Question: Should Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising Be Permitted?

In Canada, pharmaceutical companies ought not to be permitted to advertise prescription medications directly to the general populace. The influence of media broadcasting is immense, and I hold the view that when drug corporations market prescription drugs directly to the "uninformed" public, it introduces a contentious aspect into the doctor-patient relationship.

Also I would like to convey my dejection towards the fact that at least 1 of the 8 debaters I felt for sure would be in the top 8 of this tournament will be out after this round. Having said this, I will begin by analyzing the resolution and deciding exactly what it means. _______________________________________________________________________________ The resolution begins with, "public health concerns" this phrase is quite clearly plural. Therefor in this debate round I will have to prove that their are at least two scenarios that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. On the other hand the opposite of this resolution and the position my opponent will have to defend is clearly, "Public health concerns do not justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. " Thus my opponent in this round is going to have to show that there is only one (singular) or that there are zero public health concerns that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. Furthermore in this round I will be functioning off the paradigm that the human life holds a value that cannot be measured by means of monetary value. I will also be functioning off the value of utilitarianism which in this round will be used to convey the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Within my definition good shall be defined as being of the greatest paradigm. Which in this case shall be the intrinsic value of human life vs. monetary value. ____________________________________________________________________________ Contention 1: Malaria. "Malaria affects more than a billion people worldwide and kills a million -- mainly under age five -- every year, the vast majority in sub-Saharan Africa. ", this being from the AFP on April 7th 2008. In fact about 9/10ths of the Malaria victims each year are in sub-Saharan Africa. This means that approximately 900,000 deaths occur in sub-saharan africa per year because of Malaria. However these are not just any deaths these are unneeded deaths. Specifically we will be examining the United States, a state where malaria is all but non-existent. In fact in many parts of the nation malaria has not occurred at all in the last 3 years. This eradication of Malaria was in part due to many measures by the state. Anti-mosquito spraying was of a great service, as was drainage control and the removal of mosquito breeding sites. However an equally important aspect of the eradication was more focused on the human side of the spectrum. This aspect was and is anti-malaria drugs, which prevented the disease even if a human being happened to be bit by a female mosquito carrier. These drugs still exist today, in the United States they are primarily used to protect citizens who are leaving the country. The CDC's website actually recommends taking them before going to specific regions, . http://wwwn.cdc.gov... . Africa is one of these regions. This of course raises a question. If these drugs are so easy to come by that they can be given to an everyday traveler why exactly does this disease still exist in parts of the world? The answer is rather simple and very depressing, these drugs cost money and of course a large part of sub-Saharan Africa is currently living in immense poverty. Thus in the status quo we, as a society, are valuing a profit over the lives of 900,000 people annually. While some companies in the status quo are taking an initiative on themselves to combat this problem without outside pressure the fact remains that close to a million people are dieing each year. This can be combated and helped by government violation of pharmaceutical patents. If the government of not only the United States but also the governments of Sub-Saharan African nations have the ability to manufacture these drugs at a cost that denies a profit margin the chances of these drugs reaching the people in need will increase. In fact, violation of pharmaceutical patents could potentially allow for governments to distribute these drugs at no cost for the simple exchange of a minor increase in taxes. This of course has the drawback of decreasing profit for the patent owners but the saving on even one life that did not need to die far outweighs this impact. Therefor I stand open for my opponents case.

As for order, I will go rebuttal/enforcement, voter issues. .. -->I very well could go line for line against my opponents points, but my goal for this round is not to rebuttal all of his points, but to simply prove the resolution true. Which brings me to what is justified? Defined from dictionary. com, justified is "to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done. " Therefore I offer the following example to show how violation of pharmaceutical patents is justified. Example: We'll use my opponents example of diabetes. Two of my good friends have diabetes from a cause not of their own. It was inherited and no prudent means could have stopped that. Let's say a man patents the use of something that can cure their disease. 10 years later, the government discovers that this very thing is capable of curing diabetes, but the patent holder won't sell the use of it for any less than 500 billion dollars (greedy man). Would you allow the people of the world continue with diabetes until a settlement is reached? (CON) OR. .. Would you "violate" the patent and cure this horrible disease and THEN reach a settlement? Both groups of people would eventually get what they wanted and both groups would be happy. This supports BOTH values and BOTH criterion's and shows how this action is JUSTIFIED. I would like you to also extend this example by simply replacing the word "diabetes" with ANY disease. This just shows the the public's health should not always be in the hands of a patent holder and that a government needs to take action where action is due. .. This leads me to voter issues. 1. Example Simply just extend my example as to HOW government violation is justified when there are public health concerns. 2. Values The values of this round are most definitely won on the PRO side. Public welfare is obviously better on the PRO side as the public health concerns have the best chance to be eliminated when the patents that prevent elimination are dealt with. People are due good health and they get it best when the jerks who want a million dollars for something that costs 10 cents are dealt with. This leads me into Natural Rights (his value). .. this also is better weighed on the PRO side. Extend his "18 million" with Type II diabetes. I'd like to weigh this against the one patent holder. Both have the natural right of either their patent or their health but on the PRO side, the more important natural right (of good health) is achieved and the natural right of your patent has a good chance of eventually being achieved. The eventual is where the violation is upheld (as there was some confusion in his last speech), but the eventual is also where we do EVENTUALLY have a chance of getting everyone their natural right. BUT, when the public's health is at risk and there's a jerk out there holding back, it is justified to violate their patent, which is the prudent thing to do. 3. Criterion The Criterion's in this round are also flowed to the PRO side. Prudence is achieved when you do the right thing of giving 18 million people their natural right instead of just 1 (which is justified). Also you have limited government which is not achieved on the CON side because he says that both sides are satisfied (in his first speech). .. NO, both people are not satisfied, when there is a public health concern you must do what is prudent. Therefore, I urge you to remove the word "limited" and replace it with "prudent" and flow the "Prudent Government" to the PRO side by giving the most people their natural right and increasing the public welfare. This is how and why it is justified to violate a pharmaceutical patent when there is a public health concern. His last speech was simply a lot of "he was confused", so I offer this speech. .. .. . It is justified, no and's, if's or but's. .. .. it is justified, it is "to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done". .. I did not specifically refutate his points because I didn't want to play the "dropped points" game but simply the game of "prove/disprove" the resolution game. .. it is still justified and therefore I urge you to vote PRO. Thanks for this great debate!

Psychiatric medications are entirely experimental causing many side effects including diseases such as diabetes. For continued visits and more profits practitioners trick patients into false diagnoses and detrimental labels. Mental health care aims to take advantage of those unfortunate enough not to have power, money, respect, and/or love. All alleged mentally ill patients would completely rid every so-called condition or disease through receiving more of the previously stated objects. I suggest resources be allocated to replace treatments. As soon as possible, in the coming years, all current standards must be abolished.

In what follows now, I will refute Pro's arguments and show why they are fallacious. Smoking and HealthPro said that smoking can give over 25 health problems to the smoker. In short, smoking is dangerous and harmful for you. However, although it is true that smoking is dangerous and harmful, it is also true that there are many more other things which are dangerous and harmful, like for example rock climbing, rag racing, motorcycles, surfing, eating a lot of fatty foods, and skate boarding. What would be more reasonable: Completely banning all these things, or just give out the information that these things can harm you and then let people decide for themselves how they want to make use of their freedom of choice? You decide. The fact of the matter is that thousands of things are dangerous and harmful for you, but this doesn't justify the government to take away our personal freedom of choice. The government should only protect us from harm which its purpose is to feel pain - not harm which makes you feel good and happy, and which its bad effects will only come to you many decades latter. To ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too. Moreover, we should allow people to make their own decisions, even decisions that may be harmful to them, because the US value personal freedom. Of course, smokers should not be allowed to smoke in public places where it may be non-smokers, but they should surely have the right to, for example, smoke at their own home if they choose to do so. Smoking and BeautyPro said that smoking costs the smoker's beauty. However, so does coffee. [2] If we are to follow Pro's logic, then coffee should be banned. In fact, numerous things should be banned, because there are numerous other things that can cost your beauty. Moreover, I don't see how we are justified in completely banning something just because it may cost your beauty. Of course, the government should give the information that this and that may cost your beauty, but not taking away people's freedom of choice. It's your beauty, and if you choose to harm your own beauty, then no one should forcibly stop you from doing that. Smoking and MoneyPro said that smoking costs the smoker's a lot of money. However, should something be completely banned just because it costs a lot of money? This is surely an unreasonable and absurd argument. Thousands of things costs a lot of money, but this doesn't mean that we should ban it. If the individual wants to use his own money on things that costs a lot, then that's his choice. Smoking and IQPro said that smoking can lower your IQ. However, if you read the site in which Pro referenced this claim to, you will read that "It is unclear whether smoking causes IQ levels to drop or whether less intelligent people are simply more inclined to smoke. " [3] So basically, the site in which Pro referenced his claim that smoking can lower your IQ, doesn't even know for sure if it is smoking itself which lowers IQ or whether less intelligent people are simply just more inclined to smoke. This claim by Pro is therefore extremely weak. Moreover, even if we assume that it is true that smoking can lower your IQ, this wouldn't in way mean that smoking should be banned. Numerous other things can lower your IQ as well, like for example alcohol and artificial food colorings. [4] Should we completely ban all these things too? Of course not. Smoking and FiresPro said that smoking can create fires. Again, although this is true, in no way does this mean that smoking should be banned. If we are going to ban smoking just because it can create fires, then thousands of other things which can create fires should be banned as well. The fact that something can create fires only means that we must be careful with these things, not completely banning them. Smoking and BabiesPro said that smoking can cause stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight to babies if their mothers smoke during pregnancy. This may be true, but this argument cannot show that smoking should be completely banned. If anything, it can only show that smoking should not be used by a women when she is pregnant. Also, remember that there exist men too. Men don't get pregnant and thus, this argument cannot apply to them. Thus, again, this argument fails to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US, something which means that nobody - be it a women or a man - can smoke. Smoking and ChildrenPro said that smoking can influence children to smoke. But so does, for example, eating a lot of fatty foods, parachuting, motorcycles, surfing etc. Just because something may influence children, that doesn't therefore mean that we should completely ban that thing. If anything, it only means that we should try to smoke less next to children. Moreover, even if a child is influenced to smoke, it would be very hard for that child to smoke since you must be at least 18-years old in order to legally purchase cigarettes in the US. Smoking and DeathPro said that smoking causes approximately 600,000 deaths of passive smoker. It is true that many people die from smoking, but I contend that this doesn't justify completely banning it. Why? Because if we are to ban something just because it may kill you, then numerous other things should be banned too. For example, there is about 6,000,000 auto accidents in the US every year. Does that mean that automobiles should be illegal? People who surfe always have a risk of dying by drowning. Should we therefore ban surfing and not allow people to surfe? Of course not. Although something can kill you, it should be up to the individual if he wants to buy this thing. We should not stop people from taking risks for themselves, and nor should we take away their personal freedom of choice. Smoking and EnvironmentPro said that to produce cigarettes, trees, energy, and water is wasted. But this doesn't mean that we should ban cigarettes. Of course, things are being used in order to produce cigarettes, but this is true in regards to pretty much everything else. For example, a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers - since a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers, should therefore papers be banned? Of course not. Pro also said that smoking causes air, land, and water pollution. Although this is true, there are also several other things that cause air, land, and water pollution. For example, cars and trucks put a lot emissions of gases into the air. All animals release gases, like methane, which also pollutes the air. If we are to follow Pro's logic, then all animals, cars, trucks, and many other things should be banned because they harm the environment. The fact of the matter is that there is numerous things which are bad for our environment, but this doesn't justify banning it. Moreover, even if we ban smoking, this would help the environment in a very low level. Why? Because millions of people would still smoke. Indeed, smoking is so common now that there is hardly any chance that banning it would stop people from smoking, just like banning some kind of drugs haven't stopped millions of people from still using these drugs. In fact, banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, just like it did when certain drugs were banned - and not to mention the prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s. [5]The resolution is negated. _______Sources[1] . http://www.forces.org... Though the risks of smoking are highly publicized, the medical benefits of smoking are rarely mentioned. [2] . http://www.realbeauty.com...[3] . http://doctor.ndtv.com...[4] . http://www.increasebrainpower.com...[5] . http://idebate.org...

So in the final part of this debate, there have been a number of key themes that have been echoed throughout the debate, the key themes that both sides wish to win in order to win this debate. 1. The theme of implications arising from advertising, that advertising negatively impacts children In this theme, we have argued about the negative connotations that are manifested by advertising. We drew out the example of bullying. Con attempted to rebut this by pointing out it as a 'straw man' and pointing out how connections fail to exist. However, connections DO exist. We must try to focus on how both advertising and bullying creates consequences for individuals at a young age. Yes, advertising promotes consumerism, but consumerism is a very broad issue. Advertising creates want in children. It encourages children to pursue the latest innovative toy. This leads to competition between children, which in turn can lead to cases of bullying. While this is a relatively small link, the biggest link between the two is that both share negative consequences and that is what we have been trying to stress throughout the second speech. In the second speech, we narrowed the debate to the idea of advertising from fast food joints promoting poor dieting and health issues. The con then moves on to reply to this by pointing out that 'parents failed to give a proper education.' Ladies and gentlemen, this is a MAJOR contradiction! The Con spends a significant amount of their rebuttal hinging around the positive effects of parents on children, but then moves on to quote how there are a certain amount of parents who neglect to do so. They raised the point of parents but effectively made that argument redundant by proving it wrong in certain cases. Hence, the home-schooling point in addition to the point about parents helping children out is rendered redundant. However, even if this was not the case, parents should not be burdened with the expectation that they have to spend a considerable amount of time lecturing and educating their children. Parents do not live the easy life, they have to spend extensive periods of time at their workplace in order to make a solid living for their family. We should not be imposing extra regulations and burdens on these parents to justify the state's laziness. Again, repeating earlier, we need to cut this off from the stem, and that is something the state can do. 2. The morality of advertisements targeting children, the weak This theme has been poorly explored throughout the debate, however the Con has not once attacked nor responded to our idea that advertisements are immorally targeting children, so we have common ground, in favour of the Pro. Advertisements targeting children is unethical, something that both sides have agreed on. 3. Whether this issue is something that is reduced over time Con attempted to resolve this theme by pointing out that without learning 'morale lessons' from their childhood, they are unable to make better decisions. Yes, this is partly true. What the con however, failed to raise up is the point that there are schools. Schools are here for a reason. -The con attempts to justify their reasoning with the idea that parents are the sole source of education. But again, in theme 1, the idea of using parents as the sole or main source of education is highly flawed. -However, even if we do use schools to educate children, children have an active time of around 6 hours away from school every day (not including sleeping), and around 12 hours on weekends. This is around 50-55 hours every week away from school, becoming increasingly susceptible to inappropriate advertisements. -We can link this to the drug issue prevalent in society. Drugs are commonly devalued and looked down upon, but there are laws restricting the use of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs to 18 years of age (or 21 in some countries). Why does the law do this? This is because the state believes that children have matured enough and gained enough knowledge from the educational system that they can make their own informed decisions. Parents cannot teach their children appropriately in a short amount of time. We should neither expect nor force them to. Drug dealers cannot target children because there is an explicit harm involved, while the harm with advertising is reduced to a certain extent, it lies around the same morals and we should not allow these companies to actively target children for the sake of greed and profit. Ladies and gentlemen, we should not allow these companies to target these children to satiate their own greed. This is one part of the status quo that is inherently flawed and we need to fix this. As we can firmly see, the three key themes of this debate fall on the pro side and this is why we are proud to propose.

>Are you saying that there should be no law against falsifying financial statements? Advertisements employ the art of persuasion, where rhetoric and innuendo are appropriate. Financial statements should be factually accurate by law because altering them with incorrect information and causing people to invest money based on that false information is exactly the kind of thing which people should be prohibited from doing. Aren't financial statements generated by the bank? I am all for making sure that banking standards are a strict as possible. >I understand that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. In fact, I spoke on that point in the first round. I also understand that economies eventually recover and that successful businesses absorb their weaker and defunct competition. However, just because corporate fraud doesn't affect every company does not mean it should be left unregulated by law. My point wasn't that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. My point was that most companies don't fail from corporate malfeasance, period. >You argued in the first round that corporate failures do not cause a social harm. Your blanket assertion did not distinguish between the different causes of those failures. My "blanket assertion" was with regard to isolated corporate failures like Enron's, not nationwide economic recessions. Hopefully, your last rebuttal will address the former kind of failure rather than the latter. >SOX is not intended to protect investors from corporate failure; it is intended, in part, to protect investors from crooked practices. Why should they be protected by the government? Why can't they just hire their own auditors? Why shouldn't they be forced to do so? If they can't afford it, they obviously shouldn't be running a corporation. >When businesses fail, it affects more than just the investors and employees, who make up a large portion of society anyway. It affects consumers, related businesses and economies as well. This effect equates to a social harm. Again, we're talking about isolated corporate failures here. When A business fails, its assets are bought out by other companies and put back to work. >Sufficient for what? Early detection of a dubious investment is a utopian notion. In reality, deception often goes undetected for a substantial period of time or occurs after a period of ostensibly legitimate activity and practices. Such was the case in all of the pre-SOX corporate debacles. Red flags don't just pop up at the first instance of fraudulent activity. By the time they do, it may already be too late. To equate spotting a crack-head on the edge of a sketchy neighborhood to recognizing sophisticated and surreptitious white collar crime is a bit of a stretch. Your model of the investor/executive relationship presupposes that investors will have very little to do with how the business will be set up and run. If the investors were more involved in the process of creating Enron, I doubt that the byzantine accounting practices that made the debacle possible would have been put in place. I have no trouble with economically forcing investors to work on their investments. >SOX serves the interests of people who disagree with the notion of getting ripped off, which includes me, the government and an overwhelming majority of the country. The "notion" of getting ripped off is not nearly as important a reality as the fact that the group of people getting ripped off is very select. >A large number of shareholders cannot practically or effectively run a corporation without delegating certain roles to certain members. SOX sets a legal standard for these trusted positions, as it should for the power they hold. It is not an intrusion into capitalism. And the ones with the most power should be peopled with those the shareholders can trust. If they can't screen their most important employees with the kind of competence necessary to prevent fraud, they shouldn't be investing in a company. >Businesses cannot put people behind bars. They can make sure that some people never work again. They can blacklist people and shut them out of the workforce. They can actually do a lot of things if they can be bothered to. >Are you saying the law should only protect property that is necessary to survival? The law protects me from someone stealing my wallet, even if I only had $1 in it. So why shouldn't it protect me from someone stealing my investments? In the context of Corporate America, SOX decreases the incentive, opportunity and means to cheat the public and allows for the harsh punishment of those who attempt to do so. This is where we just have to agree to disagree. I make a very clear distinction between "private property" and "personal property", you do not. The difference between the two is almost a matter of taste, and so can't be debate very clearly.

The government should allow the American people the right to decide what they eat, drink, smoke and wear. American people should have the right to put a cross in their yard, the star of David, crescent moon, statue of Buddha, statue of Darwin or whatever they want as long as it is not pornography or violent. The statue of Venus or statue of Apollo is not porn it is nudity and art. Violent would be something depicting murder, rape or torture. Too many of our freedoms have been trampled by the past 2 administrations and it is time the American people had a voice again. I don't believe people should lose insurance for pre-existing conditions but if you are over 100 pounds overweight and are extremely unhealthy then health care should not be available. But if If I want to drink 100 0z of coke at a time and stuff my face with greasy bacon burgers and fries, I should have that right and realize that I would not have insurance and die. If I decide to live longer and have insurance than I will limit my intake of things bad for my health. It should be MY choice!

I will now refute each of the points that Pro has brought up, and give my reasons as to why smoking should not be totally outlawed. My rebuttal is divided into four main points: 1. Civil rights 2. Exaggerated harm 3. Hurts the economy 4. Smoking will not stop 1. Civil rights First and foremost, I will not deny that smoking is harmful to one's health. 6 million deaths per year worldwide are related to tobacco use, out of an estimated over 1 billion people that use it. [1] However, just because an act can be perceived as harmful to the individual doesn't mean that the government has any right to prohibit this act by law. Think of the obesity epidemic, for example. Over 300 thousand deaths per year in the United States are directly linked with overeating. [2] Using the same logic you applied, should the government ban McDonald's and legally require that everyone get at least 30 minutes of exercise a day? Most people say no. While it's smart to both get exercise and avoid smoking, the rights of the individual allow them to make a choice of whether or not to do harm to their body. The government has no business infringing upon them. However, I understand that inhaling secondhand smoke is slightly dangerous to one's health, though significantly less, and people have the right to breathe clean air on public property. Therefore, I would not be opposed to regulating smoking in some public places. Many people are confused as to what constitutes "public property", so here is the proper definition: "property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. " [3] These places are funded and maintained by taxes, and include schools, playgrounds, courthouses, post offices, and so on. Restaurants, bars, and stores are privately owned and operated, and the individual who owns them has the right to decide whether or not smoking is allowed on their property. Pro is calling for a universal ban on smoking, and while I agree that some places should not allow it, there is no reason for the government to ban it absolutely. If a bar owner wishes to allow smoking in his establishment, and his patrons are consenting adults who know the risks of secondhand smoke, I see nothing criminal or illegal about that.2. Exaggerated harmWhile there is no question about the individual self-harm of smoking, Pro makes some exaggerations about its ramifications on society and the environment. "Your cat is twice as likely to get cancer if the owner smokes. " While it is true that pets can be affected by secondhand tobacco smoke, pets are regarded by law to be property. The owner can do what they please around their pet, so long as they refrain from breaking the law, especially animal cruelty. And while the ASPCA recommends that smokers "take it outside" to avoid harming their pets, there is no legal backing for this, [4] and no reason why human rights should be infringed upon for the sake of animal life. "Smoking is VERY bad for the environment. If people stopped smoking, 28 percent of sand litter would disappear. " Smoking doesn't help the environment, but calling it "VERY bad" is a gross exaggeration. Food wrappers, plastic bottles, and aluminum cans also account for much of "sand litter", as Pro and NationSwell call beach garbage. Littering is already a criminal offense; there is no reason for further enforcement. Using that as a reason for a smoking ban would also justify the banning of potato chips, soda, and bottled water. Besides, a little trash on the beach poses very little harm to the planet's well-being, so urgency is not a factor here. Anyway, only 30% of cigarette butts are tossed away as waste. One British company, Stanelco, is attempting to create cigarette butts made of food grade starch, a biodegradable material found in potatoes and rice, and it decomposes within two months. [5] Should these efforts succeed, butt pollution will no longer be an issue. "600 million trees would be saved annually, and less pesticides would be in the air. " Over six times that amount of trees are used to make regular paper each year. [6] And this amount combined with all other deforestation doesn't even come close to the over 3 trillion trees alive on our planet. Even so, trees only account for less than 30% of oxygen produced on the Earth, being dwarfed by phytoplankton and seaweed. [7] Coming back to the main point, losing 600 million trees a year isn't as much of a problem as Pro would have us believe. Cigarettes do not contain "pesticides". A pesticide is defined as "a chemical or biological substance designed to kill or retard the growth of pests that damage or interfere with the growth of . .. vegetation desired by humans. " [8] Cigarettes are not created with the purpose of killing pests. The word you may be looking for is "toxins", of which cigarettes have plenty. However, these toxins relatively harmless on an environmental scale. Smoking only releases trace amounts of pollution into the air, and they dissipate quickly. According to Web MD, the bulk of the harm caused by smoking is to the smoker's lungs (obviously), and should the smoking take place indoors, the lungs of those around them. [9] Smoking is a threat to the body; it is no serious threat to the environment. 3. Hurts the economy I will introduce a new point that Pro has not touched upon. The very high excise taxes on cigarette cartons (also known as the "sin tax") produces money for the federal and state government. In the year 2010, this tax brought in $15.5 billion in revenue, which went to fund an expansion of the federal State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program. [10] State and federal governments rely heavily on this money, and if smoking were banned, they would look for the revenue elsewhere. I would rather place the burden of taxation upon smokers, alcoholics, and gamblers than anyone's income. 4. Smoking will not stop Lastly, I argue that even a total ban on smoking will not stop the practice. Whenever a drug is banned in history, circulation of the drug does not falter; it only becomes more difficult to acquire. Take the Prohibition era, where alcohol was rendered illegal, yet one could find a speakeasy in every town, thousands in New York City alone. Speakeasies produced and sold alcohol, and were often overlooked by the police. In 2009, 1.4 million pounds of marijuana were seized while being smuggled over the US border, which pales in comparison to the estimated 7 million which made it over undetected. [11] Given that 20 percent of Americans are smokers and most of them are addicted [10], there is simply no chance that they will all obey the law and quit smoking cold turkey. All a smoking ban would do is populate prisons with decent people who happen to enjoy nicotine. "If cociane [sic] is illegal, then why should smoking not be? " Cocaine is massively more harmful to the individual than nicotine. It is a strong stimulant which causes dependent addiction and can lead to strokes, blood infections, and cardiac death after only a few years of using it. So, to protect people from themselves, the government renders it illegal. However, I don't follow your logic as to why the illegal status of cocaine should automatically lead to the same status for smoking, which is far less dangerous. If anything, I would argue the opposite: if smoking is legal, then why should cocaine not be? But that is a different story, and unrelated to the present debate. In conclusion, a smoking ban would not work and should not be put in place because it would violate human rights, harm the economy, and fail to hinder the prevalence of smoking anyway. Also, smoking is not as damaging to the environment as Pro claims, and while it damages the bodies of smokers, the government has no right to infringe upon that choice. I now await Pro's rebuttal for Round 2. SOURCES: 1. . http://www.cdc.gov... 2. . https://www.wvdhhr.org... 3. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 4. . http://healthypets.mercola.com... 5. . http://www.treehugger.com... 6. . http://www.ecology.com... 7. . http://www.ecology.com... 8. . http://www.businessdictionary.com... 9. . http://www.webmd.com... 10. . http://dailycaller.com... 11. . http://www.nbcnews.com...

I will now attack my opponent's proposal: My Opponent: "1) Remove regulations that grant monopoly benefits on local insurance companies. One such regulation is the one that my opponent advocates, though there are others. One other such regulation is the requirement of the ownership of this kind of insurance, which artificially increases demand and the price of health insurance. Many regulations exist that are considered to be less significant, but together have a monopolistic effect, reducing competition, and harming the consumer." I have no problem with this. Since I have no problem with it, I will not debate it. I would have no problem if it found its way into my healthcare proposal. My Opponent: "2) End Occupational Licensure Allowing any individual to perform any medical procedure as long as (if practical) there is informed consent and no fraud will directly bring down the costs of medical care by decreasing the costs of medical labor by allowing the supply of physicians to increase. Given a system of liability, there is really no reason to have any occupational licensure." Are you mad? Let those with non-medical degrees practice medicine? I have a problem with this on three accounts: a) The goal of any healthcare reform legislation should be to help the healthiness of the populous. This would hamper that. We would have unhealthier citizens, hence force, its a bad idea. b) My opponent says the patient would have to consent. However, there is one instance in which this doesn't work. That instance is: CHILDBIRTH. Even if the mother may consent, the child would have no chance to disapprove. Every child has a right to be delivered by a competent medical professional. No ifs, and, or ors, about it! c) This would raise the cost on the taxpayer. If I go to an unlicensed medical "professional" to have a laser eye surgery and I turn out blind, what can I do? I can go to court, but since I gave my consent its very unlikely I'd win a settlement. What am I to do now? Answer: turn to the government. I would probably apply for Social Security and Disability, costing the taxpayers. What if the same happens to millions (which is likely under my opponent's idea), the taxpayer will be expected to pay billions to take care of them. My Opponent: "Restricting the supply of medicine by hampering its availability is another cause for artificially high market prices, this time directly in the product. The FDA's oversight into the medical field has caused a long approval process that drastically increases the costs of research and development, increasing the price of newer, cheaper, and more effective medicines. As long as there is a liability system, there is really no reason to have an approval system." The FDA may need a few spending cuts here and there, but this takes it too far. The approval system should be kept the same. I'd much rather wait ten years for a medicine than take a bad drug. Wouldn't you too? In Conclusion: My opponent's plan would harm the health of the population and cost more people to apply for government assistance. It will never work and shouldn't be given a shot. I yield back to my opponent.

Obviously, tobacco is bad for you. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. People should still have a right to do what they want to themselves. We've given them several warnings. Now, it's up to them to see if they help or harm themselves.One problem that arises from a total and complete smoking ban is this:HOW COULD WE ENFORCE IT?There's really no way we could. It would just be a continuation of the failed war on drugs. Finally, if people want to smoke, they deserve the consequences.


Question: Should Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising Be Permitted?

The negative impacts of advertisements outweigh their benefits. My arguments are as follows: 1. Advertisements are essential for informing the public. 2. They contribute to economic growth. 3. Many free services are supported by advertisements. Firstly, advertisements are crucial for informing the public. Imagine a world without advertisements, how would people know about the best deals and promotions for essential items like internet, TV, phone, and groceries? Advertisements provide valuable information about affordable options for the items we need, helping us save money and manage our finances better. Secondly, advertisements significantly contribute to the economy. Most businesses rely on marketing, primarily through advertising, to reach potential customers. Without advertisements, businesses would struggle to sell their products and services, leading to job losses and economic collapse. Consumer spending, often influenced by advertisements, is essential for economic prosperity. Lastly, many free services we enjoy are supported by advertisements. Radio stations, online movie streaming sites, and various websites offering music, games, and TV shows are free because they generate revenue through ads. People have the choice to engage with or ignore advertisements, so the claim that people are "attacked" by unwanted information is unfounded.

I'm not sure if this is satire. I don't think it is. To legalize toxic poisons is to support death and addiction. It does not matter if the buyer of a drug is aware of the dangers of the drug before buying it. People know that cigarettes kill them, but they still buy cigarettes anyway. Making something illegal is the best way to get rid of danger. I support marijuana legalization. I don't support meth, or LSD, or heroin. I don't think any sane person would support the legalization of those. If all drugs are made legal, the country will be left in a state of anarchy. It is wrong to drive while under the influence of drugs. It is wrong to take illegal drugs. It is wrong to sell illegal drugs. What you are suggesting here, sir, is a form of legal suicide. I don't think suicide is a very good thing to legalize. To ban drugs is not to regulate the human body. To ban drugs is to keep the human body safe. A person COULD potentially shoot themselves with a staple gun in the crotch, but it won't be very enjoyable. Drugs didn't exist in ancient times, sir. We invented them, and we must destroy them. They alter the mind, they change behavior, they are a highly lucrative and deadly business that must be kept under lock and key by law enforcement. There would be many problems if an individual had complete control over his or her body. Humans are irrational beings. Read "The Imp of the Perverse" By Edgar Allan Poe. Your second reason is equally absurd. Cocaine did not become popular because marijuana was expensive. Cocaine got popular because it took people on acid trips. It had nothing to do with marijuana. Marijuana was not only high priced in the old days- it was illegal. It was illegal because the big tobacco industries wanted to avoid competition from marijuana. Marijuana is actually simply a relaxing, smokable plant with very few side effects. I see no reason why it shouldn't be legalized. It's easy to grow and it brings in a hefty profit. As for cocaine, though- well, it's insane. Watch "Reeefr Madness" for some stupid propaganda. In reason two, you're ignorant about how economic processes work. The more money we put into the war on drugs, the more drugs lose. When we fight something, it declines. If we fight drugs enough, the prices will go up so high that nobody will buy them. That's what we're aiming for. And if drug dealers develop a new, cheaper, more powerful drug, then we simply eradicate that one as well. Lower prices would mean MORE drugs sold, not LESS. I think you think you've uncovered some sort of counter-intuitive loophole. You haven't, sir. Laws are exactly what they seem. Laws are for keeping people safe. If we legalize heroin, most people won't use heroin. But some people will. And they'll die, or they won't be arrested for possession of heroin. Today, you can get arrested for simply owning heroin. In your insane world, police won't be able to arrest people who are holding a big bag of heroin. Sane people don't use heroin. But insane people do use heroin. laws are put in place to keep the insane people incheck. I'm not sure why we would need to legalize a drug, if most people wouldn't take that drug anyway unless they had a death wish. It seems very risky. We could make murder legal- Heck, we could do the whole Purge. But it would suck. Big time. Nobody can have a good life while using drugs- aside from marijuana. Drugs are poison. Addictive, deadly poison. We must remove temptation to reduce temptation. 1 in 3 adults might try drugs during their lives. That does not mean they should have. Maybe they only took marijuana. That's fine. Heroin drives people insane. It kills people. It drives people over the edge. Drug addicts should be offered help. But it does not help them to legalize the very thing which hurts them. They would not be more likely to seek help if we legalized drugs. They would go on a drug binge and then die. There is a correct way to go about drugs. And that is to make them illegal.

My opponent is a misinformed person but that's ok because it doesn't harm society in this level of debating. His claim amounts to a single point: >People are fully aware of the consequences of a decision before they make it. This statement although true, does not advance my opponents claim due to the fact that there are various other components that weigh on different sides of the person's desicion to start taking drugs. Consider this scenario: there is a homeless person named Scott who lives on the street. Everyday, Scott is abused and assaulted and has trouble getting food or water. He has various friends who are in the same state that he is in, but they are less than honorable. These friends introduce him to drug use. immediantly, Scott's reaction is that the drugs will not make him happier, he knows the consequences of drug use and that it will hurt him. But Scott agrees to try the drug out and is later hooked, addicted to the drug which releases copious amounts of dopamine in his brain, shutting down his euphoria receptors. Scott becomes depressed and when he cannot find a way to acquire more of the drug himself, he kills himself. Now, everything about that scenario is reflected in tens maybe hundreds of thousands of alike people, but what I want my opponent to realise, is that it completely disproves the basis of his claims. Scott was not influenced by his own reasoning as my opponent would claim he was, his normal state of mind was already impaired by: >His friends >His state of living The same situation can be applied to every drug user in the country, humans are not capable of doing things without reasoning and so any reasoning that leads a human to do something against his/her nature is unnatural. My opponents view is that we are not morally obliged to stop someone from harming themselves even though they do not want to. There is no such thing as a human who wants to harm themselves in their correct state of mind. The incorrect state of mind is like a prison, it tortures the person even though they don't want it, but they will continue living in that prison because we have neglected them. That disproves my opponents claims that people who are in the right state of mind can make the decision to harm themselves. Completely false, if they make that desicion, then obviously they are in the impaired state of mind. Allowing them to make their desicions using an impaired conscious is completely inhumane and cruel. Looking at my opponents claim that we have freedom of choice, Its pretty plain to see that he didn't properly read my post at all. He completely failed to defend it from a rebuttal that was waiting for him to arrive. Lets go through his unorganised slab of text and refute each point as it arises: 'he is assuming that every person on this earth from the richest tycoon to the poorest man follows this theory of philosophy.' What my opponent says is accurate here, although the implicit straw-man is not welcome. All creatures follow some form of the philosophy of utilitarianism as a default. in animals, instead of looking for happiness they look for survival and different ways to survive and eat. Humans are not so worried about survival as animals, so we look for a purpose, happiness. Everything ever done by humanity with reason has been done for the reasons of 'a greater good,' a 'better place,' or simply for happiness. Why do we search for things to satisfy our curiosity? Its makes us happy. Why do we kill millions of each other in wars and battles? For greed, why are we greedy? For happiness. Everything boils down to happiness eventually, drugs are no different. In fact, drugs are the closest to failed pursuits of happiness than nearly anything else. 'he judges everybody with a standard model he says that if everybody in the world was given the full information about drugs, if they knew it was going to hurt them in the long run then they would not take.' Until an exception can be found to the rule, it shall stand. My opponent is very closed minded when he sees an ordinary person deciding to take drugs for the first time. However, we need to balance the motives. If there is peer pressure shoving the individual on one side, then we need to provide information to discourage him proportionate to the level of peer pressure he or she is experiencing. This way, we can negate the disruptive influences that negatively impact someone's choice. All decisions should be able to be made by an individual without exterior negative interference. That is called freedom of choice. But where all the information comes from a single party, eg, a friend or criminal dealer, the choice has been negatively affected and cannot be called 'free.' So who is going to provide the other half of counterbalances to dispute negative influences? The government. His ending statement seeks to misinterpret my previous arguments. I said that all humans living in society have: >The duty to protect society >The duty to progress society >The duty to maintain society I was wrong to assume my opponent had a shred of common sense. Ill explain it in simple English: The duty to protect society means that all members that benefit from society are obliged to help prevent or intervene with an attack on society if it is within their power to do so. The duty to progress society means that any opportunity that will advance any aspect or capability of society is not to be turned down unless it conflicts with a person's privileges (rights). Eg. Thou shalt continue working that extra 5 minutes that will allow a discovery of the cure to cancer even if you have a sore toe. The duty to maintain society is actual a duty to not tear it apart. If you are born into the world and live of welfare for your entire life, you are a drain on society and are in the wrong. The laws of Australia that prevent drug use also prevent a complete massacre of the younger generation. We both know that adolescent children have an impaired ability to determine risk. Well known fact. Considering that making it illegal for teenagers won't stop it getting to them, I would like to challenge my opponent to propose a method in which drugs can be made legal whislt our teenagers stay safely out of its reach. I would like to raise some previous points that my opponent completely failed to address in the probably vain hope that he might see them. >there is no way to harm yourself in society that doesn't harm someone else. >Drugs destroy your duty of care to society >Would you force someone to stop doing something if they are not in their correct mindset? I would like to finish up by quoting my opponent from outside this debate, after a different argument I asked him why he still supported his claim, he said: 'I am irrational.' This wasn't a joke or anything, he said what he meant and meant what he said, so my question, which I never got to ask him, is something that is irrational worth supporting for the purposes of this debate? The resolution is negated, now lets see what else my opponent has to say...

I have 40 minutes. In response to the new link posted, I argue if cannabis can be proven to be a lie in terms of being dangerous in order to maintain it's illegality, so can other drugs. As read here: http://www.naturalnews.com... You can read that marijuana actually protects people from long term mental problems such as Alzheimer's. This contradicts what we're supposed to be afraid of, and is just one example of this contradiction. We're also supposed to be afraid of getting cancer, however modern studies have suggested the complete opposite. THC actually attacks tumors and shrinks them, and not just by smoking. See here: http://www.sfgate.com... To sum up my point, if cannabis can be proven to be completely benign,and actually beneficial to ones health, so could other currently illegal drugs. For instance, psychedelic mushrooms, mescalin, LSD, MDMA, none of these drugs will kill you, and you cannot overdose on them. However they're all illegal, and are not allowed to be studied even though many studies from outside the US and Canada suggest all these drugs could have medicinal value. Shrooms may help with depression, as read here. Note, this is a study done outside the US and Canada: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Next my opponent argues, "Though this is insightful it is not logically relevant to the debate. Because something that is harmful is legal, it does not follow that all harmful illegal substances should be made legal." If these drugs are harmful, then they should be legalized and regulated. Why would you want cocaine to be illegal, when it can be purchased from a drug dealer who does not ask for ID and could sell to minors, who does not know of the potency of the drug, who does not know of the purity of the drug, who does not know of the cleanliness of the drug. I further argue it has been proven everywhere it is easier for underage students to obtain marijuana than alcohol. This is because their drug dealer does not ask for ID. Drugs like Meth and cocaine are very dangerous, and because of this they absolutely should be legal so they can be regulated so people know exactly what they're buying and have to at the very least be of a certain age. This is currently not happening. Next, "I counter this on the basis that if drug addict is unable to legally fund his addiction due to the debilitation and intoxication his drug causes, he will resort to crime." This is preposterous, you cannot make such a claim. If a drug addict cannot get his "fix" in a legal market, he wouldn't be able to get it in an illegal market anyways. Drugs being in a legal market would make purchasing it more safe, and more reliable. I argue that alcoholics who cannot afford alcohol do not all turn to crime like you suggest, since alcohol is a drug. I see many of them standing outside the liqueur store begging for money. If alcohol was illegal again, they would be drinking an uncertain concentration of moonshine, and how is this any better than we have now? ext, "The illegality is a reference to the aforementioned attempts to illegally gain money for what would now be a legal drug. The numbers of such people would logically increase under my opponents suggestion." The Netherlands which has cannabis legal, actually has a lower use rate per capita than the US who has it illegal. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... As you can see, the drug being legal did not encourage more use, it actually lowered the amount of users. Next, "I would like my opponent to provide a link for this figure, but I do not doubt the overall point that the ‘war on drugs' is very expensive and imperfect." This is regarding the 40 billion dollars a year spent on maintaining cannabis prohibition alone. You can see here, my statement was a much more conservative one, for many predict the cost of prohibition soars into the hundreds of billions when calculating all it's affects.: http://www.canorml.org... Next, "My counter-argument is as follows, Given that cannabis use has been shown by many studies to increase the chances of developing schizophrenia let us imagine for a moment that my opponent is the father of a teenager, You have two choices, you can raise your teenager in a society where he may never be offered cannabis, where he may find difficulty in purchasing it, where he may smoke it sporadically before deciding to grow. This is the current situation. Or you can raise your teenager in a society where it is sold openly and cheaply in the shops and he can smoke as much as he could ever desire without any limits on this personal whims. This would be the ramifications of my opponents choice." Firstly, I would like to point of tobacco can be purchased legally and would absolutely kill my so, or your son, or any human being. However, our children are now educated, and are intelligent enough to make the right choice to not purchase tobacco, as can be seen by lowered usage rates over the years due to campaigns. Secondly, the link between cannabis and schizophrenia is unproven. However, it is most in favor that it either does not cause, or may only cause it with people predisposed to it. Either way, neither of us can prove this point on either side because it is illegal and difficult to study. Next, "Also let us remember that this is not simply about Cannabis, this is about all currently illegal drugs. Cocaine, heroin, examine. Can this substances logically be treated in the same context as say tobacco?" A drug that impairs your ability to think and move properly while being a toxin to your body, harming your brain and liver is currently on the market. A drug that causes the US and Canada billions in health care and kills millions is currently on the market. However if these drugs were illegal, they would kill even more people. We have room to make all drugs legal, and properly educate people on the effects of using them. Them being illegal absolutely does not lower usage rates. ===== I am out of time, what a shame. Unfortunately but not, I was in Cedar Point for a day, and working for other days. I wish I could have participated more thoroughly, though I do feel confident in my arguments. Thank you for the great debate.

Thank you con. Other than your argument that second hand smoking causes harm to others and that the payment of cigarettes takes money away money that could be spent on something else you haven't supplied me with any arguments that justify forcing other people to abide by what you 'think' is morally right. I will respond to each of your atguments with logic and sources will come in later. "It's a drug that makes you feel good but in the end the feeling is just an illusion." Interesting, so you are claiming the good feeling from smoking is an illusion? Illusion - "A thing that is or is likely to be wrongly percieved or interpreted by the senses."[1] So you are claiming the feeling from smoking is being wrongly interpreted by the body, I don't think so, you are experiencing the chemicals in the cigarette such as dopamine [2] that helps control the brains pleasure centre, this is no illusion, it is physically happening to the body. Also, as I've said before people are aware of the risks, its not your place to determine what they should or should not do about their bodies. "Smokers have bad breath" Is this really a reason to ban smoking, that is poor. "Smokers skin looks unhealthy" So now we are banning things because they are making people look unhealthy, guess what fast food makes people look unhealthy when they become obese. "Smokers have brittle hair.....a yellow smile reveals a smoker......smokers also get yellow nails." Really? Perhaps we should ban these as well then. www.everydayhealth.com/hair-loss-pictures/surprising-things-that-cause-hair-loss-0209.aspx "Its really a myth that smoking calms you down." Well I guess pretty much every smoker I have spoken to is lying then and also: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423193946.htm "Smoking causes others to suffer as well" www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/12/19/second_hand_smoke_proven_harmless_again news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/scientific-evidence-shows-secondhand-smoke-no-danger As for asthma, the fact that second hand smoke can trigger attacks is not reason enough to justify banning cigarettes overall, people should be more wildly educated about these facts, this is the way to really solve problems not just banning everything. "Not to mention how many kids smoke underage" So your way of solving this is by banning smoking, you know how these kids get their cigarettes? Illegaly. So banning them probably wont solve that problem. Also it should be down to the parents and failing that, the education to educate kids of the risks. Take it from me, its not difficult for kids, yes kids, to get hold of marijuana and alcohol. blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/ This is another argument that shows that banning wouldn't be effective. Anyways, my arguments are largly summed up in my rebuttals below. But I digress the reasons you gave wrre largly not plausible reasons to ban it. A decent example would be banning video games. Video games, like smoking give tue participant pleasure. Video games, like smoking are very addictive. Video games, like smoking can have negative health effects if you become addicted. Now I ask you this, should we ban video games? Should we ban caffiene? Unlike the fast food example these are similar circumstantialy to smoking. Over to you con.

My argument is to replace all unhealthy food advertisements in public schools. Students can make whatever food decisions they want outside of school, but while in school the students are the school's responsibility. It is the school's responsibility to help students make healthy choices throughout their life. If the students are encouraged to make healthy decisions in school, they may also make healthy choices outside of school. You're arguing that these unhealthy food advertisements in schools bring money into schools, which they do. But healthy food advertisements can have the same affect of bringing money in to the schools. We are not telling students to not balance healthy foods with unhealthy foods, but while they're in school we can make sure that they're making healthier food choices. According to the University of Massachusetts Boston, "Healthy eating improves academic achievement and leads to students getting better grades and functioning at a higher level both inside and outside of school. Good nutrition supports alertness, cognition, memory, problem solving, speed and overall achievement.". http://www.umb.edu... It has been proven that students do better in school, when they have a healthier diet. By replacing unhealthy foods and advertisements from schools, students will do better in school and be much healthier. A high school in Wisconsin replaced unhealthy lunches with healthy ones and the results were amazing. Healthier foods can give you more energy than greasy, fatty foods. It also changed the overall behavior of the students at this high school. http://abcnews.go.com... The statistics show amazing results from replacing unhealthy foods and advertisements in schools, with healthy choices.

Final round, Finish him! Point 1: My opponent begins by dropping his first point, this is extremely abusive to me. I expended all 8000, characters on my response last round in order to attempt to combat his points. Basically my opponent offered two points, one of them which he knew wasn't true, so that I would not be able to focus my attention fully on his real argument. This not only defeats the purpose of honest debate but also serves as a character suck for me and should be a voting issue in this round. This issue should hold just as much weight as the 2nd. Point 2: 2a. My opponent submits that, "However, this would make many people much less willing to buy it, especially people in, say, Africa. " I am not exactly sure where he is pulling this analysis from. The optimum way for the government to do this plan would be to violate the pharmaceutical patents to one actor. In other words not only could the original patent holder be able to create the drug but so could the government or a contractor. The government or contractor would then turn around and give these low cost drugs to Sub-Saharan Africa. I am not advocating for a complete removal of patents I am simply advocating for just enough exceptions to produce the drugs. Thus the only people who are going to be getting this drug low cost are those in Sub-Saharan Africa, period. Furthermore, once again I must push the point that the pharmaceutical companies are not selling the drugs to Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefor, the government or contractor giving the drugs to them does not infringe on the pharmaceutical companies profits at all! A similar situation would be like me inventing a Teracom and then marketing it to the people of earth. At which point an Alien finds me, sees my invention, and markets it to his home planet. Obviously this has no impact on myself because I would never have marketed it to the alien planet in the first place. Therefor I am being done no injustice in this situation. The same is true here. The pharmaceutical companies aren't marketing their products to Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefor turning around and re-creating their product to save lives at low costs is not actually an injustice to them. This scenario has no impact on the pharmaceuticals at all. Finally on this point, keep in mind that I am advocating for the patent violation in just one area. I'm not saying that the patent should just disappear, because it shouldn't, I am simply advocating for an exception to the patent in this one scenario. 2b. Hahaha. I submit a case where the main problem is a lack of drugs to save people. I go on to point out that this lack of drugs comes from the fact that we are dealing with impoverished nations. The impoverished nations do not have money to purchase the drugs. So my opponent decides the best way to violate the pharmaceutical patents is by giving the pharmaceuticals more money (reminder, this is what the countries are lacking). Which would work just fine except for the fact that we are not just speaking about the United States here, we are speaking of countries in general. There are going to be countries out there, Sub-Saharan African countries are good examples, that are not going to have the money to do this. Furthermore keep in mind that my opponents idea of offering tax credits only works in the home country. Finally we must remember that we are attempting to minimize costs so that the African people may live. The more money we must spend the higher chance that the cost will not be as minimized as it can be. So yes, while giving the pharmaceutical some type of compensation for their idea could be nice, it is not particularly necessary, as the pharmaceuticals are not losing anything to begin with. And for some countries it is not going to be possible, thus it is okay to violate the patent with or without the extra money thrown in. Either way is not going to hurt the company. 2c. "My opponent contends that nullifying or modifying a patent's conditions constitutes a violation thereof. " Yes. This is true, my opponent presents a relevant definition so let us examine it. Violate: To break or fail to comply with. Furthermore we might as well define break with a relevant definition. Break: 1. to dissolve or annul. 2. to infringe, ignore, or act contrary to (a law, rule, promise, etc. ): She broke her promise. So let us once again examine the scenario with commentary from myself. Step 1: I make a rule that no one can touch me. Commentary: Yay! Step 2: I modify the rule by making an exception to the rule, my girlfriend can now touch me. Commentary: This violates the original rule in the first half of the definition of violate, I am BREAKing the original rule. I am using the definitions of infringe and dissolve in this instance for break. I am infringing on the original rule, and I am dissolving a small portion of the original rule. Step 3: My girlfriend touches me. Commentary: Oh yes! This of course is a violation of the original rule in the second half of the definition of violation. I am now failing to comply with the original rule (or my girlfriend is failing, however you want to see it). I am of course doing this for a good reason, specifically because I violated the rule during step 2. Thus I no longer care about this rule. This however does not make this final violation any less relevant. If we look at the resolution it says "violation of pharmaceutical patents", the resolution is in the present tense. Thus when we do change the patent in the future, we must still concede the fact that we are violating the old patent in our current status quo. ______________ Finally I must once again state that sense the pharmaceutical company is not losing anything either way both methods are equally just. Straight up violating the patent is just as just as coming to the agreement. Either way the pharmaceutical is not hurt in the slightest. Furthermore it is apparent that my opponents picture is worse than mine. _____________ Next my opponent states, "In fact, to avoid the 'injustice' many face of being born into poverty, we should allow people too poor to afford medicine to die. By giving people free medicine, we're just making a people even weaker. Natural selection should be allowed to do its job. " Which makes absolutely no sense, consider that every 1st world country out there uses medicine abundantly and is far better off than Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus the impact of medicine on natural selection is rather limited. Furthermore my opponent should be voted against simply for suggesting the genocide of Malarian Sub-S Africans. Finally my opponent states he does not have to argue my interpretation of the resolution. This line of thought is rather flawed, as the resolution is going to be subjective to both of us and it is up to us to come up with an agreeance on the topic we are debating. For instance if the topic said "They are good" and I felt "They" refereed to monkeys while my opponent felt "They" referred to ice cream we would have a difficult time debating. My opponent of course offers an example which is quite clearly a straw man. Pro: "All I have to do it show that ice cream is awesome, and I win. Ice cream is awesome, and here's why. " Con: "Cheese is not delicious, here's why. " (At which point Con wins) This of course makes sense in the scenario but I did not offer an off topic argument in the first place. My resolutional analysis was very much involved with the resolution, therefor my opponent has conceded the interp. Finally I would ask that no new arguments from my opponent be considered in the final round. I ask this because I have no chance to respond to such arguments. Sub-S has many public health concerns, but the 900,000 malaria concerns can be solved for now.

-----Definitions----- should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Don't ask don't tell - is a 2002 movie directed by Doug Miles . http://www.imdb.com... allowed - permit; to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am arguing that the 2002 movie "Don't ask don't tell" should be allowed (to exist). My opponent is arguing that the 2002 movie "Don't ask don't tell" should not be allowed (to exist). My opponent obviously has a tremendous burden of proof. I can think of no good reason to not allow a movie to exist, I hope my opponent has some. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

People have the right to harm their own bodies should they choose to do so.While the government and private entities have the right to place public smoking bans, such as in certain restaurants and bars or on government owned property, the government has no right to prohibit people from using tobacco in private should they choose to do so. There is no legitimate legal basis for preventing people from smoking tobacco in the privacy of their own homes, where the dangers of second-hand smoke are nonexistent. There are plenty of ways that people commit self-harm that are perfectly legal, such as not getting enough sleep, eating too much or too little, getting no exercise, skipping medication, or taking on a high-stress workload. Should the government ban these things too?The answer, of course, is no. If someone wants to harm themselves in the privacy of their own home, nobody has the right to stop them. So to answer the question that Pro posed to me in the second round, yes, it should be okay to do cocaine, cannabis, bath salts, or drinking in excess, just like it should be okay to eat too many fatty foods or skip meals. As long as these actions are done within the privacy of one's home, then these actions can only have consequences on the person doing them.Second-hand smoke is not enough justification to completely ban tobaccoTo completely eliminate the problem that second-hand smoke creates, all that is needed to be done is to put a restriction on where people can smoke. By eliminating the use of tobacco on public property, we in turn eliminate the dangers of second-hand smoke without completely banning tobacco. Like I said earlier, people still have the right to smoke in their homes where their actions harm nobody but themselves.There is absolutely zero justification for a complete tobacco banMy opponent stated that tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. While this is true, the leading cause of preventable death in the world is Hypertension [1], or high levels of stress and high blood pressure. This is usually the result of stress-inducing jobs. Given my opponent's argument so far, I suppose we should ban high-stress jobs too, right? The number two cause of preventable death in the U.S is obesity, so I suppose we should also completely ban all food with high levels of trans fat and sugar.Wrong. As long as an individual is not posing harm to others, they should be free to do whatever they want to themselves. If that means smoking tobacco or eating fatty foods or working a high stress job, then fine. These are all things that you should have the freedom to choose. I have the freedom to choose whether or not to smoke and I choose not to. But as soon as you let the government make that choice for you, then its just getting closer and closer to a nanny state that completely restricts what its citizens can and cannot do."The whole point of this country is if you wanna eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so!" - Ron Swanson, Parks and Recreation [2]To summarizeRisk of self-harm is not a good enough justification for a complete tobacco ban. The threat of second-hand smoke is nonexistent as long as smoking is disallowed in pubic places, which means that a complete ban on tobacco is not required to solve this problem. Every citizen has the right to do what they want with their bodies, and the government or anyone else should not have any say in that whatsoever.Citations:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.imdb.com...

Thank you for the good reply. If you do not mind, because it is so large I will simply debate point by point. ====== My opponent used this link to in order to reference his source: http://news.bbc.co.uk... This is not a scientific article, or an article even referenced itself. It is titled "Drug 'doubles mental health risk'" which implies a previous risk already existed not having to do with drugs. It also uses words such as "probably" and refers to smoking a "drug" which is vague. The article is not a valid reference in order to back up my opponents claim for it does not even specific the study using legal or illegal drugs to do it's study. Next, my opponent argues that drugs do not just affect the user, but the liberties and quality of life of others, and therefore should remain a criminal issue. This claim is baseless on the terms of their already being legal drugs which are exponentially more detrimental to the users health, and society. For example, tobacco is legal and kills more people each year than each scheduled drug combined. Also, the effects of smoking harms surrounding people, and can kill them. To further my point, this effects the quality of life of people nowhere near smoke in their lives, for they have to deal with a suffering health system due to the overabundance of avoidable death; tobacco smoking. Next my opponent addressed the correlation of drug abuse and crime. He is very correct, there is a correlation. However correlation does not prove causation, and his argument actually falls onto my side. If drug addicts commit crimes because they're trying to fund their habits, the obvious solution at the very least would be not to continue using a failed system of prohibition. Addicts will forever be addicts, and have always found a way to get what they desire, even in prison. The solution is not prohibition, because it creates violence on a much larger scale as profitability becomes reality for illegal drugs. I will not provide a link, but a reminder of the before and after effects of the prohibition on alcohol. After prohibition, the violence was lessened tremendously. Next, my opponent argues legalization of current illegal drugs would increase illegal drug users. This does not make sense, for it would no longer be a criminal act. Next my opponent argues police forces fighting against the catalyst of drug abuse will be better to deal with the overall rate of crime. My opponent again is absolutely correct, however I would like to add perspective. The reason police would have more resources to deal with drug abuse because of drugs being illegal, is because the United States alone pays over 40 billion dollars a year to maintain it's prohibition of illegal drugs. In fact, that's 40 billion dollars to only maintain the prohibition of one drug; that is cannabis. Maintaining prohibition of all drugs is costly on every level of government as more resources go into combating something that cannot be defeated. Furthermore, this is not even including the amount of money that could be made from tax revenue in a legal and controlled market. Prohibition is a crushing cost to maintain, and only further adds to the debt of the United States and Canada, which ironically harms the liberties of all citizens. Next my opponent speaks about the need for government mandated coercion in order to not only require abusers to attend treatment, but to keep them there for they are a harm to society, along with themselves. Because you did not define what an abuser is, it is implied all users of illegal drugs are abusers, and therefor should be required to receive treatment, and stay in it. This would mean nearly half the population of the United States should be in treatment, for many polls indicate the usage rate of widely used illegal drugs such as cannabis are nearing 50%. I further argue coercion is subjective, and mandatory anything does not encourage participation and is a poor form of coercion. The current recidivism rates for prisons and treatment centers reflects this. Next, "The current system, where drug addicts are punished, removed from the society they threaten and often required to face rehabilitation or treatment as part of their sentence is clearly superior, thus my opponents resolution is negated." They are not removed for society, for society is the one paying for them to be there. Also, drugs can't even be kept out of prisons. Furthermore, you insinuate receiving treatment is punishment, which if true would be counter-productive for the goal would be for the 'victim' to succeed. Next, "It is also amoral to expect society and specifically the tax payer to tolerate the social cost of drugs without protest, yet then be forced to pay for the drug abusers treatment. This is especially relevant in the USA, why should the tax payer pay for the self-inflicted problem of drug abuse when the rest of society is expected to fend for themselves?" Please clarify your argument here. Citizens currently pay tax dollars which go towards treatment centers. You argued drug abusers are a threat to society. Now, whether or not drugs are legal does not change this for addicts are addicts, which is why your point needs to be clarified for me. Next, "I believe that this is the least of our worries, no one really cares what the race is of the person caught dealing drugs to their children, or to which race a drug fuelled mugger belongs to. I would also point out that drug abuse is a noted facet of numerous cultures." I offer the exert "The U.S. "war on drugs" disproportionately targets urban minority neighborhoods. Two national reports released in early 2008 found that although whites commit more drug offenses, African Americans are arrested and imprisoned on drug charges at much higher rates. " http://www.prohibitioncosts.org... ===== Unfortunately, I will not continue to argue the rest of your points. If there is one other in particular you wish for me to address, do ask. Thank you for your time, looking forward to your reply.

I negate the legalization of marijuana in the U.S I will be defending the status quo in this round of marijuana being illegal. 1. Drugs rob the user of free will. A drug user cannot make an informed and rational decision to continue using drugs because the use of the drug eliminates that user"s ability to think logically. Nor can they disseminate themselves from drug taking. And if the government was to support this it would allow them to more easily brainwash the people and control them. 2.Drug use is dangerous to persons besides the user. In the rise of health care costs, violence associated with the use of drugs, neglect of children by drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects. It would also minimize productivity. People would be more frequently on the influence at work, on the road, and during other activities putting people at risk and limiting people's capability. 3. The use of soft drugs, such as marijuana, leads to the use of hard drugs (the Gateway Theory). The permission of one drug would spark a revolution to legalize all drugs. Even if it doesn't, it promotes people to "move up" on drug use and "upgrade" to more dangerous, and illegal, drugs. 4. Legalizing drugs will send a message to children that drug use is acceptable. It inherently isn't as non-medical drug use has many substancial problems such as addictions, health problems, and such forther. Because of these reasons, I negate.