Smoking Ban

(1) Harm principle There was an argument on liberty. Just because the word "liberty" isn't there in the argument doesn't mean the argument isn't there. I'm quoting myself from Rd. 2, "There are moral reasons to not ban tobacco. People have self-ownership -- they own themselves, and ought to have complete bodily autonomy. They are free to harm themselves, as long as they don't harm unwilling others. If a person wants to harm themselves, that's their choice, as long as the act doesn't regard an unwilling other. This position is articulated best by John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," which holds that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. " It makes a distinction between "self-regarding acts" and "other-regarding acts," the former dealing with acts that are relevant only to the actor, and the latter dealing with acts that extend beyond the actor and influence others. The ability to perform the former shouldn't be limited by the government, since the inherent "state of nature" holds self-ownership. Accept this because the state of Nature is the only thing that gives governments authority. The government's interference is only legitimate when harm comes to unwilling citizens; there's no other warrant for government legitimacy. If you accept the harm principle, smoking should be legal. If you don't accept the harm principle, then the government isn't legitimate, so you reject the plan and reject *any* government action, so you still vote Pro down on anarchy. " This basically represents the state of nature, the sole justification for a government's existence. Vote Con right there. Pro drops this, and claims this doesn't even exist. That's why you should vote Con -- either there's anarchy, where you negate by default, or there's self-ownership, where you still negate. Vote Con because of that. (2) Health Pro says "we need to ban smoking to reduce . . . deaths. " He fails to justify that we should ban anything that increases deaths. Why should we care about deaths? Pro doesn't give us any reason. We own our own lives, and have the choice to end our lives as we see fit. Even under a utilitarian calculation, smoking brings people pleasure, so people weigh its pleasure against the suffering caused by smoking, and choose to smoke. This isn't very convincing. (3) Spending money Pro says I dropped this argument. But I *clearly* addressed it. Let me quote myself from Rd. 3, "Now, the costs of cigarettes. It shouldn't be the business of government if a person wants to spend a lot of money on something. How would it affect the state? The person owns the money, and has the right to spend it as he wants. If that right is removed, the point of the money system is useless. Pro doesn't show how if someone spends a lot of money on something they subjectively consider "useless," it should be banned. People treasure the experience of smoking and drugs; they gain immense pleasure out of doing it. Apply util: since they get immense pleasure, which outweighs the suffering (since they continue to smoke), turn this and let smoking be legal. " This isn't a drop; I clearly addressed this argument. This isn't a compelling reason to ban smoking. (4) Environmental effects I didn't drop this. I addressed this as well. Let my quote myself from Rd. 3, "Pro argues that smoking causes pollution. The pollution is prevented by my counterplan. My counterplan bans public smoking. Only public smoking causes pollution. The counterplan allows specified closed spaces for smoking, so that it doesn't harm the environment. This impact doesn't make you favor the plan over the counterplan; it only fights the status quo. " And from Rd. 2, where I established a public smoking ban as part of the counterplan, "I have a counterplan of my own. Instead of a universal smoking ban, I'd implement a ban on public smoking alone, and legalize illicit drugs as well. Let nicotine stay legal, and legalize other drugs as well (to reduce the harms to Pro's own plan, which exist at smaller levels in the status quo). " Therefore, this isn't a compelling reason to ban smoking. == Conclusion == I didn't drop *any* of Pro's arguments. Pro still drops liberty (harm principle), corruption, economy, criminal networks, and cartels, all of which result in huge impacts: lives lost, anarchy, and huge economic harms. The main basis to vote Pro is the harm principle point. If the government doesn't work via the harm principle, then anarchy is the only justifiable state since it represents a "state of nature," and anarchy would result in voting Con. The alternative to the anarchy point is to still vote Con, because then the government has some warrant for its existence by allowing liberties based on Mill's harm principle.