Question:
The added cost to public healthcare that comes as a result of diseases brought upon by smoking is vastly outweighed by the amount of money governments around the world receive in taxes on tobacco. The UK currently takes around 60% of the cost of a pack of

Many people have to wait for surgery when they have fallen ill or gotten injured through no fault of their own. Many of the people they are waiting behind have fallen ill out of choice. This includes smokers who have contracted diseases as a result of their habit. There is a vast array of information, easily available to smokers, on the dangers of cigarettes. If despite this, a person chooses to smoke anyway then it is unfair that others who have fallen ill out of genuine misfortune should have to wait in line behind them for healthcare. This problem is particularly in acute in states that have universal healthcare, where non-smokers are forced to wait in a queue for treatment behind those who have negligently made themselves ill smoking. In Britain for example, they have attempted to avoid this by establishing standards under which surgery is denied to obese patients1. Thomas Condliff, the patient, was denied gastric band surgery due to having a body mass index lower than the threshold under which they believed the surgery would be effective2. The priority in such cases is and should be with those who have made a conscious decision to develop an unhealthy habit. 1 BBC News, 11 Jul 11, Man appeals for NHS gastric bypass surgery. Accessed 14 Jul 11.

Many smokers do not choose to harm themselves, they simply can't help it. The 1988 US Surgeon General's report on the addictive nature of cigarette smoking provides proof of what is now widely accepted – smoking cigarettes is highly addictive. Moreover, there are high correlations between people smoking and being under stress or having parents that smoke. All of this suggests that people do not necessarily choose to smoke and may not be able to choose to give up. Given that smokers can therefore be portrayed as suffering from involuntary addiction, it would seem sensible to tackle this addiction alongside physical health issues, as oppose to dismissing smokers altogether.

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?

They need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The law would act as a deterrent against attempts to conceal a smoking habit to procure healthcare

There are realistic ways a policy of denying healthcare access to smokers could be carried out. Insurance companies already ask lots of health-related questions, often including whether their client is a smoker, when assessing life insurance premiums. In these cases, you are required to give details of your lifestyle by law. Of course, some people do not, however this is to be expected since no law is one hundred per cent effective. Sanctions exist to discourage dishonest behaviour. A similar model could be put in place requiring a declaration of smoker status to the health authority. Indeed, many doctors already enquire about their patients' smoking statuses on an informal basis. It is also particularly hard to lie about being a smoker for two reasons. First, other people inevitably see you smoking. This means an abundance of witnesses in the case of a dispute, and thus a disincentive to lie. Second, people require doctors to undertake detailed examinations for treatment purposes, thereby allowing them to see obvious outward signs of smoking: tar deposits, tar in cough, yellowed fingernails, etc.

Denying, or even reducing, access to healthcare for smokers is impractical, and therefore an unrealistic policy goal. First, the extent to which care is denied is questionable. Does the proposition model include denying palliative care? If it does, this literally means leaving people to suffer agonising pain in emergencies while they try to locate private prescription painkillers, if they can afford them. Further, does it include denying emergency procedures such as resuscitation in the case of a heart attack? If it does, where are patients supposed to go? Private emergency rooms are few and far between, or non-existent, in many countries – never mind private ambulances. Second, in order to encourage smokers to stop smoking, the process needs to involve reactivating access to healthcare if smokers quit. But any cut-off point at which the right is re-activated will necessarily be arbitrary. Some studies have suggested that, for instance, teenagers do irreparable damage to their respiratory systems even if they stop smoking young. If all citizens make an informed decision to smoke, as the proposition argues, isn’t it the case that teenagers make an informed decision to do inordinate damage to their bodies? If it is, then why should there be an absolute cut-off point at which one reassumes healthcare rights? Should there be a relative scale? Wouldn’t this be impossible to construct on a scientific basis?

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?

They need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Denying access to healthcare for smokers would act as a deterrent, discouraging smokers

Governments should do everything they can to discourage smoking. They already attempt to do so in a number of ways, such as through ensuring graphic health warnings are present on all tobacco packaging. Many states have also introduced legislation banning smoking indoors in an attempt to discourage the habit. However, smoking is still a massive problem - millions of people still do it. The refusal of medical treatment to smokers would surely be a massive deterrent to current/potential smokers from continuing/starting the habit. The safety net of modern healthcare being pulled from underneath them would be a powerful incentive to give up the habit, and reduce the estimated $100 billion that the White House believes smokers cost the economy annually through loss of productivity1. 1 USA Today, 15 Jul 11, Do smokers cost society money.. Accessed 15 Jul 11.

There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?

They need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Denying healthcare to smokers is a restriction on people's liberties

Whether or not you believe it should be, smoking tobacco is legal. At the same time, healthcare is regarded as a fundamental human right, alongside rights to education, food and water. Denying someone healthcare is to impede upon his/her basic liberties and this cannot be justified when, in the eyes of the law, they have done nothing wrong. Criminals have the right to healthcare – it is often that you hear that the trial of a war criminal is being delayed while they receive treatment. Take the cases of Ratko Mladic or Slobodan Milosevic for example 1. If healthcare is given to men who have committed genocide then surely it should be given to smokers. Also, if a Government adopts the line that one's behavior determines the kind of health service one receives then what is to stop that Government applying such a mantra beyond smoking and controlling the practices of those they govern in any number of ways?

1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-mladic-tribunal-idUSTRE7516HM20110602 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1403054.stm

Goods provided by the state, like healthcare, are often, and necessarily, subject to certain provisions. For example, in order to get unemployment benefits, a person must prove that they are regularly looking for a job and a means to get themselves off benefits. Denying access to healthcare for smokers does not mean denying them healthcare access forever; they can regain unlimited access if they stop smoking. Therefore, prioritizing non-smokers for healthcare in certain cases is not impeding upon smokers' basic liberties but a recognition that those who care about their own health enough to not smoke should be prioritized.

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?

They need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Denying access to healthcare for smokers will lead to thousands of people being turned away and potentially dying from preventable illnesses

The denial of access to healthcare for smokers is a policy that will directly lead to the turning away of millions of people, merely for making one perfectly legal, if ill-advised lifestyle choice. In a state like France, where 20 per cent of the population, 12 million people, are smokers, such a policy would leave a large minority unable to access basic healthcare for issues that may be unrelated to their smoking habit . Furthermore, it may lead to the ridiculous situation whereby smokers are dying from preventable diseases despite hospitals being under-utilized, as a fifth of the population is no longer allowed in.

The opposition fails to recognize the impact that such a policy will have on smokers. Access will only be denied to smokers who continue to smoke once the bill is in place, if it is proven that they have given up, they will be free to access healthcare. Therefore, the only smokers who will be turned away, and who will potentially die from preventable illnesses are those who place their habit above that of their life.

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?

They need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Denying healthcare to smokers alone is victimization

The denial of healthcare, an established right, without the citizen doing anything either immoral or wrong is pure and simple victimization. Suppose you are a doctor and you have two patients waiting for a heart transplant. Patient A is 65. He does not exercise, has never had a job and has committed a series of crimes throughout his life. Patient B is in his 20s, with a first class degree from a good university. He is a trained doctor himself and wants to go and work in the developing world, to help people suffering from leprosy. But Patient B is a heavy smoker. Should you therefore prioritize patient A? It seems problematic to victimize smokers, particularly considering smoking is legal. If you are going to discriminate against smokers then surely you should discriminate against alcohol drinkers and people who do extreme sports as they are also knowingly endangering themselves. Smoking reduces life expectancy by 2.5 years for men, but obesity reduces life expectancy by 1.3 years and if high blood pressure is added to that by a total of 2.8 years all are preventable so why should only smoking be discriminated against?1 Maybe you should discriminate against people who choose to live in polluted cities. And then there are drug users. What about people who could afford private health care? Should age, occupation and past convictions be taken into account? It seems arbitrary and unfair to single out smokers. Yet, if we start to take into account all the factors that determine who "deserves" to be prioritized for healthcare, then we are left with the unsavory, illiberal practice of Social Darwinism. 1 Harvard School of Public Health, "Four Preventable Risk Factors Reduce Life Expectancy in U.S. and Lead to Health Disparities", 22 March 2010, accessed 24 August 2010.

In practice, it is both viable and beneficial, in certain cases, to prioritize non-smokers for healthcare. Where there is more chance of a transplant being successful in a non-smoker for example. It is true that people can knowingly damage their health in other ways, such as drug taking or alcohol abuse and it may well be viable to limit access to healthcare in these cases also. This does not mean that every factor in a patient's life must be scrutinized in order to decide where they are placed on a doctor's waiting list. In public policy, the line must be drawn somewhere. Prioritizing non-smokers can mean that more people can be helped with same amount of resources and, where this is the case, it should be practiced.

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?

They need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Denying healthcare to smokers is impractical

There are several reasons why limiting access to healthcare for smokers could prove impractical. Ultimately they surround the issue of how you define who is a smoker. One man might have chain smoked for 20 years but given up for a year, since a bill limiting access to healthcare for smokers was passed. Meanwhile, another might have been smoking cigarettes now and again just for the past year. Who would be prioritized if the two were on a waiting list for the same operation? If the law penalizes anyone who has ever smoked then it would not provide nearly as strong an incentive to stop smoking. But, if the law does not penalize anyone who has smoked, then choosing whom to punish would seem quite arbitrary. Furthermore, what is stopping people from simply lying about how much/whether they smoke? They might not show any obvious signs of being a smoker. Even if they do, they could claim to have given up, work around fumes or be a victim of passive smoking.

There are realistic and practical ways in which the policy of denying healthcare to smokers could be carried out. Smoking is a habit that has clear and demonstrable physical effects, which often correlate with the regularity and longevity of the habit; doctors are trained to recognize such symptoms and do not need patient confirmation. Furthermore, if the bill made it quite clear that healthcare was to be denied to present smokers, the hypothetical presented by the opposition is easily negated. The goal of such a bill would to be to ensure that both smokers gave up the habit and non-smokers did not take up the habit. In this case, the man taking up smoking is in the wrong and is acting contrary to the law. He would have little room for complaint.

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?

They need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Denying access to healthcare for smokers will hurt the economy

Economically, the healthcare of the nation is important for maintaining a productive workforce. Do we really want to lose otherwise functional members of the workforce the first time they contract an aggravated throat infection and cannot afford, or delay for financial reasons, a simple course of antibiotics? Quite apart from productivity, as The Guardian notes, smokers in the United Kingdom also contribute over £10 billion to government coffers through the tobacco tax 1. To lose this source of revenue will do more to hurt national health services than the occasional complication in surgery granted to a smoker. Lastly, because smokers die younger than non-smokers, though they cost more per year, over their lifetime their average health costs are lower than those of longer-living, non-smokers.

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2010/nov/30/smokers-forced-o...

Denying access to healthcare for smokers will not hurt the economy, for the health care costs of smokers are substantially larger than those of non-smokers. In fact, 'health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for non-smokers' . Furthermore, though the opposition points out that because smokers die younger, average health costs are in fact lower than non-smokers, denying access to healthcare will have two effects which will cancel each other out: more people will give up smoking, increasing gross medical costs for the state, but those who don't will die younger for they won't get treatment, which will offset the previous rise.

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?

They need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Abstinence is an outdated view, based on religious teaching, which may be a personal choice but is not to be expected as the norm for everyone

Young people express their sexuality as part of their development to adulthood. It is not having sex that is a problem, but having unsafe sex or hurting people through sexual choices. Refusing to promote safe sex would mean not moving with the times. Just because schools do not promote safe sex does not mean that adolescents will not experiment with sex. They will already be exposed to sexual imagery and ideas of sex so it is necessary that they are taught properly how to remain safe.

Schools may also want to talk about abstinence at the same time; it is a way of keeping sexually safe. However schools have to recognise that the majority of pupils are unlikely to stick to abstinence regardless of how much the school promotes it. It is therefore necessary for the school to also promote and educate about safe sex.

To not promote abstinence is not a neutral position, it is a position the implicitly encourages sexual promiscuity. Children are at risk of severe psychological and physical harm from having sex too young, and should be encouraged not to do so. Promoting ‘safe sex’ is implicitly encouraging sex by implying that it is safe and a normal thing to be doing. This will encourage young people to believe that there is no risk when this is not the case even if they do follow the prescriptions they have been taught about sex.

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The information age makes attempting to hide information on sex impossible

The internet provides a vast amount of easily accessible information about sex, of varying degrees of quality. Most children in the west now have access to the internet and are therefore likely to have access to this information on sex, or at least educational materials on sex even if the child’s access to the internet is controlled.

Given that it is impossible to prevent children from accessing this information if they really want to, it makes sense to present it to them in an organised and accurate fashion. Rather than allowing children to find information on their own through what may well be unreliable resources it is necessary that they should get good reliable information. That this information when there is safe sex education comes from the school means that the children know that they information is reliable. They can then use this information to help them decide how reliable any further information they may find from other sources is.

The problem with mandatory sex education is precisely that it presents that information in an organised fashion – by the state. In doing so the right of the parents to raise their children in accordance with their structure of beliefs is usurped.

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.

[1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm , accessed 08/20/2011

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.

Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .

[1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012

[2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.

[1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]

The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.

[1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html , accessed 08/17/2011

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.

The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.

Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]

[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.

The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim