Smoking Ban

Before I begin my round, I want to note me and my opponent agreed in advance that cigar smoking is also acceptable for argument here; do not take this as a conduct issue, as this was just a minor oversight. Contention I - Tobacco smoking is a net good for the economySubpoint I - A smoking ban would be impractical due to lost tax revenueThere are three main methods of tobacco consumption: cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 18.1% of Americans (roughly 58 million given the current population estimate of 320 million) are cigarette smokers. [1] 5.4% of Americans (roughly 17 million) smoke cigars,[2] and 3.5% (roughly 11 million) use smokeless tobacco (snuff, chew, etc. ). [3] Accordingly, most tobacco-related economic activity revolves around cigarettes or cigars. What is that impact? As I will show you it is significant. In 2010, the federal government made $15.5 billion dollars from the cigarette excise tax. The Daily Caller notes that " That money went to fund an expansion of the federal State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) which provides funding to states for health insurance for families that do not qualify for Medicare, but are still considered of modest means". The federal government is not the only level to benefit from cigarette sales - the state governments made more than $24 billion dollars on cigarette sales and $8.8 billion in settlement payments in 2009. [4] Under a federal ban on smoking, this roughly $48 billion in tax revenue would vanish. Subpoint II - Impact on tobacco farmers and tradeBeyond taxes, though, the ban would be detrimental to many Americans. According to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, over 660,000 Americans are employed in the tobacco industry (225,000 of them in North Carolina) and the tobacco industry has a $64 billion dollar impact on America's gross national product ($7 billion of which is in North Carolina). [5] A ban on smoking would be detrimental to these Americans, who would likely lose their jobs or find their income drastically reduced. Their way of life and income source would become obsolete overnight, and they would unfairly bear the brunt of the ban. This would also become a problem as tobacco is a very large cash crop - tobacco is valued at roughly $4,000 per acre, the highest of any domestically grown crop in the United States. [6] The loss of tobacco exports would increase the US trade deficit even further and further marginalize the farmers of the United States. Subpoint III - Smoking deaths are good for the economyIt is undeniable that smoking is bad for you. Like, really bad for you. If you value your life, don't smoke. However, from a practical perspective, smoking deaths are good for the economy. According to The Daily Caller, "Smokers actually save the government money, both by dying earlier and thus reduce social security payments, and, to a lesser extent, by dying of relatively cheap ailments like lung cancer, a fairly quick killer, rather than more expensive, lingering ailments". [4] If the government were to ban cigarette smoking, then, not only would they have to raise taxes on other, less harmful products to recoup losses, but they would also have to deal with a population that lives much longer, thus requiring more money in health care costs. According to The Atlantic, the early death of smokers, when combined with the heavy tax burden that smokers take, means that smokers are essentially "self-financing" - that is, they cost about as much as they put in. [7]Contention II - Businesses are harmedI can understand the desire for smoke-free restaurants. Smoking smells bad and isn't really healthy. I'd be lying if I said my own state's ban on smoking in restaurants hasn't made dining experiences nicer. However, smoking bans take away the fundamental agency of businessmen to regulate their business model. Many business models, such as pubs and sports bars, are very damaged by smoking bans - many smokers would opt to stay home and smoke rather than go to a place where they cannot smoke. Some business models, such as cigar bars, would be abolished entirely. This in particular is a big problem, because not only is cigar smoking much less harmful than cigarette smoking when done properly (not inhaling) and in moderation, but cigar culture is an artisan one. [8] Most cigar smokers don't smoke to get a fix of nicotine (just like a good number of wine and beer enthusiasts don't drink to get drunk), but rather to enjoy the flavor of a cigar. These people aren't any more of a public health nuisance than wine enthusiasts are - why should they be punished, and their culture taken away from them? Contention III - A smoking ban is unenforceableSubpoint I - There are too many smokers to effectively regulateIt would be incorrect to assume 75 million Americans would stop smoking overnight - some 30% of Americans don't want to quit smoking. [1] Even if we assume the 70% that would like to quit actually do quit, that still leaves 17 million Americans who still want to smoke. As has been shown with failed bans on alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs, simply making some illegal does not actually stop people from using it - those 30% would likely continue to smoke, and would simply buy illegally. Those illegal sales would have two major problems:*Government would receive no tax revenue on them. *They would be illegal, obligating the arrest of both smugglers and those who own and smoke. The first is a fairly big problem - how can the government recoup $50 billion in revenue immediately? The short answer is they cannot, especially when you consider what would likely be the high costs to enforce the act. A ban on recreational smoking would likely have to be national, meaning national funds and national forces would be needed to enforce it. Enforcing this ban would be a tremendous waste of time and money - what, are we going to throw 17 million people in jail? That's not practical. Such a ban would, by necessity, have to be either toothless or totalitarian. Subpoint II - Previous drug bans have failedAccording to a 2012 study, 9.2% of the 12 and over population (23.9 million Americans) used an illegal drug within the last month of when they were surveyed. [9] For perspective, that's more than the combined number of cigar and smokeless tobacco users. These drugs are illegal, and clearly efforts to remove them have failed, because people still use them. Like cigarettes, these drugs are addictive, but unlinke cigarettes these drugs have been illegal for decades and lack a centralized industry producing them. If government is incapable of effectively banning these drugs and removing them from public use, how can they do so with a product that has long been legal and that has a large global industry behind it? The answer, of course, is that they cannot. A good example of this is Prohibition, where the US banned alcohol which, like cigarettes, is a large industry that has been around forever. Prohibition was an enormous failure and ended after just a decade. Contention IV - A smoking ban is not necessaryAlthough my opponent will try and cast a smoking ban as the only solution to a massive public health crisis, in reality smoking is dying on its own. In 1955, almost 45% of adults smoked; currently that number is less than 20%. [10] To put it bluntly, smokers are dying off at a fairly rapid pace, and despite population growth, the number of smokers - not just the percentage - is decreasing. [11] In contrast to the ineffectiveness of bans, education, anti-smoking ads, and increased sin taxes on smoking have been shown to be effective ways to get people to stop smoking. [12] Anti-smoking efforts are more effective than total bans, so why bother with bans? ConclusionA total smoking ban would be a terrible idea. A smoking ban would be incredibly damaging to the economy, causing massive loss of jobs, tobacco-related economic benefits, and a massive decrease in tax revenue, and it would also cause harm to businesses and end a lively artisan cigar culture. On top of this, a total ban on recreational smoking would be costly and unenforceable. Essentially, a smoking ban would likely be a total failure in any regard. There are many other ways to reduce smoking than a total ban, like education and increased taxes, and these other methods are much more effective. Resources should not be wasted on a ban, but should instead be contributed to proven anti-smoking efforts. References:1. . http://www.cdc.gov...2. . http://www.cdc.gov...3. . http://www.cdc.gov...4. . http://dailycaller.com...5. . http://www.ncagr.gov...6. . http://www.fujipub.com...7. . http://www.theatlantic.com...8. . http://www.theatlantic.com...9. . http://www.drugabuse.gov...10. . http://www.gallup.com...11. . http://www.livescience.com...12. . http://www.usatoday.com...