Spinko Tournament - Conservative Showdown - Smoking Rights

Resolved: On balance, the US government should regulate smoking==Framework==The resolution asks us to evaluate governmental regulation of smoking. First, what makes a governmental obligation? A governments obligation derives from a consequential based cost benefit analysis; governments must maximize the best outcome for the polity. This is true because governments are established to ensure protection of that polity. However, 100% protection and fulfillment of preferences is impossible, especially on the scale a nation of 365 million people. Thus, the government must maximize thus ends. If they do not they are not fulfilling its primary obligation as a State.Second, any poli-ethical stance will ultimately collapse to a fundamental consequentialist basis. This is true because all evaluations of poli-ethics will deal directly with an evaluation of an end state - even if that end state is a singularity. Third, consequentalist analysis deals directly with cost-benefit. Thus, the burden is reciprocal in that respect. The judges must weigh the end results of smoking from both it being a beneficial act or a dangerous act. ==Contentions==C1: HarmsCaveat: my opponent may try and say that we are only discussing voluntary exposure to smoke. However, keep in mind society does not operate within isolated spheres. What affects one of us, affects those around us. Thus, the line between voluntary and involuntary is very, very vauge and gray. Thus, the resolution advocates an on-balance approach to evaluation. Even the Surgeon General has argued that that line is hard to pin down. Which comes to my evidence:--[1]--In 2006, the Surgeon General released a report on second-hand smoke. The following was concluded:1. Any amount of second hand smoke is dangerous and threatening to the well-being of an individual. Even simply walking next to someone outside who is smoking harms the body. 2. Second-hand smoke causes lung cancer and heart disease. Being around second-hand smoke increases your chance of lung cancer by 20% or more. In terms of heart disease, the toxins cause platelets to stick together more easily and at a higher rate. She provides an analysis: A vast majority of the 4,000 different chemicals in cigarettes are toxic and are carcinogens. Be it first hand or second-hand smoke the chemicals are the same. Therefore, second-hand smoke is no less dangerous than someone deciding to in-take cigarette smoke. [1] http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...--[2]--Dr. Barnoya, an MD and PhD at the Cardiovascular Research Institute, has done extensive research into the effects of second-hand smoking at its impacts of cardiovascular health. Her findings has concluded the following:1. Secondhand smoke (SHS) increases the risk of heart disease by aprx. 30%. This accounts for at least 35,000 deaths annually. 2. Isolated analysis: (1) toxins cause platelets to stick together and cause damage to the lining of the arteries, (2) the toxins cause vasoconstriction, (3) toxins cause the arteries to stiffen, (4) the toxins exacerbate the process of atherosclorsis, (5) the toxins cause inflammation throughout areas of the cardiovascular system, (6) toxins cause insulin resistance which makes heart disease more probable. [2] Joaquin Barnoya, MD, MPH; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD. Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke. San Francisco, CAC2: SolvencyA) Cardiovascular and Cancerous.Lorenzo Richiardi offers solveny with a Pro ballot. His study concluded that regulations have an immediate effect on individuals who would have otherwise been subjected to passive smoking. “Decreases in population rates of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have been repeatedly seen in the first months after the introduction of regulations banning smoking in public places. By decreasing the exposure to passive smoking and its acute cardiovascular effects, smoking regulations may cause an immediate drop in AMI incidence, beginning from the initial days after their introduction.” The study goes to to conclude that even outside the realms of cardiovascular effects, introducing regulations decreases significantly the carcinogen process that occurs from passive smoking. [3] Lorenzo Richardi. Cardiovascular benefits of smoking regulations: The effect of decreased exposure to passive smoking. Cancer Epidemiology Unit.Moreover, government regulations in establishing smoke-free environments has led to a decrease of this number drastically. “An evaluation of a geographically isolated community (Helena, Mont) showed that the number of hospital admissions resulting from acute myocardial infarction decreased after the implementation of a law ending smoking in public and workplaces...” [2]B) Deterrence A a linear analysis study done Jeffrey Wasserman, a member of the Health Policy Research Division, concluded that increasing regulations on cigarettes (the sale of and locational regulations) has the effect of decreased cigarette use and in particular the effect of deterring future smokers. And by extension, decreasing regulations on cigarettes has the opposite effect - more people continue and start. His analysis spanned 3 decades of monitoring governmental regulations and deregulations and the consequent effect of that. [4[4] Wasserman. The effects of excise taxes and regulations on cigarette smoking. Behacioral Sciences Department, The RAND Corporation.The States with the highest amount of regulations have the lowest amount of smoking compared to States with the lowest amount of regulations have the highest amount of smoking. This combined with the RAND report indicates that indeed a deterrent exists with regulations. [5] [5] http://www.forbes.com...