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

Con attempts to negate the resolution from three different aspects: Economic Consideration, Public Sentiment, and Unintended Consequence (if ban is issued). I will be addressing all three contentions in sequence. Table of Content 1. The Smoking of Cigarettes Gives Us A Large Amount of Money In Taxes 2. The American People Do Not Want It 3. It Would Not Solve the Problem 4. References 1. The Smoking of Cigarettes Gives Us A Large Amount of Money In Taxes It is well known that tobacco industry is powerful and indeed they contribute multi-billion dollars in taxes to the treasure. Nevertheless, Con overlooked the economic COSTS associated with smoking. According to Centers for Disease Control (CDC): During 2000-2004, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States (nearly $96 billion in direct medical costs and an additional $97 billion lost productivity. )[1] Cigarette smoking results in 5.1 million years of potential life lost in the United States annually. [1] Secondhand smoke costs more than $10 billion. [1] The sheer magnitude of health-related cost (~ 193 billion in 5 years or $38.6 billion per year) significantly outweighs the income tax revenues that are collected from tobacco industry (~7 billion annually). The tax revenue alone may not be sufficient to thwart the federal government efforts to proscribe cigarette smoking. In addition to the health-related cost, the lost of potential life to cigarette smoking also provides moral argument to ban smoking nationwide. 2. The American People Do Not Want It There are several potential problems with the survey According to the survey, "The analysis of findings is from nationwide telephone survey of LIKELY VOTERS conducted July 21, 2006 through July 26, 2006. "[2] Therefore, the results may not have a nationwide application even if the target sample is 1,200. [2] In essence, likely voters may not represent the entire nation. The questionnaires miss the option of "No opinion" Here are the questions being asked in the survey: Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strong oppose a federal law making cigarettes illegal within the next five to ten years? The miss the option of "No opinion" may bias the result. [2] [It is possible that many people would have no opinion on the issue, but nonetheless are compelled to give answers] Among the supporter of such ban, the strongest support for making cigarettes illegal is among 18-29 year-olds, with 57 percent of them in favor of criminalizing cigarette smokers. The surprising results may partially due to media exposure and anti-smoking campaign, partially due to the recognition of harmful effect of smoking. In the United Sates, approximately 3,800 young people under 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become daily cigarette smokers. In fact, more than 80% of adult smokers begin smoking before 18 years of age. [3] Therefore, IF WE ASSUME that the younger the smokers, the stronger their animus toward smoking, it is not unreasonable to assume that by including people who are younger than 18, who represent a non-significant proportion of smokers, the percentage of supporters would be higher. Therefore, this particular survey cited by Con may not represent an accurate picture of national sentiments toward smoking. 3. It Would Not Solve the Problem By broaching the point, Con apparently assumed that: The government should not adopt a solution to a problem if there is a reasonable doubt that purported solution may not solve the problem. Con"s concerns have a practical application, but it is not impossible to avoid/pacify the presupposed repercussion by tailoring the ban in a way that takes the interest of tobacco industry into consideration while also achieving the EFFECT of nationwide ban. Some solutions include: From the Industry Aspect: Since many nations other than the United States do not ban cigarette smoking, the United States could attempt to negotiate free treaty with those nations in order to increase the cigarettes exports. The Federal government could levy heavy taxes on the sale of cigarettes in order to dramatically reduce the domestic consumptions. A 10% increase in price has been estimated to reduce overall cigarette consumption among adolescents and young adults by about 4%. In addition, increases in cigarette prices can lead to significant reductions in smoking prevalence by increasing cessation among smokers and reducing smoking initiation among potential young smokers. [3] Offer tax credits to the tobacco companies in an attempt to compensate their loses on the sale of cigarettes in the domestic market. Encourage tobacco industry to seek new revenue sources. e. g. , Cigar smoking. From the Consumers Aspect: Higher prices may deter consumers from smoking. There the Federal government could levy heavy taxes on the sale of cigarettes to prevent people from purchasing cigarettes. Offer tax credits/incentives to prevent people from smoking. Therefore, it is not necessary the case that the tobacco industry would have gone underground if the government issues a complete ban. The nationwide ban can be achieved even if the ban appears to be a domestic regulation. Tobacco industry may continue earning a significant amount of revenue under the ban from the government and/or oversea sales. For the consumers, the ban may be hard to adapt initially. However, by providing a workable mechanism, the ban should be gradually accepted by the majority of the society. Thank you. 4. References [1]. . http://www.cdc.gov... [2]. . http://www.drugpolicy.org... [3]. . http://www.cdc.gov...