Local, State, and Federal Governments should not tax tabacco products.

Unfortunately he did not develop a case of his own. I urge him to take the final opportunity (Round four) to draw up his case for why tobacco should be completely exempt from taxation. If he fails to do so, I have won this debate. ====== I will begin this round by pointing out that Pro has already conceded his position that tobacco should not be taxed. He admitted that tobacco is taxed twice. There is a sales tax and a tobacco tax. He admits that "The problem doesn't fall with sales tax. " Following this statement he did not attack the legitimacy of a sales tax being applied to tobacco. Sales tax is, he admits, a form of taxation. Because a sales tax is a form of taxation, I have fulfilled my burden in proving that tobacco should be taxed. Therefore I have already won this debate, unless Pro devotes a portion of his final round to provide a valid reason why tobacco products should be exempt from this sales tax. ====== REVENUE In response to Pro's attempt at an insult, my status as a moderate socialist is not relevant to the issue at hand. Pro's position is difficult to discern since he did not draw up an argument of his own, contenting himself with merely providing one-sentence responses to my points. He suggests that government should not tax everything. He also suggests that government should take in less money so as to "not spend our children's future. " He does not explain how the current government budget spends "our children's future," nor does he explain why tobacco deserves to be exempt from taxation. Should the government tax everything? No. Should they levy a sales tax? Yes. Does tobacco fall within the boundaries of a sales tax on goods and services? Yes. Since my opponent has offered no reason why the sales tax should be removed, nor has he offered any reason why tobacco should be exempt from said tax, my point stands uncontested. HEALTH Pro's first argument is based on the claim that, since not all potentially harmful activities should be taxed, neither should tobacco. Pro used several supposedly unhealthy activities (fast food, cars accidents, curfew, and exercising) to support his claim that unhealthy activities should not be taxed. Of those listed, only fast food can be considered an issue of public health: - Vehicles in and of themselves are not harmful to the health of individuals who use them. Car accidents are not analogous to the health concerns resulting from smoke inhalation. - Exercising is a healthy activity, and Pro does not claim otherwise. Like car accidents, people injuring themselves in the course of exercising is not analogous. - Just as with the last two examples, night crime is not analogous. Fast food comes the closest to being analogous. Of course, this does not prove that government should not be involved in promoting public health. Fast food could very well be subjected to these so-called "vice taxes. " Reasons why it is not currently, and may never be, subject to a "vice tax" is because there is not widespread public support for such a tax. This may stem from some fundamental differences between the two types of products: - Tobacco is physically and emotionally addictive, while fast food is not. - Tobacco can cause health problems to non-users (in the form of second hand smoke), while fast food cannot. So as we can see, fast food is not quite analogous to tobacco in terms of public health considerations either. Pro's second argument concerning HEALTH is that a tobacco tax places a burden on low income families who smoke. However, this burden on their income only exists if they continue to smoke. If they deem smoking to be of more importance than other monetary concerns then that is their choice. Furthermore, it is precisely these low income families who stand to benefit most from quitting smoking. Obviously, low income families are more likely to have poor or no health care coverage. Therefore, it is a positive thing for the government to promote better health within this bracket. ===== CONCLUSION My opponent has conceded that at least one tax (sales tax) should be levied on tobacco. This means that he has abandoned his resolution that (local, state, and federal) government should not tax tobacco. Therefore, Con wins this debate unless Pro reverses himself in the final round and demonstrates a valid reason why tobacco should not be subject to a sales tax.