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

Third proposing speech

Dear readers, before anything else I would like to begin by thanking my dear narrow-minded opponent for the tons of laughs he has provided us by comparing tobacco interdiction to colonisation. Then I'll explain why my partner's arguments are sensible. I'll rebut his nonsense sayings and, in the end, I'll sum up and conclude this debate. [...]

by LM

Third opposing speech
Dear Members of the jury, readers, Proposing team and Opposing team, let’s wrap up all that has been written during this interesting debate.

As LL wrote, the question of public health is tricky, indeed it is, and according to our group is not just tricky but also very delicate in this context because is attempting against the sovereignty over our own body. [...]

by SSDI

Third proposing speech

Dear readers, before anything else I would like to begin by thanking my dear narrow-minded opponent for the tons of laughs he has provided us by comparing tobacco interdiction to colonisation. Then I'll explain why my partner's arguments are sensible. I'll rebut his nonsense sayings and, in the end, I'll sum up and conclude this debate.

First of all, we are speaking about the United Kingdom, therefore, french measures cannot be taken into account. Even though that doesn't change our argumentation even a bit, you seem to attach a particular importance to this point which is totally meaningless. Do you really have nothing more interesting to say?

Secondly, why wait 30 years? Why not tomorrow? I think everyone, but you, already understood that it is impossible to stop tobacco in one day. Maybe you smoke too much to keep your brain as clear as mine? Whatever, let me explain; By trying to prohibit tobacco in a single day, you will not only harm tobacco addicts (they'll feel depressed and eventually some will commit suicide) but also  you'll create an insurrection. We cannot forbid tobacco today being that many people consider cigarettes as everyday stuff. We must first change mentalities (our 2nd speaker developed this point already). Nowadays people underestimate the dangers of tobacco because it's still legal. We must warn people. We must focus on the young and make them understand that smoking is useless, so that in 30 years time, our country (that is to say United Kingdom) and its population will be ready to definitively stop the production, distribution and consumption of tobacco. Finland decided recently to totally prohibit tobacco within 30 years. We should follow their example. Jacques Attali suggested a 15 year delay, but we chose 30 years, because that is, in our opinion, much more realistic. You think that forbidding tobacco will increase marijuana, crack or cocaine consumption because people will buy both tobacco and drugs when seeing a dealer. But our aim is to convince people to stop smoking. They won't even know how to smoke in our future. They won't even have the wish to try. On the contrary, we think smoking something (tobacco for instance) provokes the will to smoke weed.

We do not intend to prohibit alcohol because alcohol has virtues if you do not abuse (a grog is a cure, red wine is good for blood circulation and many medicines contains alcohol).

You proceeded by talking about the human right aspect. We think the state shouldn't allow anything resembling "sovereignty over your body". Actually people already don't have this right today. Suicide is forbidden in our country (United Kingdom ^^). This is a protection, not a liberty restrictions. We intend to prohibit tobacco to protect people. As a matter of fact, we protect them from becoming dependant and thus from loosing their liberty.

To conclude, we plan to prohibit tobacco production, distribution and consumption because smoking is dangerous. It poisons you and others. It gives a bad example for those watching you smoke (especially your children, if you're still able to have some after smoking this shit) and encourage them to try. We have made a thouroughfull reflexion about the way to move things forward. That's why we propose progressive measures for the next 30 years in order to come up with the final result. Thus, we avoid the problem the opposition keeps mentionning: "you cannot deal with the people already addicted". Finally, the opposition evoked human rights and we showed that tobacco prohibition was not reducing individual liberty.

LM

Third opposing speech
Dear Members of the jury, readers, Proposing team and Opposing team, let’s wrap up all that has been written during this interesting debate. 

As LL wrote, the question of public health is tricky, indeed it is, and according to our group is not just tricky but also very delicate in this context because is attempting against the sovereignty over our own body.

And yes, we know that smoking is the biggest health issue of this century, and we agree that smoking kills lots of people but it also makes the one who is smoking it feel better.

It is dangerous for our health and it creates an addiction, we know but so as drinking and not having a proper daily diet. There are so many products that contain paints, toxins, plastic and we do not claim their existence because of its danger and talking about addiction well the coffee, physical exercise and even sex are also addictive, but that is no reason to make them illegal, is it?

They also mentioned that they want to eliminate Tobacco 30 years from now, well we said we do not agree.

We also agree with the point of the Second hand smoke, passive smoking is undoubtedly harmful and we have to stress that point talking about the kids but surprisingly doing a bit of research I found that a single drive to work puts out more deadly fumes and toxins in the air than a smoker could possibly do in one year. So that means that maybe cigarettes are not as bad for our kids as we thought or simply driving is too harmful and we should start by eliminating the most evil and harmful factors so, guess what? It is not tobacco!

But if you want we could accept the proposition of sensibiliser parents not to smoke inside the house, which in several countries has been already promoted.

But as we have said if we prohibit the production, distribution and consumption of tobacco lots of people will loose their Jobs in many different fields such as cafes, bars, etc, because as we now know 20% of the World population smokes.

Also we said that French taxes and TVA bring 13 billion Euros to the state each year, which is other argument to refuse this stupid motion.

LL mentioned that there will not be any black market if smokers want to quit but as we all imagine is just not as easy to quit to something that we like or even need as much and furthermore, what’s going to happened with all the others that are not willing to quit. As my friend MPLB said Black market will certainly develop as in the case of marijuana or the case of alcohol in the 20´s, so as we can deduce the people who have a really necessity to smoke tobacco will not stay arms closed and will find a way as history has always shown us.

That’s why I come to the point where we said that prohibiting tobacco would strengthen the desire to cross the barriers of society set up and eventually we could find ourselves with more smokers among the youth than there is today.

Then our opposing team sais that we must first change mentalities, don’t you think mentality is a virtue and you are aiming to corrupted and answering to a question that the same speaker said: Yes we think that forbidding tobacco will increase marijuana, crack or cocaine consumption because people will buy both tobacco and drugs when seeing a dealer and even if your aim is to convince people to stop smoking you will not succeed.

We agree that alcohol has virtues if you do not abuse but so as smoking because of the nicotine. And I said that according to a research from Stanford University, which in general said that low doses of nicotine promote new blood vessel growth.

For instance smoking realise stress, nicotine has a positive effect on colitis illness, and even if it’s not good it can act just as the vaccines, its bad and then it helps you to survive to some other things for example the recovery from a heart attack, or the fact that smokers have a scientifically proven 60% lower risk of suffering from Parkinson's disease.

Well I don’t want to still get you guys tired so tobacco is not healthy in excess so as everything in excess but it is sure that it creates jobs, make benefit in all sectors, and takes part of the freedom of each person whether they smoke it or not.

And to finish just some text I once read and that catch my attention, when was the last time you heard:

"He went to the bar after work, had one smoke too many and went home and beat (the crap out of) his wife and kids?"

"That auto accident was caused by someone who smoked one too many? (We’re talking about tobacco here)."

 

Thank you very much and vote for us!!!

SSDI