Smoking Ban

I'm extremely impressed by my opponent's quick and comprehensive rebuttal. I will attempt to rebut both his opening round and second round.Health risksI don't contest that smoking causes major risks to health.Costs My opponent notes that from 2000 to 2004, health costs from cigarette smoking were estimated at $96 billion, and productivity losses were estimated at $193 billion. If we divide the costs by the number of years, there is a health care cost of $19 billion per year and a productivity loss of $39 billion. This combines to $58 billion. As I noted in my opening round, cigarette taxes alone bring in $48 billion per year,[2] and the total economic impact of tobacco in the United States per year is roughly $64 billion.[3] That equals $112 billion per year - or nearly twice as much as the $58 billion in damage cigarette smoking causes.Free willMy opponent notes that nicotine is highly addictive, and that it is thus very hard to quit smoking. He finds that 70% of smokers would quit smoking if given the chance, and claims that "Only about 4% to 7% of people are able to quit smoking on any given attempt". The former is true, but still leaves 30% of smokers who don't want to quit. Do they not have free will? The latter, however, is a misrepresentation of the source. My opponent's source says that "Only about 4% to 7% of people are able to quit smoking on any given attempt without medicines or other help".[6] According to my opponent's own source, however, 25% of medicine-assisted smoking attempts succeed.[6] It is much easier to quit smoking than my opponent suggests, and this doesn't even account for cigar smokers, 3/4s of which smoke only occasionally.[9]He notes that second-hand smoke can cause damage, however second-hand smoke isn't really settled science. The Heartland Institute notes that "According to the EPA, the risk ratio for forty years of exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. Epidemiologists... dismiss as random ratios less than 1.3".[4] Further, a study from the prestigious[5] British Medical Journal examined 100,000 Californians from 1959 to 1997 and found that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality... It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day. If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke -- is highly implausible".[4] Putting that aside, secondhand smoke can easily be dealt with through better ventilation, and concerned landlords or business owners could always choose to ban smoking within their premises.In essence, none of my opponent's opening arguments really hold water. Now, I will respond to his rebuttals of my opening statements:CigarsI am somewhat confused by my opponent's argument here. He seems to be arguing that smoking a cigar isn't actually smoking. This is a bit silly given that the standard method of cigar smoking is not inhaling, and yet it is still called 'smoking',[7] as well as that the term 'smoking' was never defined . Smoking can mean different things for different substances.My opponent's other arguments are that some people inhale cigar smoke, and that cigar smoke can be worse for second-hand smoke. In regards to the first one, those people are morons - arguing that cigars should be banned because some people misuse them is akin to arguing alcohol should be banned because some people misuse it. In regards to the second, better ventilation would be an easy way to fix that issue.Lost RevenueCompared to the first round, my opponent's figures have significantly increased. Now, he says $289 billion is lost annually due to cigarettes. What gives? Well, that statistic comes from the CDC[9] and is cited to the Surgeon General's Report " The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General".[10] Assuming this number is correct, let's subtract tobacco-related economic loss from gain:$112 (gain) - $289 billion (loss) = $177 billion lossSo, depending on which of his statistics you believe, a tobacco ban would result in there being something between a net loss of $54 billion or a net gain of $177 billion... or would it? My opponent is assuming a ban would reduce tobacco-related losses to zero, which would offset the loss of tax revenue. However, by his own statistics at least 30% of cigarette smokers (17.4 million) would keep smoking, as well as many smokers who are addicted. Let's assume that the ban offers medical treatment to those who are addicted. That would mean, as I demonstrated, roughly 25% of cigarette smokers (14.5 million) would successfully quit. That still leaves 43.5 smokers who are addicted. Taking the $289 billion figure, if we multiply it by .75 (the percentage of smokers still smoking), we get health costs down to $217 billion. However, tax revenues would drop to zero and farms would likely drop to zero as well (as tobacco farming would have to be illegal for a ban to work), which is a loss of $122 billion. Doing the math:$0 (tobacco-related economic gain) - $217 billion (loss) = $217 billion lossThat means a ban would result in a greater economic loss, not a lower one.Tobacco farmersMy opponent argues that the lives of tobacco farmers do not matter, because people die of smoking diseases. However, the number of tobacco employees (660,000) is greater than the number of smoking-related deaths (443,000). Moreover, smoking kills people later in life - smoking takes an average of ten years off of a life,[11] and the average life expectancy is 79 years.[12] So the average smoker will live 69 years. The average retirement age is 62 years,[13] so by that point the average smoker will have been retired for nearly a decade. The financial obligations they have will be minimal. In contrast, given the current average US household size of 2.54,[14] the amount of people directly impacted by these jobs is nearly 1.68 million. That is more than triple the number of tobacco-related deaths - a ban would harm these people, and would not help the smokers who are already going to die.Deaths are not goodMy opponent argues deaths are not good for the economy, because live workers are better than dead ones. However, as I noted above, the average death age of a cigarette smoker is 69, well after the average retirement age of 62. This means most cigarette smokers are retirees. From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, this is good for the government and businesses, as they have to pay less in retirement benefits or pensions.My opponent next targets utilitarianism, arguing slavery or organ harvesting would be good ways to earn money. They would, but deciding whether or not to legalize something is far different than deciding whether or not to ban something. Unlike slavery, you have the choice to smoke or not; unlike organ harvesting, smoking is legal. My opponent also incorrectly claims that "Sure the U.S. government earns some money from this area, but the majority of the money remains in the pockets of the tobacco company". In reality, the government makes $3.80 off of a pack of cigarettes - that's 60% of the cost and six times as much as the cigarette company makes.[15]Too many smokersMy opponent mostly dismisses this point, arguing it doesn't need to be entirely effective. This is a terrible argument. If a smoking ban does not stop smoking, why enact it? Even if just 15% of smokers keep smoking, that's still over 11 million, and that would be very unlikely as that is less than the number of marijuana smokers (19 million).[16] This is more than enough to support an illicit drug trade that requires significant federal resources to suppress. Do you really want that money going to Mexican drug cartels? Failed banMy opponent's argument here is very odd. He notes advertising will end, although there is no reason it could not be banned outside of a total ban). He notes the US 800 million pounds of tobacco - far more than any illegal drug. How does this help his case? It shows how impossible to enforce a ban would be. That's a lot of tobacco!Ban not neededMy opponent argues even though it won't stop smoking, a ban is important to save lives. However, as I've noted above, over 1.6 million Americans would be harmed by a ban, as would the millions of willing smokers and cigar smokers. His arguments are pretty much the exact same ones prohibitionists made, and their bans failed, just like his would. It would be a tremendous waste of time and money for federal officers to enforce such a petty ban.With rebuttals done (and no room to spare!), I turn the debate back to Pro. References:1. http://www.cancer.org...2. http://dailycaller.com...3. http://www.ncagr.gov...4. https://www.heartland.org...5. https://en.wikipedia.org...6. http://www.cancer.org...7. http://www.cancer.org...8. http://www.nih.gov...9. http://www.cdc.gov...10. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...11. http://www.washingtonpost.com...12. http://www.cdc.gov...13. http://www.gallup.com...14. http://www.statista.com...15. https://www.rjrt.com...16. http://www.drugabuse.gov...