The Right to Smoke Tobacco Cigarrettes Should Not Be Banned

Hello, I am the 1st proposition speaker for the motion that "The Right to Smoke Tobacco Cigarrettes Should Not Be Banned." Terms: Tobacco: a preparation of the nicotine-rich leaves of an American plant, which are cured by a process of drying and fermentation for smoking or chewing. Ban/Banned: officially or legally prohibit. >>Before we begin<>Contentions<< 1. Unintended Consequences From Banning -Journal of Political Economy: Bans in America have a long history of unintended consequences. A study of bans show they often have the opposite effect of intentions. If the federal government can unilaterally ban an entire industry, we must ask, "what can they ban next?" Nothing in the constitution gives the federal government that much power. -Ex 1: 1920: the fed gov. banned alcohol. It led to organized crime, massive bootlegging & and a new smuggling industry. -Ex 2: New York tried to ban sugary drunks with an appeal to science. The result was anti-government rebellion as well as lawsuits. According to the Atlantic: The NY ban was doomed to fail. It 'poisoned the water' for better ideas that would have more impact. -Ex 3: Univ. of Vermont banned the sales of bottled water in 2013. It backfired and considerably and increased the sales of single-use bottles of unhealthy drinks, adding more plastic to the environment, and unhealthy options were more accessible. -Ex 4: According to Forbes.com: Georgia passed a law banning undocumented workers; it triggered $140 million in agricultural losses; crops rotted in the fields/ -Ex: 5: Trump's Muslim ban is still causing deep social divisions, distrust among our allies, and costly litigation. Impact: The result of a cigarette ban would have an opposite effect of its original purpose. It would increase illegal sales of tobacco, resulting in worse effects on health. When tobacco is sold on the black market, it isn't regulated. At least legal tobacco is regulated, the the companies make sure that it is not another fake drug or something with even more health harms. 2. Federal Overreach: -A tobacco ban can only be declared, implemented and enforced by the federal government. -North Carolina General Ken Paxton: "Yet again, we must fight federal overreach." He said this in a previous lawsuit filed by 14 states against the federal government when it tried to curtail coal mining that disproportionatley harmed tobacco states. -Why would we give this amount of power to the federal government. This would give the tobacco industry to the hands of the black market, which makes tobacco itself more dangerous. -The federal government should not have the right to ban an american industry, inflict disproportionate harm on American communities that are already suffering economically, and harm the US economy and economy of other countries that we import tobacco from(expand on in 3rd contention). 3. Disproportionate Harm to States & Other Countries: -U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Economic Research Associates: a ban would cost the US economy tens of billions of dollars yearly. First victims will be tobacco farmers and workers. Next will be state revenues the statewide economic spending. -We import tobacco from other countries, and our own US states. State W/ Highest Tobacco Production & Total Tobacco Acreage -North Carolina: 170,083 -Kentucky: 87,641 -Virginia: 20,881 -Tennessee: 20,109 Impact: If tobacco was banned, it would harm state economies, and disproportionately harm states who's economies rest on tobacco. Loss of jobs results in more homelessness, harming the economy, resulting in more loss of jobs, resulting in homelessness, and once again harming the economy. The cycle repeats. It does't help anyone to ban an industry that has created thousands of jobs. Vote Proposition