking a choice that harms everyone around us. It is NOT a personal freedom. It is a very public choice with very public consequences that outwieght, by at least 9 to 1, the benefits.Essentially, everyone is paying the price for smokers to continue killing them.On to Pro for his arguments.