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

Thank you Danielle for your argument. I will address each point in turn. Liberty and the Pursuit of HappinessCon claims that because over 40 million people smoke, they must find it relaxing, fun, or somehow benificial. I have no doubts that there are people who do enjoy smoking. However, recent studies indicate that in the U.S. almost 70 percent, or 28 million of the 40 million smokers desire to quit despite many being uncessesfull in that endevor.(1) More than half of smokers do not find the so called benifits of smoking that my opponent claims copelling reasons to smoke. Con continues this arguement suggesting that it would be both impossible and immorall for us to restrict everything that could potentially harm others. This misses the mark, Smoking does not "potentially" harm others, it does harm others as I sourced from the CDC in the previous round, 1 in 50 deaths that happen in the U.S. are due to secondhand smoking. That is to say that the harm produced by smoking significantly harms others. Lastly con argues that the government has no right to legislate morality or good health. I have not argued that it does, I have argued, as has my opponent, the harm principle. Smoking clearly violates this harm and thus the government has every right via mine and my opponents criteria to restrict smoking. Secondhand smokeCon here points out that our society does have many smoke free enviroments, and laws that restrict where smoking is allowed. What my opponent seems to ignore is that the harm that I have demonstrated smoking to cause is occuring despite all of these smoke free enviroments and smoking laws. This is why an outright ban ought to be seriously considered. Our society has attempted to mitigate the harm of smoking to great legnths just short of banning with limited sucess. The limit will remain until we ban smoking as a whole. To round out con's contention here. she erronously claims that "second-hand smoke can be avoided; it's a non-issue." If my opponent does not find nearly 50,000 deaths per year due to second hand smoke an issue, I am not sure what could be classified as an issue. Just to put this in perspective, 1,000 people die per year in the U.S. due to rape. That is about 2% the amount of deaths due to second-hand smoke. perhaps my opponent finds rape a non-issue as well. (2)Problems with CriminalizationFirst, I would like to point out that I did not call for the "criminalization" of smoking, I argued it ought to be illegal. Speeding is illegal, but not criminalized. Only after we determine if something ought to be legal or illegal could we determine what reasonable recourse would be for those who violate the law. Thus this contention from my opponent actually is a non issue boarding a straw man. It is highlited by con that a great amount of money comes into the U.S. due to the taxes placed on cigarettes. There are two reasons this arguement ought not be taken seriously. Firstly, the amount of money that can be made or lost is not how we determine laws. Murder could be taxed and make a great profit. Ought we legalize something simply because money can be made? Should me monotize human life? Furthermore, con aruges initially that we cant legislate morilty then seems to trumpet "sin taxes" in her case. Which is it? Is my opponent against sin taxes or legislating morality? It seems to me she is likely oppossed to sin taxes (though I invite her to correct me) and thus it seems hypocritical to then trumpet sin taxes as a benifit of there legality. This is because if we are to accept her arguements the government has not legal standing to tax people for smoking simply to discourage smoking. Secondly, who is to say a fee for violaters of a smoking ban would not bring in significant money, or that heaps of money would be saved due to diminishing medical costs in a society with smoking bans? Clearly, the is money to be made montizing a human life. That stated, there seems to me to be just as much money to be saved by cherishing human life. Conclusion Both my opponent and I agree on the harm principle. Oddly my opponent see's second-hand smoke as a non-issue dispite its obvious violation of the harm principle. Thus we can conclude that the government is more than justified to outlaw or ban smoking. All that is left of con's arguements is the financial plea. This is inconsitant with her initial position aside from being a way to monotize a human life. Remember nearly 50,000 people a year die due to second-hand smoke in the U.S. This is despite current attempts at Sin taxes, smoke free zones, and other deterents. The next logical, reasonable, and justified step to take is an outright ban on cigarettes. Vote Pro!Sources(1) http://www.cdc.gov...;(2) https://www.thenation.com...