Taxation on cigarettes should be substantially increased.

Introduction:Cigarettes are a plague that have significantly harmed society in a variety of aspects, causing destruction of human bodily functions, the contraction of terminal disease, and the perpetual degradation of societal dignity. It’s painfully obvious of the havoc these instruments have wreaked upon our nation, and it is for this reason that I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution which states: Taxation (sales and/or excise) on cigarettes should be substantially increased.Framework:While the burden of proof for this debate is shared, it is essential to establish a plausible framework by which the debate will be judged. I value societal welfare, which essentially refers to whichever policy implementation maximizes the good of society. If I can prove that increasing sales and/or excise taxes on cigarettes will have substantially positive net consequences, I win the debate. Contrarily, if my opponent can show that it will have a net detriment to society and its well-being (considering the role of government), my opponent deserves the win. Under this framework, logical and moral arguments must be exemplified to best represent taxation and its implications on societal welfare. Moreover, this debate should be US-centered as to deflect disparity of current taxation and proposals.The Role of GovernmentThe primary role of government is to do what is objectively best for their citizens. Be it more or less taxation, its chief purpose is to maximize societal welfare, which is why I value that in this debate. The maximization of societal welfare would prevent individuals from freely engaging in activity that perpetually detriments their health and the health of other third-party individuals. Thus, the role of government alone is sufficient to resort to means of prevention for cigarettes. Specifically in regard to economics (as that is the foremost principle of taxation), there is ample grounds to increase taxation. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics outlines a government’s role in economics, and taxation, specifically. They quote, “four objectives of tax policy: simplicity, efficiency, fairness, and revenue sufficiency.” [1] Increasing federal taxation would fulfill simplicity (giving a federal tax rate, rather than state tax rate), efficiency (assist with smoking prevention, which would help society function efficiently), fairness (similar to the last one, where third-party has a lesser chance of being affected), and revenue efficiency (the economy would bring in more revenue). The role of government, in general, and economically dictates that there be a substantial increase of taxation on cigarette products, as I will further prove in my following contentions.Health DetrimentsSmoking is a very dangerous and harmful practice. This is common knowledge, so I won’t address it extensively. According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. [2] Smoking can cause cancer in 12 different areas of the body, and if no one smoked, U31; of cancer deaths wouldn’t even have happened. [2] The National Cancer Institute notes, “Among the 250 known harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 69 can cause cancer.” [3] The National Heart, Blood, and Lung Institute also expresses the high risk of a plethora of heart problems as a resultant of smoking. [4] It’s essential to realize HOW harmful smoking is, and the host of detrimental consequences it imposes on those who smoke, and the individuals around them. The CDC explains the danger of secondhand smoke is nearly as severe as smoking itself, and that “There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” [5] Smoking and secondhand smoke are virtually equally harmful. A just government would not allow its citizens to continue harming themselves and others around them by permitting smoking without efforts to deter the threatening practice. With increased taxation, they would implement a policy which effectively and considerably deters smoking as a whole. Thus, they would increase the overall health of the society as well as stimulate the economy for those who continue to smoke.Higher Tax DeterrenceThe status quo doesn’t do nearly enough to prevent smoking. We’ve already established that smoking is demonstrably bad, and a just society wouldn’t leave it unbridled. That is why the proposition of a higher tax is being made: to protect its citizens from harmful effects. Placing a substantially higher sales and/or excise tax on cigarettes would inevitably deter smoking, and subsequently protect the health of millions of Americans. The CDC again provides insight to how many people actually smoke. They inform, “Nearly 18 of every 100 U.S. adults aged 18 years or older (17.8%) currently smoke cigarettes. This means an estimated 42.1 million adults in the United States currently smoke cigarettes.” [6] This is a worrying figure, one that demonstrates how dire this situation currently is. Prevention of smoking by taxation could, in theory, help 42.1 million American adults. Though not everyone would quit smoking, the maximization of societal welfare would dictate the government do all they can to at least lower that number. That’s essentially what an increased cigarette tax would accomplish.Current tax rates have proven fallible and insufficient to bring the number any lower than what it is today. Societal trends show that smoking, on net, has decreased since 1965, but it’s important to realize that trend could be significantly continued by way of increased taxation. Excise taxes vary from state to state [7], but I propose raising the sales and/or excise tax. The US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health published a study, in which the results concluded “There was strong evidence that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a more effective tobacco control policy measure for reducing smoking behavior among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status, compared to the general population.” [8] This study indicates that raising taxes DOES correlate to a decrease in smoking behavior. This study isn’t alone in its findings. Frank J. Chaloupka, economics professor of University of Chicago at Illinois conducted a study which found similar results. He notes, “Increasing cigarette and other tobacco taxes will lead to significant reductions in the use of these products, resulting from reductions in the frequency of use by continuing users, as well as reductions in the prevalence of use. Given this evidence, higher tobacco taxes are likely to be the single most effective policy option for reducing the public health toll from tobacco.” [9] This not only expresses the success of higher taxes, but also that it’s the most effective way to deflect health consequences of smoking. Another study by Michael Grossman concludes similarly, where he states, “Increased taxation, which results in higher prices, would discourage alcohol abuse and cigarette smoking… over 800,000 premature deaths in the cohort of Americans 12 years and older in 1984 would be averted if the Federal excise tax on cigarettes were restored to its real value in 1951.” [10] This shows, again, increased taxation can deter smoking, but also indicates many lives could have been saved had higher taxes been implemented previously. A study by the New England Journal of Medicine also showed “a substantial increase in specific excise taxes on tobacco [is] the single most important intervention against noncommunicable diseases.” [11] This reiterates the success of increased taxation. Essentially, there is overwhelming evidence in support of the notion that an increase in excise/sales tax will decrease cigarette usage, which is a benefit to society.RevenueIt’s obvious that not everyone will quit smoking. There will still be those who buy cigarettes, and that’s a given. However, with more taxes being placed on these products, those who buy them will only be helping state and federal government gain more capital which can be put forth towards education programs and other policies that would have net benefit to society and economy alike.Conclusion:As a government, there is obligation to maximize societal welfare. Because smoking is inherently and empirically harmful, and because increasing taxation will have a deterrent effect on cigarette consumption, it is in the best interest of government (in order to fulfill their role) to uphold and maximize societal welfare by substantially increasing taxation on cigarettes. By doing so, they protect the health of their citizens (which is a moral obligation) and stimulate the economy for those who still purchase the cigarettes (which is an economic benefit). Thereby, doing so is both moral and pragmatic. The resolution is affirmed.Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com...