Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

Did alcohol prohibition work? My opponent introduces a new argument last round--alcohol prohibition. And while it is generally the norm to ignore new arguments in the final round, I will respond to it anyway. My opponent claims drug use fell during prohibition, but that claim is misleading. And there are a few reasons why we don’t know the real rate of drug consumption. The main one being we had no direct statistics. The criminals who sold alcohol didn’t pay taxes on their profits, so no direct statistics exist. We are forced to rely on indirect measurements that may or may not be valid. This puts a dent in my opponent’s case. But even the indirect statistics my opponent presents do not seem to prove his argument. In fact, “the biggest drops in alcohol consumption and alcohol problems actually came before national prohibition went into effect.”[1] Many of my opponent’s arguments use weak timelines as well. Many of them begin in 1910 or in that vicinity. But prohibition began in 1920.[2] If, as noted, alcohol problems were falling during 1910-1920, and then stabilized (indicating an increasing trend), the 1920s levels would be lower than 1910. But comparing 1910, a year at the peak of alcohol problems, and 1920, a year after the legal market seemed to have dealt with the problem, you don’t really have an accurate picture as to what prohibition accomplished. While my opponent points to many alcohol-related problems, the facts suggest they began to increase during prohibition. While number of alcohol deaths fell before prohibition and continued to decline until 1922, they began to increase again in 1922, during prohibition.[1] If you use the rate of alcohol deaths, which is more accurate, it is lowest in 1920 (falling since 1910), but begins to increase thereafter.[1] I have created a graph of this data. The data suggests, if anything, the Tyler-Cowen hypothesis is correct: drug use increases when prohibited. While prohibition may cause some users to quit use, the general facts seem to show that usage rates seem to stay unchanged and the higher prices brought by prohibition, which increase use, cancel out any deterrent effect. Many of my opponent’s statistics relating to crime and other things are unrelated to prohibition. During prohibition there was an economic boom, which tend to reduce crime. And alcohol consumption increasing after prohibition is not surprising, either. The great depression’s worst years were behind it, so people’s disposable income--which they would use to buy more alcohol--increased. Second hand smoke My opponent argues that, even if these public smoking laws are passed, deaths will still occur. However, as prohibition of tobacco would do little to reduce use, most smoking would occur indoors in the apartment complexes my opponent worries about. As it would be dangerous to smoke in public, they would smoke in their homes. And, according to my opponent, smoking in the home is the worst offense possible. Further, as prohibition would make all of the current policies that reduce smoking invisible--you cannot regulate a black market--use would probably increase. I have explained this time and time again, and my opponent has ignored the harm reduction argument for too long. Harm reduction, not prohibition that marginalizes users, is what will improve public health. “a ban is needed for the well being of all.” As my opponent has ignored, prohibition makes drugs worse, meaning the “well being of all” would deteriorate under prohibition. Randomness “Economic is not as important” This is essentially a concession… “but I still prove a multi-billion dollar loss.” No you don’t. I have shown that the costs of enforcement, incarceration, increased crime, and more potent drugs would far outweigh any economic gains from prohibition. And while he claims my calculations are unrealistic as they claim no decline in use (a reasonable assumption), his calculations are even more absurd: they assume zero use after prohibition. My opponent proves, at most, a few million dollar loss, whereas enforcement, no matter what, will cost in excess of one hundred billion. Environment The tobacco ring virus is carried by more than just tobacco. The virus is carried by “ field grown crops, ornamentals and weeds. field grown crops, ornamentals and weeds.”[4] A ban on tobacco would do little to combat weeds. Further, the problem of parasites are much larger than the problem from tobacco ring virus. In fact, parasites are the leading cause of bee decline. The amount of dying bees has doubled since 1990, and the parasite in question is considered the leading cause by most researchers.[3] My opponent didn’t “turn” this argument. He simply believes this disease is carried only by tobacco because of its name, when (1) it is carried by other common plants, and (2) the issue of parasites, that tobacco combats, is much greater. Also note he totally dropped the benefit of cleaning pond scum. Conclusion Vote Con. My opponent drops that prohibition makes drugs worse. Prohibition increases crime. Prohibition does little to reduce use. Any global environmental impacts are nil, any domestic impacts are likely nil as well. The economic impacts are vastly overstated, and it would likely cost more money to pursue prohibition than continue with harm reduction. My opponent drops harm reduction, which means he concedes that it is a superior option. Vote Con. 1. http://www.druglibrary.org...; 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.nationaljournal.com... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org...