Smoking Ban

I thank fire_wings for this debate. What are the burdens in this debate? I argue that the burdens of persuasion are shared; the debate discusses policy, and both sides have burdens to discuss their plans/counterplans. Thus, I agree with Pro that the BOP is shared -- both sides must present offense in favor of their side, and the offense that succeeds best should be voted for by judges. Pro doesn't discuss their advocacy at all. The case is vague. There's no clear discussion of what the policy is, how it will be implemented, et cetera. I don't understand how the plan will be implemented. Pro is arguing for a plan: the universal ban on smoking. He doesn't discuss the specifics of the plan, how it would be implemented, and how to reduce the impacts. Such a plan seems grossly impractical. How will a ban on tobacco smoking throughout the world be implemented? Pro doesn't address that question at all. He argues on the "why" of the plan, without even mentioning the specifics of the plan. This is a "policy" topic, therefore the policy must be discussed. Such a plan requires immense collaboration of governments to act on a universal smoking ban, and the impacts of cigarette sales are different in various countries. I have a counterplan of my own. Instead of a universal smoking ban, I'd implement a ban on public smoking alone, and legalize illicit drugs as well. Let nicotine stay legal, and legalize other drugs as well (to reduce the harms to Pro's own plan, which exist at smaller levels in the status quo). There are several compelling harms to the plan, which are discussed below:(1) The first impact is the formation of cartels. The same thing will happen with tobacco and nicotine as happens with other drugs. An illegal trade in cigarettes will be formed. Cigarettes are addictive, and there are multiple smokers. This implies that cartels will form. Nicotine itself is a drug -- albeit a legal one. Once it's made illegal, it just becomes an additional factor in the drug trade within the black market. Tobacco is already being trafficked at a small rate. Tobacco cartels will rise, and that will play into the global war on drugs. On balance, 5700 American civilians die each year due to the war on drugs. [1] This applies to America alone; multiple more people die from the rest of the world. Prohibition of drugs protects the drug cartel, since it keeps the distribution of drugs within the black market, and it creates the risk that makes smuggling profitable. Similarly, prohibition of tobacco would allow a tobacco cartel to grow. Under my counterplan -- with the legalization of *all* drugs, and with tobacco staying legal -- there won't be any such deaths, since a "war on drugs," and other cartel-related battles, will stop. Thus, vote for the counterplan to save lives. (2) Banning tobacco will strengthen criminal networks. Recognized terrorist organizations such as the Taliban often trade in products via the black market for revenue. It's known that the Taliban trades in illicit drugs for money. Criminal organizations don't trade in legal products because they would be competed out of business, since nobody would buy illegally when they could buy legally. But once tobacco smoking becomes illegal, criminal networks only profit since they can begin illicit trade. [2] Thus, prefer the counterplan, since it will curtail criminal networks and save lives, by ensuring that tobacco stays legal, and legalizing drugs. (3) The third harm regards the economy. A smoking ban would pose significant harm to the economy, due to the existence of "sin taxes" that gain immense tax revenue from smoking. In 2012 alone, the United States gained $17.6 million out of tobacco tax revenue. The same number stood for 2011. There's a pattern: the number keeps increasing. The US keeps gaining more revenue due to "sin tax" collection from tobacco. [3] There's a 38% sin tax on cigarette retail price in India, which equals $10 per 1,000 cigarettes. I propose a counterplan: increase the sin tax on cigarettes to 78% of retail price, equaling $56 per 1000 cigarettes. Under this counterplan, subtracting those deterred from cigarette use by raised tax (i.e. 18.9 million people), $3.9 billion will be generated in revenue annually. [4] This is a compelling reason not to ban cigarettes in India. The same applies to multiple other countries. (4) The fourth impact is corruption. A smoking ban would increase corruption, and payment by tobacco cartels. The same has been observed by drug cartels. The majority of human rights organizations agree that drug, alcohol, and tobacco prohibition increases corruption significantly. There are moral reasons to not ban tobacco. People have self-ownership -- they own themselves, and ought to have complete bodily autonomy. They are free to harm themselves, as long as they don't harm unwilling others. If a person wants to harm themselves, that's their choice, as long as the act doesn't regard an unwilling other. This position is articulated best by John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," which holds 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." It makes a distinction between "self-regarding acts" and "other-regarding acts," the former dealing with acts that are relevant only to the actor, and the latter dealing with acts that extend beyond the actor and influence others. The ability to perform the former shouldn't be limited by the government, since the inherent "state of nature" holds self-ownership. Accept this because the state of Nature is the only thing that gives governments authority. The government's interference is only legitimate when harm comes to unwilling citizens; there's no other warrant for government legitimacy. If you accept the harm principle, smoking should be legal. If you don't accept the harm principle, then the government isn't legitimate, so you reject the plan and reject *any* government action, so you still vote Pro down on anarchy. --Now, onto the rebuttals. Pro's arguments are extremely weak. He has so many insufficiently explained points, and points that don't even relate to the resolution. Let me answer each of them individually. First, Pro argues that smoking causes poor health. I don't see how that links to the resolution. The resolution doesn't say "smoking is bad for health." It says smoking should be *banned.* How does this establish that smoking is bad for health? Many things that are bad for health are legal, such as alcohol. I don't see why this is a compelling reason to ban cigarettes, since there's no link whatsoever. I don't see why anything that's bad for health should be banned. The only impact from this is raised as a separate point -- people die because of smoking. Weigh this against the people who would die from a smoking ban, due to tobacco cartels, et cetera. And even if people die because of smoking, the government isn't obligated to protect people who *consent* to die, or wish to die, since they own their own bodies, and ought to have complete bodily autonomy. Now, onto the child labor point. Child labor is already illegal. Instead of banning smoking, I propose an *investigation* into organizations with suspected child labor. There are tobacco companies that don't practice child labor (and, in fact, it's possible that no tobacco company practices child labor). They can remain. There should just be investigation conducted to enforce what's already the law. Further, Pro doesn't provide any evidence for the child labor point, so presume Con on this. Pro argues that "we should ban child labor." It's already banned. Enforce the law without banning smoking. Even if you don't buy my rebuttals and buy Pro's arguments, negate off the criminal networks and lives lost arguments, since lives that are lost in such huge numbers outweigh smaller numbers of lives lost, especially when the latter is consensual. For these reasons, vote Con. Sources:1. http://narcosphere.narconews.com...2. http://www.cfdp.ca...3. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...4. http://global.tobaccofreekids.org...