The United States Should Issue a Nationwide Ban on Smoking (Either in Public or in Private)

Final Rebuttal Cost: Even if an annual $32 billion ($25 billion + $7 billion) can be derived from tobacco industry, the health cost associated with the smoking is mounting up to #38.6 billion per year (~ $193 billion in 5 years), a cost cannot be ignored. The sheer magnitude of health cost suggests that the objection to a nationwide ban on smoking cannot be fully justified by the economic benefits alone. Freedom The new argument advanced by my opponent signals a shift in his position. By inserting the personal freedom argument into the debate, my opponent overlooks the fact that no right is absolute. Like most rights, personal freedom is not unlimited. It is not a concept that enables people to pursue a certain activity at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason he or she alone choses. While the Federal government recognizes the personal freedom also acknowledge that some federal regulation in areas protects by the personal freedom is appropriate. Federal government may properly assert important interests in safe-guarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting life. The advancement in medical technology has helped establish the fact that smoking is the leading cause of many miseries suffered by most smokers. As noted above, smoking account an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly five deaths, each year in the United States. Besides, more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. Moreover, smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women. Therefore, even if personal freedom may, to a certain extent, justify the unhealthy life currently experienced by many smokers, Federal government has a compelling interest in further regulating the tobacco industry in an attempt to safe guard personal health. The fact that nearly 1 in 10 teens said they smoke marijuana at least 20 or more times a month should not be considered a compelling reason to object to the nationwide ban on smoking. By introducing the troubling facts, Con appears to suggest that since people are doing it (smoking marijuana) regardless of the national regulation, the government should just leave people to enjoy their unhealthy social behavior. By the same logic, one could equally assert that government should not bring rapists and murders to justice since rapes, murders, and many other socially condemned behaviors also occur on a frequent basis. The notion is palpable indefensible. Therefore, whether a significant portion of teens currently enjoy the unhealthy life style is largely irrelevant to if smoking should be banned. Industry Drug industry goes underground primarily because drugs such as cocaine is illegal to possess in most of countries around the world. Tobacco, as noted above, is not illegal to manufacture. Even if the United States outlaws the production of tobacco, industry would survive and thrive eventually by exploring the international market. The tobacco industry is resilient and it is not unreasonable to believe that tobacco industry would survive if the government ever attempts to hammer the industry. In the worst scenario, the government could even attempt to subsidize the industry, which may cost a significant amount in a short run, but it could save billions of health care cost (consider ~$193 billion in 5-year interval) in the long run. It is deal that people should take. Similarity vs. Difference My opponent suggests that since driving cars and eating fatty food also lead to death, why shouldn"t the government make attempts to ban them as well? The answer to the question is somewhat related to the nature of tobacco and behavior of smokers. Smoking is an addictive behavior since nicotine, one of the most toxic substance in cigarette, is additive and none of other 6000 chemicals could effectively ameliorate the harmful effect. Unlike smoking, nether driving nor eating unhealthy food is considered an addictive behavior. Deaths result from driving, for example, are partially due to drivers" driving skills, partially due to temperament of the drivers, and partially due to some uncontrollable external factors. Therefore, whether car driving or eating unhealthy food should be banned is irrelevant to whether smoking should be prohibited on the national level. Last round is for summary. Thank you.