Banning Smoking

Jew phfuweihfiuwe cp

Smoking is almost universally regarded as a dangerous and addictive substance-this is something that both sides need to accept in this debate. What will be issues of contention, though, are whether the government has a responsibility to intervene on the right to smoke and whether banning smoking will make it more or less harmful.

This is bad

Context

Rates of smoking have consistently fallen in Australia since increasing awareness about the dangers of smoking in the 1960s. Further, the government has already taken several actions against the tobacco industry-currently, we have a 24c tax on each cigarette, education campaigns through school, advertising and on cigarette cartons and prohibitions on smoking in certain public areas. For the affirmative, banning smoking is seen as a simple extension of these actions; for the negative, the status quo has succeeded in reducing smoking and no further action is required.

Examples

• That we should ban smoking
• That we should ban cigarettes because it makes you’re lungs deplete

Cases

Model:

• Prohibition on buying, selling or smoking tobacco-based products
• Increasing investment on subsidies of nicotene patches and quitting programmes

Affirmative	Negative
1.1-Imperative argument-The status quo has failed to wipe out smoking in Australia. Though the status quo has succeeded in decreasing smoking rates, they are still substantial in Australia; and this number will only rise; due to factors like peer pressure, Smoking is a dangerous, addictive substance; we see this as a problem the government should solve.	1.1-Unnecessary Argument-The status quo does not need to be changed-it has consistently succeeded in greatly reducing smoking rates in Australia. Education programmes have consistently seen ; the number of smokers has almost halved since the 1980s, which we expect to continue. There is no need to change the status quo, as it has been highly successful.
1.2-Principled argument-The government has a responsibility to intervene on smoking, as it is a substance that can't be consented to and that harms others around the smoker. The government must intervene on this right for three reasons: It is a highly addictive substance, often found to be more addictive than heroine or cocaine. Thus, there is no right to smoke; its harms can't be consented to. It violates the rights of others around smokers. Passive smoking, or second-hand smoking, is when those around smokers are forced to inhale some of the harmful nicotene smokers are breathing out, thus giving those who aren't smokers and who didn't choose to smoke some of the harmful effects. Someone living in an area in which smoking is common has a 20% increased risk of lung cancer. Thus, the right to smoke should be intervened upon to protect the rights of others. Many smokers don't know or don't consider the consequences of their actions. Youths who are drawn to smoking due to peer pressure don't think about the risks of smoking, not giving proper consent.	1.2-Principled argument-People have a right to smoke as part of the right to bodily autonomy-they have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. This is true for three reasons: The right to bodily autonomy exists in our society. Individual citizens are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want with their bodies-activities like bungee-jumping, drinking alcohol and even self-harm are legal because we allow people to do what they want to their bodies. Smoking should be no exception. The right to bodily autonomy is one that should exist because individuals know their priorities better than some blanket government rule. While most individuals shouldn't smoke because they place a very high priority on their health, those who care less about their well-being shouldn't be stopped from smoking. Smokers know the risks of their behaviour. Education campaigns have caused the risks of smoking to be well-known, and, furthermore, on every carton of cigarettes, there are graphic warnings about the effects of smoking. Smokers make an informed choice to smoke, and the government should not intervene in their exercising the right to bodily autonomy.
1.3-Effectiveness-Our model will reduce smoking and cause less suffering to smokers. When our model is introduced, smoking will decrease because: The deterrent effect-people will be too scared of being caught to attempt to buy cigarettes. Buying cigarettes just won't be possible-vendors will be prohibited from selling tobacco products and they will no longer be allowed to be imported into the nation. This will mean that less people will smoke. A reduced number of smokers will mean reduced suffering; smoking increases the risk of cancer, lung disease and heart disease.	1.3-Effectiveness-The opposition's model will not reduce smoking, but, instead, make it more harmful by establishing a blackmarket trade in cigarettes, as we have seen as a result of the war on drugs. Smokers won't just stop smoking-as the opposition are so keen to talk about, it is an addictive activity. Smokers will attempt to get cigarettes through activities that are illegal. Due to the potential money to be made, organised criminal gangs will be happy to supply tobacco, particularly as it can easily be organically grown. For example, as a result of the war on drugs, we have seen the drug trade continue. This means that the tobacco trade will become more harmful as the tobacco is likely to unfiltered or impure as the only incentive criminals have is to make money. Thus, the tobacco trade is much safer when it is legal.
2.1-Practical argument-Effect on crime. At present, much of unorganised crime is motivated due to a desire to get money to feed cravings for cigarettes. When cigarettes are banned, this will no longer be necessary-thus crime will decrease under our model.	2.1-Practical argument-This will make smoking not only more harmful, but also more prevalent due to 'The badass effect'. Young Australians will think smoking is cool because of its illegal status; thus the opposition's model will increase the number of smokers.
2.2-Practical argument-Effect on government revenue. At present, the taxpayer is expected to effectively pick up the bill for smokers-due to their access to medicare, smokers are able to live off the taxpayer. This is bad for two reasons: In principle, they should not have to pick up the bill for something smokers could have prevented by not making such poor lifestyle decisions. Practically, the money could be better spent fixing failing healthcare systems.	2.2-Practical argument-The opposition's model will increase both organised and unorganised crime in our society: It will increase organised crime, as major gangs will participate in the blackmarket tobacco trade; as with illegal drugs, it will be a source of income. It will increase unorganised crime, as, due to the sudden price hikes that will occur as smoking is made illegal, addicts will need to steal to feed their addiction.

Issues

In this debate, a third speaker will usually discuss:

• Whether the government has a responsibility to intervene on the right to smoke. This will likely come down to whether consent is given and whether passive smoking is a real phenomenon.
• Whether this will result in more or less smoking, and whether it will be more or less harmful.
• The effect on the broader community-crime and revenue-raising arguments.