Smoking Ban

Thank you Fire wings for your opening argument and good luck. Burdens I am arguing in favor of smoking bans and will provide justification for them. My opponent’s burden is to argue against smoking bans. “A smoking ban is a public policy that includes criminal laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in certain public places and workspaces.” (2) Pro’s Case My opponent and I seem to both agree on a vital concept known as the harm principle. That is to say we believe that people ought to be free to do what they desire so long as they do not harm others. It is because of the harm principle that a smoking bans ought to be supported. Cigarette smoking is responsible for one out of every five deaths in the U.S. annually. Understand that this harm is not only self-inflicted as 41,000 deaths annually are the result of secondhand smoking. Consequently, it has been found that if the current rate continues “5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. (1) Furthermore, it has been found that significant harm is done to those who live, or work, with people who smoke. (2) Accordingly, it has been found that smoking bans lower if not remove the harms of smoking. Perhaps this is why The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans. (2) We see at this point that smoking violates the harm principle. This means that when people choose to smoke they harm those around them significantly. Thus, if we accept the harm principle, which both my opponent and I do, it is only just to implement smoking bans. Con’s case Fire Wings round is thoroughly confusing. He begins by stating that it was a rule of mine that he accept definitions… I made no such rule and have no idea what he is talking about. Furthermore, consider that first he states that “we have the liberty to do what we want unless it harms others.” Clear enough, this is the harm principle, but then he says “we can do anything unless it does not harm others.” At first, I just figured this was an accident as the double negative makes the second sentence mean the exact opposite of the first. However, just a few sentences later, he does it again stating; “we have self-ownership and can do anything we want unless it does not harm others.” This along with phrases like “drink smoking” lead to me being convinced that either con does not know his position, this topic, or did not think to read his round before posting. This is further compounded as Con’s counterplan is to implement smoking bans. Designated smoking areas are a type of smoking ban. (See definition) Essentially, we have a debate here where both my opponent and I are arguing for smoking bans. The case may be made that my opponent is opting for less stringent smoking bans, but make no mistake, they are smoking bans. This debate is not about a specific type of smoking ban. Thus, I have argued a justification for smoking bans and my opponent presented a plan involving a type of smoking ban. With my remaining space I will do what I can to make sense of con’s arguments each in turn. First, he presents the idea of liberty and the harm principle. We agree on this point. Clearly he believes smoking to be harmful as his counterplan is an attempt to mitigate the harm smoking causes to others. Argument one is thus in favor of the resolution. His next three arguments miss the mark. As we live in a society that implements many kinds of smoking bans, the economic impact and dependency he brings up are non-issues. This is because if we maintain current bans, there is no change to the status quo on these fronts. This is likewise true about his concern with illegal tobacco. Conclusion My opponent argues in favor of smoking bans when he is supposed to argue against them. The harm principle supports the concept of smoking bans as do The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health. When we observe the burdens in this debate, we see that ample justification and reasoning has been giving to fill con’s burden. There is absolutely no reasonable way to vote con in this debate. I invite you to vote pro! (1) http://www.cdc.gov... (2) http://www.debate.org...