Sunday, February 27, 2011

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

Second proposing speech:
The first opposing speaker has made four remarks: smoking is too much widespread to prohibit it, total smoking ban would cause loss to our economy, it would create a black market and sooner or later we would have to scrap the law. ...

by IP

Second opposing speech
First of all I would like to tell our dear readers that we will not accept our opponents' terms: making tobacco illegal in the UK in 30 years?? And what's next? THBT tobacco should be forbidden in Swaziland in 2 centuries? First, what do these 30 years even mean? And what are they going to tell the 2,000,000 men and women who will die in the meantime, waiting for them to implement such a pointless policy? ...

by VA 

Second proposing speech:
The first opposing speaker has made four remarks: smoking is too much widespread to prohibit it, total smoking ban would cause loss to our economy, it would create a black market and sooner or later we would have to scrap the law. 

Speaking about economy, he sees tobacco industry only as an opportunity for a state to pour money into the Treasury thanks to the taxes. However he forgets about health care costs that this industry causes. Job losses? Of course, certain number of jobs will disappear, but this is precisely one of the reasons why our ban is gradual. Indeed we give ourselves 30 years to fully enact the ban which would allow implementation of unhurried measures aimed at minimizing the effect of job losses. Finally, the 1st opposing speaker seems worried about the loss our law would cause to the tobacco industry. In our opinion, though, an industry that is seeking to profit by selling lethal products, fostering addiction and confusing the consumer is beneath any contempt.

Before responding to other arguments, we need to further develop our reasons for militating for a total ban rather than a partial one and clarify how we intend to enforce it successfully.

The already implemented anti-smoking measures can only protect colleagues and friends of smokers. However, the most vulnerable, the children of smokers remain unprotected. As long as smokers are smoking at home, their children will be exposed to the great risk of passive smoking. Even more serious is the example that is being set for them. Indeed, researches have shown that a child whose parents smoke is about three times more likely to start smoking than the one whose parents don’t smoke. We thus fall into a vicious circle. This is where a partial smoking ban fails. As long as the children see their parents smoking, be it only at home, cigarettes will remain a part of our culture.
 
Furthermore, studies have shown that more than 70% of smokers wish they could quit or had never started smoking. Total ban would stop new flow of smokers from coming in and thus spare them from the trouble that so many smokers experience: knowing that tobacco shortens their life, feeling that it decreases there stamina, yet unable to quit for they are addicted to it.

We therefore ask for a clear and firm action. One goal: totally eradicating tobacco in UK by 2041. We would take time to thoroughly prepare the ground. Our step-by-step measures would mainly target the youngest- we need smoking to stop being seen as cool. We intend to change the way children are thought about tobacco in schools. We would engage as well in talks with film industry, which creates role models for adolescents, in order to help us. We are ready to provide specific subventions in order to make smoking as undesirable as a film industry is capable of. Over generations our perception of smoking would change. But this is only possible if we have a firm goal of a total ban to meet. We believe that eventually people will ask themselves: Why has smoking ever been so popular? The health effects, the costs, the smell, and so useless… Why has it ever worked?

This gradual change of people’ habits would lead to steady decrease of the number of smokers. Therefore the perspective of switching from 20% of smokers to 0% that worries the first opposing speaker would happen progressively and naturally.  This progressive reduce of the cigarette demand makes it clear as well why neither black market nor inapplicability of the law do not fear us.

Thank you and vote for us!

IP

Second opposing speech
First of all I would like to tell our dear readers that we will not accept our opponents' terms: making tobacco illegal in the UK in 30 years?? And what's next? THBT tobacco should be forbidden in Swaziland in 2 centuries? First, what do these 30 years even mean? And what are they going to tell the 2,000,000 men and women who will die in the meantime, waiting for them to implement such a pointless policy? ...

Besides, let's be serious for a second, this debate started in France and it has to remain within our frontiers. Making it cross the Channel will definitely not help them win it! Actually France is a very special country: we are the nation of the Enlightenment Revolution, of human rights, individual liberties? And these three guys (and girls) are meaning to take away from us our most indefeasible, inalienable and universal right, a right for which peoples from all over the world have risen and keep rising even stronger these days : the sovereignty over their own body! Hiding behind the very same pretext of protection French settlers used during the 19th century to deprive African populations from more and more of their rights, they are meaning to take away from 14 millions of their fellow citizens a part of their lives, of who they are: smoking, to make them feel even more guilty than they already do by forcing them to live outlaw? And most important they meant to hide all of the little "details" I just mentioned by changing the time and space context of this debate!!! I just could not let this happen. 

Now, after this philosophic paragraph, I would really like our dear judges to get one thing right : tobacco is not that a peculiar product and the fact that it is today a burning issue of our societies should not place it on such a pedestal. Let's ask ourselves this very simple question: what is a cigarette? (who said this debate wasn't philosophical ??). A cigarette has 3 main characteristics :

- it makes the one who is smoking it feel better
- it is dangerous for his (her) health
- it creates an addiction

The thing is that these facts also prove to be true in the cases of drugs and alcohol. And by drawing analogies on the one hand with the prohibition period in the US and on the other hand with the Dutch policy toward marijuana, I will show how absurd making tobacco illegal is.

Cigarettes are dangerous for our health, no one is denying it. So are alcohol, drugs, sugar and salt. We all agree with our opponents on the fact that states have the moral duty to protect their citizens. Governments are also the ones who will draw the line between what is legal and what is not. What our fellow opponents are asking for, is that the government would move this very line so that cigarettes smokers eventually find themselves on the same side as criminals and cocaine users. The thing is once you've crossed the line, it becomes very easy to keep on the wrong way. That is exactly how experts will explain why crime rates rose so much during the prohibition period: having a beer and robbing a place were more or less considered on an equal footing. Furthermore, if the Dutch government legalized marijuana it is because they did not want that the same guy who sells you marijuana may propose you crack or cocaine. This also works with tobacco. It is all a matter of where you draw the line?

To conclude my dear opponent prop 1 wrote a few words about the youth and the extent to which cigarettes were put on a pedestal in front of their naive eyes. But doesn't she think that making it illegal would actually place tobacco under the spotlights? Doesn't she believe that it would strengthen their desire to cross the barriers the society set up and that we will eventually find ourselves with more smokers among the youth than there is today? And finally doesn't she think she should just surrender and quit her position in this debate before it's too late ?

VA

6 comments:

  1. Dear VA,

    I can see that half of your speech hinges around the fact that this measure would be implemented in the UK. It is just sad that paranoia made you put so much energy exciting the crowd, ranting and raving, calling for rebellion and my resignation since we actually ARE supposed to be the British government... Indeed, we are talking in English, following the scheme of the British Parliament's debates...Maybe I'll give you some time to think about this.
    Actually, it seems the one trying to deceive the British people is you, with all due respect, Mr A. So really,the fact that people have "the sovereignty over their own body" is your main argument, isn't it? We shall not forbid cigarettes because people have the "indefeasible right" to smoke. Are you a smoker yourself? Is it the addiction talking, or you, Mr A? Your simplistic argumentation leads us to the legalization of cocaine, among all other harmful products.
    Cocaine, no, but cigarettes...they are not that bad...Smoking doesn't seem that lethal, does it? Dear VA, is this really the way you chose to defend cigarettes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. To ban another product, penalize more people for using a substance... when will the government learn that this is not only ineffective but detrimental. This will create another income/power source for those willing to risk it and cause people who can't quit to become criminalized. The real conversation needs to go like this;
    Person A: I think tobacco products are terrible. Look at all the evidence showing the negative effects, and for what?
    Person B: I agree. But how do you convince people to quit smoking?
    Person A: We should find out why people smoke first.
    Person B: Brilliant! Lets ask Scientist A why people continuously smoke.
    Scientist A: People continuously smoke because nicotine, an additive, is a powerfully addicting substance.
    Person A: I get it! People who use tobacco products become addicted to them and have such a difficult time quitting that many never succeed! Wow!
    Person B: So what you're saying is...
    Person A: We need to make tobacco products...
    Person A and B together: NON-ADDICTIVE!!
    Person A: But wait! Doesn't the FDA already have the power to regulate nicotine?
    Person B: Oh My Gosh they Do!
    Person A: So we can use an already-existing policy to drastically reduce tobacco consumption without penalizing millions of people and supporting organized crime?
    FDA Person: Yes, we can. However the tobacco companies have me on their payroll. So it sucks to be you. And you. And you. And you. And you. And you. And you...............

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear mrs L (whoever you are)

    "are you a smoker yourself" ?? really ?? is that all you've got ??
    tell me, in what possible way can this question be relevant in this debate ?
    If I prove to be one, then what ? you'll say that I am biased ?
    And I am the one with the simplistic argumentation...

    Now, as far as drugs are concerned, did you really not understand that putting cigarettes and marijuana in the same basket will inevitably lead people to consider that smoking one is the same as smoking the other, or are you simply acting like it ?

    Last point, concerning your so desire to maintain this debate whithin the UK's frontiers because you "are" the british parliament. Well let me tell you something (you may want to sit down because it might not be something easy to hear) : your _fortunately_ not the british parliament. Fortunately for all those teenagers who, if you had passed such a stupid law, would have started smoking of this so forbiden and therefore so fascinating product that is tobacco.
    so thank you for them.

    V.A

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, actually I was just wondering how the advocate of freedom, liberty and sovereignty over one's own body that you are, or pretend to be, could defend with such fierce one of the most addictive drug on earth. Tell this to the big magnates of the tobacco industry who added thousands of carcinogenic substances into their cigarettes only in order to get people addicted faster, I think you should be successful there.

    And I don't think that putting marijuana and tobacco in the same basket will inevitably mislead people. Tell me if I'm wrong, but cocaine and marijuana are in the same basket. But people seem to have understood the difference between the two as the consumption of marijuana is estimated to be far lower than the one of cocaine, or ecstasy, or heroin. This shows that no, people are not as stupid as you seem to be thinking, Mr A, but that it's mostly only a matter of education, information and habits.

    L.L

    ReplyDelete
  5. dear mrs L
    despite our disputes we actually agree on several points
    (yes we do as odd as it may sound)

    - cigarettes are wrong
    - tobacco producers are evil
    (- sport is good
    - segolene royal is bad...)

    we are seeking the very same goal my friend : getting people to stop smoking !
    so don't be a fool and accept the fact that making it illegal won't change anything. At least you should keep in mind that the rate of weed smokers in the Netherland is not higher than the one of France.

    And between you and I, do you really think that having 40% of the french population live beyond the law is the solution ..??

    ReplyDelete