Cigarettes should be banned

Rebuttal 1 ) TaxationJust to make cons case clear, she is arguing if something is bad it's fine as long as you make enough money from it. She is also arguing that nearly a combined total of half a million deaths deaths in the US is a non factor because of revenue purposes[1]. That logic is poor, because it condones for anything and every to be legal as long as you can make money from it. This is not just limited to the scope of the US though. She is actually stating that a total of 6 million deaths world wide is not a factor because cigarettes make a good deal of money[2]. I would think that the impacts of 6 million lives are a much greater impact than costs. New York has 8 million people in it, she is basically affirming that it is acceptable if half of New York was wiped out in order to make 30 billion dollars, and that we should not stop it. The entire call of duty franchise made around 30 billion dollars. I think if you asked someone if they would stop production of a game in order to save 6 million lives the answer would be yes. Lives are always a greater impact than costsRebuttal 2 ) EconomyThe US generates around 31- 35 billion from tobacco products yearly[3]. The Us alone generates 3 trillion dollars in revenue yearly [4]. To put this in perspective, tobacco is less than 1 percent of the annual revenue from the US. If you compared global profits of tobacco to global revenue, tobacco is only .10 percent of the revenue. It would have a negative impact to begin with, but it's not one that would sink the US. The US and other countries have an obligation to protect their citizens. Reducing the amount of deaths by nearly 6 million far outweigh cost factors. Rebuttal 3) Harmful ThingsTheir is a fundamental difference between using a product for what it's intended to be used for, and having an accident. Car's are not made with the knowledge they are knowingly going to kill (x) amount of people. Car's can malfunction and people can make mistakes while driving. Meaning when you are making cars, the intent is entirely different.You are making cars because they allow us to travel. Cigs are being made with full knowledge of what is in them. As I stated in my last round there are 4,00 chemical compounds in cigarettes with over 250 of those being known to cause disease. Second hand smoke alone is nearly half a million lives that are lost yearly. Comparing it to other thing's that *can* cause harm, when cigarettes de facto are *proven* to cause harm are two different things. Cigs are made with the purpose to generate money and kill people, cars are not. Rebuttal 4 ) Black Market Con makes an argument that people can still get the goods if they are banned. This issue is easily countered by mitigating the lives lost. Sure if you ban it, not all cigs would be stopped. People will still get them through illegal means, but if you ban them it's safe to assume you can reduce the death count from possibly 8 million to 1 million, or half a million in the us to 100,00 thousand. Banning things always results in the product being harder to get. Take gun bans for example. They reduce the amount of guns in circulation, while reducing homicides. Gun bans actually reduce deaths, the issue is mitigation with them because the number of lives are minimal. If you applied the same principal to bans that you see with guns, you will clearly see that you can reduce the amount of deaths while making cigarettes harder to get.[5]C) Governments have an obligation to protect their citizens. A ban on Cigs would accomplish that for the aforementioned reasons. It would reduce the drastic amount of lives lost, which far outweighs any cost argument that con has brought up. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...