Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media
Debate Rounds (5)
This is equivilant to a plane full of people crashing every day. But surely you would not suggest that car commercials should be banned. After all they do pretty much the same things as cigarrete adds. They show cars and trucks as a good thing, as a source of happiness and joy. These car ads could attract children to try and drive and those children could potentially be hurt or even killed. This is the same thing as cigarrete ads. They are ads for a dangerous product which children should not be using. But it is up to parents to educate their children about the dangers of cigarretes. Every person over the age of eighteen has the right to smoke a cigarrete if they please and every person with a license has the right to drive a car if they please. Banning cigarrete ads will not make children automatically decide that cigarretes are bad. It should be left to parents to teach their children about the dangers of cigarretes.
Being trapped in a car after a car accident can indeed make it hard to breathe and I think the 40,000 people in the U.S. who died in automobile crashes last year had their life expectancies shortened by cars.
"When automobiles are advertised, there is something positive to say about them. They transport people from one location to another, manufacturers are coming up with more fuel efficient models and the safety of many vehicles is being improved. When cigarettes are advertised, there is absolutely nothing good to say about them."
Automobiles and cigarettes are actually remarkably similar. They both provide a service to the user. Automobile driver can move easiy and quickly from one place to another and cigarrete users can become very relaxed after they have smoked a cigarrete. And both products carry a significant risk. Thousands die every year in car crashes and thousands die every year due to lung cancer. They are similar in that a person of age has every right to use the product if they please. And whether it be a car company or a cigarette company, they both have the right to advertise their respective products.
"They influence children in a negative way and put many lives in danger; people that don't even smoke. 53,800 people a year die from second hand smoking."
Please reas this excerpt from http://www.accidentattorneys.com...
"one pedestrian is injured by a vehicle ever 8 minutes, and one pedestrian dies as a result of injuries from an accident with a vehicle ever 111 minutes. That's more than 1 per hour-and-a-half. In the United States, 5,000 pedestrians die each year as a result of these accidents, and over 60,000 more are injured."
These are people who did not choose to drive an automobile yet were injured or killed by one anyways. Earily similar to those who have died as a result of second hand smoke. Would you still wish to allow companies to advertise cars. Look at how many people they kill or injure every year. What is the diference between them and cigarrete ads? Nothing.
"Some children are not lucky enough to have guidance from a parent or guardian, so how are the supposed to know any differently if they are told by television commercials and radio ads that cigarettes are good?"
And what about people in T.V. shows or movies who smoke? Should that be banned? And what about violence on T.V. or movies? Is that to be banned too? Where do we stop?
"If a product is harmful to a person's health it should not be advertised in a positive way."
I have shown conclusively that automobiles can be very harmful to one's health. Virtually anything can become harmful to one's healt actually. Should football or basketball not be advertised as they can certainly have adverse affects on one's health? How about sky diving? Should companies not be allowed to advertise sky diving because people can get hurt or die? And I always see army and navy commercial nowadays. You can't deny that thousands of people die in combat every year. But those are certainly advertised in a positive way. Where are we to draw the line?
You say that both automobiles and cigarettes provide a service to the user. What exactly is the service that is being provided by the cigarette.. Is it the terrible addiction? The lung cancer? Bladder, Kidney, Pancreas, Cervical Cancer? Blood clots? Potential heart attacks? Strokes? Iron deficiency? High blood pressure? Emphysema? Bronchitis? Fertility problems? Asthma? Macular degeneration, (which leads to gradual loss of eyesight)? Cataracts? Gum disease? Bad breath? Yellowing of the teeth? Shortness of breath? Voice change? Mouth ulsers? Wrinkles? Reduced blood supply to the skin? Not one of these has any positive effect on a human being.
And this debate was not about the differences and similarities between an automobile and a cigarette.. it was about the positive image of negative products that are being put in the minds of young viewers by radio, television and magazine ads. There are pros and cons to EVERYTHING in this world, but the cons of those things should not be compared to the devistation that is brought on by smoking. You can choke while eating a strawberry. Does that mean strawberry ads should be banned? No. A person can die from a football injury. Does that mean the game of football should be illegal? No. I'm not saying that there aren't other things on this planet that effect the lives of humans, I am saying however that cigarette ads are putting a positive image in the minds of young human beings. An image that should not even be portrayed to begin with. What good can possibly come of smoking? Does it actually make one happy? Or relax them? Maybe at the time of use but in the long run, there are no positive outcomes to smoking a cigarette. Thats why the advertisement of these products should be banned.
The time scale of the damge is not really relevant to this debate.
"Car crashes are unexpected and most of the time unwanted. No one gets in their car and says "I want to cause a car crash today," but people do intentionally light up a cigarette.
Most of the time unwanted? And yet people, knowing that there is a very real possibility that they could be injured or even die, still get into their cars and drive.
"So no one actually knows when or if their going to die in a car crash but they know very well that they will obtain some sort of health problems from smoking."
Not everyone experiences health problems, just like not everyone who drives a car gets injured. But there is still a risk and it is the job of the individual to weigh the risks and decide for themselves. Or in the case of a child, it is the responsibility of the parent to explain the dangers of smoking.
"What exactly is the service that is being provided by the cigarette"
I am talking about the relief that a person feels when they have a cigarrete, the sense of calm after they light up. I'm not saying that the benefits outweigh the risks or that smoking is right, I am saying that again, it is up to the individual to weigh the pros and cons of a product. It is no business of the government.
"There are pros and cons to EVERYTHING in this world, but the cons of those things should not be compared to the devistation that is brought on by smoking. You can choke while eating a strawberry. Does that mean strawberry ads should be banned? No. A person can die from a football injury. Does that mean the game of football should be illegal? No. I'm not saying that there aren't other things on this planet that effect the lives of humans, I am saying however that cigarette ads are putting a positive image in the minds of young human beings. An image that should not even be portrayed to begin with."
You do not seem to understand my point. You are arguing that because cigarettes are harmful, they should not be advertised. I am saying that anything can be harmful and again it is not up to the government to decide if a person should be subjected to an advertisement.
"What good can possibly come of smoking? Does it actually make one happy? Or relax them? Maybe at the time of use but in the long run, there are no positive outcomes to smoking a cigarette."
So what if cigarretes don't always work out in the long run. In the long run, we all die, civilizations fall, and whole generations are forgotten. Why does this warrant the govt. to to censor tobacco companies right to advertize?
What the debate was actually supposed to be about was the influence that these commercials and ads have on young children. They are sending a positive message about a negative product. You can tell me up, down and sideways that a cigarette can make you feel good but how long does that last? About as long as the cigarette does. There os no need for smoking in our society and there is no need to advertise them in a positive way. These commercials are influencing youn generations in a negative way. There is absolutely no good thing to come of smoking. No parent is proud to say that their child smokes, while others may be proud that their child drives. The outcome of driving is in the hands of the driver. Safe driving is up to the person behind the wheel while the outcome of smoking is not up to the person.
People are not going to stop driving because they might get into an accident, they might drive safer or slower in that case but they will not stop driving, but some people may not smoke if they know the dangers involved. Cigarettes are being advertised as a positive product when all they do is kill people, they do nothing else.
socialpinko forfeited this round.
nbefumo forfeited this round.
My opponent also tried to argue that nothing good comes out of cigarretes except for short term pleasure. I don't actually see this as much of an argument in that if we just extend the time scale that would be true for pretty much anything. This argument seems a bit relative to me.
My opponent brought arguments which I have refuted and has not provided any legitamite reason for cigarette adds to be banned from the media.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Well presented.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.