Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

(I didn't proofread this because I have finals, and for the first time I am studying. Proud?) R1: Cost No one can deny the effect of tobacco on the country is negative. But the issue with my opponent’s argument is that it assumes prohibition will reduce costs. Before I begin, remember that my opponent argues tobacco use costs society $52 billion a year, possibly more. But saying tobacco use may cost more than $52 billion is just conjecture. We only have hard evidence for $52 billion, and that is the number I have to respond to. a) Prohibition itself costs money In 2010, state governments spend $25 billion dollars on the drug war.[1] In 2013, the Federal government spends a comparable amount: $25.2 billion.[2] This means the current drug war costs about $50 billion dollars each year, similar to what tobacco costs our government each year. But tobacco prohibition would cost more than $50 billion to enforce each year, well above $52 billion--and likely similar (if not equal to) the harm tobacco inflicts upon society even taking into account my opponent's conjecture. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 24.6 million people have used illicit drugs “in the past month.” However, 55.8 million people--more than double the number that use illicit drugs--use tobacco.[3] Current drug laws, therefore, are trying to enforce the law against 24.6 million users and their suppliers, but if tobacco were to be banned, a market over twice the size of the current illegal drug trade would open up, meaning the government would need a huge amount of funds for new enforcement efforts. A simple back of the envelope calculation, based on the number of users, suggests tobacco prohibition would cost about $120 billion dollars per year to enforce (55.8/24.6 = ~2.4, 2.4 * $50 billion [cost of current drug war each year] = $120 billion). This means that tobacco prohibition would likely cost more than the effect tobacco currently has on society. In fact, secondhand smoke costs about $11 billion each year in direct and indirect costs,[4] meaning my opponent’s number is closer to $63 billion. But as the cost of prohibition of tobacco is, at the lowest, $50 billion (current drug war cost) and likely closer to $120 billion, the savings from tobacco prohibition are miniscule and likely non existent. If anything, prohibition would cost more. b) My opponent assumes cost would be reduced under prohibition My calculations above may underestimate the net-cost of prohibition. Indeed, I assumed that prohibition would bring the medical costs of tobacco to zero, though that is unlikely to occur. Illicit drug use, from lost productivity and medical costs, is still exorbitantly high.[5] I will get to this later (as my opponent attempted to rebut these arguments), but if tobacco use doesn’t fall if we ban tobacco, there is no reason to believe prohibition would reduce the costs related to tobacco use, anyway. R2: Users themselves It is ironic that my opponent thinks banning tobacco use would help users. As noted in my OBV2, banning tobacco use (see resolution) would mean all users would be criminals if prohibition were passed. This begs the question: would making tobacco users criminals help them? Probably not. Instead of marginalizing their activity as crime, it is much better to let them come out of the shadows and go through legal rehabilitation centers or use legal products in order to quit smoking. By making them criminals, you force them to purchase goods that they don’t know where they came from or what ingredients are in the drug. While legal tobacco isn’t good for you, tobacco companies are prohibited from adding more addicting and hazardous materials in order to make it more attractive. Cartels would not be subject to these rules. Cartels would put more addictive and unhealthy chemicals in their products if they thought it would make it more marketable. A new insidious drug called “krocodile” has been sold on the black market and created because heroin is illegal. However, in a free market, this product would not exist. If a drug were to cause injury and the company refused to warn customers, they (or their family) would be able to sue the company through the court of law and make it economically unfeasible to create the drug.[6] Currently, tobacco companies do put warning labels on their products, and the evidence seems to suggest that these labels reduce tobacco use.[7] My opponent makes claims about tobacco companies funding false research, which is true, but the fact is current regulations are protecting the consumer much better than prohibition would and smoking rates are at an all time low without banning the substance. My opponent claims most smokers have tried to quit--a claim I do not dispute. But by prohibiting tobacco use and making drugs unregulated, more harmful, and more addictive, how would prohibition help users quit use? If anything, prohibiting tobacco would make the user worse off. They would be criminally liable for using drugs, would be using unregulated drugs that are more unsafe than the legal variants, and they would be forced to purchase from criminal drug dealers and gangs that use violence and extortion in order to receive payment. Prohibition puts users in harms way more than it does in the current system. R3: Second hand smoke I would like to note that my position means that we can regulate tobacco even if we don’t ban it. There are multiple ways we could reduce the harms of secondhand smoke without prohibiting tobacco use. a) Ban tobacco use in public places This is not the same as banning tobacco use, because people could still use tobacco in the privacy of their own home. By forcing businesses to ban smoking on their property and by enforcing bans on public property, you would reduce public exposure to cigarette fumes while, at the same time, allowing a legal market to provide tobacco to users who would smoke in their own homes. b) Ban smoking near children If a parent was a smoker, they would be legally obligated to quit. This would be to protect children and infants who are unable to consent to being near smokers. c) Require consent from family members If a man (or woman) was a smoker, but they lived with relatives, roommates, etc., the person in the home would have to sign a letter of consent to the government that acknowledges the harms of secondhand smoke and that the signatory consents to being in the same vicinity as a smoker. All of these would essentially eliminate (or substantially reduce) second hand smoking exposure without a full on prohibition of tobacco. The CDC has already acknowledged the effectiveness of the proposals I made above, and they say that “Smokefree laws that prohibit smoking in all [public] indoor areas of a venue fully protect nonsmokers from involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke indoors.”[8] And for those who have family members or children who do not wish to be exposed to smoke, and the smoker cannot smoke at home, the government could create smoking lounges for smokers who wish to get their nicotine fix. In fact, Switzerland has tried this, and crime related to drug use, drug use in total, and drug deaths have fallen as a result.[9] You do not need to ban tobacco to prevent involuntary exposure. R4: Environment This is the weakest argument my opponent makes. The resolution reads: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States. In the *United States.* Banning tobacco use in the US would do NOTHING to reduce environmental harms related to smoking. 5.6 trillion--yes, TRILLION--cigarettes are sold globally each year.[10] Only 264 billion cigarettes were sold in the US in 2014.[11] That means the US is only responsible for 4.7% of tobacco sales in the world. Removing 4.7% of cigarette sales each year wouldn’t fix anything my opponent talked about. It wouldn’t clean up our oceans, it wouldn’t significantly reduce littering, etc. Tobacco-related pollution would barely budge globally, and as tobacco use is rising in undeveloped countries, would probably be balanced out in a matter of years. And again, this is assuming every smoker stops smoking! I will respond to usage arguments last round, but as use would not decline if tobacco was banned (and possibly increase), environmental harms even domestically would not change. ______ I am low on space, so I will defend my arguments next round. My opponent’s case has been entirely debunked, and the arguments in favor of tobacco prohibition are extremely tenuous. Voters should instead favor harm reduction policies. 1. http://object.cato.org... 2. https://www.whitehouse.gov... 3. http://www.drugabuse.gov... 4. http://www.acscan.org... 5. https://www.whitehouse.gov... 6. https://mises.org... 7. http://www.cbsnews.com... 8. http://www.cdc.gov... 9. http://www.swissinfo.ch... 10. http://global.tobaccofreekids.org... 11. http://www.cdc.gov...