Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

Refutations The Counterplan . http://www.nature.com... . http://www.usatoday.com... . http://tobaccofreeca.com... These studies prove secondhand smoke can "from a neighboring apartment can travel through ventilation systems, pipes, walls, open windows and doors, electrical sockets and even tiny cracks in plaster and drywall. ". Studies " found smoke residue on surfaces and in the air of both smoking and non-smoking rooms in 30 California hotels where smoking was allowed. ""Volunteers who stayed overnight in the smoking hotels also ended up with sticky nicotine residues on their fingers, whether they stayed in smoking rooms or not. ""Cigarette fumes probably become lodged on the hair and clothes of parents as they smoke outside, says Matt. The particles could then be brought back inside the house, where they would hang in the air or settle in dust. Family members may then inhale them directly or unwittingly transfer them from hand to mouth. Infants are particularly at risk as they spend most of their time indoors and often put objects into their mouths, says Matt. Contaminated dust can settle on toys, carpets and bedding and may remain there for months, he adds. " Tobacco use is never safe, really. Con's counterplan is flawed because he never provides any evidence of smoking in specific rooms to reduce the risk of secondhand smoke, which is proven to travel everywhere still. Con says "This counter-plan does not harm to pollution and also to non-smokers. " Smoke is a gas and will disperse and travel, thus proving his counterplan is faulty. Do you expect smoke to just stay in one place? Right here you can vote Pro, as his counterplan is shown to be worse. This means the secondhand smoke argument from my case is inevitably extended,as secondhand smoke is proven to still be a problem. Con also tries to refute my case through saying that nicotine is not addictive. His first site says "Cigarettes, as usually used, are addictive. That 90 percent of those who stopped smoking did so on their own should be put in the context not just of the 40 million who have stopped, but of the 50 million who are still smoking. Surveys indicate that more than 70 percent of smokers want to quit. Indeed, every year, one American smoker in three tries to quit, but 90 percent fail by year's end. Even for those who have abstained for a year, one-third relapse. " But more importantly HIS OWN SOURCE states "The tobacco companies torture these and other numbers in a desperate attempt to avoid facing the medical reality: smoking is addictive and can cause serious illness. " By his own reference, Con says that tobacco is addictive. Con just conceded the argument. His second site is funded by smokeless tobacco companies, meaning they probably have an agenda. The website itself attempts to say that tobacco use is safe and is complete bs. I couldn't reach his third source for some reason. His fourth source says that nicotine ALONE does not cause addiction; the study poiints to pyrazine. Fine. So it's not JUST nicotine, pyrazine also causes addiction. This still means that tobacco causes addiction. Again, con admits tobacco is addictive, through pyrazines. His fifth source says "People simply are obviously addicted to something else in the cigarette smoke than nicotine alone. " and admits that cigarette smoking is addictive, but points to things other than nicotine. I reitarate: So what? Tobacco has many addictives, nicotine being one of them, pyrazines also. I point back to my statistics that show that 85% of smoker tryied to quit but cannot. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... "Addiction is a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance. " From this definition we see that tobacco is most definitely addictive as it creates a reliance on smoking to function and makes users crave tobacco and be unable to leave. So yes, tobacco is addictive. Economic "Pro never rebutted my argument that if we ban smoking, the government will have a big loss of money because of smoking, because smoking does big jobs for the economy in the US. " Actually, I did. Remember when I said that "if a company is creating chemical weapons to kill innocent people, than that company ought to be shut down, Same for tobacco. It is unfortunate for the workers but is necessary morally and for the sake of our country. " Obviously, if there is a company that is causinig death to millions of people, the company and said product should be banned. Short term job loss does not equal millions of lives. I believe it is CON that never refuted this. Extend my other studies proving 100- 193 billion loss. A pack of cigarettes, which brings a 6.36 stimulus, will end up costing $35 to society in the long run. Long run over short term. . https://www.medicare.gov... This 193 billion dollar cost is footed by society because non smokers pay taxes, and this money goes to medicare, which is government paying for medical bills. Since most smokers are poor, they receive Medicare aid. Therefore, nonsmokers foot the bill for smokers. Liberty This argument has already been addressed three ways. First, by the framework: a government's duty is to provide for the well being of its citizens, that is why a government exists. There is a reason we try to prevent people from committing suicide, even though it is techinically "their choice". Under Con logic we shouldn't help people attempting or about to attempt suicide because it is their freedom. Pro believes that sometimes choice should be secondary to the common good. Second, by addiction: It is true that some smokers may want to smoke, but 85% of smokers have tried to quit but can't. Smoking at this point is not a choice; they are forced to by nicotine and pyrazine. Third,secondhand smoke. Con never proved why his counterplan would work through evidence, while I proved it would not work because smoke travels. Remember my evidence that says smoke can move throughout buildings or stay on the smoker. LIberty has been refuted. Corruption There's no evidence for this. Prove it. Dependent Fits under economic. Short term or long term? True some jobs would be lost but remember that a government's moral duty is to protect the well being of its citizens. Lives outweigh jobs. Besides, a company producing toxic poisons that kills millions a year should not exist, no matter how many jobs they have. Alright, since Con added corruption, I will add something also: Environmental. . http://tobaccofreeca.com... " In 2005, an estimated 135 million pounds of cigarette butts were dumped into the U. S. environment.2 Cigarette butts are the most common toxic waste found in cleanups and the number one item found on California highways.3 4 And contrary to popular belief, they do not decompose completely.5" Cigarettes have toxic chemicals in them that threaten aquatic ecosystems when they leak out, according to( Slaughter, E. , Gersberg, R. , Watanabe, K. , Rudolph, J. , Novotny, T. E. , "Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and their Chemical Components to Marine and Freshwater Fish, Atherinops affinis and Pimephales promelas,"). . http://www.mparks.org... "cigarette filters, cigar tips, and tobacco packaging accounted for 38% of worldwide debris". These numbers are from Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanups A ban would be effective, as "Smokefree beach laws help reduce butts on beaches by 45% according to the Audubon Society". Banning will reduce the vast litter amount. . http://www.lcc.edu... "Globally, approximately 4.3 trillioncigarette butts are littered every year. Smokers in the USA account for over 250 billion cigarette butts, in the UK 200 tons of butts are discarded, and Australian smokers litter over 7 billion cigarette butts annually. In most Western countries cigarette butt litter accounts for around 50% of all litter. Every littered cigarette butt can take anywhere from two to twenty-five years to biodegrade. Dropped cigarette butts have been the cause of house and apartment fires, as well as some of the largest and most destructive forest fires. Fires caused by cigarette butts claim the lives of about 1,000 people and injure about 3,000 people each year. " . http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org... "When people congregate in an airport baggage area or enter a smoking lounge where many brands are smoked, the average amount of PM2.5 mass emitted per cigarette is about 14 mg (see Reference 3). Although 14 mg may not seem like a lot of mass emitted, each cigarette weighs only about 0.9 grams total, making it an extremely potent source of air pollution for its weight. As we shall see in subsequent chapters of this booklet, the 14 mg of particles emitted by each cigarette is really a large amount of particulate matter mass, causing extremely high indoor air pollutant concentrations when a cigarette is smoked at home or in a car. The chapter "Where does the smoke go? " presents calculations that you can do yourself to illustrate that a single cigarette smoked indoors is a potent source of exposure to toxic pollutants, causing concentrations indoors that are often higher than the federal air quality standards designed to protect public health in ambient air outdoors. " . https://www.ncdps.gov... Cigarettes cause air pollution, which will happen even if smoked inside, as ventilation ensures it flows outside. Cigarettes are a major source of litter pollution, which costs millions to clean up. Litter costs around 11 billion to clean. If we use the cigarette litter estimate of 38%, this is 4.18 billion a year. Conclusion Tobacco use is a terrible thing, one that causes pain, addiction, and death, even to those who do not use it. It wreck the environment and costs society. Remember how Con's own evidence proved tobacco was addictive; this turn should be weighted in this round.