RESOLVED: Smoking should be banned

Thanks for the opponent's FAST AND COPY AND PASTED REPLY. Rebuttals: 1R1NC: The Free Will The opponent seems to argue from a G.W.F Hegel perspective of freedom, which simply states that "freedom is the liberation from ignorance" However, the free will is a purely Rosseau-Mill-Lockean argument which states that the state has no moral rights to intervene with such matters. Directly quoting "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill, he says: His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant . . . Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign If this is not obliged by, then the state is a barbaric uncivilized institution. J.S Mill held dearly that the first states held uncivilized men and that was perhaps why authority was absolute. But now, men are getting more civilized, and should be left to pursue his own liberties, which are: 1. Freedom of Thought and Emotion 2. Freedom of Taste 3. Freedom to Unite The second essential liberty is of paramount importance to this debate; if any of these liberties are violated, then the government is barbaric and uncivilized. The second essential liberty states that "if this action does not harm, on a mass scale, other people, then the state has no rights to outlaw it" This proposition is based on the assumption that all actions that are "moral" have a positive utilitarian value, or util. These three essential liberties support the utilitarian institutions of John Stuart Mill. Firstly, let me present to you the util formula: U=n(p)-n(e) Before we go on, we must premise that the means of everything is to maximize happiness. Now we go on to the formula. U is utils, n(p) is people profited, and n(e) is people affected. For example, if we were to take eating meat for example, we can say that one capital unit of meat can feed three people, and can pay the salary of five. Therefore, the n(p) value of eating meat is 8, whilst the number of n(e) is one, since only one capital unit of meat must be slaughtered. Therefore, eating meat creates positive util, which makes it justifiable. Now, let us look at the utils created from smoking a cigarette; n(p) value comes first. Understanding that if the number of utils can come be positive, we may conclude that smoking is a choice that can be justifiable via the maximization of utility. A cigarette pack is often the work of around 3 farmers, 5 factory workers and 2 truck drivers. That’s 9 n(p) value; adding the smoker into the pact, since dopamine makes him happy, that’s 10 n(p). Talking about the people effected is a harder problem; we can say that around 4-5 people are affected. 10-5 equals 5. Smoking creates a positive util of 5, therefore making it perfectably in the limits of the Second Essential Liberty. What does this imply? This implies that the state has no power to ban the citizens from smoking, as it is util justifiable to smoke. The opponent misunderstands the concept of free will; free will is not a physiological concept, nor is it a psychological concept. It is more of a philosophical concept; if a physiological condition of a person forces a person to do this, this means that the person did this in the free will, as the physiological changes in his body is his own choice, not others. 1R2NC: Banning would not solve the smoking problem Let us take an example of the world’s first smoke-free country; Bhutan. After the Tobacco Control Act of 2004 and 2010, there has been a huge public outcry against the nation’s state to amend and even repeal the acts. "Look at everything in the store. Cigarettes bring more profit than anything else. I have to pay rent for this place and if I stop selling cigarettes my profits will plummet” This was a direct quote from a vendor, whose livelihood was selling cigarettes before the 2010 Tobacco Act, which reinforced the ones in 2004. Albeit Bhutan has a strong and advanced ban on Tobacco, the Tobacco ban is facing huge ineffectiveness. This report published by Tobacco Control summarizes the dilemmas of the two legislations: “Respiratory infections constitute about 18% and 25% of all morbidity in the hospitals. A recent study found that 8% chew/sniff tobacco (7% females and 10% males.) Smoking prevalence is estimated at 1%. Predicted increases in smoking trends among youth who comprise 43% of the nation’s population implies that legislative and price measures for tobacco control be given high priority.” We have to look at the center of this ban; as a Buddhist Country, Bhutan considers smoking (as I do) a karmic sin. The majority of the population is Buddhist in Bhutan. Yet these statistics suggests the following proposition; even in a sectarian country like Bhutan, obtaining tobacco is not difficult at all, and the desire to smoke the substance is not absent. For the smoking problem to end, the desire must go away. As stated, the physiological changes will make the addicts Machiavellians in obtaining the substance. With this evidence, it would be correct and rational to conclude that the smoking ban in Bhutan is making it harder, but not impossible, to obtain substances. In fact, many people are drawn to the Tobacco trade due to the ease of making quick money without any investment from it. “Profits cha-ching!” Secondly, the opponent’s points on the health effects of smoking goes cold by this; I agree; smoking is a huge issue. But banning smoking would not make this problem disappear; does banning me from the refrigerator stop me from covertly obtaining my life-sustaining chocolate from it? In fact, it only makes the problem worst; Bhutan is not the only case. In Canada, smoking related deaths have increased by 8% since the implementation of horrific and outrageous taxes on them! Note that the opponent bases his argument on the postulate that banning a substance can reduce deaths caused. Even if the opponent states that 39% of all smokers in undefined states can “stop smoking” we are receiving statistics that death rates by smoking-related causes in smoking-banned countries are increasing. This leads us to conclusive evidence that a smoking ban does not and cannot work. Lastly, the solution to this problem is not smoking ban, but education. According to the American Government: “Evidence from controlled studies, national cross-site evaluations, and CSAP grantee evaluations demonstrates that prevention programs work. A Cornell University study of six thousand students in New York state found that the odds of drinking, smoking, and using marijuana were 40 percent lower among students who participated in a school-based substance-abuse program in grades seven through nine than among their counterparts who did not” With the conclusive evidence suggested, we can come to a conclusion that a smoking ban does not and cannot work; the end of the smoking problem is zero deaths from smoking-related causes. The means, however, is not a ban. 1R3NC: Economic Complications The opponent refers to the economic gains of the people as greedy government gains. However, the worldwide smoking market is huge and wide. May I remind all sides that the tobacco industry supplies the livelihood of 1.6 million American workers (with 600,000 of these workers working directly in the tobacco industry); 30 million jobs are created directly by the tobacco industry, whilst millions more have jobs indirectly. Let me stress; the opponent states that other people are affected by smoking tobacco. However, many people are affected by me using this computer too; therefore, should we ban the usage of computerized devices? This is the logic at hand here; as proven before, smoking can be a util justified choice. But if utilities are not enough to satisfy our senses, then perhaps an impending economic collapse would? This impending economic collapse would cause the Federal Government $10 billion, as the taxation on tobacco goes. Malawi, whose livelihood and market depends on the tobacco trade, would be starved and even more impoverished than now; 2.2 million American workers would be effected by the loss of profits, and 32.2 (including Americans) workers would lose their jobs. Now this is something that we cannot, and will not, allow to happen. In times of economic depression, the loss of millions and millions of jobs cannot ever and will not ever be justified by the public. Yes indeed, I do not negate the fact that the government is greedy, but the government has to mind economics too. “The job of the masses is to keep the rich folks happy” Noam Chomsky 1R4NC: Law and Impact of Laws The opponent presents cases in regards of smoking. i.e the number of deaths it causes, the harms, but has yet to say anything about how the ban would actually be implemented and the cost-benefits of this ban. I would like to state that a ban will cost more than the costs of regulating it. By banning it, we take the postulates that tobacco will be placed in the same category as, say, cocaine and heroin, as it is almost as threatening as both. Addictive drug incarcerations cost the Federal Government $41.3 billion dollars yearly; the “War on Drugs” is said to have cost $3 trillion, and has done nothing beneficial. In fact, this will turn into another race war; because of the African-American usage of drugs has led to the over representation of African-American prisoners in jail, it is easy to predict that many people, caught smoking, will naturally be lower-class Hispanics and Mexicans. “Once brave politicians and others explain the war on drugs' true cost, the American people will scream for a cease-fire. Bring the troops home, people will urge. Treat drugs as a health problem, not as a matter for the criminal justice system.” Citations:-Sources from last argumenthttp://www.cdc.gov...Please do not vote on this debate. Thanks.