Fire_wings 50th debate: Smoking Ban

Premise I: Harms v Benefits.Con says the following statement is unreasonable: "If something hurts the US more than it benefits the US, it should be banned." However, he can not accept Premise II or the Harm Principle, and then deny this statement. If something you did hurts the US more than it benefits it, it invokes Premise II's statement: "Rights end where the impact on others is greater than the reward."Premise II: Limitation of Rights.Con has accepted this.Argument I: Economics of Smoking.I will start by noting that Con dropped this point: "Since 2005, the US would have lost $1.45 trillion in economy, costing us perhaps $2 trillion in investments, capital growth, and economic stimulus. The impact of smoking would be trillions in the making each decade, every decade."It's perhaps likely the US GDP could be 17% larger based on loss growth and capital investments from 2005+ alone... It'd be MUCH larger if we used numbers going back 50+ years. By dropping the above statement, Con largely concedes to this.Con ignores several key points of my argument where I explained why Medical Costs are bad... Firstly, $105 billion of the cost is tax-payer funded, meaning the average tax payer pays $640 a year on smoker's health. Non-smokers pay more because they are typically wealthier, a point Con dropped. As well as costing tax payers over a hundred billion dollar (over 3% of the Federal Budget), the $170 billion in total increases Insurance Costs on EVERYONE.It's also the case that many of those billion of dollars go to fixing the effects of Secondhand Smoke... Pro also forgets that not all expenses of Stimulus in nature... Even if it were only smokers paying the $170 billion, that's $170 billion they can't spend on things that stimulate the economy, like a new Car, or on debts. If it were only smokers paying, it'd be $3,750 per smoker (excluding the cost of buying cigarettes.) Such a cost among 45,000,000 Americans would have huge effects on the Economy... So even by Con's assumption, the economy would boom after decades of a smoke ban.To believe the smoking industry produced $500 billion a year is a misuse of Information. That is GLOBAL revenues. While the costs I listed were US costs. So it's only appropriate to use US revenues (under $35 billion). If we were to project costs onto a GLOBAL field, the number of deaths increases from 480,000 to 6,000,000. Secondhand smoke kills 600,000 people, including 150,000+ children (2). The medical costs alone are $500 billion... But at the same time, if the medical costs and quality of medical aid in those nations were comparable to the US's, we'd see expenses over a trillion dollars. As well, many of these people don't add costs because they are too poor to pay, thus making the real cost higher.The EU believes the total cost of smoking on the economy was $608 billion USD... In Europe alone (3).[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://www.tobaccofreekids.org...[3] http://www.erswhitebook.org...Argument II: Secondhand Smoke.Con's case is a little confusing... "It is impossible of secondhand smoke is 80-90% because the smokers drink almost all of the smoke, and put it in their lungs." I'm not sure what this means...Either way, Con gives us no reason to prefer his plan over a full ban. His plan would still endanger 45,000,000 Americans, and despite his assumption that "what we do with with our bodies hurts no one," such causalities would still effect EVERYONE. Most medical costs and lost economy aren't caused by secondhand smoke, so all of those impacts on the average non-smoking American would still exist. And Con's plan for a fully ventilated room with sealed doors would be expansive for the majority of bars and homes to implement. Most bars simply don't have the space, revenue, or land needed to install such a thing. Forbes put the cost of the ventilation system, by itself, at as high as $15,000 (4). And that cost is for private only. The system needed for a full bar room with potentially 100x the smoke exposure would be much higher.Even then, the Surgeon General warns that ventilation systems do not work (5). The system still leaves patrons and workers exposed, and doesn't prevent secondhand smoke because the smoke carries with the user. It doesn't just stay behind.That being said, my plan would end both secondhand smoke AND smoke-related causalities/costs of all kind. [4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] http://www.no-smoke.org...Argument III: Economic Freedom."...we get to do the things we want."Such a freedom can only exist by banning smoking, as most smokers don't get the right to do what they want. As many as 85% of smokers wish they could quit (5). So in truth, smoker's don't "want" to smoke. They simply don't have the right to do what they want, which is quitting. No matter which plan we go wish, someone is losing either the right to start, or the right to stop, smoking, and it's clear which one is more economically sound and enjoyed.The right to say yes can only exist when the right to say no exists with it. I don't have the right to say yes to paying my taxes, because I don't have the right to say no to them, as an example. So no, allowing the right to smoke cigerettes doesn't grant one more freedom.It is better to lose the right to start something that will kill you and your children, than to lose the right to say no to something is killing you and your children. Likewise, it's reasonable for the government to revoke the right to start a drug that will hurt everyone and the economy, than for corporations to take away your right to not buy self-harming products from them..."If we do not have the right of choice, we cannot do anything we want."This is silly. The right of choice is not one singular right... You lose the right to smoke, and suddenly you aren't allowed to do anything? There are millions of choices we can make, and the choices that impose massive costs and health hazards onto others should not be allowed. This does not mean all choices are therefore also banned. This is the very idea behind the Harm Principle.Conclusion:Smoking costs the US 8x what it brings in, and leads to 25% of all US deaths. The effect on others violates the Harm Principle, and the effect on the Economy harms everyone, smoker or non-smoker. Therefore smoking causes so much more harm to everyone, non-smokers included, that it would be universally more benefical to all the US if smoking was banned.