Resolved: The US Federal Government ought to Implement a Ban on Smoking

Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness Pro never contests that our government allows for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Instead, he claims that many smokers desire to quit. However this does not refute my claim. First, it does not address the component of liberty which is very significant. Second, smoking to provide immediate relief or satiate a craving does indeed provide happiness. Smokers enjoy their habit because it stimulates the flow of "feel good" chemicals in the brain [1].We do not inhibit everything that is definitively harmful. I gave the example of cutting down trees. Other examples include sugar consumption, drinking and driving or sun tanning. We can take measures to minimize the harm or effects of the harm. For example while it's legal to drink alcohol and drive, we have laws about blood alcohol content (the highest allowed to drive legally) in order to minimize risk. Secondhand Smoke I've pointed out that laws can be implemented to reduce the impact of second-hand smoke. Pro said these laws are ineffective which is patently false. First, it should be noted that these laws are relatively new and thus Pro's statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. Second, the audience should acknowledge that barring second-hand smoke will quite obviously have an impact. After all, if people aren't exposed to the smoke, then they cannot be harmed by the smoke. This only makes perfect sense which is why so many studies confirm that to be true.National and international studies have found substantial declines in cotinine, a marker of secondhand smoke, among the general public following the implementation of smokefree laws [2]. This was not just found in one study cited here by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but by dozens. In 2003, a statewide comprehensive smokefree law prohibiting smoking in all indoor areas was implemented in New York. Research found that salivary cotinine levels among nonsmoking adults decreased by 47.4% within 1 year after the law took effect [3] Another study found that salivary cotinine levels among nonsmoking adult workers in the state decreased by 85% within 1 year after the law took effect [4]. Those are HUGE differences. In 2007, a similar smokefree law prohibiting smoking in all indoor areas was implemented in Minnesota. Research found that urine cotinine levels among nonsmoking employees there decreased by 80% within 1 to 2 months after the law took effect [5]. Similar results were found in Michigan, Ireland, Scotland and England [6]. Once again, these are SIGNIFICANT and favorable results.In short, Pro is completely wrong that secondhand smoke laws do not protect people. As I mentioned in previous rounds, the dangers of secondhand smoke are also exaggerated and misleading. A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation. "The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer... The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke" [7]. Consider this: although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will tell you that secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year, scientists have long understood that the actual number might be closer to zero. "The basic problem is that the doses of carcinogens absorbed by nonsmokers are much lower than the doses absorbed by smokers, so any lung cancer risk would be correspondingly small and therefore hard to detect using the blunt tools of epidemiology" [8]. To be clear on this point, I am NOT saying that secondhand smoke is harmless. I'm saying that the dangers have been greatly exaggerated, providing misleading data, and that protective laws ARE helpful.Problems With Criminalization Even the most basic penalties (fines) for smoking would be unjust based on my contentions.My opponent disregards the argument of tax revenue from cigarettes. We don't base laws ONLY on revenue, but we DO very much consider the profitability of endeavors in determining their legal status. It is not the only consideration, but it is certainly a consideration. Thus "taxing murder" for profit is a fallacious analogy, but we do allow for other things to exist (despite their harm) on the basis of their money return, including legalized alcohol despite its significant danger that is greater than tobacco... which Pro completely dropped... and things like drilling for oil despite environmental harms. Please extend the argument on the significance of this revenue and cost of law enforcement, as well as the failure of the War on Drugs.Pro suggests that I've been hypocritical in saying we cannot legislate morality, but then allow taxing cigarettes which counts as a form of legislation. This is wrong. We tax almost everything that gets sold in this country, so cigarettes are not an exception. Furthermore, taxing cigarettes at a higher rate can be justified by cigarette smokers costing society more money on medical care -- which means the tax levied against them is not based on morality, but on pragmatism that punishes smokers for their monetary burden, NOT their moral choices [9]. ConclusionPro dropped my arguments on bodily autonomy, the black market and crime related problems. Extend.He also misrepresents my position on the harm principle. This standard seeks to ban things that create harm for others. Secondhand smoke bans can alleviate harm to others, as can the individual responsibility to not put one's self in harms way if they do not want to be exposed to smoke (and laws that protect children). Thus the principles of LIBERTY must prevail, even according to JSM's harm principle. Moreover, banning smoking (and the associated effects) can also be harmful to society as I have described.SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...