It Is Normally Sinful for an Underage Wisconsin Catholic Farm Boy to Regularly Use Chewing Tobacco

Thanks to Geogeer. I'll jump right in.1. Legality and underageMy opponent has a very very simple argument here. It essentially goes....P1: Whatever is law of the land and is a just law is something which Catholics are morally bound to obeyP2: The tobacco law is law of the land and is a just lawC: Catholics are morally bound to obey the tobacco law.So in order for some law to be morally obligatory, it has to have two properties. First, it has to be the official law of the land. Secondly, it has to be a just law.Now to begin with, I'm going to dispute premise 1. While I agree that this is generally the case, there may be exceptions. For example, just plain silly laws.What if the government said, "Okay, all men have to wear a blue ribbon all the time, and all women have to wear a pink ribbon all the time." Would this be just? Ehhh. Maybe. Maybe not. In either case, it doesn't seem exactly worthy of the term "unjust". Is it just plain stupid? You bet. It's just silly. It has no point. It's beyond the governments position. So in this case, it is an unjust law.Now I'd like to point out that since my opponent is the one making the argument, he has the burden of proof to prove it, as well as all the premises. When my opponent says that I have to show that the tobacco age is unjust, he is committing the fallacy of shifting the burden. [1]So when my opponent states, "This places the burden on Pro to show that the law is fundamentally unjust as Catholics are normatively required to follow the law." he is shifting the burden of proof. Do we just assume all laws are just until proven unjust? No. We just don't assume either way. We're neutral.So my opponent has not even tried to defend the second premise. And at this point, it remains unfounded. Is the tobacco age just? We don't know. We just don't know.However, I will present an argument to think that it is more plausibly unjust than just.I. It extends beyond the limits of government.While the Catholic faith does say that government has a role in protecting its citizens, it doesn't say that the government must hold every single citizen's hand. As I will get to below, chewing tobacco is not as unhealthy as one might think, and as such, this law extends beyond the scope and purpose of government. The government does not exist to keep every single person healthy and happy. It exists in order to secure the public welfare of man."What, in the abstract, is the actual purpose of government? In both classical political theory and Catholic social teaching, government is not seen as a necessary evil, but neither is it seen as any sort of panacea. Both traditional sources of political theory recognize that man is a social being, that there is necessarily a public order through which we organize our common life together, and that the purpose of government is to secure the common good—not the individual good of each citizen, but the good common to all."This has been explained in papal encyclicals such as Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. The Catholic Church takes neither a socialistic view, nor a libertarian view. It says that the government is an instrument of God which must serve the common good. Not the private good.II. It deprives an individual of a good for no justifiable reasonI will argue below that chewing tobacco is not as unhealthy as you might think. However, this being the case, it is quite clear why the tobacco age is unjust. It deprives a human being of something which is enjoyable, and which is not extremely harmful... for what reason exactly? None.It's essentially the same as if the government were to make potato chips illegal, for no justifiable reason. Even if it could be shown that potato chips were somewhat unhealthy, it would be a far cry from making them completely illegal. I'm sure that both me and my opponent would say, "What the hell? I'm still eating my potato chips, and I'll buy them on the deepweb if I have to."So I've presented two arguments to my opponent's none.P1: All laws which are beyond the government's position to make are unjustP2: The tobacco age is beyond the government's potisionC: The tobacco age is unjustandP1: All laws which deny individuals of a good thing without sufficient reasons are unjustP2: The tobacco age denies an individual of a good thing without sufficient reasons\C: The tobacco age is unjustThe score at the end of this section...2 to 0.2. The health risks of smokeless tobaccoMy opponent merely assumes that smokeless, or chewing tobacco, is unhealthy. I'll go right ahead and blow that out of the water.The oral cancer foundation, who I'm sure isn't very happy about any tobacco products, given their bad reputation states..."While OCF agrees with this statement, especially in relationship to young individuals, there may be some harm reduction benefit when traditional loose leaf chewing tobacco is compared snus style products, and certainly when compared to with smoking tobacco where combustion of the tobacco is present. This does not mean that we endorse the use of smokeless products" [3]But like they said, of course, we don't endorsseee it.... So far we know chewing tobacco is far safer than smoking. How much so?To begin with, oral cancer is extremely rare. It's like getting struck by lightning. So if we even double or triple our chances of getting it, our chances are still alot lower.. as compared to lung cancer, which is like getting hit by a car.Drs. Lee and Hamling did a study in 2009 in which they found absolutely no significant relation between Swedish Snus and oral cancer. [4] They state:"An increased risk of oropharyngeal cancer is evident most clearly for past smokeless tobacco use in the USA, but not for Scandinavian snuff."Drs. Rodu and Cole also presented a study, after which they declared:"This study found that use of chewing tobacco and moist snuff were associated with only minimally elevated risks" [5]Dr. Lee also did a study with heart disease and stroke, stating...""The Swedish studies provided little evidence of an increase for heart disease (1.06,0.83–1.37, n¼5) or stroke (1.17, 0.80–1.70, n¼2)" [6]He further concluded..."Any CID risk from ST appears to be substantially less than from smoking, and no clear risk from Swedish snuff is seen." (6)So now my opponent must prove that chewing tobacco is extremely unhealthy before this argument can get off the ground.Furthermore, what degree of bad-for-your-healthness does something have to have to make it immoral?Do potato chips count? What about bacon? What about hockey? Does this make all contact sports immoral, since they result in concussions and brain damage?What my opponent must do is present an argument and show that "X" degree of unhealthiness makes something immoral. This can't be too big to include football, but can't be too small to exclude chew. Until he can give us a metric, this argument fails.In addition to this, I'd add that since Wisconsin has a history of serial killers such as Jeffery Dahmer and Ed Gein, who cannibalized people out of sexual urges, chewing should be allowed. Because nicotine can cause erectile dysfunction. The good, that is, people not getting eaten and raped, outweighs the bad of erectile dysfunction.The resolution does not stand. Thank you.==Sources==[1]http://www.nizkor.org...[2]http://www.catholicculture.org...[3]http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org...[4]http://www.biomedcentral.com...[5]http://www.harmreductionjournal.com...[6]http://ije.oxfordjournals.org...