Restrictions on tobacco marketing in the US should be repealed.

I would like to start this round by thanking my opponent for responding. He is a new user on the website and I am glad that he seems committed. Now, let's examine his initial arguments.Battle of MoralityMy opponent opens up with the statement that this is not a debate. A small correction: it is. He tells us that this is a battle of morality. But how is this the case? Neither of us had affirmed objective morality prior to this debate. What is moral to one person may or may not be moral to another. This is beside the point. Most of us can agree that 443,000 people dying because of smoking cigarettes is bad, but is it appropriate to infringe on the constitutional rights of tobacco companies and to implement anti-free market legislation? Apparently not, as there are plenty of harmful things on the markets in the US that are not targeted by the same anti-free speech and anti-free market legislation as the tobacco industry. Let's use the example of alcohol and dive a little deeper into the statistics surrounding youth and alcohol:- In 2014, 24.7 percent of people ages 18 or older reported that they engaged in binge drinking in the past month. [1] The number of people in 2010 who were 18 or over was 234,564,071. [2] What is 24.7 percent of 234,564,071? It is roughly 57,937,326 people. What are the effects of binge drinking? They include: Unintentional injuries (e.g., car crashes, falls, burns, drowning) Intentional injuries (e.g., firearm injuries, sexual assault, domestic violence) Alcohol poisoning Sexually transmitted diseases Unintended pregnancy Children born with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders High blood pressure, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases Liver disease Neurological damage Sexual dysfunction Poor control of diabetes [3] - 16.3 million adults ages 18 and older (6.8 percent of this age group) had an AUD [Alcohol Use Disorder] in 2014. This includes 10.6 million men (9.2 percent of men in this age group) and 5.7 million women (4.6 percent of women in this age group). [1] - In 2014, an estimated 679,000 adolescents ages 12–17 (2.7 percent of this age group) had an AUD. This number includes 367,000 females (3.0 percent of females in this age group) and 311,000 males (2.5 percent of males in this age group). [1] - Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States. [1] -In 2010, alcohol misuse problems cost the United States $249.0 billion. Three-quarters of the total cost of alcohol misuse is related to binge drinking. [1] While there are some youth statistics in what I have already listed, the NIH does provide some statistics just on youth in America. This is important to highlight, as my opponent has consistently referenced the need to keep tobacco marketing away from youth because of its dangers, yet this line of reasoning seems to fall apart when it comes to alcohol:- According to the 2014 NSDUH, approximately 5.3 million people (about 13.8 percent) ages 12–20 were binge drinkers (15.8 percent of males and 12.4 percent of females. [1] - According to the 2014 NSDUH, approximately 1.3 million people (about 3.4 percent) ages 12–20 were heavy drinkers (4.6 percent of males and 2.7 percent of females). [1]And what are the consequences of drinking while underage? "Research indicates that alcohol use during the teenage years could interfere with normal adolescent brain development and increase the risk of developing an AUD. In addition, underage drinking contributes to a range of acute consequences, including injuries, sexual assaults, and even deaths--including those from car crashes". [1]ConclusionMy opponent argued that the United States government should keep its restrictions on tobacco marketing because cigarettes are "dangerous." These restrictions are "keeping minors and adults safe." This would be a great line of reasoning if the United States government was consistent and did this with all dangerous products on the market. Tobacco products are risky and dangerous, that is a fact. It is also factually true that alcohol is risky and dangerous. Yet the United States puts unconstitutional restrictions on the marketing of one but not the other. My opponent may believe that alcohol should also have legislation put on it to restrict marketing, but that is simply not the case right now in the US. Until that happens, my opponent's argument is unsound and inconsistent with current US practices in regard to these issues. My opponent has done a great job of explaining how these regulations are created and how they are enforced. I do not disagree with any of this. However, he has ultimately failed to justify why these restrictions should exist. Simply saying that the product is dangerous is not enough when there are other dangerous products that have very little to no marketing restrictions. To be sure, I do not disagree with my opponent in his final sentence. The use of tobacco products is dangerous, which is why I do not use them. Alcohol is also dangerous and I do not use it. Marijuana, while illegal in my state (yet it is legal in others), is also dangerous. I would not choose to use it even if it were legal. No one is claiming that tobacco products are not harmful to those who use them. I and many others are simply saying that this war on the tobacco industry is unconstitutional and anti-free market. It is also inconsistent with other industries in the US.Sources[1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov...[2] http://www.census.gov...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...