Smoking should be banned

PURPOSE:This debate is about whether or not smoking should be banned. DEFINITIONS:Smoking-The act of smoking tobaccoBanned-To disallow ARGUMENTS: 1. The government should keep people from harm This argument is constructed in the following way: Premise 1: The government should choose actions that, on balance, minimize the harm to its citizens and provide a benefit for its society. Premise 2: If an action has to be banned (e.g. murder) to achieve the goal, it ought to be banned. Premise 3: Banning smoking points towards the goal. Conclusion: Smoking should be banned. Justification for premise 3: Smoking negatively affects society by causing deaths through second-hand smoke, [1] and it may raise tax rates in countries with universal health care. 2. The government has a right to limit what people do to their bodies Banning smoking is more beneficial to society, in general, because it reduces the dangers of second hand smoking. Even though it may restrict certain rights, it is, from a utilitarian perspective, superior to not banning smoking. If the government does not have a right to limit what people do to their bodies, then indecent exposure and smoking illegal drugs would both be legal. Also, even assuming that the government does not have the right to restrict what people do if it only affects them, the government should be allowed to ban smoking since it affects others, and therefore does fall under the scope of civil rights. This is because second hand smoking can affect others, as second hand smoke contains many harmful carcinogens, and has caused the death of 2.5 million non-smokers since 1964. [1] Smoking also affects society in other ways, too. For example, smoking can raise tax rates in places with universal health care because of the diseases it causes which can otherwise be averted by banning smoking. This means that “the government does not have the right to choose what I can do with my own body” is not a valid rebuttal, as smoking affects non-smokers, so it is not necessarily a right. 3. Many illegal substances like marijuana are banned, and smoking is more harmful than these substances The government has banned many other illegal substances, and by the same logic tobacco should be banned. This is because tobacco is more harmful than marijuana, and as stated before, affects non-smokers. “In summary, this study showed little, if any effect of marijuana use on non-AIDS mortality in men and on total mortality in women. The increased risk of AIDS mortality in male marijuana users probably did not reflect a causal relationship, but most likely represented uncontrolled confounding by male homosexual behavior. The risk of mortality associated with marijuana use was lower than that associated with tobacco cigarette smoking.”[2] 4. Tobacco smoking is an unnecessary risk Unlike vehicles or other things that cause mortalities, tobacco smoking is an unnecessary risk because it does not create anything productive. Continuing from Premise 1 of section 1, because tobacco has little productive purpose and a lot of harm, the benefits of banning it outweighs the negative effects. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2]http://www.pbs.org...