Cigarettes Should be Illegal

Food comparison: Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because people can eat themselves to an early death doesn't mean they should also be allowed to smoke themselves to an early death. The same logic would require us to legalize all hard drugs. People can make their own decisions regarding heroin. However, legalizing it would seem to sanction its use, make it more easily accessible, and allow companies to advertise that doing heroin is a desirable lifestyle choice. Cigarette use is much more widespread than it should be due to positive advertising from the cigarette companies that reach children (but do not necessarily "target" them). Eating cannot be criminalized, since there isn't a clear brightline between what fat or sugar content is considered healthy and what in considered unhealthy. It depends on the expert who is studying the issue and the metabolism of the individual eating the food. In contrast, cigarettes are all unambiguously unhealthy. However, I would argue that marketing fatty foods to children using fun characters like Ronald McDonald should be illegal, which answers your objections. In addition, Jamie Oliver on Food Revolution explains that fast food is okay when eaten in moderation, such as once a month. Oliver, in spite of his healthy eating credentials, admits to taking his children to fast food restaurants once a month. So eating McDonald's once a month is not incompatible with a healthy lifestyle. In fact, most children who become obese do so because of the food they choose to eat at home and the foods they pick at their school cafeteria (in addition to a lack of exercise), not because of fast food visits. Because obesity is not directly correlated to fast food, banning fast food would do very little. However, banning cigarettes would directly correlate to fewer smoking-related deaths and illnesses. Ingesting a quarter-pounder with cheese is not quite the same as sucking poison and tar into your lungs. Only one of those actions can be mitigated with daily exercise. Also, keep in mind that quitting fast food will not give you withdrawal symptoms. Cigarettes contain an addictive drug (nicotine) that the government should have the right to regulate/ban. Health care: Yes, a very small number of plans cover abortions. However, abortions do not raise the cost of health care for everyone in the nation by $75 billion a year. Marketing to kids: When every single cigarette advertisement that is viewed by a child increases the child's chance of smoking by 182%, you have to admit there is a serious problem. Our psychologies are complicated regarding advertising, especially when we are children. The "choice" that you keep falling back on is not as simple as weighing the pros and cons and making a rational decision of whether or not to smoke. The choice: It is society's job to adjudicate competing rights claims. Cigarette smokers have the right to smoke. Non-cigarette smokers have the right not to be forcibly exposed to secondhand smoke and not to have to pay the hidden health care costs for smokers. It is now society's job to decide whose rights should supersede the other group's rights. Nicotine is an addictive drug, the only recreational addictive drug that is legal. Although fast food and alcohol have some addictive properties, quitting either of them will not give you withdrawal symptoms. If we can remove a choice to do other addictive drugs like heroin, why can we not do so with nicotine? We recognize in our society that addiction is not truly a choice. I'd like to note that at the end of the day, my opponent has no response to the fact that the hidden productivity and health care costs mean that non-smokers have to pay $7.18 for each pack of cigarettes that a smoker purchases. This unfair economic burden is why cigarettes should be banned. Prohibition: Cigarettes (today) are not analogous to alcohol (during the Prohibition Era). CBS News says in 2006 that: 71% of Americans drink alcohol regularly. [1] Prohibition obviously was going to fail when 7 of 10 Americans consumed the substance regularly. In contrast, many fewer people smoke cigarettes, approximately 20%. [2] In addition, the 7 of 10 Americans who drink alcohol mostly do not want to quit. Most of them drink socially and in moderation, which studies show can actually be healthy (riboflavin in red wine helps heart health). In contrast, most smokers actually want to quit because they know cigarettes harm their health, but they feel hooked. A Gallup poll in 2005 found that "more than three out of four smokers want to kick the smoking habit." [3] A ban would help motivate those 3 out of 4 smokers to quit. Obviously, since most smokers actually want to quit, there would not be the same backlash that there was during Prohibition. Economic benefits of smoking: First, keep in mind that a smoking ban in the United States would not necessarily force farmers to stop growing tobacco. Farmers could theoretically be allowed to sell the tobacco to companies that don't make cigarettes (nicotine gum companies for example) or could sell the tobacco to other countries where cigarettes are still legal. In addition, the $2 billion added to the economy from smoking is completely outweighed by the $157 billion lost every single year from the economy from smoking due to lost productivity and higher health care costs. Right to smoke: Remember from before that others have the right not to be exposed to secondhand smoke and not to have to pay higher health care premiums. Society must decide whose rights are more important. In addition, people may have the right to do heroin, that doesn't mean that we should allow them to do so. Maybe people should also have the "right" to have a consensual sexual relationship with a child. Our moral repugnance to this example shows two things: 1) children cannot make fully informed decisions, which proves my advertising point (remember 9 out of 10 smokers start smoking as children) and 2) that we should pass laws that maximize the benefits for all society when rights are in conflict (an adult's right to have a sexual relationship vs. a parent's right to protect their child). In summary, ban smoking because it is not really a choice – most people choose to smoke as children because they are inundated with advertising convincing them to do so. 3 out of 4 of them later in life would like to quit, but feel like they cannot; a ban would help them quit. Smoking is unfair because it impedes on the rights of non-smokers. Non-smokers have the right to a smoke free environment that does not endanger their health or the lives of their children. Non-smokers also have the right not to have to pay for the costs of smoking. Remember, each $5 pack of cigarettes costs society an additional $7.18 in hidden costs. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com... [2] http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... [3] http://www.webmd.com...