The Instigator
Letsdebate24
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Iamthejuan
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Cigarettes should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Iamthejuan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 611 times Debate No: 43114
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Letsdebate24

Pro

In the first round please make your argument as to why they should not be banned.
Iamthejuan

Con

Hello!

I will keep the intro short, and present my main points. I will expand upon them as the debate evolves.

I have two major points, but I consider them to be big ones against any form of prohibition.

1. Prohibition never works. It didn't work for alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, or dogfighting. All prohibition does is create a black market run by criminals, which increases related violence and often worsens the economic situation of those involved in these activities, further continuing the cycle.

2. It would be much, much more effective to tax the hell out of cigarettes like they do in NY and Chicago; it raises revenues and encourage people to quit smoking, without creating a violent criminal underground. market.
Debate Round No. 1
Letsdebate24

Pro

Well said! I actually made that same argument for legalizing marijuana. Absolutely true that prohibition creates an underground market and nothing but problems. I suppose I should have said they should be banned from use in the general public. For example you cannot drink beer while walking on a public road but you can in a bar or a stadium etc. Cigarette smokers should have the same restrictions in public places and in most cases they do but it is not right that you can be walking down the sidewalk and have to stroll right through a cloud of smoke containing chemicals that are proven to have harmful affects on ones health. Say all drugs were to be legalized, they should all have the same rules as alcohol.
Iamthejuan

Con

When you used the term "banned" instead of outlawed, I suspected this was what you meant. Now that this is clarified, it turns out I agree, but I will continue playing devils advocate.

Smoking in public should not be banned because alcohol and fast food are also bad for you, and people have the right to eat themselves 40lb's overweight and then fork over their hospital bills to medicare/medicaid. People drink at bars in restaurants and then go home the same way they got there...by driving. A good compromise might be for buildings to have "smoking rooms" which are partitioned off from the rest of the building.

How would this ban be enforced? In NY, there have been cases of people getting fined for smoking on their own front steps, because the sidewalk is still considered "public". This would certainly increase the caseload of law enforcement who are already stretched thin by a war on drugs.
Debate Round No. 2
Letsdebate24

Pro

True alcohol and fast food do pose a threat to those that ingest them and in the case of alcohol it does threaten others should the consumer choose to drive or if they have aggressive tendencies. Cigarettes are the only one of the three that affect someone other than the consumer regardless of intentions. Take a nurse or a surgeon for example, the smoke gets on their clothes and they are going around sick patients.

As far as enforcing this your right that would be rather tricky but it would not be anymore complicated than enforcing alcohol laws. I suppose a fine would suffice.
Iamthejuan

Con

Smoking is banned in hospitals and may buildings. I agree with this. But there is a difference between a private or federal building instituting such a policy for obvious reasons, and legislations passed which have potential for abuse and will have no other effect than increasing the amount of tickets officers are able to write. The butterfly effect kicks in, now you have a bunch of agitated smokers walking around, and money being taken from consumers that does not reenter the economy.

For instance, a Ruby Tuesday definitely SHOULD ban smoking. A bar definitely SHOULD NOT, unless by some odd chance the owners, employees, and majority of patrons are non-smokers. These are both private entities. Let it be their choice. Also, it would be easy to build ventilated "waiting rooms" in buildings such as universities and restaurants, so people can smoke when it is raining outside or when they want to eat out, and nobody else is affected.
Debate Round No. 3
Letsdebate24

Pro

Hospitals ban smoking on their premises but they do not ban their employees from going off premises and smoking then coming back. The hospital is the number one place of contraction for staff and MRSA infections and employee sanitization is a primary cause. Not quite sure is cigarette smoke is a cause but it surely can't help. I agree that a law put into effect at the federal level leaves room for abuse so then I suppose that hiking up the tax on cigarettes would be a feasible option. People smoking tend to have severe health issues and if they cannot afford health insurance they end up causing the tax payers money. Something has to be done about the cigarette one way or another. I don't believe I can win this debate without trampling over my own beliefs of freedom but at the same time protect others from the effects of smoking.
Iamthejuan

Con

"Hospitals ban smoking on their premises but they do not ban their employees from going off premises and smoking then coming back." --I hadn't thought of this. I will concede this is poor policy for a hospital, but as I stated above this is a private facility and the purpose of banning cigarette smoke or smoking while on shift) is obvious. I could agree with a law that forbids medical staff from smoking on shift, but it would be much easier to just petition the hospitals to pass the policy themselves.

"People smoking tend to have severe health issues and if they cannot afford health insurance they end up causing the tax payers money. Something has to be done about the cigarette one way or another."

--This is somewhat true, however: there are many smokers who live to their 80's, and many non-smokers who experience health issues early in life having never used drugs or smoked. Caffeine, processed foods and gmo's, alcohol, and a host of corporate behaviors regarding dumping and drilling would all need to be taxed higher also, if we follow the same line of reasoning.

"I don't believe I can win this debate without trampling over my own beliefs of freedom but at the same time protect others from the effects of smoking."

We have to acknowledge other people's beliefs, but we don't always have to honor their choices. Smoking is bad-- if you recall Philip Morris originally lied about the addictive and harmful properties of cigarettes. If anyone should have to pay a hefty fine towards healthcare, it should be them. (We put drug dealers in prison, don't we?). I know this last statement seems to contradict the rest of my argument, but truthfully I just think that prohibition is ineffective and in most cases there are better alternatives. Why not make stores hide their cigarette displays like they do adult magazines? Why not sit your kid down and explain to them the realities of smoking, and show them images of people with cancer in their throat or lungs? I think these would be much more effective ways to reduce the amount of smokers. Smoking cessation should also be covered under preventative care, for reasons you have already stated.

One round left! Rebuttals and recap I am assuming. I await your reply!
Debate Round No. 4
Letsdebate24

Pro

I agree that advertising should be hidden as the adult magazines are and yes prohibition is a terribly in effective method proven time and time again. Perhaps tobacco industries should be forced to warn of the hazards smoking pose in their ads.
Iamthejuan

Con

First i would like to thank my opponent for a respectful debate.

since he kept his closing remarks short, I will do the same. We have both made our arguments regarding an official ban on smoking, and seem to agree on everything except how to address the problem. Let the voters decide.

Feel free to challenge me anytime, and happy new year!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
Awesome topic, good debate. Regarding Whiteflame's comment "The reason individual companies shouldn't have that capacity is because not all of them are going to do it." I think that is the basis for every argument in favor of (well thought-out) regulations. Human nature is self-destructive and we often take others with us.
Posted by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
Nice quick rounds, no deviations, no insults-- good stuff. I'm tired. Will finish this tomorrow.
Posted by Letsdebate24 2 years ago
Letsdebate24
Freedom and right yes so long as it affects no one else
Posted by nohandlebars 2 years ago
nohandlebars
I agree with public smoking, but not with children under 18. I mean I agree, but it's still a freedom.
Posted by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
I agree with the right to choose, but also with banning public smoking. I also think it should be illegal to smoke at home if you have children under 18 living there. Go the hell outside for God's sake.
Posted by nohandlebars 2 years ago
nohandlebars
Also, one has the freedom and right to smoke regardless of the health affects.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Letsdebate24IamthejuanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Frankly, this decision was made simply by Pro conceding that practically everything that made his case work could be done by individual company policies and tax increases. Pro, you really should have taken a harder line on this one. The reason individual companies shouldn't have that capacity is because not all of them are going to do it. And if we affirm that second hand smoke is a major health hazard, then people simply shouldn't have the right to smoke wherever they please. You could hold the line on enforcement as well - it would certainly bring down the number of people willing to go through the trouble of smoking as well, wouldn't it? That endangers less kids at home of parents who are smokers. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, but they support your case while countering Con's esteemed points. I can tell you're a nice guy, but debate takes being a bit of a hard ass to do well.