Local, State, and Federal Governments should not tax tabacco products.

I find it rather unfortunate that my opponent has devolved this debate into making personal attacks against me. It is no fault of my own that he was unclear with his resolution and first round post. I should not be expected to automatically know that by "should not tax tobacco products" that he meant "should not tax tobacco products extra. " Indeed, the resolution and definition he provided for 'tax' suggest that he meant to debate a tax on tobacco products at all, not on the so-called 'vice tax. ' I hope that he will learn to be more clear on his resolution and draw up his own case in the first round in the future, rather than personally insult his opponents. That being said, I have already won this debate. Rather than attempting to provide a valid reason why tobacco should be completely exempt from taxation. Therefore, by omission, he concedes that tobacco should be taxed (by a sales tax). Although I have already won this debate, I will offer a rebuttal to his case. Then I will respond to each of his rebuttals to my points. Finally, I will offer my concluding statement. ======= My opponent's case makes three claims, which are as follows: 1. Citizens should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding health concerns. Government should not levy 'vice taxes' like that on tobacco to "punish" unhealthy behavior. 2. Second hand smoke is a problem. However, people who wish to avoid it should avoid public places or wear oxygen masks. 3. If the government were against tobacco they should just outlaw it. There are fundamental flaws with each of these statements, which I will outline in the same order below: 1. Vice taxes do not stop people from making their own decisions regarding health. People are free to choose to continue with their unhealthy behavior. The government is not prohibiting its use by levying a vice tax, it is merely discouraging use by making it a more expensive habit. 2. This claim is not relevant to the issue of taxation on tobacco. It would be better placed in a debate on smoking in public places. However, I will still address it. I am glad that Pro admits that second hand smoke is a serious problem deserving of being addressed. The problem with his subsequent claim is that non-smokers are not forcing anything unhealthy on smokers by forcing them out of public areas. Smokers, on the other hand, are forcing non-smokers to ingest chemicals that are proven to be harmful to their bodies. Of course, this is an infringement on the rights of the non-smoker and thus deserving of minor regulation. 3. Prohibition of tobacco would trample on the property rights of U. S. citizens. Tobacco prohibition would be overstepping the boundaries on government to prohibit its citizens to do with their bodies as they please, so long as it does not violate the rights of other citizens. Conclusion of rebuttal: I agree that it is outside the boundaries of a government to dictate the health decisions made by its citizens. It is not, however, outside their boundaries to promote positive health welfare of its citizens by lawful means. Since the duly elected state is permitted to levy taxes, levying a tax on unhealthy products falls within their boundaries. ====== I will quote my opponent's rebuttals, then offer a response. a) "Well, if we tax tobacco what is going to stop us from taxing other items ten years in the future that today we would never tax? If you tear down one wall, what's going to stop you from tearing down the next? " >> Here it is important to note that tobacco, alcohol and other so-called "vices" have been subjected to an extra tax without the world devolving into oppressive taxes on everything, as Pro seems to imply. The slope is not quite as slippery as my opponent would have you think. b) "Not only do cars kill thousands of motorists each year, but they also emit tons of carbon into the atmosphere which lowers our air quality and has lead to an increase of respiratory diseases. So, it does affect those who don't drive cars. So, shouldn't it be taxed? " >> That does not prove that tobacco should not be subjected to taxation, only that perhaps the government should consider higher fuel standards, alternate fuel options, or a tax on carbon emissions. However, this is still not analogous because vehicles provide a positive service to humanity in terms of quicker transportation, communication, shipping, &ct. Tobacco products, on the other hand, provide almost no positive service to individual users or to the general public. The negative far outweighs the positive. c) "people who injure themselves clog our hospitals and taxpayers (in many cases) have to pay for them. So, isn't this harm the common good? " >> It should not be considered a negative attribute of exercisers that their injuring "clog up our hospitals. " As a matter of fact, the main purpose of a hospital is to provide medical care to people who need it. Physical injuries certainly qualify as people who are in need of medical care. I am not sure where Pro gets the idea that hospital patients use taxpayers' dollars for their care. A very small proportion of people do (medicare, medicaid, and a small proportion of those without insurance that are in need of emergency care). The rest pay for their medical care through payments to their insurance companies. Also, exercising provides far greater positives to the exerciser. In most cases, the improved health of the individual will result in less need for medical attention (better heart health, blood pressure, &ct. ). d) "Actually, people who commit night crime are prosecuted and many of them end in prison. While in prison, taxpayers have to pay for their food, shelter, etc. So, doesn't that harm all? " >> Crime is not analogous to smoking because in most cases it does not harm the health of the criminal or the victims. Furthermore, there are plenty of measures already taken by the government to reduce/prevent crimes from taking place. e) "Actually, people with diseases related to their eating habits (heart disease, high cholesterol, etc. ) do effect others who do not eat unhealthy because taxpayers are put in the position of having to pay for them when they end up in a hospital. " >> As I have already mentioned, tax payers do not pay for healthcare under the current system. Therefore, it is not analogous. f) "I do agree that fast food is not PHYSICALLY and EMOTIONALLY addictive, but they are generally speaking "addictive". >> Pro does not offer any sources to support this positive claim, so we cannot evaluate it's truth value. Either way, it is not relevant to the issue of tobacco taxation. g) "However, punishing those with a tax that they may not be able to afford is unproductive. Wouldn't state-funded education programs about the health problems associated with smoking work better and not drain those that have little money to spare. " >> The government already funds such education programs. There is no valid reason yet proposed by Pro that suggests that both should not work side-by-side to promote better public health. ====== CONCLUSION The greatest consideration in voting should be Pro's concession that there should indeed be a tax on tobacco. As a result, he has abandoned his resolution.