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

The Role of Government The Declaration of Independence reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.In A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke wrote that the magistrate's power was limited to preserving a person's "civil interest," which includes the possession of outward things [1]. Indeed many political theorists and philosophers have agreed with this principle of non-aggression. In On Liberty, The harm principle formulated by John Stuart Mill states 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."Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness Over 40 million Americans smoke [2]. People feel it is relaxing, fun, that it relieves stress, that it is comforting, it can be a fashion/social statement, they like the ritual, or they appreciate the immediate satisfaction. It would be impossible and immoral for us to restrict everything that could potentially harm others. For instance, when we cut down trees or hurt the environment with cars and other pollutants, we impact the climate and affect the livelihood and/or future of every living thing on the planet. Therefore, government implements reasonable regulations that correlate with direct harm and violence. The government has no right to legislate morality or good health, and it does not have the right to determine what people do with their own body. In fact the concept of bodily autonomy is the principle by which government has legalized abortion [3]. It is a fundamental civil right. If Pro disagrees with the concept of bodily autonomy, he would essentially be arguing that other people have the right to control your body against your will. That is a slippery slope toward permissible forced labor (slavery or pregnancy) and even rape. The principle of bodily autonomy guarantees ownership of our person and the protection against physical force or restraint against others that attempt to restrict our freedoms. Second-Hand Smoke Private businesses and establishments can prohibit smoking in their areas, so people can still enjoy smoke-free environments. It will be up to the property owner to decide if they want to permit smoking there, and if patrons choose to avoid places where there is smoking, that is their choice. For example hotels have smoking and smoke-free rooms where guests can decide their preference. "Since the 1970s, the non-smokers rights movement has made significant progress toward clean indoor air. As of April 4, 2016, there are 4,578 states, commonwealths, territories, and municipalities with laws in effect that restrict where smoking is allowed, many of which are 100% smoke-free... Across the United States, 22,578 municipalities representing 82% of the US population, are covered by a 100% smoke-free provision in non-hospitality workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, territorial, or local law. 41 states and the District of Columbia have local laws in effect that require 100% smoke-free provisions as well" [4]. Second-hand smoke can be avoided; it's a non-issue. The government can and has implemented policy that prohibits people from smoking in public places where it could directly harm other people. Private homes and businesses should be legally permitted to allow smoking on their premises. People can avoid the places where they don't want to be exposed to smoke. Further, the government can put in laws to protect children from second-hand smoke, the way we have other laws that protect children whom can't escape their parents behavior. Problems With CriminalizationIf smoking were criminalized, cigarettes would be sold on the black market where they could not be regulated or taxed. This would increase the amount of cigarettes being sold to children since black market sales without regulation would be the norm. Criminals (gangsters) would get rich from selling tobacco underground, which would invoke a plethora of crime the way the Prohibition of alcohol did [5]. More people would be going to jail and subsequently have their lives (and children's lives) ruined merely as a result of smoking cigarettes. In 2009, states raked in more than $24 billion by taxing cigarettes and $8.8 billion in settlement payments from tobacco companies. "In Fiscal Year 2010, the federal excise tax on cigarettes (currently $1.01 per pack) brought in $15.5 billion in revenue. That money went to fund an expansion of the federal State Children"s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program, which provides funding to states for health insurance for families that do not qualify for Medicare, but are still considered of modest means" [6].The government relies on the taxes from cigarette sales to fund a lot of social programs that benefit the poor and other people in society. As such, the government would have to raise taxes on other products if cigarettes were no longer available to tax in order to make up for the lost revenue. They were also completely unsuccessful at criminalizing alcohol, which is why the government ended Prohibition. The government needed tax money which is why they restored the legalization of alcohol [7]. The same would likely happen with cigarettes.The government realized that nobody actually stopped drinking under Prohibition; speakeasies and bootleg alcohol was the norm, along with criminals pushing alcohol all over the country like Al Capone. We have no reason to assume that we can effectively combat tobacco when we cannot effectively battle other criminalized substances. The War on Drugs has been a futile, expensive failure that costs tax payers billions and billions of dollars, and after 40 years still has no end in sight [8].SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...