This house would prohibit the production, distribution and consumption of tobacco - Opening speeches

First proposing Speech

The question of public health is tricky. The government has this double and sometimes paradoxical duty to protect the people by prohibiting the distribution of products which effects on health have proved deadly, and at the same time to protect their individual liberties that make them responsible for their acts, when made in total awareness of the risks. This balance is hard to be found in the case of the cigarette. Indeed, smoking kills. BUT its ability to kill is illusionary diluted in its huge number of addicts: it has so much been trivialized that it seems people are not anymore ready to see this drug which effects are belated but real and unsuspected, be prohibited without feeling it as an attempt to their individual liberty. I’d like our government to take its responsibilities and to take the decision it should have taken a long time ago. THBT the production, distribution and consumption of cigarettes would be prohibited in the UK in 30 years from now. Just like it was the case for the Mediator, its launching on the market was a huge mistake as we thought smoking had virtues every doctor agrees to rebut today...

by LL

First opposing speech

Tobacco is certainly the biggest health issue of the 21st century :  5 millions of people die each year because of tobacco, which is more than aids and malaria together… Tobacco concerns many people : 1.3 billion people are regular smoker, that is 20% of the global population, and the effect of passive smoking are now undoubtedly harmful. For all this reasons, and for many others, this house would prohibit the production, distribution and consumption of tobacco. Despite of the damage caused by it, I strongly believe that to prohibit tobacco is totally irrelevant. I’m going to explain why the idea of prohibiting tobacco is just a naïve and idealistic point of view, and it can be as dangerous as to allow it...

by MPLB

First Proposing Speech

The question of public health is tricky. The government has this double and sometimes paradoxical duty to protect the people by prohibiting the distribution of products which effects on health have proved deadly, and at the same time to protect their individual liberties that make them responsible for their acts, when made in total awareness of the risks. This balance is hard to be found in the case of the cigarette. Indeed, smoking kills. BUT its ability to kill is illusionary diluted in its huge number of addicts: it has so much been trivialized that it seems people are not anymore ready to see this drug which effects are belated but real and unsuspected, be prohibited without feeling it as an attempt to their individual liberty. I’d like our government to take its responsibilities and to take the decision it should have taken a long time ago. THBT the production, distribution and consumption of cigarettes would be prohibited in the UK in 30 years from now. Just like it was the case for the Mediator, its launching on the market was a huge mistake as we thought smoking had virtues every doctor agrees to rebut today.

As a matter of fact, the government has to act clearly and loud today, because it is not anymore a question of “individual liberties” when public money is at stake, with the daily and deadly consequences of second-hand smoke, with smokers being put on a pedestal to the eyes of the most vulnerable generations and because poisoning yourself slowly is not a possibility a government should ever give to its people.

Cigarettes, among all the other drugs, deserve a special treatment as nothing is to be saved in it, should it be the addictive substances added by producers like tar or the way it is harmful since the absolute beginning. In the case of smoking, a single cigarette is harmful to your health when it is only an abusive consumption that is dangerous in the case of alcohol for example.

The creation of a black market is something we do not fear because we chose to take the time to truly, deeply help smokers stop if they want to, with new efficient campaigns to give them the specific support they need with specific public subventions.

Let’s face the truth: the message we are sending to the population is blurred! We prohibited smoking in public areas to protect public health but we let people poison themselves as long as they have passed their doorstep! We tell them smoking is bad when we tax our way out of the financial crisis thanks to cigarette-sales!

The main goal of such measure mostly is purely moral: it is to send a clear message to the British people. We truly believe transparency, honesty and officially renouncing to 13 billion euros of taxes cashed in on through the tobacco industry are the key to make our message simple and understandable.

Thank you and vote for us."

LL

First opposing speech

Tobacco is certainly the biggest health issue of the 21st century :  5 millions of people die each year because of tobacco, which is more than aids and malaria together… Tobacco concerns many people : 1.3 billion people are regular smoker, that is 20% of the global population, and the effect of passive smoking are now undoubtedly harmful. For all this reasons, and for many others, this house would prohibit the production, distribution and consumption of tobacco. Despite of the damage caused by it, I strongly believe that to prohibit tobacco is totally irrelevant. I’m going to explain why the idea of prohibiting tobacco is just a naïve and idealistic point of view, and it can be as dangerous as to allow it…

Let’s start to analyze the economic and social aspect of tobacco, and then analyze the consequences of such prohibition.

Firstly, tobacco is widespread  : 1 people out of 5 are a smoker in the world.

Secondly, all over the world tobacco is undoubtedly a crucial source of profit for the states, and an important source of job for people. For instance, French taxes and TVA bring 13 billion Euros to the state each year. Tobacco creates many jobs, from its extraction to its production, but also in other fields : the prohibition of tobacco in cafes and bars in 2008 is a relevant example, it had fatal economic fallouts for some of them, oblige to close, and people lost their job.

Let’s sum up the situation : tobacco is smoked by 20% of the population and is a considerable source of money for the ones who distribute it, and the ones who taxes it. Prohibit tobacco will prevent 1.3 billion people to smoke,  force many people to quit their job, and make a hole of billions Euros in the State wallet… 

But the prohibition of tobacco is also dangerous. What are the inevitable consequences of the prohibition of this very popular and profitable plant ?

The answer is obviously the massive development of black market. The history gives many arguments to claim that black market would develop. For instance, the prohibition of marijuana don’t stop it at all : nowadays, in France, it is very easy to get some.  Furthermore, it encourages petty crime, because black traffic enrich organized crime.

Another very instructive example is the American prohibition of alcohol during the 20’s and 30’s. The prevention of tobacco can be compare with this, because alcohol and tobacco are both very popular. After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging  became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol,  the gangster Al Capone is an emblem of this period. The prohibition of tobacco would undoubtedly create the same problem, because it is as popular as alcohol : people would want it and it would develop crime. At the end, the State would be forced to authorize tobacco again : this ban is definitely irrelevant.

MPLB