Smoking Ban

Thank you Tashjar for your argument. For those reading, his argument can be found here. (http://www.debate.org...) Con’s arguments are separated into four sections, I will address each in turn. Personal Liberty: Con brings the principle of Personal Liberty into the mix. He states that “This principle is the Harm Principle, which is what I propose. The Harm Principle proposed by John Stuart Mill states that "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." I accept the harm principle and will demonstrate how it supports a smoking ban. I demonstrated last round that 1 in 5 deaths in America are the result of cigarette smoking. More relevant, this stat includes “an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.” This means that roughly 1 in 50 deaths that occur in the U.S. Annually are the result of secondhand smoke. Clearly smoking has a demonstrable, harmful, deadly effect on others. Applying the harm principle then justifies a smoking ban. Harmful effects on jobs and the economy: Essentially Con argues against smoking bans by referencing the money made. Consider if you would the reality that by allowing harmful substances like tobacco to be legal, our society has monetized a human life. Profits are made and jobs created but society pays the ultimate price in life’s lost. Remember these lives that are being liquidated for the tobacco industry include some 41,000 deaths per year from second hand smoke. A smoking ban would negate or at least mitigate the damage done to society in this way. I leave this contention with a few questions. What good is a job if you are not alive or healthy enough to work? What good is a wealthy society void of justice that allows 41,000 people to be killed by others annually? What price is my opponent willing to accept in exchange for thousands of innocent lives lost? Consider this contention mitigated. A ban would likely not succeed in reducing smoking Con argues that a ban provides “no guarantee” of the injustice of smoking. While this is perhaps true. No law eliminates law breakers, it does however arm the people with the ability to hold trespassers of the law accountable by law. As it is, 41,000 people a year die as the result of another’s action with no means to hold those responsible accountable. We also know that a ban would discourage and diminish the amount of people who do smoke and the harm. Consider what I provided in my opening argument. “Smoking bans remove these risks for many people. The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.”(4th source round 2) A Ban likely does reduce smoking, and in the cases it doesn’t, allows justice to be served to those who are harming others. A rise in gangs considering the dangers of gangs, this sounds like an interesting argument from con. Though I doubt the dangers of gangs compare to the 1 in 5 who die from cigarette smoke. Perhaps con could substantiate this contention by somehow demonstrating the harm compared to the harms of smoking. Conclusion: The only argument not refuted outright at this point is the contention of the rise of gangs. Though, this argument is not fully thought out or presented. Until con presents a clear demonstration of the harms, it remains that the harm of smoking outweighs the harm of gangs. We see that a smoking ban is just.