Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere
Debate Rounds (5)
Do you think all of this is incorrect? Please, enlighten me.
"Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body and affects a person"s overall health." -Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
I will be taking the Con position in this argument, and I will explain to my opponent why Cigarettes should not be banned everywhere.
I will assume this first round is mostly acceptance, however I will post a little bit of my argument, just to start it off..
Banning cigarettes would be a terrible decision to make in the US and in the world. It would be detrimental to the economy, public trust, and government legitimacy. Taking away something people like to do, just because it harms them, makes very little sense.
In this debate, I will use Prohibition to back some of my claim. For prohibition closely resembles what my opponent is trying to argue. However, I realize alcohol is not nicotine, but they are both drugs, so I will be treating them both equally.
Prohibition - Prohibition is the legal act of prohibiting the manufacture, storage, transportation and sale of alcohol including alcoholic beverages. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition )
Nicotine - Nicotine is a potent parasympathomimetic alkaloid found in the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae) and a stimulant drug. A very addictive drug. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine )
The idea of banning cigarettes has been around for a while. This is mostly due to the harm it can cause not only to the user, but to their innocent neighbors.
"Taking away something people like to do, just because it harms them, makes very little sense."
Would you allow someone to cut themselves, when it is very addictive, because it is something they like to do? It is harmful, and in many cases, it leads to death (depression and suicide).
Prohibition may relate to the topic in the sense that the economy will be hurt by the act of banning cigarettes. The main difference between these two topics is that the consumption of alcohol does not directly release toxins to bystanders. If you were to walk down the street with a drink in your hand, you wouldn't be pouring it down other people's throats.
Many of the smoking bans that are shown around the world are due to the protection of the people who may suffer from second-hand smoke. There is scientific evidence that proves that smoking harms all people who inhale cigarette smoke. Smoking bans may also reduce the cost of health care, lower the cost of labor in a protected community, and improve work productivity (1).
Research has shown that second-hand smoke and direct smoking cause identical problems. Many smoke-free places found that pre-term births and asthma complications dropped by 10 percent. "According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), tobacco already kills around 6 million people a year worldwide, including more than 600,000 non-smokers who die from exposure to second-hand smoke. By 2030, if current trends continue, it predicts tobacco's death toll could be 8 million people a year." (2) This doesn't include the number of people who suffer from health complications due to cigarette smoke for the rest of their lives.
I thank my Opponent for some great arguments!
Contention 1: Banning Cigarettes would be similar to banning cars.
Let me explain; vehicles in the modern era mostly use Fuel to run their engines. After the combustion of that fuel, it turns into a very toxic gas called Carbon Monoxide. This gas can cause many, MANY, health problems including cancer.
Health Problems of Carbon Monoxide:
- Respiratory ailments, Asthma, Headache, Runny eyes & nose, and Nausea
- Increased risk of lung cancer
- Increased rate of mutations
- Over Exposure can cause death.
Not to mention the fact that 60,000 premature deaths each year, are a result of burning natural gas in vehicles. The effects of inhaling exhaust is similar to that of smoking a cigarette, however, the inhalation of exhaust is involuntary. Very similar to second hand smoking.
In order to stop so many people from being effected, the federal air standards, called the NAAQS (The National Ambient Air Quality Standards) have tried to stop so much pollution by passing the 1970 Clean Air Act (that is designed to protect public health). As it is quite apparent, they are beginning to fix a problem, without banning Fuel burning vehicles for good. Such conditions are happening with cigarettes as well.
As you can see, Carbon Monoxide is produced after burning Fuel, this is used to run cars. Under the pretense of getting rid of something bad because it could harm the people around you, would mean we have to get rid of all fuel burning vehicles. So getting rid of cigarettes because of the danger people are in around you, would mean we would have to do it to everything that causes such an event to occur.
My second contention will be in the next Round... Maybe...
Contention 1: http://www.fumeavent.com...
In the case of vehicles releasing Carbon Monoxide, cigarettes are known to do this as well. Cigarettes also release nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanides and ammonia (1). Nitrogen Oxide is the binary compound of nitrogen and oxygen. There are many types of these compounds including Nitrous Oxide, also known as "laughing gas" and is used in surgery due to its anesthetic effects (2), Dinitrogen Tetroxide, which is used for rocket fuel (3), and Trinitramide, a type of rocket propellant oxidizer (4). There is a multitude of ingredients that also contribute to the deadliness of cigarettes.
A very important difference between these two situations is that one does not inhale natural gas from a car through paper usually multiple times a day and for the rest of their life.
Some more important differences between these two situations are that the inhalation of natural gas is not addictive, is not distributed to the public as a drug, and does not require one to be 18 to use it for public transportation.
Cars have become electric and they are not banned because they are a necessity for transportation so that people can go to work, pay their bills, and keep food on the table for themselves and their families.
Cigarettes have become electric and contain less deadly ingredients. The sale, distribution, consumption, and creation of traditional cigarettes need to be banned because smoking destroys families by killing and leaving some with permanent damage for the rest of their lives.
Cigarettes are not a stress reliever. They create more stress. They are also considered to be poison.
I thank my opponent, for the very valid points.
"The sale, distribution, consumption, and creation of traditional cigarettes need to be banned because smoking destroys families by killing and leaving some with permanent damage for the rest of their lives."
This statement is completely true, but it fails to take into account the multiple other things that do this as well. As you can see in my first Contention, I explained why cars could be seen as a hazard to the people around you. It is the same principal with cigarettes. Also, obesity destroys families, and people get obese because they eat to much fast food, should we ban fast food?
Lets take a look at "why" we are actually banning cigarettes. Cigarettes release very poisons smoke that can cause some serious health problems. However, cigarettes are comprised of multiple different ingredients, such as:
- Carbon Monoxide (Fuel)
- Battery Acid
- Candle Wax
If you are going to ban cigarettes, you would have to ban all of these ingredients from the market as well. Don't ban cigarettes, ban some of the ingredients, within them? Same as banning sugar in schools, they wouldn't get rid of Apple Sauce completely, they would create Apple Sauce but with no sugar.
So, instead of banning cigarettes, why not freely distribute electronic cigarettes, for everyone who has a problem with smoking? E-cigs help people quite smoking. Why not give them out in schools? Why not give them out at Walt-Mart? Because, smoking is bad, everything is mostly bad, and to take away smoking, because it is bad, is not a good reason.
List of things that are bad:
- Fast Food
If we were to ban things because they were bad, or they could potentially harm others, then we would have to ban all of the things listed above.
Man, I wish I had more characters to type, I have so much more to say!
I am not stating that one should simply ban everything that is bad, but smoking is known to be hazardous and it is difficult to breathe and it stinks. You can decide to ban fast food if you wish to. I believe that is a contributing factor in an unhealthy society.
No. You would not have to ban all the ingredients from the market. Do you know why? Most of those ingredients are okay to use under safe circumstances, but it is the combination of them that makes them deadly. Let's compare cigarettes to a simple compound like Carbon Monoxide. It is made up of one carbon atom and one oxygen atom. If we decided to ban the unhealthy use of Carbon Monoxide, we would not be required to ban oxygen nor carbon. Why is this? Both of these atoms are included in a healthy life when the are consumed as separate atoms. One would not simply inhale Carbon Monoxide for fun; however, smoking displays this perfectly.
Let's also compare smoking to using Cocaine. Cocaine is a drug that begins as coca leaves. It is dried and soaked in gasoline. Later in the process, battery acid is mixed in. The use of cocaine is illegal, but the contents alone are not. Gasoline is used to run cars, battery acid is used to create energy, and cocoa leaves were an ingredient in Coca-Cola during the early 1920's (1).
If you were to create a "healthy" cigarette, you would need to ban over half of the ingredients that were found in them.
Freely distributing electronic cigarettes will not help the economy which you argued the ban of cigarettes would not do either.
Not banning cigarettes allows future generations to become addicted. Do you know what else is addictive and dangerous? Meth. It is also against the law to use.
Thanks to my Opponent again, for some great arguments!
"Not banning cigarettes allows future generations to become addicted. Do you know what else is addictive and dangerous? Meth. It is also against the law to use."
Do not forget Alcohol is an addictive drug as well. The consumption of alcohol, is not illegal. So in the pretenses of that statement, if we replace the word "cigarettes" with "alcohol" it would still be a true statement. Thus ignites my next contention.
Contention 3: Prohibition
Prohibition very closely resembles the ban of cigarettes, because it banned another addictive drug, alcohol. The ban was met by a massive uproar from the people; riots, protests you name it.
"Anti-prohibitionists, known as wets, criticized the alcohol ban as an intrusion of mainly rural Protestant ideals on a central aspect of urban, immigrant, and Catholic life."
The ban on alcohol was not taken lightly, and in some cases, ignored. The people that wanted to freely consume alcohol without government intrusion, went underground.
This was very common in mostly people that were rich. Before the 18th amendment went into effect, upper classes stockpiled on massive amounts of alcohol. This led to a lot of illegal use, trade, and possession of illegal substances.
Speak Easies: Were small underground bars, that were designed to fool law enforcement during the prohibition. Essentially built in cellars of someones home, people would produce whine and whiskey, and provide it to the wets just next door.
Banning cigarettes would lead to bootlegging. Not to mention, when the people realize the government can just start banning things out of the blue, there is going to be some backlash. It's just sounds ridiculous to be charged with the illegal use of a cigarette, the crime... Smoking.
Contention 3: http://en.wikipedia.org...
1. The addiction differs. Cigarette smoke is much more addicting than alcohol use. According to addiction medical specialist, Michael M. Miller, MD, "...the drugs that seem to be the most addictive are nicotine, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Those three are different from all other drugs. Among those who drink alcohol on a regular basis, around 15% develop an addiction. About 45% of those who smoke on a regular basis get addicted." (1) That's an astonishing 30% difference. Also, an article on a website that promotes sober living, called The Fix, gave Nicotine a dependency rating of 2.82 (measured on a scale of 0 to 3) which tied with Crack Cocaine. Alcohol was given a rating of 2.13 and came after Crystal Meth which had a dependency rating of 2.24 (2).
2. Smoke directly effects other people in the immediate environment. Second-hand smoke exists, but has anyone ever heard of second-hand drinking? Second-hand smoke can be considered as murder. Instead of smoking near someone else, you could take one of their lungs out and they would end up healthier than if they had been near cigarette smoke. Smoking around others is against their right to life which is protected in the Constitution; however, the right to smoke is not protected in the Constitution (3).
A smoking ban would lead to as much bootlegging as illegal drugs do today. The Fix also said that Heroin has a dependency rate of 2.89 which is higher than Nicotine (2.82); however, Heroin is ILLEGAL, resulting in less users. You should also take into consideration that marijuana has medicinal purposes, yet it is illegal in 27 states.
Smoking is bad, m'kay?
Thanks for the debate!
I yet again thank my opponent for the great arguments!
"Smoking around others is against their right to life which is protected in the Constitution; however, the right to smoke is not protected in the Constitution."
The Constitution of the United States, is not delegated to the people themselves, however, it puts rules and restrictions on the government. It tells the government what they can and can not do to the people, and to the states.
In no way is your right to live protected in the Constitution, because your right to live is a "god given one"; basically what the founding fathers believed to be self-evident. I agree, the Constitution does not say you have the right to smoke; however, it does not combat it.
The Constitution basically gives the people the right to do what they want; it does not retain to our likings and our habits, for it is the concrete law of the land, not of public hobbies. That is why we have laws. The Constitution retains to nothing in which we are arguing.
Summary of it all!:
- The government does not have the innate power to get rid of smoking everywhere, their reputation would be bashed, their name would be tarnished.
- The economy, depends highly on consumption of goods, and cigarettes so happen to provide quite a bit of tax money to many national governments. Basically, anything counts.
- Bootlegging, of cigarettes is already going on, however, usually with youth. Making something illegal doesn't always deter the people from doing it.
- I made many comparisons to cigarettes, like Carbon Monoxide and Alcohol. Alcohol makes people drunk, if not used correctly and safely, it can lead to the inevitable danger of the people around the consumer.
- The Constitution does not combat nor protect the right to smoke.
- Smoking should not be banned everywhere, however, they should be banned in some places that may cause harm to others, publicly.
Have a fantastic life, and I hope you find great fortune some day!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 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: Both sides made good points and I was actually leaning towards Pro winning until the final rounds. Pro didn't really contest Con's core argument on Prohibition that people wouldn't support a law restricting their habits in the name of deciding what was best for them. Pro made a lot of good, factual arguments about the dangers to the public of smoking, but made a noticeable error in the final round in claiming the Constitution provides a right to life, actually that is in the Declaration of Independence, and Con quickly pointed out the mistake. It also mentions liberty and the pursuit of happiness as rights also. Pro had the tougher argument by arguing for complete banning everywhere rather than just on public smoking because Con was able to conclude at the end "Smoking should not be banned everywhere, however, they should be banned in some places that may cause harm to others, publicly." Great debate but Con finished stronger I think.
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.