Cigarettes should be banned
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 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||4|
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.
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.