Cigarettes Should be Illegal

I'm new to this site, but it's my understanding that the instigator has the burden of proof. In this round, many of my opponent's arguments hinge on the fact that cigarettes are currently legal. If we pretended that the U.S. had no current policy on cigarettes and were debating whether legality did more good than harm, my opponent's case would be found wanting. As such, I believe that you should use a utilitarian framework when weighing this round: which policy does the greatest good for the greatest number of people? My opponent's case came down to three things: 1. Prohibition's failure I've refuted this at length by showing that Prohibition failed because 70% of Americans drank and there was a populist backlash against the law because no one wanted to quit drinking. There will be no populist backlash against a cigarette ban because cigarette users are a smaller group, most of whom want to quit (Gallup: 3 of 4 smokers want to quit). Also, it was easy to hide the speakeasies because people would hide in an underground bar at night to drink. Smokers cannot hide their habit at work, where they cannot smoke indoors and cannot smoke outdoors without fear of getting caught. Going 8 hours a day without smoking is excruciating if you're addicted; it would be easier just to quit, than to force yourself to smoke only at morning and at night. 2. Economy My opponent points out that smoking is a $2 billion industry. This is always going to be outweighed by the costs to society of smoking in terms of productivity losses and higher health care costs, which is $157 billion a year. And don't forget opportunity cost – tobacco executives might be put to much better use running solar power companies. The tobacco farmland may be put to better use growing switchgrass for ethanol. An end to smoking does not spell an end to these people's lives – there are other options out there for them. 3. It's A Right To win that there's a basic right to smoke, my opponent would have to answer my arguments that the government can take away a right when the right impinges on the rights of others, such as the right not to be exposed to secondhand smoke and the right not to pay for smokers health care costs through higher premiums for everyone. My opponent concedes that the government can take away the "right" to do heroin. My opponent points out that heroin can kill you. My opponent therefore concedes that the paternalism principle (passing a law to protect people from themselves) is a legitimate reason to create a law. Even though cigarettes stop short of killing people all in one dose, that doesn't mean that the government cannot employ the paternalism principle in this case as well. I wish we'd stop referring to it as the "right" to smoke. It's not a right guaranteed to us anywhere in U.S. law. It's not hiding somewhere in the First Amendment. I believe for the above reasons that my opponent's case fails the burden of proof and fails to justify why a law that makes smoking legal is a good idea for society. (Note on the mis-cited #4 source. Go to the source website – the word "tax" does not appear) Moving back to my own case: 1. Economy Productivity losses and higher health care costs from smoking add up to $157 billion a year or $7.18 per pack. My opponent keeps bring up how productivity means we should ban bad foods, but the reason we don't ban "bad foods" is that no type of food is categorically bad. Even McDonald's in moderation can be part of a healthy diet (Jamie Oliver). Cigarettes cannot be part of a healthy anything – moderation doesn't matter, exercise doesn't mitigate smoking. If McDonald's burgers put tar in your lungs and contained cyanide, they would be banned too. My opponent's main response to health care is that we pay for things we don't agree with, like the wars in the Middle East (his most recent example). We pay taxes to go towards things that benefit all of us (whether or not we agree with those things). The wars in the Middle East promise to increase global security and decrease terrorism, both of which benefit all U.S. citizens and thus justify the use of tax dollars. Cigarettes do not benefit all. Non-smokers pay $7.18 per pack, but gain no benefits from smoking. 2. Lives It's never been refuted that a smoking ban could save 440,000 lives per year. Three fourths of those people want to quit but need more motivation. Also, a ban ends the problems associated with secondhand smoke. The electronic smokeless cigarette does not solve this problem considering that so few smokers employ this device. There are other carcinogens in the air, but none as concentrated or poisonous as cigarette smoke. Remember that any exposure to secondhand smoke as a child doubles your risk of cancer as an adult. 3. Marketing to kids Cigarette companies claim not to market to kids, but check out this picture: http://nicotinetimes.com... It looks just like a tic-tac. Allison Ellis of Targeting Kids says, "Is there anything about this product that isn't designed with kids in mind? Let's see… the candy-like flavor? The youthful colors and packaging? The cute camel silhouette?" [1] Each ad they see makes kids 182% more likely to smoke. If smoking were a clear-cut choice, everyone would have made up their minds and not be swayed by advertising. Yes, lots of kids have "tried" marijuana once. That's very different from getting hooked on cigarettes for the rest of your life. Marijuana, lacking nicotine, does not have the same staying power. 90% of people start smoking as kids. Isn't there something wrong with a product when adults cannot be convinced to use it – only kids can? I love this Truth campaign PSA I saw today: http://shardsofglass.com... Watch the first video now if you don't want spoilers. It shows an executive announcing that his Shards of Glass products are being recalled because they are "addictive and deadly when used correctly." What other product would we allow this with? When cigarettes were first put on the market, we were told they were safe - the tobacco industry later set up a scientific research institute to prove as much. When we found out that they were "addictive and deadly when used correctly," why were they not recalled or banned, like any other product would be? Would we allow ice cream pops with shards of glass in them to stay on the market? Then why cigarettes? In conclusion, banning cigarettes would achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It would add $157 billion to our economy by increasing our nation's productivity and decreasing our health care costs. It would end the unfair practice of non-smokers being charged $7.18 for each pack that smokers choose to buy. A ban would save countless lives and end the problems associated with secondhand smoke. A ban would be the impetus that smokers need to quit, considering that 3 out of 4 smokers say that they would love to quit if given the proper motivation. What other product is on the market where 75% percent of its users say that they want to stop using it but feel like they can't? Why are cigarette companies so ineffective at convincing adults to start smoking? (adults are only 10% of "new smokers") It's because cigarettes are a product that by all sane metrics does not belong on the market. We should have issued a recall on all cigarettes ages ago. It's high time to do the right thing. Affirmed I thank my opponent for an intriguing debate [1] http://www.shapingyouth.org...