Taxation on cigarettes should be substantially increased.

FrameworkSocietal welfare is the optimal value in this debate, as agreed upon by my opponent. Therefore, whichever side effectively does the *best* to maximize social welfare should get the win. Note that societal welfare contains facets of not only morality, but also economics. Whichever achieves the best balance of both should win. DefenseQuestions1. We need taxation on cigarettes to prevent as much smoking as is plausible, and to increase revenue on the sales that continue to take place. For example, in general, this would do a lot to reduce smoking from the poor. However, a price increase wouldn't necessarily prevent rich people from smoking. However, this mitigation of smoking from the poor allows them to spend more money on the necessities and lead a more productive life (and reduce their own poverty, to a small degree). This is further explained in R2 in my case.2. As a general rule, yes, this would be the effect. However, it wouldn't *totally* get rid of cigarette sales, but only reduce them. This is good because a) smoking is harmful, b) taxation brings in more revenue for those who continue to buy, and c) it maximizes economic and moral societal welfare.3. Though this isn't really a question, I'll respond regardless. Increasing taxes on cigarettes actually does more good than harm to the citizens. The obvious way to avoid this taxation is to not buy cigarettes, which, as my studies showed, is an obvious affect of increased taxation. This saves them from clear and dangerous health problems, which is of inherently more value to the individual than a substantial tax increase is a detriment to their pocketbook. Points1. There are taxes on other things. .. many other things. Moreover, the reason for the increase of taxes on cigarettes is primarily due to health concerns.2. I explained the reason for deterrence and backed my reasoning up with empirical studies. Refer to my case for these precise particularities; there's no need to reiterate here and waste character space. The bottom line is, I have explained this point thoroughly. Moreover, you can't simply make bare assumptions about "what the government wants. "3. My opponent argues, "if we have more taxes, then this is bad for the citizens. They cannot buy these expensive things. " I've gone over this multiple times. It's a *GOOD* thing that citizens can't buy "these expensive things" that are an obvious health detriment. Health Detriments1. My opponent has some severe misinterpretation here. He says our first arguments are essentially the same, but from different perspectives. He says my only advocation is that raising taxes is only done to give the government more money. However, that is only a secondary purpose. The primary purpose is to deter the sales of smoking and the subsequent health detriments. My opponent concedes this is true in the last sentence, where he states "if we raise taxes, no one will buy them. "Higher Tax Deterrence1. My opponent blatantly (and falsely) claims the only reason the government wants to raise taxes is to get more money. This is uncited and illogical. Under the framework, the policy is to maximize societal welfare, and the sole purpose of getting *more* money doesn't achieve that. Besides, this debate is about policy implementation, not about the governmen. *I* am advocating this policy, not the federal government. Therefore, "government" arguments are irrelevant. RevenueMy opponent concedes my primary impact -- the reduction (and supposed elimination, though my view is not that extreme) of smoking. ConclusionThis debate boils down to the primary impact of deterrence. My opponent has conceded that point to me with explicit agreement that taxation decreases (or eliminates) smoking.