The nuclear industry is constantly judged on criteria that do not take its externalities into account  Nuclear puts great store on the fact that it is a ‘clean fuel’ however this assessment tends to ignore several factors in terms of social and other costs. Although much attention has been given to the possible harm of dealing with fuel rods at the end of their life, much less is given to the mining of Uranium in the first place. To take one of many examples, in 2006 the Navajo nation won a lengthy legal fight to prevent Uranium mining ever taking place on their land. Similar efforts by communities in Latin America have been less successful.  The industry bears none of the costs for the illnesses, poisoned rivers, fatalities and other costs of this process [i] .  [i] Laurie Fosner. “Uranium Mining in the Navajo Nation”. Sprol. 20 June 2006


All societies inherit problems from previous generations this age has acquired a global population that has increased seven-fold in the course of two generations and has a desperate need for energy. Nuclear power fills that need and consistently works to ensure that its byproducts are rendered harmless.  No industry has put more work into ensuring that it does not leave a mess behind it – nor is any industry under more scrutiny on the subject.  The Nuclear Industry has routinely accepted its responsibility to future generations in a way that other sectors of the mainstream energy sector have refused to.


The nuclear industry has constantly required government bailouts and has never been commercially viable in an open market  The nuclear industry is always keen to point out how cheap it is to produce a therm of energy through splitting an atom. However, these figures tend to leave out a few details such as the decade of taxpayer’s dollars it takes to build a nuclear plant in the first place or the 20,000 years it takes to reprocess the fuel rods afterwards.  In every nation with a civil nuclear industry, the tax payer has been paying through the nose to keep it running. Even with all of this support, the price of nuclear industry is still not competitive. In the US alone the bill is running at over $150m in hard cash [i] , when British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) had to start facing up to the costs of reprocessing its spent fuel in 2001, the British government was required to underwrite the cost of 2.1 billion pounds in that year with an anticipation of ten times that during the forthcoming years. The alternative would have been bankruptcy for the entire industry [ii] .  [i] Mark Hertsgaard. "The True Costs of Nuclear Power". Mother Earth News. April/May 2006  [ii] Rob Edwards. “Taxpayer bailout bankrupt nuclear plants; leaked BNFL report”. Sunday Herald. 14 July 2002.


The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .  Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.  By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.  [i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.


It is simply unethical to invest in an industry that will leave the problems it creates to be dealt with for thousands of years into the future  Were humankind to stop all nuclear energy use tomorrow we, as a species, would have to deal with the repercussions of nuclear power for four times longer than human civilization has so far existed. Polluting our own age is one thing but to bequeath such a heritage to generations as yet unimagined let alone unborn. To give this some context, in the case of just one isotope, plutonium 239 – the most poisonous substance known to mankind – had the Ancient Egyptians used this as an energy source to build the pyramids we would still be dealing with it today and it would still have 235,000 years to go.


It is interesting to note that the only places where nuclear energy has provided a dominant share of the national energy market are France, Russia, Canada (specifically Ontario) and now, increasingly China. All of which have heavily centralised energy markets.  Indeed the correlation between bureaucracy, the possession or desire for a nuclear arsenal and the use of overpriced nuclear energy appears to go beyond coincidence.


Nuclear power has, worldwide, received billions, if not trillions, of dollars of investment. By comparison the renewables industry has received tiny grants from central government and, despite a lack of funding and running forty years behind in terms of the attention of governments, it is holding its own with an expanding market share. As of the 8th of July 2011 the US was more reliant on renewable energy than nuclear [i] according to the Energy Information Administration.  All of this was accomplished despite massively disproportionate funding. According to the primary Congressional report on the subject:  “Energy research and development (R&D) intended to advance technology played an important role in the successful outcome of World War II. In the post-war era, the federal government conducted R&D on fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources to support peacetime economic growth. The energy crises of the 1970s spurred the government to broaden the focus to include renewable energy and energy efficiency. Over the 33-year period from the Department of Energy’s inception at the beginning of fiscal Year (FY) 1978 through FY2010, federal spending for renewable energy R&D amounted to about 16% of the energy R&D total, compared with 14% for energy efficiency, 26% for fossil, and 37% for nuclear. For the 63-year period from 1948 through 2010, nearly 12% went to renewables, compared with 9% for efficiency, 25% for fossil, and 50% for nuclear.” [ii] Put simply the renewables industry has been outspent but is still producing more energy in the world’s largest consumer.  [i] “US Renewable Energy Production Now Greater Than Nuclear”. Future of Energy Blog. 8 July 2011.  [ii] Fred Sissine. “Renewable Energy R&D Funding History: A Comparison with Funding for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Energy Efficiency R&D”. Congressional Research Service. 26 January 2011.


Renewables are mostly unproven, experimental technologies being developed on a small-scale basis that is not ready to take up the gap to move away from fossil fuels under climate change agreements  The renewable sector is a rapidly changing market moving in between micro-renewables and massive offshore projects. It is a fascinating area as an emergent technology field but it lacks stability both in terms of technology and investment.  Realistically nuclear power is going to have to play an important role in bridging the gap – at the very least – on the road away from a carbon dependent economy [i] .  The technology and funding is simply not in place for any renewable technology to take up the hard lifting from oil and coal yet.  [i] G Paschal Zachary. “The Case for Nuclear Power”. SFGate (San Fransisco Chronicle). 5 February 2006.


Nuclear power has a proven track record in France, Canada and Russia and an increasing role in new energy markets  There are already stable markets for nuclear power around the world with plants providing a consistent share of energy to the consumer. Although there are now renewable suppliers providing some share of total demand it is rare for them to have established relationships with either suppliers or major industrial consumers.  There are, however established models of how nuclear power can be blended into an integrated energy supply system.


There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market  Despite the best intentions of major players in the energy market, renewable fuels have simply not been able to keep up with demand. It has a limited role in supplying electricity and virtually none in any other area.  Although Nuclear is poor in the provision of non-electrical energy as well it has proved a more consistent form of energy in every arena than renewables. It has proved to be cleaner than any form of fossil fuels. With technological advances it is the obvious fuel of the future and, as a result deserves further funding and research.


It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions [i] .  It is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant.  It is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard.  [i]


The Arctic covers a huge area, of course there are some parts that should be protected. Just as with any other area in the world, areas of special scientific or environmental significance should be protected. However, just picking a line on the map and saying ‘no drilling north of here’ makes little sense. Why not a degree further south – or north? Protection should be awarded on a site by site basis, just as it would be anywhere else in the world.


The Arctic is a diverse but fragile ecosystem  Mineral extraction is not a clean process [1] and the Arctic is acknowledged as a fragile ecosystem. In addition to the pollution that using these fuels will cause elsewhere in the world, the process of extraction itself is fraught with risks. There is some destruction caused simply by the process of building and running rigs with everything running normally, but the nightmare scenario is a major spill. [2] Let’s be clear, with the best will in the world, there will be a spill; difficult and unpredictable conditions, gruelling tests for both the machinery and the engineers that manage it, and a track record that leaves a lot to be desired in far more habitable and accessible environments. There are two difficulties posed in terms of an off-shore (or below-ice in this case) spill. The first problem is that stopping the spill would be vastly more complicated logistically than anything previously attempted, making previous deep-sea containment exercises seem simple by comparison. [3]  The Exxon Valdez disaster showed the large scale damage that oil spills near the poles can have large and long lasting effects on the ecosystem; hundreds of thousands of seabirds were killed in the spill and it is estimates some habitats will take 30 years to recover. [4] Any such disaster is made much worse above the arctic circle because of the cold. Oil degrades faster in warmer waters because the metabolism of microbes that break the oil down works much more slowly in the cold arctic waters, at the same time the oil spreads out less so provides less surface area. [5] In 2010 it was reported that more than two decades after the spill there were still 23,000 gallons of relatively un-weathered oil in Prince William Sound. [6]  The second issue, as demonstrated by large scale experimentation in the 1970s is that the oil would interact with the Polar ice to affect a far larger area than would normally be the case.  At the very least, it seems sensible to have a moratorium on sub-glacial drilling until the technology is available to deal safely and securely with a spill.  [1] Bibby, N. Is Norman Baker Serious about Saving the Environment? Liberalconspiracy.org. 18 march 2012.   [2] McCarthy, Michael, The Independent. Oil exploration under the arctic could cause ‘uncontrollable’ natural disaster. 6 September 201   [3] Vidal, John, ‘Why an oil spill in Arctic waters would be devastating’, The Guardian, 22 April 2011,   [4] Williamson, David, ‘Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts lasting far longer than expected, scientists say’, UNC News Services, 18 December 2003, no.648,   [5] Atlas, Ronald M., et al., ‘Microbes & Oil Spills – FAQ’, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 22 April 2013,   [6] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ‘Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council’s Restoration Efforts’, Federal Register, Vol.75., No. 14, 22 January 2010, p.3707


There is no reason to believe that a warming arctic will be a more competitive arctic or that the littoral powers will not be able to share the resources the region provides. Norway and Russia managed to fix their maritime borders in the Barents sea in order to exploit the potential resources there. [1] There being resources to exploit can just as often provide a motivation cooperate because if this does not happen then no one can exploit the resources.  [1] Brigham, Lawson W., ‘Think Again: The Arctic’, Foreign Policy, Sept/oct 2010,


The Arctic should be saved for future generations  As we are using the resources of so much of the planet we should think about our legacy to future generations and leave the resources of the arctic to future generations. There are several reasons why we should do so.  First of all drilling in the arctic means drilling in some of the harshest conditions on earth; with many of the projects being set up it means drilling in deep areas of the ocean that were inaccessible only a couple of decades ago. It also means drilling in freezing conditions while being potentially vulnerable to icebergs. Disasters like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico have shown that oil companies are not prepared for oil disasters in deep water and repair would be more difficult a long way from civilization. [1]  While the technology for this does not yet exist in future it probably will. It makes sense that we should leave such hard to reach resources until it is possible to extract it easily and safely. In the mean time we should be focusing our efforts on easier to reach resources and on developing alternatives. Such a policy will be beneficial to future generations both through making a greener economy and by leaving an emergency reserve of fossil fuel that can be used if necessary.  [1] Lawless, Jill, ‘Tony Hayward: BP Was Unprepared For Gulf Oil Spill, 'We Were Making It Up Day To Day'’, HuffPost, 9 November 2010,


This is oil and gas that we already know about and already have the expertise to exploit. The technology that we don’t yet have will only be developed if there is a demand for them – if the demand is now the technology will be developed. There is little point in us leaving this particular fuel to future generations when we are the first generation that has the technology to exploit such deposits. Future generations may improve on the technology and make it safer but the fundamental capability, the breakthroughs that make it possible have already happened. Future generations on the other hand will have their own breakthroughs in terms of new forms of power and new discoveries of fuels. They are then much less likely to need these resources than we do now.


A treaty similar to the Antarctic Treaty would prevent competition  The opening up of the arctic Ocean through climate change also opens up territorial claims as where there are resources at stake states are keen to make a claim so as to exploit them. For example in 2008 Russia’s then President Medvedev stated “Our first and fundamental task is to turn the Arctic into a resource base for Russia in the 21st century.” [1] Such competition for resources can lead to conflict as is increasingly being shown in the East and South China Seas.  The Antarctic Treaty however freezes these territorial claims, as would our proposed treaty. It also bans military activity so preventing any completion from getting out of hand. [2] The proposal would also ban the exploitation of the Arctic’s resources so reducing the cause of any conflict.  [1] Keating, Joshua, ‘Medvedev makes a play for Arctic riches’, Passport Foreign Policy, 17 September 2008,   [2] ‘The Antarctic Treaty’, Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2011,


There is noticeable absence in the list of countries set to replace the Middle East; That absence is Russia. It is hard to see how being subservient to Putin – with nuclear weapons and a massive military – is preferable to going cap in hand to the House of Saud. It is also unclear that this will be a benefit in terms of security and conflict. These countries are so dependent on oil that undermining their economies in this way could lead to more, not less conflict.


The obvious response to ‘growing demand’ being a problem would seem to be to reduce demand. When this has been attempted by states, there have been complaints that this was an unfair burden on business. Once the market adjusted, by increasing price, the same people demanded the right to increase supply. There is not particularly a growing demand for mineral resources; there’s a growing demand for energy and transport, it’s time to get serious about new, cleaner ways of meeting that demand. It has to be remembered that oil and gas from the arctic is not cheap; oil projects in the region cost billions before they even begin extracting. It is also questionable whether there really is 160 billion barrels of oil – it has not been explored so we do not know how much is there. To take an example of just such an uncertainty in a much less extreme environment China claims the South China Sea has up to 200 billion barrels of oil [1] while the US Energy Information Administration thinks it is between 5-22 billion barrels. [2]  [1] Rogers, Will, ‘Beijing’s South China Sea Gamble’, The Diplomat, 4 February 2012,   [2] ‘South China Sea’, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 7 February 2013,


Creating jobs and opportunities  The areas covered are among the least developed in the world. Standards of education and income for indigenous peoples are very low and, to date, there has been little to motivate any nation to do anything about that. For example Canada is rated the 6th in the world by the UN’s Human Development Index but if the same index was rating Canada’s First Nations it would be 76th. [1]  However, oil companies have already invested billions into exploration and the future nor these areas – as well as employees with existing skills in mineral extraction could be protected and enhanced by the opportunities offered by these new areas for development.  With those directly created and saved jobs come, literally, millions of others in transportation, distribution, energy supply and manufacturing and other sectors that depend on affordable energy costs. First nations in those areas that have oil booms have considerably better employment prospects; in Canada nationally natives aged 25-54 have an employment rate of 70.1% but in Alberta, the biggest oil producing region, the rate was 77.7%. [2]  Proposition rightly notes that pressures are growing on these industry sectors but fails to offer any solution that would ensure the livelihoods of millions of people around the world as well as revitalising some of the most dispossessed communities on the planet.  [1] Silversides, Ann, ‘The North “like Darfur”’, CMAJ : Canadian Medical; Association Journal, 177(9): pp.1013-1014, 23 October 2007,   [2] The Vancouver Sun, ‘Alberta first nations benefit from oil boom’, Canada.com, 16 December 2008,


Relieving areas of conflict such as the Middle East  Currently the main supplies of oil and gas are from the Middle East with more coming from Africa and in the western hemisphere from Venezuela. These oil producers include many unstable regimes; many of them engaged in appalling human rights abuses against their own citizens. This is because regimes with such natural resources buy off their people meaning there is little accountability. [1] In addition to the obvious ethical issues that are created by continuing to fund brutal regimes that happen to be sitting on billions of barrels of crude, it’s also economically risky to be so much in the pocket of such regimes.  Securing energy security has long been an ambition for much of the West. The Carter Doctrine of 1980 “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States,” was a direct response to the oil shocks of the previous decade. [2] In Canada, the USDA and the Nordic states, the possibility of secure energy is made a reality by the Arctic.  By removing the world’s dependency on regimes such as Saudi Arabia, there is much greater room for manoeuvre when it comes to challenging those regimes records. It would also allow the west in particular to tie themselves to the interests of the peoples of the Middle East rather than to those of their rulers.  [1] Chatelus, Michel, and Scehmeil, Yves, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262  [2] Bacevich, Andrew J., ‘The Carter Doctrine at 30’, World Affairs, 1 April 2010,


There is a growing demand for mineral resources  Improving the lives of its citizens is one of the most important roles of the state. And in terms of improving lives economic growth is usually considered the most important economic goal. [1] And in order to grow cheap fuel is needed. Nuclear energy is still precarious, and expensive, and renewable technologies cannot come close to meeting the existing needs of the west, let alone those of Russia, China, Brazil, India and the rest.  We are confronted with a stark reality – either use new sources of oil and gas while investing in replacement technologies or see a collapse in standards of living and life expectancy around the world.  There is much to be said for less carbon-based economies but we don’t have one yet. Until that option is available, the lights need to be kept on. The area north of the Arctic Circle is thought to contain as much as 160 billion barrels of oil, more than a quarter of the world's undiscovered reserves. [2]  There are costs to exploiting those reserves – some of them environmental – but they pale into insignificance compared with the collapse of the global economy that would result from the projected increases in global oil and gas costs.  [1] ‘53% Say Economic Growth More Important Than Economic Fairness’, Rasmussen Reports, 21 January 2013,   [2] Nakhle, Carole and Shamsutdinova, Inga. Arctic Oil and Gas Resources: Evaluating Investment Opportunities. Oil, Gas & Energy Law Intelligence, vol.10 issue 2, February 2012,


To start with, let’s not believe the line that local communities see this as an unadulterated good – they have very real concerns about the impact on their qualities of life. [1] It’s also untrue that workers elsewhere in the world see this as purely beneficial; many of these workers live with the toxic results of drilling and refining oils and they have expressed their concerns about the health effects. [2] Yes there is increased infrastructure but much of it is not of the sort that benefits communities, like oil pipelines. The one group for whom there is unalloyed joy at this prospect is a small one that comprises the owners and executives of oil companies. If opposition wants to make the case that some people want to keep the money flowing, fine. But at least be honest about who those people are.  [1] Macalister, Terry, ‘Arctic resource wealth poses dilemma for indigenous communities’, The Guardian, 4 July 2011.   [2] Sturgis, Sue, ‘Pollution from oil refinery accidents on the rise in Louisiana.’, Southernstudies.org, 3 December 2012,


Those same studies suggest that individuals do little extra to protect themselves, as they consider sexual offences to be suitably rare that they can plausibly tell themselves it won't happen to them. This is exacerbated by the fact that most sexual offences are committed by someone who the victim knows. If they already know the person, they are likely to consider them a limited threat, as the popular perception of sexual offences is still one of an offence committed by a stranger. Furthermore, people tend to be highly trusting of their own impression of people. Finally, the harms from never engaging with former sex offenders in a community are set out at Opposition Argument TWO.


This helps people protect themselves and their families  People can use the information about the offenders in their area to ensure this. It is especially useful to have a modus operandi; if a local offender is known for typically abducting people walking on their own at night, people can alter their behaviour to ensure they always have company, or get a taxi after dark. More direct measures can be taken, by avoiding contact with that person, or avoiding entering into a close relationship with them. Furthermore, more general measures can be taken to be more vigilant, install better locks, and avoid leaving vulnerable people alone. Some studies1 suggest that there is an increase in measures taken to protect other people where this information is given.  1 Zgoba, K., "Megan's Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy", December 2008,


The option given to the police and victim to not disclose the information undermines the principled claim in Proposition Argument Two that people should be free to determine the importance of the information on their own; this denies them that freedom in some cases. Given cases where there is a risk of vigilantism are the ones which excite the most public feeling, these cases may be the ones which people feel are most important to know about.


This acts as a deterrent.  Knowing that, if they commit an offence, their name, photograph, and a description of their crimes will be widely published deters people from committing the offence in the first place and equally of reoffending. Firstly, this is because there are strong moral norms preventing such behaviour; this policy acts not only to reinforce those moral norms (by clearly designating people who commit such an offence as being worthy of shaming), it also increases the consequences of breaching such norms. Specifically, potential offenders will realise the harm this may cause to their personal relationships, and any future relationships – these are typically things people value, and so people will act to minimise this harm. Further, if someone is willing to commit a sexual offence, it is reasonable to assume they value sexual encounters. Such publication may limit their opportunity to access such encounters in the future, and therefore the policy aims to operate such as to minimise what a person desires should they commit a crime.  It is perhaps useful to compare this deterrent to the deterrent offered by prison. It can be argued that the deterrent of prison is a weak one, because there is an information problem – people do not know how bad prison is. This is exacerbated by media narratives that suggest prison is a soft touch, even the Prison Officers Association in the UK claims jail is too soft. [1] This may be especially true for those of the socioeconomic background who are more likely to commit criminal offences; they are probabilistically poorer and less likely to have a job, so the harms of prison (loss of freedom, harming job prospects) may seem less important.  [1] Knapton, 2008


Firstly, within relationships; a person looking to commit such an offence is unlikely to be deterred because they expect that, because of the existence of the relationship, they will not be convicted of such an offence. Also, sexual offences against a partner are often an expression of a dominating power within a relationship. In such a case, the offender does not expect the offence to be reported due to the control (s)he holds over the victim. As such, the size of the penalty is less important, as they do not expect to receive it.  The second circumstance such offences are committed is against a stranger, typically in public. When a person is willing to act in breach of such clear moral norms, they are less likely to be concerned about this being published broadly, and so the deterrent will be weaker.  These are exacerbated by the fact that many sexual offences are committed in times of passion, where a person’s decision making is focused heavily on the short-term – and so the possibility of a future shaming is not taken into account, and deterrence does not occur.  Finally, it is unrealistic to claim prison is a weak deterrent; the removal of liberty matters to almost everyone, and the difficult conditions of prison are well-known, particularly amongst repeat offenders.


Freedom is not an absolute good; only something that typically advances overall utility, as we understand that people are normally better placed to maximise their utility, being the only ones with knowledge of their desires and values. This, however, is not such a case – as the opposition arguments below suggest, this causes harmful consequences that outweigh any claimed benefits of utility. Furthermore, this area seems to be one where the police are better placed to determine the importance of the information, given their expertise in offending and re-offending , and especially given the tendency on behalf of the public to panic, and place more importance on past convictions than it factually requires.


How this would work  This policy involves an active disclosure campaign, through websites and the newspapers, where a sex offender has their name, their photo, their address and the nature of their crime published on a website, or in the local media. It may include poster campaigns about individuals for particularly serious crimes, with the aim of both informing people and causing shame. It may be sensible to allow the police to not disclose the information in the following circumstances; 1) where a significant risk of vigilantism exists, 2) where it is against the wishes of the victim, and 3) where it may jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation. Early studies showed that Megan's law in the United States had high rates of voluntary compliance, between 70 and 80% and rising, proving that the policy is practical1.  1 Simpson, Rachel, ''Megan's law' and other forms of sex-offender registration', NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, Briefing Paper NBo. 22/99, November 1999,


The state has a duty to maximise freedoms.  All states in some way limit individual freedoms, by requiring them to follow laws and enforcing these laws with the coercive power of the state. However, such limits can be justified in so far as they advance others freedoms; limiting Person A's freedom to kill enhances Person B's freedom to live. States therefore derive their legitimacy to deny freedoms from their advancement of overall freedom. This policy enhances the freedom of people to defend themselves and their family by providing them with information about offenders (see Argument Three), and allows them to determine for themselves the importance of that information1.  1 law.jrank.org, 'Sex Offences


While such an argument may act to limit the value of the deterrent effect, it does not completely remove it; there will remain some additional deterrence to some potential perpetrators of sexual offences. This is because some potential offenders will consider the potential harm to themselves of their action, and a greater potential harm will mean they are less likely to commit these offences.


Clearly, vigilantism is a problem; however, the proviso in the policy should act to limit this, as where there is a threat of harm the information will not be released. Furthermore, it will be possible to offer people under threat police protection. Finally, a strong justice system is likely to limit vigilantism, as people perceive justice as being done, and are therefore less likely to resort to acts of individual violence.


The harms of stigmatization and alienation.  This harm mainly refers to the possibility of re-offending, which occurs in approximately 30% of cases over a six-year period (although note that the figure is for committing any other offence, not another sexual offence)1. When society labels such people in a very public way as criminals, it may be difficult for them to reintegrate in society. This is because people who know of their crimes will be less willing to engage with them, whether they knew them previously or not. Specifically, it will be very difficult for businesses to employ them if they are publically known to have been convicted of a sexual offence, because of the possible public outrage this would cause. Previous offenders are therefore likely to be distanced from society, shunned by old friends, likely to have difficulty in making new friends, and likely to find it difficult to find employment. It may further encourage them to make friends with those with similar backgrounds. This makes them feel outside society, less constrained by its moral norms, and therefore more likely to commit offences. Furthermore, the difficulty of access to employment may make them turn to crime to survive.  Finally, academic literature on stigmatization suggests that for a stigma to prevent reoffending, the stigma needs to be easy to scale up for subsequent offences2; given the blanket nature of this policy, this does not seem possible.  1 Home Office, "Reconviction Rates of Serious Offenders and Assessment of their Risk", 2002, 2 Rasmusen, E., "Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality", September 1996,


Expense.  As alluded to in Counterargument Four above, sexual offences are typically committed within relationships, or by someone the victim knows; around 80% according to some studies1. These proportions are also probably larger, in that rape by an acquaintance is less likely to be reported, as a victim is better able to normalise the incident as a misunderstood sexual interaction.  This indicates that a deterrent effect is less likely to work, because of the lower chance of the offence being reported, and the relative power within any such relationship. The offender is less likely to respond to that deterrent, as they perceive it as so unlikely to occur to them.  1 National Center for Victims of Crime, "Acquaintance Rape", 2008,


Who commits sexual offences?  As alluded to in Counterargument Four above, sexual offences are typically committed within relationships, or by someone the victim knows; around 80% according to some studies1. These proportions are also probably larger, in that rape by an acquaintance is less likely to be reported, as a victim is better able to normalise the incident as a misunderstood sexual interaction.  This indicates that a deterrent effect is less likely to work, because of the lower chance of the offence being reported, and the relative power within any such relationship. The offender is less likely to respond to that deterrent, as they perceive it as so unlikely to occur to them.  1 National Center for Victims of Crime, "Acquaintance Rape", 2008,


Allowing the population to know where sex offenders are would encourage vigilantism.  Vigilantism is a real threat to those publicised as sexual offenders, especially those whose sexual offences involve children. For example, in the UK a vigilante published a database naming almost 10,000 paedophiles1, and some misdirected vigilante attacks have been committed against those with no criminal convictions, such as a paediatrician2.  Therefore, there is the possibility of harm occurring in that offenders who have served the punishment the justice system feels is adequate being subjected to further punishment and violence. Furthermore, there is the possibility of mistakes being made and people being subject to violence for no reason.  1 The Telegraph, "Internet vigilante publishes database naming 10,000 paedophiles", November 2010, 2 The Independent, "Vigilante mob attacks home of paediatrician", August 2000,


Firstly, given the low % of offenders who commit serious crimes within 6 years is around 10%1, this seems like it may be a marginal issue.  Furthermore, it seems unlikely that people who already know someone will stop associating with them merely because of their stigmatization. Family, for example, tend to be very forgiving, as are close friends, who are likely to believe their long-term view of somebody is more accurate and to forgive a mistake. Such people will be able to ensure a person is not alienated from all society.  This may also be a benefit; if an offender has a tendency to commit sexual offences within relationships, it may be useful to limit his relationships (or at least warn their partner of such a tendency), such that this is not likely to occur again.  Finally, it can be shown that if this policy does increase the deterrent effect to first-time offenders, this may be more important. This is because some people will be prevented from ever being imprisoned, associating with other prisoners, and acquiring a criminal record


How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is?


Restrictions reach out to the general population  A ban or high restrictions is a good measure to diminish the effects of smoking in society, because unlike the spreading of information (which is usually done by schools / clubs), governmental restrictions or a total ban will ensure the access of measures to the whole population. Through a ban on advertisement or higher taxation those citizens not involved in active educational structures get educated about the problem.  Studies on the ban of advertisements show that bans actually contribute great amounts to the reduction of smokers. "The tobacco industry employs predatory marketing strategies to get young people hooked to their addictive drug," said Dr Douglas Bettcher, Director of WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative. "But comprehensive advertising bans do work, reducing tobacco consumption by up to 16% in countries that have already taken this legislative step."1  So because these measures can drastically decrease smoking when other measures have failed, the state is right to impose bans on advertisement, higher prices or any other measures.  1 The Times of Malta, more public scrutiny of tobacco industry, published 01/18/2011


While a government has a responsibility to protect its population, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves - for example, dangerous sports such as rock-climbing, parachuting or motor-racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health-threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.  As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. But people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them. A better comparison is to unhealthy foods. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allowed to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods - both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks.


Restrictions benefit the health of third parties  This argument is built on the premise that a ban or higher taxation in practice will lead to less smokers, especially protecting the families of smokers and other non-smoking citizens from potential health risks and premature death.  Smoking also has wider effects, not simply restricted to smokers themselves. So-called 'passive smoking' is becoming an important issue: in a smoke-filled environment, non-smokers are also exposed to the risks associated with tobacco. Especially when it comes to homes and families there is a high likelihood of "passive smoking". Research suggests that partners of smokers have an increased chance of developing lung cancer, even if they do not use tobacco products. Recent research even shows, that according to the Journal Archives of Pediatrics, children living in households of smokers are more prone to mental illness, depression and attention deficit disorder (ADHD)1.  So because restrictions on smoking prevent harm risks to families of smokers and third parties we should highly regulate or ban them.  1 Anits M. Schimizzi, 'Special Editorial: Smoke Signals How Second Hand Smoke Can Impact Your Child's Mental Health, Child-Psych, 10 August 2011, accessed 6 September 2011


First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes.  Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer.  Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option.


The state has to take measures to protect the health of its citizens  There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year1 - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 5 million people die from smoking each year2 - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.  In a democracy the people elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time, are well equipped to make a better and more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. Therefore one of the principles is, that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. That is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking or limit with different means the usage of tobacco - an activity which kills millions of people each year.  Precedent is that if a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned or very harshly regulated.  1 Cancer Action Network, Help Fight Tobacco and Save Lives, 2 Ash.Research report, Tobacco: Global trends, August 2007,


Smoking is not a real choice, as nicotine is an addictive drug - in fact; recent allegations suggest that tobacco companies deliberately produce the most addictive cigarettes they can.  Up to 90% of smokers begin when they are below the age of 181, often due to peer pressure; once addicted, continuing to smoke is no longer an issue of freedom of choice, but of chemical compulsion. Like other addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine, tobacco should be banned since this is the only way to force people to quit. Most smokers say that they want to kick the habit


People often express concern about taxes harming the poor, since they are both most likely to smoke and the least able to afford it. But when tobacco prices are kept low, more poor people use tobacco, and thus waste more of their money on it. In Bangladesh, as prices have remained low over the years, per capita spending on tobacco has increased. While raising taxes may harm some poor individuals who are unable to quit, in many situations this problem is alleviated by the existence of alternate low-cost tobacco products. To the degree that these are minimally advertised and unpalatable, they may be a resource to the addicted while being unlikely to attract the uninitiated. In addition, if the policy benefits a large number of poor smokers but harms a few, then the decision may have to be made to tolerate the harm in order to benefit the many.  Negative effects can be addressed through programs to help the poor quit, or to subsidize a food substance generally consumed only by the poorest1.  1 PATH Canada and Work for a Better Bangladesh, Tobacco and Poverty,


Democratic systems should educate on smoking rather than restrict it  The principle of democracy is to let people make their decisions and to ensure, that the decisions they make are as informed as possible. Due to the maximization of an individual's happiness the government should only have the possibility to give information to their citizens and let them all decide, how they want to make use of their freedom of choice.  One of the options is a targeted campaign against smoking and information on smoking harms. Actually, the National Bureau for Economic research states that there has not been enough investment in counteradvertising, which is designed to reduce consumption and also fits into the framework of a response function."The counteradvertising response function slopes downward and is subject to diminishing marginal product. The levels of counteradvertising that have been undertaken are small in comparison to advertising. The empirical work finds evidence that counteradvertising does reduce consumption."1  So before limiting the citizens freedoms the state should try the "soft line" with informing their citizens.  1 Henry Saffer, The Effect of Advertising on Tobacco and Alcohol Consumption, The National Bureau for Economic Research, published Winter 2004,


This will open up a black market  The lesson of prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s was that banning a recreational drug used by a large proportion of the population merely leads to crime and contraband.  A case of this is India, where the contraband trade of cigarettes consists of the international brands that are smuggled into India and the duty evaded cigarettes manufactured domestically by small and unscrupulous manufacturers. "With steep duty increases over the last few years this segment has grown exponentially," the Tobacco Institute of India states1.  Not only is there a case to be made for a flourishing black market, countries lose with this control over the products and can harm their citizens even more with not controlling the consumed substances.  1 Ashish Sinha, High tax on cigarettesmaking contraband market flourish, The Financial Express, published 11/05/2010,


Smoking is a choice of lifestyle the government should not intervene with  Freedom of choice is what differentiates democracies from dictatorships, autocracies or any other form of government. It goes by the principle, that the individual is free to do, whatever he or she wants, as long as this choice does not limit the freedom of choice, bodily integrity or any other human right of another individual in society.  This also applies to smoking. While the law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally it should not stop those taking risks themselves.  The state allows individuals to make lifestyle choices that endanger their life all the time. Because there is not difference between smoking and the other life endangering activities, banning or severely regulating smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.


Regulation harms safety and the poor population  Cigarettes are so common that there is hardly any chance all the people will stop. What will happen is that policies, regarding tobacco regulation or banning will mainly restrict the possibilities of the poor.  In 2009, in the US, a law to triple the federal excise tax on cigarettes was signed, which meant that the federal tax on cigarette jumped from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 today. The administration projects, that such a "sin tax" will bring in at least $38 billion over the next five years. Smokers, usually coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds (getting welfare, unemployment or disability checks instead of paychecks) still pay the whole cigarette tax, while they do not get the same amount of funding as others. Anyone concerned about widening income inequality should have second thoughts about this distribution of the tax burden1. Effectively this means, that while a higher financial burden might not cause problems to high and middle class smokers, it will cause the poor smoker, to either limit the freedom of choice by not buying cigarettes or either make sure other necessities, such as food, other supplies will not be provided. In fact researchers estimate that in Bangladesh 10.5 million people are going hungry and 350 children are dying each day due to diversion of money from food to tobacco2.  The current situation is that poor turn to "shag" or rolling tobacco for self-made cigarettes, which may then be more harmful as the state cannot control it's ingredients as thorough or in the end even turn to the black market of tobacco farmers, where there is no control


Most people who smoke tobacco are law-abiding normal citizens who would like to stop. They would not resort to criminal or black-market activities if cigarettes were no longer legally available - they would just quit. Banning smoking would make this happen and massively lighten the burden on health resources of the countries in which it was banned. The reason why such actions may have happened in India was probably poor regulation of the market or mainly poor execution of already set out rules. Something that is easily preventable in Westernized countries.


Rather than the state pouring money into campaigns, they should spend it on other more important things, such as improving the health system, infrastructure or other, more important things.  The UK Department of Health doubled its media spending from less than


The ban is unnecessary because it will prove to be useless. Although the Bloomberg-appointed Board of Health gave their rubber stamp of approval to Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal, several board members voiced their apprehension of the ban and its effectiveness. Board member, Dr. Michael Phillips brought up the fact that the ban unfairly targeted establishments regulated by the city because those regulated by the state—7-Elevens and grocery stores—would continue selling larger sodas. The ban also focuses on sugary drinks alone. [1] "We're really looking at restricting portion size, so the argument could be…what about the size of a hamburger or the jumbo fries, and all that kind of stuff?” The mayor himself said in the MSNBC interview that the goal was to target portion size. [2] Yet, somebody can easily buy four 16-ounce drinks and be worse for it. The people could also pass the deli and patronize the grocery store for large sodas, affecting the Deli’s business while still maintaining high sugar intake. The ban would be useless in fighting obesity because there are too many easily accessed loopholes and as it stands now, would just be a major inconvenience.  [1] Saul, Michael Howard, ‘City Drinks Plan Questioned’, The Wall Street Journal, 12 June 2012.  [2] Briggs, Bill, and Flam, Lisa, ‘Bloomberg defends soda ban plan: We’re not taking away your freedoms’, Health on Today, 1 July 2012.


The ban is necessary to confront the growing problem of obesity in NYC.  Although rising obesity levels in the city have been a major issue in New York City recently, any measures already enacted have failed to curb the growing numbers of obese New Yorkers. The Bronx has the largest percentage of overweight adults, a staggering 70 percent; the other four boroughs also have seen increases in the past decade. Sixty-two percent of Staten Island adults are overweight; followed by Brooklyn, at 60 percent; Queens, at 57 percent; and Manhattan, at 47 percent, according to city health data. [1] The New York City Department of Health has enacted several programs promoting healthier living such as health fares in low-income areas and the Adopt A Bodega initiative, through which local bodegas or small delis and groceries agree to sell produce from family-owned, local farms, providing healthier foods to New Yorkers for reasonable prices. But the results, or rather lack of them, show that education and access are not enough. [2] As Mayor Bloomberg has argued, the ban will have an effect because it follows the principle that if some people have smaller portions given to them, they will consequently drink less. The Mayor doesn’t hope to prevent all people from drinking soda. In fact he emphasizes that this ban wouldn’t come close to restricting personal freedoms because people would still be free to order however much soda they would like. The customers would simply have to be served multiple containers. [3] This is not going to eradicate excessive sugar-intake, however a study by Dr. Brian Elbel, an assistant professor of population health and health policy at NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York City, determined that 62% of drinks bought at restaurants were over the size limit and the result would be that the average consumer would take in 63 fewer calories per trip to a fast-food restaurant [4] .  [1] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012.  [2] ’New York City Healthy Bodegas Initiative 2010 Report’, NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and NYC Center for Economic Opportunity.  [3] Briggs, Bill, and Flam, Lisa, ‘Bloomberg defends soda ban plan: We’re not taking away your freedoms’, Health on Today, 1 July 2012.  [4] Jaslow, Ryan, ‘Research finds NYC soda ban would cut 63 calories per fast food trip: Would that have any impact?’, CBS News, 24 July 2012.


There is no obligation on the city to protect citizens from their own choices. Citizens are responsible for their own bodies including what they eat and drink. Making any part of government responsible for this would mean a need for much more regulation on almost anything that would protect lives. In this case it would require a much tougher response than simply a partial ban that only affects large drinks. Moreover if there is such an obligation why is it the obligation of the city while the state does not have such an obligation with regards to 7-11s?


There is precedent of paternalistic government policies in NYC.  The principle of paternalism, that the state may interfere with another person, against their will, with the motivation of protecting that person from harm, [1] underlines a wide range of policies and laws across the United States, and there is already a precedent for such paternalistic laws particularly within New York City. New York City, under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, has enacted regulations on smoking, restaurants’ use of salt and trans fats. Laws prohibiting marijuana, cocaine, and other potentially harmful drugs are made with the goal to protect citizens. Seatbelt laws and the prohibition of cell phone use while driving all infringe upon a person’s freedom of choice but have been accepted for their inherent positive causation meaning there will be less deaths and injuries in accidents. Paternalistic policies are made to maintain the public’s safety and well-being with the assumption that the government “knows best.” Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on soda sold in containers larger than 16 ounces targets the growing problem of obesity in New York City. Although obesity has been a popular topic of discussion in the City, there has been negligible advancement in weight-loss. This growing problem shows that education is not enough to incentivize people to control themselves. Dr. Donald Klein writes, “A fleeting, short-term self that enjoys chocolate, nicotine, or heroin is working his will on an enduring self that pays the cost. Although we may fancy ourself a fully integrated and consistent being, it might make more sense to describe ourself as a bundle of multiple selves, selves that overlap, intermingle, and sometimes conflict”. [2] That more than 50% of New Yorkers are overweight shows the people do not recognize their own long term interests. [3] Mayor Bloomberg’s goal is to limit soda consumption of the population. He has the wellbeing of New Yorkers in mind and he is following a precedent that people need guidance in personal choices.  [1] Dworkin, Gerald, ‘Paternalism’, in Edward N. Zalta e., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2010.  [2] Klein, Daniel B., ‘The Moral Consequences of Paternalism’, Ideas on Liberty, May 1994.  [3] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012.


The ethical implications of paternalism are that the government is taking away personal freedoms because the government presumes that it “knows best” for the population. Paternalism inherently assumes that individuals cannot be trusted to make its own decisions. Personal freedom, however, is a cornerstone of the United States; The Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee individual’s freedoms, limit the role of government, and reserve power to the people. [1] A competent person’s freedoms should never be infringed upon, even for that person’s own good. John Stuart Mill wrote, “. . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right, absolute, over himself. Over his own body-mind, the individual is sovereign”. [2] The paternalistic policies cited by the proposition that apparently set a precedent for this ban on soda are not good comparisons. Smoking bans for example are paternalistic in nature yet are morally acceptable because smoking not only harms the person but also those surrounding the smoker through passive smoking. Henry David Thoreau was quoted in saying "[If] . . . a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life". [3] No government can be sure that their policies are what are universally right for its people; this should be left for the individual to decide.  [1] McAffee, Thomas B., and Bybee, Jay S., ‘Powers reserved for the people and the states: a history of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments’, Praeger Publishers, Westport, 2006, P.2  [2] Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, 1859.  [3] Andre, Claire, and Velasquez, Manuel, ‘For Your Own Good’, Issues in Ethics, Vol.4, No.2, Fall 1991.


The City has the obligation to protect its citizenry  Thomas Jefferson said “the purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness”. [1] As an elected government led by Mayor Bloomberg, the government of New York City is obligated to lead the city in a positive direction. In Bloomberg’s case it was among his campaign promises “To achieve the biggest public health gains in the nation” and given his record with the smoking ban this kind of proposal is the obvious way to achieve such a goal. [2] as the Soda ban is not an infringement upon personal rights but a necessary public health measure. The ban on large sodas does not prohibit the consumption of soda, it simply impedes negative choices for poor nutrition. [3] The City has an obligation to promote healthy living as a form of keeping its citizenry safe and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clearly states ‘Ourmission is to protect and promote the health of all New Yorkers’. [4] “Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’” but Mayor Bloomberg said, “New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something.” The mayor continued by including how he viewed his duty: "I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.” [5]  [1] Thomas Jefferson quoted by Hughes, David, ‘Ed Miliband doesn’t seem to know what government is for’, The Telegraph, 17 March 2010.  [2] Paybarah, Azi, ‘Bloomberg Envisions 2013, Thompson Sees Empty Promises’, The New York Observer, 26 October 2009.  [3] Park, Alice, ‘The New York City Soda Ban, and a Brief History of Bloomberg’s Nudges’, Time, 31 May 2012.  [4] ‘About the NYC DOHMH’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  [5] Grynbaum, Michael M., ‘New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks’, The New York Times, 30 May 2012.


First how democratic the governance of the city is does not detract from the right of the city government to restrict the size of soda drinks. The system of government has not been changed in order enact this particular regulation. Second it must be remembered that Mayor Bloomberg himself was elected. He was elected to a third term with 51% of the vote compared to 46% for his Democratic rival. [1] To be elected for a third time in a Democrat stronghold gives him a good deal of electoral legitimacy.  [1] Goldman, Henry, ‘Bloomberg Wins Third NYC Mayor Term Beats Comptroller Thompson’, Bloomberg, 4 November 2009.


Freedom of choice is not absolute; it does not mean the consumer should be free to buy whatever they want from wherever they want. For example there is no expectation for restaurants and stores to always have both Pepsi and Coca Cola. In this instance freedom of choice in terms of size is not absolute; there is the freedom to have as much soda as the consumer desires they simply have to buy it in smaller portions. Arguing that representatives’ not being able to choose whether to enact this legislation is also restriction of choice ignores that Bloomberg himself is an elected politician that was chosen by the people.


The Ban Would Be a Barrier to Free Enterprise  The proposal for this ban on large sodas would only affect businesses regulated by the NYC Board of Health. Restaurants, delis, food carts, and concession stands at theaters and stadiums would be affected because they are considered Food Service Establishments (FSEs). The ban would exclude grocery stores, 7-Eleven’s, and other establishments that are not considered FSE’s but are regulated by the State. Consequently, the ban cause the FSE to face repercussions as they would have to serve less soda (the goal of the ban), but also this selective, non-universal ban could encourage consumers to patronize other establishments where they would not be affected by the ban. There is currently a level of demand for large sodas in the market, but the ban would place a barrier on that whole sector of the market. It would be the government directly impeding free enterprise by providing different sets of rules for competing stores. In addition, New Yorkers would be encouraged to report violating establishments that would receive $200 fines. [1] It would be unfortunate to hurt businesses for a ban that wouldn’t necessarily be effective in its main goal to curb obesity because of the multiple blatant loopholes.  [1] ‘From Supersized to Human-Sized: Reintroducing Reasonable Portions of Sugary Drinks in New York City’, NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Briefing, 12 June 2012.


It is undemocratic to have the law pass through the board of health.  While the City has the right to exercise its abilities within the law to protect and aid New Yorkers, it must do so as a democratic body representing its constituents. The soda ban, whether it would actually do anything to curb obesity, is wrong because it isn’t representative of the people. Councilman Dan Halloran spoke at the ‘Million Gulp March’ in protest of the ban: “Mr. Mayor, if you want to make a law, go through your legislature, and make the law. Do not try to backdoor it through an administrative agency that is unaccountable to the people.” [1] Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to pass this ban without the input or approval of the people is undemocratic. The New York City Health Department is an eleven-person committee appointed by the Mayor. [2] Thus, there is a large risk of Mayor Bloomberg exercising his personal will through this branch without any regulation. The proposed soda ban would be a fiat with the rubber stamp of approval from the Board of Health, but no citizen input.  [1] Arkin. James, ‘Councilman Halloran: Bloomberg ‘Missing Boat About Liberty’ With Soda Ban’, The Daily News, 11 July 2012.  [2] ‘Board of Health’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2012.


The Soda Ban is an infringement upon the personal right to choose  Although the soda ban is not a blanket prohibition of sugary drinks, the proposed ban impedes the public’s right to choose. ‘Big Government’ has become an important issue to many who view the extensive array of government regulations and laws as excessively interventionist and intruding. [1] By Mayor Bloomberg proposing this ban, he continues a trend of the government curbing citizens’ rights to choose, and interfering in the personal lives of its citizenry. The government has no right to be restricting the size of someone’s portions, this is the government regulating one’s diet. This ban inherently affects the consumer’s right to choose because it is prevents the choice of a larger size of soda. The Mayor hopes to influence New Yorkers’ choices toward better nutrition.  Moreover Mayor Bloomberg’s method is not through a representative legislative body but through his personally appointed Board of Health (2), [2] the people have therefore been denied their right to choose, through their representatives, whether this legislation should be allowed.  [1] ‘big government’, British & World English dictionary, Oxford university Press.  [2] ‘Board of Health’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2012.


There are only slight price differences between 34 and 18-ounce sodas. McDonalds and Coca-Cola corporations were pushing independent franchises to lower the price of sodas to one dollar. [1] While the goal of the ban is to cut down the consumption of soda, the government has the right to put their citizens’ health needs above free enterprise. The non-universality of the ban is unfortunate but this ban is merely a small step in the direction of curbing obesity rates. The fact that restaurants will not be able to serve gigantic portions of soda will not push New Yorkers from eating at those restaurants to eating their meals at 7-Elevens. These are clearly two separate markets; one for purchasing drinks the other for consuming them with meals. It is therefore wrong to conclude that this is any kind of barrier to free enterprise.  [1] Ziobro, Paul, ‘McDonald's Bets Pricing Drinks At $1 Will Heat Up Summer Sales’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 March 2012.


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.


Making it easier for parents to raise their children well.  As well meaning as parents may be in trying to guide their kids toward better nutritional choices, they face a formidable opponent: the fast food marketing machine that spends over 4 billion dollars on advertising a year, much of it targeted directly at kids [1] . This can create enough ‘pester power’ [2] from the kids themselves, seduced by the toy that comes with the meal, that it can persuade parents to make bad choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. By eliminating at least one layer of negative pressure, this law would help parents make those healthy choices that they already know are best.  [1] Philpott, Tom. “The fast-food industry’s 4.2 billion marketing blitz.” Grist. November 10. 2010.   [2] “San Francisco Happy meal Toy Ban Takes Effect, Sidestepped by McDonald’s.” Huffington Post. November 2011.


It is important to instil good habits in children at an early age. But the manner in which it is done is equally important. Kids should be taught to make choices based on what is best for them, through information and appropriate explanations, rather than just being shielded from potential dangers. That kind of behaviour, predicated on reason and understanding, will have a far more lasting impact on the way they make choices, than just protecting them from temptation, with which they will inevitably have to cope later in life.


Marketing aimed at children should be subject to strict regulations.  Unlike adults, children are not able to make healthy decisions for themselves. They don’t understand what calories, sodium content, or saturated fats are. They are unable to comprehend the long-term effects that fast food might have on their health and development. On the other hand, a toy is instantly appealing to them and offers a straightforward incentive to opt for such a meal. As long as the negative consequences cannot be explained to kids in a clear and compelling manner, we should not make unhealthy food even more desirable for them. We should not allow children to make bad choices based on information they don’t understand [1] .  [1] Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “Fast Food FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.” Yale University. November 2010.


Children may have a strong preference for a certain type of meal over another, but young kids don’t buy their own food. Parents do. And if kids might not understand that fast food is bad for them, their parents should. If a child is eating too much fast food, that is not a marketing success, it’s a parenting failure.


Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.


Bad nutrition habits start during childhood.  Giving away toys with meals that are calorie laden and of poor nutritional quality creates an emotional attachment between the child and fast food [1] . This bond will then follow that child into adulthood, making it harder for her to make better nutritional choices in order to become a healthy individual. This ban would break that bond and make it easier for children to grow up to be healthier adults.  [1] Storm, Stephanie. “McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal.” The New York Times. July 26, 2011.


Obesity is a public health issue .  All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost. [1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems [2] . A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults.  [1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011,   [2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006.


While McDonald’s may have found a way to circumvent the ban, the significant pressure that was applied to them in the process led the company to improve the quality of the Happy Meal, by providing clients with fresh fruit and healthier drink options. Therefore, the ban could be considered a success.


This is not exactly a ban on the sale of fast food to children. This ban does not affect the options of bad foods that parents can continue to feed to their young children if they choose to do so. They will even be able to continue buying happy meals – simply without the toy. It merely alters the incentives slightly toward promoting better, healthier choices by making fast food less appealing.


The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity.  Studies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal [1] .  [1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011.


Such bans are easy to side step.  The San Francisco ban has already been circumvented by McDonalds who has started selling their Happy Meals without the toys and then selling the toys separately for a nominal price [1] . Banning the sale of any toys in fast food restaurants would be difficult without prompting legal action from the companies. The steep legal costs of defending such a law would waste public resources that could easily be put to better use.  [1] Eskenazi, Joe. “Happy Meal Ban. McDonlad’s Outsmarts San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. November 29, 2011.


This ban constitutes serious governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.  Parents, not politicians, should be responsible for guiding the choices their children make and the food they eat, especially when they pay for it with their own money. Parents may have other reasons for wanting their children to have the meal with a toy, for example the toy is a useful distraction for the child. Governments should not try to impose their own idea of what constitutes appropriate food choices for children on parents and on businesses. Governments may aim to promote and educate, but imposing bans on private businesses goes too far [1] .  [1] Martinez, Michael. “Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys.” CNN. November 13 2010.


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.


The problem with studies that claim to prove there is no harm with multiple vaccines, are that they are studies that are firstly based on ethical restrictions. A test that would conclusively prove the harm of multiple vaccines would require deliberately denying certain children inoculation. Secondly, they monitor only the general population (in preliminary studies they exclude certain risk groups) and in studies after the administration of vaccines usually contribute some of the negative results to other environmental factors.  Studies are therefore in no way conclusive and do not disprove fully the claim that there is no harm connected with multiple vaccines.


Multiple vaccines cause no harm  Despite fears to the contrary, multiple vaccines cause no harm. Being given immunization in many cases means that people receive a weakened virus. Many believe that because of this they will have a weakened immune system and also suffer from long term body harm. The evidence suggests this is not the case, and that combined vaccinations cause no adverse harm in the vast majority of cases.  A University of Louisiana study, in which more than 1,000 children underwent in-depth neuropsychological tests after receiving a series of vaccinations, found that ‘there was no evidence of neurodevelopmental delays or deficits associated with on-time vaccination’. [1]  Further, multiple vaccinations, which ensure not only that children get their vaccinations but that they do so as quickly as possible, are associated with ‘improved performance’ compared with a control group that received the vaccinations individually and therefore more slowly [2] . Therefore, not only are multiple vaccines harmless, they are a better choice for parents hoping to ensure their children are inoculated from certain diseases.  This is nothing but scare-mongering by the press. No evidence exists that there is a link between MMR or any multiple vaccine and the development of autism. Pseudo-experts are exploiting the pain of families that have children which have this unfortunate disease. They should be ashamed of themselves.  [1] KevinMd.com, Multiple vaccines in infants are harmful, a theory disproved  , accessed 06/13/2011  [2] KevinMd.com, Multiple vaccines in infants are harmful, a theory disproved  , accessed 06/13/2011


Even though major science research has shown that there is no link between syndromes such as autism and multiple vaccinations, a major aspect proponents of the theory claim is the ingredient “Mercury”, that may cause many of the problems for brain cells and other behavioral functions. For example according to a study, Mercury that is present in MMR “readily crosses the blood-brain barrier, preferentially targets nerve cells and nerve fiber and degrades them”. [1]  [1] David Thower, A review of evidence between Vaccination and regressive autism, NTL World  , accessed 06/13/2011


Multiple vaccines serve millions with improved immunity  Multiple vaccines do the job of individual vaccines, but more efficiently and faster. Vaccines work because our body has a natural defense system called the immune system. The immune system recognizes foreign bodies such as viruses and bacteria and creates antibodies to destroy them. Once your immune system has had contact with a particular virus or bacteria it knows how to protect the body against it. Vaccines use the body’s ability to do this to help protect us against diseases that may otherwise be deadly. Vaccines contains part of the virus or disease and when injected stimulate the body to create antibodies to fight and neutralize the disease.  Multiple vaccines specifically are more efficient in delivering such vaccines than separate, individual injections. Combined vaccines reduce the number of necessary injections by a third, meaning less pain and less possible side-effects. Combined vaccines also reduce the time that children are at risk from the diseases being vaccinated against, leading directly to fewer cases of such diseases in the population [1] . The MMR combined vaccine, for example, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella, has led to an ‘all-time low’ number of children catching these diseases since being introduced in the United Kingdom [2] .  Let us be absolutely clear. The alternative to multiple vaccinations are single vaccinations, which take time and expose risk. Undoubtedly children’s lives have been endangered or lost for a completely fictional harm.  [1] Bupa, Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, January 2010,  , accessed 13/07/2011  [2] NHS Choices, Introduction,  , accessed 13/07/11


While multiple vaccines serve many, there are great concerns for individual members of society. This is why the United States government, for example, has established the “Vaccine Injury Compensation Funds”. The mission of these funds is that: “The VICP was established to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.” [1]  The compensations are given, according to the HRSA to victims of the following vaccinations:  “Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP, DTaP, Tdap, DT, Td, or TT), Haemophilus nfluenza type b (Hib), Hepatitis A (HAV), Hepatitis B (HBV), Human papillomavirus (HPV), Influenza (TIV, LAIV) [given each year during the flu season], Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR, MR, M, R), Meningococcal (MCV4, MPSV4), Polio (OPV or IPV), Pneumococcal conjugate (PCV), Rotavirus (RV), Varicella (VZV), Any combination of the vaccines above, Additional vaccines may be added in the future.” [2]  Many of the vaccinations listed above are multiple vaccines. From this we can conclude, that many of them are not safe for each individual that gets vaccine.  [1] Health Resources and Service Administration, IVCP program,  , accessed 06/11/2011  [2] Health Resources and Service Administration, IVCP program,  , accessed 06/11/2011


The problem with current testing is that, while they provide some control groups usually those with rare reactions are not included in trials (because it may represent even less than 1 % of the population in a country). So even though there is deliberate screening for rare reactions, it is very likely that such events do not even get detected. The policy is that if serious reactions are found when the vaccine is in widespread use, the vaccine may be withdrawn. But by then it has made already damage and endangered human lives.  Further on, due to ethical concerns vaccine trials may deliberately exclude members of high risk groups and so prevent conclusive consequences for those groups. So while vaccines may be safe for the general population, they represent a high risk for parts of the population for which trials have not been done due to different reasons. [1]  [1] Why it is important to monitor vaccine safety, Center for disease control and Prevention,  , accessed 07/10/2011


Multiple vaccines do not cause autism  In 1998, Dr, Andrew Wakefield started a big campaign against multiple vaccinations, when his research, published in The Lancet (a medical journal) a study on how MMR jabs increase the likelihood of children for autism. Because it was published in a well-known magazine it was considered a reliable source.  Since then several studies (31 according to the NHS) disproved the claims made by a study. They’ve proven there is no link between MMR vaccinations and autism. [1]  Further on the World Health Organisation explained in 2003, that autism, especially in countries with high vaccination rates has not increased. The WHO states, that: “Autistic spectrum disorder represents a continuum of cognitive and neurobehavioral disorders including autism. The prevalence of autism varies considerably with case ascertainment, ranging from 0.7 – 21.1 per 10 000 children, with autistic spectrum disorder estimated to be 1 – 6 per 1000.” [2]  Based on that evidence we see, that not more children became autistic because of the vaccination and that on scientific grounds there is no found linkage between autism and multiple vaccination.  [1] NHS: Ruling on doctor in MMR scare, January 2010  , accessed 06/13/2011  [2] World Health Organization, MMR and Autism, published 01/23/2003  , accessed 06/13/2011


All vaccinations are tested rigorously before they are approved, and tracked afterwards  All vaccinations are tested rigorously before they are approved for use. As vaccinations represent an important and potential harmful intrusion in an individual’s body, it is very important that they are safe. This is especially clear when governments decide to make immunization obligatory; they have to be sure they administer to their citizens safe vaccinations.  Based on the increase in the number of compulsory vaccinations in different countries, many governments have also stocked up on the funding of vaccination controlling of offered immunization treatments. Such stockpiling would only occur if they were confident that the vaccines have passed through a rigorous testing process.  Furthermore, even after being approved, organizations exist, like the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, as a center for tracking adverse events related to specific vaccines. If the events classified as serious are reported regularly for a specific vaccine, the vaccine can be subject to further study [1] .  [1] Why it is important to monitor vaccine safety, Center for disease control and Prevention,  , accessed 07/10/2011


The mere fact pharmaceutical companies make profits from their vaccines is not evidence of anything other than innovation and sound economics. It wouldn’t matter how hard pharmaceutical companies wanted people to believe vaccines were safe, if they were harmful, the evidence would be quickly apparent. The fact only a few people have been compensated for damages resulting from vaccines is testament not to the will of pharmaceutical companies to deny the ill effects of their vaccines, but rather proof that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the vaccines are safe and effective.


The American board of Pediatricians states that: “Studies on the diversity of antigen receptors indicate that the immune system has the capacity to respond to extremely large numbers of antigens. Current data suggest that the theoretical capacity determined by diversity of antibody variable gene regions would allow for as many as 109 to 1011 different antibody specificities. But this prediction is limited by the number of circulating B cells and the likely redundancy of antibodies generated by an individual.”  And further on, the board explains that: “If vaccines overwhelmed or weakened the immune system, then one would expect lesser immune responses when vaccines are given at the same time as compared with when they are given at different times. However, the following vaccines induce similar humoral immune responses when given at the same or different times:  1) MMR and varicella  2) MMR, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), and OPV  3) hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus, and OPV  4) influenza and pneumococcus  5) MMR, DTP-Hib, and varicella  6) MMR and Hib and 7) DTP and Hib  Achieving similar immune responses by giving vaccines at the same time at different sites may be more easily accomplished than by combining vaccines in the same syringe. Challenges to giving many vaccines in a single injection are based partly on incompatibilities of agents used to buffer or stabilize individual vaccines. [1]  [1] Offit Paul, Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?, 01/01/2002,  , accessed 06/01/2011


Cases prove that vaccines have bad consequences for children’s health  Human bodies are different and react to drugs differently. Especially when there is not just one foreign substance, but let us say 24 of them given to a human body over a period of time, there is increased risk that at least one of the substances may cause damage to the body. The drugs can damage an individual for life.  The case of Robert Fletcher can be used as an example (reported by the Telegraph): “The seizure occurred ten days after the vaccination. Robert is severely disabled as a result of vaccination. Mrs Fletcher said: “Robert is nearly 19 but mentally he is like a 14-month-old toddler. He can’t stand unaided and he is doubly incontinent. He can’t speak except to say ‘Hi, Mum’ or ‘Hi, Daddy’.” [1]  Robert Fletcher is not the only one with such severe symptoms and worse is that physicians never can be sure what the outcome will be. So multiple vaccines are dangerous, as they have no predicted outcome (because people’s response to vaccinations are varied) but, in a minority of cases, they present with very severe consequences.  [1] Heidi Blake, Man disabled by MMR vaccine awarded 90 000 after 13-year fight, 08/30/2010  , accessed 05/31/2011


Pharmaceutical companies want people to believe it’s safe  The vaccination market is large and very profitable; as such, pharmaceutical companies have an interest in and the clout required to ensure that vaccines that are harmful are not reported as such. Up to the year 2003 manufacturers' profits on vaccinations have risen as the average cost to fully immunize a child at a private physician's office has climbed 243% since 1986, from $107 to $367. The most prominent beneficiaries have been the two producers who dominate the U.S. market for DPT and polio vaccines, Connaught Laboratories ($300 million in U.S. sales last year) and Wyeth-Lederle Vaccines & Pediatrics ($350 million). U.S. revenues for both companies have increased 300% since 1986, estimates David Molowa, international pharmaceutical analyst at the Wall Street investment firm Bear Stearns. In the same time only a few people have been compensated for the loss or impairment of their children due to vaccines. [1]  Further on in the document: “Vaccines get the full story”: The same people who make rules and recommendations about vaccination profit from vaccine sales. For example, Dr. Julie Gerberding, who was in charge of the CDC for eight years, is now the President of Merck Vaccines. Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), developed and patented his own vaccine. [2]  These organizations and beneficiaries have a vested interest in ensuring that their vaccinations appear publicly as safe and harmless.  [1] Whale Magazine, The lethal dangers of billion-dollar vaccine business with government approval, drug companies sell vaccines that leave your child brain damaged, can spread polio from your baby to you and can even kill,  accessed 06/13/2011  [2] International Medical Council on Vaccination, Vaccines get the full story,  , accessed 06/13/2011


More vaccines together destroy the immune system  Giving just one vaccination shot to a body means injecting in it a virus. The subsequent process is justified as follows, using the example of a polio vaccination: “The vaccine is a clear, colorless sterile suspension for subcutaneous injection. IPV contains strains of the 3 types of polioviruses (Types 1, 2, and 3). After some time has passed, produces protective antibodies in the blood (serum immunity)” as stated by Brown University. [1] So by this logic, the more vaccines are combined and given together the more viruses are induced to the body of a child. This could potentially cause a weakened immune system if the antibodies did not form as expected.  Dr. Neustaeder Randal states that in 1996 a study (published in the New England Journal of Medicine) found out that the tetanus vaccine, for example, disables the immune system in HIV patients. Tetanus vaccination produced a drop in T cells (cells which should protect the body from any dieseases) in 10 of 13 patients, a classic sign of immune deficiency. HIV viral replication increased dramatically in response to tetanus vaccine. Finally, white blood cells from 7 of 10 uninfected individuals became more susceptible to HIV infection following tetanus vaccination. [2]  This demonstrates, for some, a connection between a weakened immune system and vaccination. This connection would only be exacerbated with multiple vaccinations.  [1] Vaccine Strategies, Brown University  , accessed 06/03/2011  [2] Neustaedter Randal, Do vaccines disable the immune system ?,  , accessed 06/03/2011


Every single medicine has some side effect, but we don’t ban all medicine.  In most cases vaccinations may have some mild side effects:  “DTaP/IPV/Hib: The vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and Hib may cause redness and swelling on the site of vaccination, which lasts a few days. Babies may have a mild fever for up to ten days following the jabs.PCV: Redness and inflammation at the injection site affects about one in seven children. Mild symptoms of irritability, raised temperature and digestive disturbance may occur.MenC: Swelling and redness at the injection site is common. Some toddlers have disturbed sleep and some a light fever within a few days of their jab. Older children may complain of a mild headache.  MMR: Cold symptoms, a fever and swollen salivary glands may be noticed in children any time from a few days to three weeks after their MMR jab. Some may develop a rash or lose their appetite for up to ten days.” [1]  The side effects are very low compared with those associated with the diseases themselves. Mild versions of the symptoms associated with the disease being vaccinated against are occasional side effects. Allergic responses are very rare.  [1] Babies and immunization, BBC Health  ,accessed 06/13/2011


It is wrong for donors to attempt to change the policies of a sovereign state. Each state has equal rights, which include the right to be free from interference from any other group [1] . The West is therefore violating state sovereignty when they attempt to change domestic policies which they dislike [2] . African governments have a right to self-determination without the interference from the West; they are no longer colonies.  [1] Political Realism in International Relations Karpowicz, K 02/04/13  [2] Quandzie,E. Anti-gay aid cut: Bring it on, Ghana tells UK 02/11/11


Cutting aid could produce a change in policy direction  If the West did decide to reduce aid to African states it could pressure African states to change their policies on homosexuality. Africa is renowned for the dependency on aid. Analysts claim that this dependency negates the need for African economies to reform, relying instead on foreign governments and NGOs [1] . This reliance on aid could be exploited to alter policy within those African countries that are unable to act economically independently. This policy has been successful in the past. When Britain cut £19m to Malawi in 2011 for arresting two men for marrying; there was a reversal of government policy in the African state and all anti-homosexual laws were suspended [2] .  The equality created by this policy change would allow greater access to retroviral drugs and other HIV/AIDS treatment for the gay community. Laws outlawing homosexuality, and the stigma of the false connection between HIV and homosexuality, have decreased the accessibility of the gay community to treatment [3] . Corrections to these laws, from the economic pressure of aid withdrawal, would allow those with HIV/AIDS in the gay community to seek help without fear of rejections or prosecution.  [1] Astier,H. Can aid do more harm than good? 1 February 2006 BBC  [2] Karimi,F. ‘Amnesty: Malawi suspends anti-gay laws’ CNN 6 November 2012  [3] Anti-Gay discrimination fuels HIV/AIDS in Africa: Report Reuters 01/03/07


The international community has an obligation to help poorer countries, and cannot simply walk away from it over an issue such as this. Exploitation, through imperialism and other means, has been a major feature of Western relations with Africa. From colonial policies to current trade agreements the West has exploited Africa [1] . The West now has an obligation to compensate Africa for the damage which exploitation has done to development. Aid is considered to be vital to ensuring national and international security to the world, removing donations could result in destabilisation as economic links between the government and people deteriorate [2] .  [1] Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources, Stewart, H 10/05/13  [2] United Nations The 0.7% target: An in-depth look


Persecution of homosexuals is morally wrong  From a moral perspective, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for their sexuality. Everyone should have equal rights; Hilary Clinton stated that ‘gay rights are human rights’ [1] , the derogation of such rights is a serious moral affront. There is evidence that homosexuality is not optional [2] . Discriminating on sexual orientation is therefore the same as discriminating upon factors such as race and ethnicity. Even if changeable it would be the same as discrimination on the basis of identity or religion.  Same sex relations are victimless which calls in to question whether it could ever be defined as something to be criminalised. Whilst some may point to male on male rape, these figures are low compared to male on female rape. In the U.S. where homosexuality is legal, only 9% of rape victims were male and only a small proportion of those being male on male [3] . Criminalising and institutionally embedding hatred against homosexuality has served to alienate many Africans from their families and communities [4] . Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality is not something any donor would want to endorse even implicitly it is therefore morally right to cut the aid.  [1] The Obama Administration’s Bold but Risky Plan to make Africa Gay-Friendly Corey-Boulet,R 07/03/12  [2] Kingman,S. ‘Nature, not nurture? New Studies suggest that homosexuality has a biological basis, determined more by genes and hormones than social factors or psychology, says Sharon Kingman. 04/10/1992  [3] Wikipedia Gender by rape  [4] The Guardian Persecuted for being gay. 13 September 2011