Tobacco smoking should be banned to a necessary extent

I will be arguing on the side of more extensive bans as opposed to more moderate ones. A near-total ban: one which allows for situations in which significant harm is not being caused. To make things more convenient, I will make a proposal which would fit what my resolution asks for. I propose that smoking be heavily restricted, with little respect to property rights, with much respect to the rights of non-smokers, to the best possible extent, and with the immediate action of preventing new smokers. Thus, harm can be minimized to non-smokers, withdrawals can be minimized, and the future rights of all can start off on a blank slate. Resolution: Tobacco smoking should be banned extensively, to the extent that it prevents harm occurring to minors or nonconsenting parties. The reasoning is, of course, that second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke harms innocent parties. The government can protect the rights of smokers to destroy their own bodies, but when forced to choose must uphold the right of all others to live healthy lives instead. What should force the government's hand towards a ban? It has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens (and non-citizens). A government which claims the right to rule should not usurp citizens' rights to decide what to do with their own bodies, lives, health, etc, (in fact this would be the opposite of protecting rights) but it must balance the freedoms of one citizen against the other, erring on the side of caution, protecting the most important rights as much as possible. So the rights we are weighing in this case are the rights of involuntary parties and minors to not be harmed, and the rights of smokers to govern their own bodies. We must ask ourselves these questions: 1. Do minors and involuntary parties come to significant harm due to second-hand and third-hand smoke? 2. Is the right of one person to smoke more important than the right of another to live? Would either be intolerable to deny? 3. Do private property rights overrule rights to life and health? Would either be intolerable to deny? 4. Does my solution balance these rights more fairly than my opponent's? SIGNIFICANT HARM? Minors and involuntary parties are significantly harmed by second-hand smoke and even third-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is classified as a cancer-causing agent by major government health and environmental organizations. It also causes heart disease, breathing problems, lung infections, asthma problems, ear infections, birth defects. It causes premature death, illness, sudden infant death syndrome, etc. I quote: "The scientific evidence shows that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke." [1] Third-hand smoke, "the residue from tobacco smoke that clings to virtually all surfaces long after a cigarette has been extinguished", unheard of by most, is deadly as well. It absorbs into walls, clothing, skin, floors, furniture, etc and remains harmful for days, weeks, even months. It causes cancer as well as the rest of tobacco smoke problems. As one scientist put it, "those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere." [2] So we face two problems. Not only is smoking around others harmful to their health, even smoking away from them is! So while we could allow smokers to smoke inside their own home, if they so much as had contact with another person they will be harming that innocent person. The only way to prevent harm, then, is to stop smoking altogether (barring situations that will not be harmful). This, however, may not be necessary. If scientists can find a level of smoke which is an acceptable amount of harm, restrictions could be cut off at this level. INTOLERABLE DENIAL? To prevent smokers from smoking at all would be, undoubtably, harmful in the short term(though not more intolerable in the long term than preventing non-smokers from living) due to their addiction. But if smokers are not allowed to harm others in a way convenient for them, it is not a tragic loss of liberty. It is, however, a tragic loss of liberty to have others simply take years of your life away from you, as well as force medical expenses on you in a country already burdened with them. Would preventing private property from being exempt from no-smoking laws be so terrible? This would amount to, at best, inconvenience, at worst, a violation of the right to do with one's property as one wishes. But there are limits to property rights. The right to do with your property what you wish does not give you the right to stab anyone walking in or nearby, nor does it give you the right to pollute shared water or air, and finally it does not give you the right to apply say anthrax to yourself and then walk out into a public location. Living on property not belonging to you does not mean forfeiting your rights. MY OPPONENT'S SOLUTION To argue against my opponent's solution would, at this point, be arguing against a straw-man, even though she has identified the basics of it privately. For this reason I will wait until my next reason to address this point. MY PROPOSAL, IN DETAIL I will repeat my proposal: smoking should be heavily restricted, with little respect to property rights, with much respect to the rights of non-smokers, to the best possible extent, and with the immediate action of preventing new smokers. Let us examine this in more detail. However, this is no place for legalese, or excessive specifics. Such things can be worked out by those qualified to work them out. I will give broad ideas of how this can work, with examples. Because no rights are being denied by phasing out smoking and ending it in the future, the government must prevent new citizens from becoming smokers. This will prevent needless harm from occurring to future generations. Second, my opponent and I likely agree that smoking should be illegal in public locations and around children/pregnant women. If this is not the case, I will go into detail. So, in a household which one person owns but others live (for example wife, roommates, maid, etc) or in a building which one person (or group) owns but others work or must enter, all of the non-consenting non-owners are having their rights to health and life violated simply because they do not own that property! They of course might be able to choose to leave. But chances are they may not be aware smoke is being moved around through the ventilation system, clinging to the walls, the floor, etc. And their rights to life and health should not be considered forfeit simply because they need to enter a building. Therefor buildings which nonconsenting individuals will enter must be non-smoking, private or not. This is no different from requiring that buildings not collapse or contain harmful chemicals in their materials. Further, I propose that children's workers, public workers, and those who will be in close contact with others be banned from smoking, due to the smoke that will cling to themselves and their clothing and harm others. With all of this said, we must keep something in mind. Of course we cannot fully prevent exposure to these dangerous chemicals. Of course we cannot fully prevent exposure to the countless things which could cause every individual harm. But simply because risk will continue to exist does not mean that we cannot reduce risk, and that our government doesn't have a responsibility to. If we were to give this argument any merit it would mean our government shouldn't bother trying to prevent murders, poison in our food, nuclear attacks, etc. CONCLUSION Second-hand and third-hand smoke is sufficiently harmful to justify the end of the smoking industry, and further restrictions on smoking rights. Resolution affirmed. SOURCES 1. http://www.cancer.org... 2. http://www.sciencedaily.com...