RESOLVED: Smoking should be banned

Before we start this debate, may we first rise up and pay respect for our great and glorious leader, Eduard Khil. May he live on in Valhalla, trolling the Gods in the same manner he trolled all us. Note that I am trying a different format in this debate. Nevertheless, let us start with this troll………serious, yes, serious debate. The resolution presented to us today is: Resolved: That smoking should be banned Before I start introducing my cases, I would like to talk briefly about the resolution. The resolution infers that a worldwide ban would be beneficial. Although I am for the heavier regulation of tobacco and other addictive substances, the complete banishment of smoking would be detrimental on many points of views; the points I present to you mainly deal with moral and economic complications on the banishment of smoking. BoP is shared. Argument One: The Moral Complications of Banning Smoking Definitions needed in this argument: I. Government is defined as an institution that controls the every administration of the state, a wholly coercive institution that exercises a monopoly of power. II. Morality is defined as something that is correct; immoral, the opposite of this, is defined as something that is not wrong. This term will be used in the regards of human rights only, a widely agreed measure of morality. III. Man is defined in this case as the human, not referring to a specific sex, race or nation. IV. Individuals are defined in this case as a singular of man. Axioms: 1. Every man has his individual moral worth; this worth is called liberty. 2. Every government must respect this individual moral worth Propositions (and defense): Prop 1. Every man has the rights to choose whatever he wants to do within the limits of law This right, which we shall define as liberty, is one of the many rights that the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) recognizes; according to Locke, the right to liberty is a natural right, and no institution, without the consent of the individual, may violate this right. This right is also, as stated in the above axioms, the moral worth of every individual. Prop 2. No government can still claim to be moral when this moral worth (liberty) is violated According to the social contract theory elaborated by John Locke, people come and establish the state on the grounds of the need to preserve liberty, but as the minds of men are easily corrupted by power, then the government could easily fall into tyranny. A moral government, a just government, respects the liberty of all people. The duty of the state is not to impose tyranny, but to protect civilized society. Prop 3. All violations of human rights are immoral Just as a support decision to this, all violations of human rights are immoral; albeit some (in cases of murder, rape and crimes against humanity) violations can be justified. Prop 4. The right to smoke is a personal individual decision The right to smoke is indeed a personal decision; one has the liberty to choose whatever he does. The government cannot, without good moral judgment, interfere with the choices of its own citizens, providing that the choices made by these citizens do not directly affect the rights of other citizens. For example, a citizen may choose to have intercourse with another citizen (as long as there is consent) as the government has no place in the bedroom. The government also has no place in the smoking dilemma, because the individual chose to do it. Prop 5. Any government that violates the moral worth of an individual is immoral This is a build an extension of Prop 2 and John Locke’s arguments on a good and just government. Men naturally like liberty, and the government is here not to infringe on this natural liberty, but to protect it. If the liberty of one man is violated, however, then that government loses all its legitimacy; if the liberty of one man is violated, one could blatantly state that this government is tyrannical and deserves to be overthrown. Conclusion: The banning of Smoking Is Immoral and Governments that enact this banishment must be overthrown Argument Two: Economic Complications of Banning Smoking Definitions: I. Market is defined in this case as an exchange of a commodity within one country. II. Profits are defined in this case as the financial gain after the commodity after it has been sold. Axioms: 1. All markets have profits 2. In different countries, different markets have different profits. Propositions (and defense): Prop 1. The Tobacco market is a profitable market The tobacco market is a profitable market, for both the country producing and exporting the tobacco and the country importing tobacco. In 1999, India tobacco export earnings amounted to 5% of the foreign export profits received from that year. During that year, India gained $2.1 billion dollars (not adjusted for inflation). The story for China is similar; in the province of Yunnan alone, the total sales of cigarettes reached $8.3 billion dollars in 1998. Turkey also provides us with a similar success story, with $530 million dollars being earned in 1998, despite the harsh tobacco taxes that the country had imposed on. [1] Prop 2. The Tobacco market provides for 90% of an impoverished country’s economy The tobacco market provides for 90% of the export profits earned by the impoverished country of Malawi; Malawi is the 7th largest exported of Tobacco in the world, yet it is an impoverish country. By busting the tobacco market worldwide, Malawi would lose 5 million jobs and a profit of $165 million yearly. Why should we care about Malawi? Because Malawi is one of the most impoverished countries in the world, with a highly undeveloped agrarian economy, we must take note that many would die from starvation if this collapse ensures. Prop 3. The Busting of the Tobacco Market will cost many jobs The tobacco market provides for 600,000 jobs in America alone. Apart from this, the bustling tobacco industry also indirectly influences 1.6 million American workers. Via taxes, the tobacco market gives $10 billion to the Federal Government yearly. [3] Can the United States survive such a collapse in jobs and economic profits? This United States highly depends on the Tobacco industry. Many argue that such a collapse would be detrimental to the US economy; however, if we look at the world, 30 million jobs are created in farming the tobacco alone. Conclusion: The banning of tobacco and the downfall of the tobacco market will be detrimental to the American and worldwide economy, putting high emphasis on Malawi Argument Three: The Uselessness of a Smoking Ban Definitions: Axiom: 1. Addiction is a health issue 2. Addiction is not a legal issue Propositions: Prop 1. Addicts will take any measures, draconian included, obtaining the addictive substance Substance Addiction is a mental disorder recognized by the DSM V. When someone is addicted, they would take draconian measures to obtain the substance; tobacco in this case. A substance found in tobacco, called nicotine, is described by the DSM to be an axis three mental disorder; more precisely, nicotine addiction has the number prescription of 305.10. Going away from the psychiatry of this all, however, there have been numerous cases showing a black market developing for banned goods. This is due to the body’s quick physiological adaption to the substance used. Once the substance reduces, then the body does not go to the status quo ante of the pre-addiction equilibrium, but starts on a new equilibrium. This causes the mind to need more of the substance. [5] Prop 2. When we turn a health issue into a legal issue, we are arresting people for their mental and physiological condition Even the DSM V recognizes addiction as a mental condition; however, many governments are treating addiction as if it were an issue of choice; if it was, then we have the abilities and the right to deal with it in the same way we do with crimes like fraud and money laundering. However, it is not; we are targeting a group of people, whose mental condition cannot be controlled. It is equivalent to targeting all those who suffer from schizophrenia or schizoid; a mental issue cannot be a legal issue. [4] Prop.3 Banning Tobacco will not stop addicts from obtaining tobacco We are banning tobacco because we want to stop addicts from obtaining tobacco. However, this is inherently a false belief to hold; banning tobacco will cause a huge interference with the process of obtaining tobacco, but a black market will eventually develop out of it. The Fat Tax in Denmark was an example; people were smuggling fat-filled substances from other countries, leading to the halt of the fantasy taxes. Apart from this, the criminalization of drugs is also an indication that albeit drug laws can be tough in many countries, it doesn’t reduce drug usage. Conclusion: Banning Tobacco will be a ban on a condition and will not stop addicts from obtaining the substance Resolution is NEGATED Over to you, con. Citation: [1] http://www.fao.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://archive.tobacco.org...[4] DSM V [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...