The Instigator
AlexThunder
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jvava
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Second hand smoke is BS

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 4 votes the winner is...
jvava
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,385 times Debate No: 40707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

AlexThunder

Con

Pro: says that Second hand smoke is bad for your health.
Con (me): agrees with title.

Round 1 acceptance only. Good luck!
jvava

Pro

Hello! I am glad to be debating with you on this subject.

I believe that second-hand smoke is bad for your health.

Good luck and may the better debater win!
Debate Round No. 1
AlexThunder

Con

Thank you for accepting this challenge. Let's have fun, shall we?

All around the world, there are businesses being forced to prohibit smoking inside their own space, because some people say it is harmful for you, but they have no scientific evidence or explanation as to why that happens.

It's a way to force people, in my opinion, to live by other people's standards, and that's completely wrong.

Second hand smoke does not necessarily cause those deadly diseases people say it does. Therefor i think that banning smokers from clubs or Cafe's is BS.
jvava

Pro

Second-hand smoking can comes with some very serious health effects. In children, it can cause:

In children, second-hand smoke causes the following:
3
  • Ear infections
  • More frequent and severe asthma attacks
  • Respiratory symptoms (e.g., coughing, sneezing, shortness of breath)
  • Respiratory infections (i.e., bronchitis, pneumonia)
  • A greater risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

In children aged 18 months or younger, second-hand smoke exposure is responsible for—4

  • An estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia annually
  • Approximately 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations annually in the United States
For adults it can cause:

In adults who have never smoked, second-hand smoke can cause heart disease and/or lung cancer.
3Heart Disease
  • For non smokers, breathing second-hand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk for heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.3,5
  • Non smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30%.3
  • Second-hand smoke exposure causes an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths annually among adult non smokers in the United States.6
Lung Cancer
  • Non smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.3
  • Second-hand smoke exposure causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths annually among adult non smokers in the United States.6
This all pulled from a CDC website about second-hand smoking and its effects - http://www.cdc.gov....

And, according to that website: "There is no risk-free level of contact with second-hand smoke; even brief exposure can be harmful to health."

The banning of smoking in offices, restaurants, etc. has proved to be an effective way to help protect the health of everybody, especially non-smokers. According to that website:

Second-hand Smoke Exposure Has Decreased in Recent Years
  • Measurements of cotinine have shown how exposure to second-hand smoke has steadily decreased in the United States over time.3,7
    • During 1988–1991, approximately 87.9% of non smokers had measurable levels of cotinine.
    • During 1999–2000, approximately 52.5% of non smokers had measurable levels of cotinine.
    • During 2007–2008, approximately 40.1% of non smokers had measurable levels of cotinine.
The decrease in exposure to second-hand smoke over the last 20 years is due to the growing number of laws that ban smoking in workplaces and public places, the increase in the number of households with smoke-free home rules, and the decreases in adult and youth smoking rates.

I realize that I have pulled a lot from this online CDC article. However, my argument is largely based on pure fact - that second-hand smoking offers health benefits for everybody.

My stance is this - second-hand smoke is harmful to one's health. You say that by banning smoking in work places you are making folks conform to other people's standards - but how is it fair that you must live and work somewhere in which your health is in danger? I have provided scientific fact from the CDC; how is this not a reasonable explanation that second-hand smoke is harmful?
Debate Round No. 2
AlexThunder

Con

I don't know how people get that. The entire scientific world says that there is no solid evidence that this phenomenon takes place. Any scientist with integrity will tell you,despite how much he dislikes smoke, that SHS does not have any serious bad effects on your health. All sites i visited say: "Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year to non-smokers.... are estimated to have been caused by ETS (second hand smoke) in the US." The scientific evidence on that is at best scanty.

But in 1998, a federal court had this to say about the EPA: There was no link between SHS and cancer, and worse that the EPA had intentionally ignored scientific data that contradicted a predetermined conclusion. In simpler words, they faked it, and people fell for it. It's the same EPA test that you found, and anyone can find in any site, that say the same thing in other words. That study admitted no association between exposure to ETS and lung cancer. No association. Also, it was disproved, as it was statistically insufficient.

The campaign that has started globally on banning smoking from cafeterias and bars is wrong and if you are an American, unconstitutional. It's not a campaign to prevent harm, but to control behavior. I know smoking sucks for the smoker, and the smoke is a B word to smell, but that doesn't mean that you will force someone to stop it because you don't like it. As i mentioned, the next day you might not want to sit next to me in a cafe because i wear a blue shirt, or i have tattoos of dragons, or whatever. People can and should be insulted. Being insulted is a right. But you can't force someone to stop what they are doing, which has no real harm on you just because you don't like it. If i wore blue shirts and you were offended by them for any reason, can you ask me to take it off? No, nobody will stop you from walking out the cafe.

I hate smoke too, but i live with it.
jvava

Pro

The ban of smoking in public areas is not just to do with the smell - otherwise, people who have bad breath or who don't wear deodorant wouldn't be permitted as well. There is a direct link between smoking and numerous types of caner, and the risks are still prevalent for second-hand smokers.

"Thanks to years of research, the links between smoking and cancer are now very clear. Smoking is by far the most important preventable cause of cancer in the world.Smoking accounts for one in four UK cancer deaths, and nearly a fifth of all cancer cases.
In the UK, smoking kills five times more people than road accidents, overdoses, murder, suicide and HIV all put together."

This was pulled from a British cancer research website: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org....

"A 2011 study found that more than four in five lung cancers are caused by smoking. 5 In 2002, lung cancer killed around 33,600 people - about one person every 15 minutes.

Tobacco smoke was first shown to cause lung cancer in 1950. 10 This study found that people who smoked 15-24 cigarettes a day had 26 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers. And people who smoked less than 15 cigarettes a day still had 8 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers."

There is a direct link between smoking and cancer. The scientific community does agree with this; the CDC, for example.

But I realize that we are discussing second-hand smoking. Here is a section of that UK article on the topic of second-hand smoking.

"Several studies have shown that breathing in other people’s smoke causes cancer in non-smokers. 2, 72 Second-hand smoke contains several cancer causing chemicals. Many of these chemicals are present in higher concentrations than in the smoke inhaled by the smoker themselves. 2

One study analysed 55 studies from around the world found that non-smoking spouses of people who smoke at home have 27% higher risks of lung cancer. 73 And a review of 22 studies found that people exposed to second-hand smoke in the workplace have 24% higher risks of lung cancer. Those who were exposed to the highest levels of second-hand smoke at work had twice the risks of lung cancer. 74

One study estimates that passive smoking may kill over 11,000 people every year in the UK from cancer, heart disease, strokes and other diseases. 75

Second-hand smoking also causes other health problems in non-smokers including asthma and heart disease. One study showed that even 30 minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke can reduce blood flow in a non-smoker’s heart."

The CDC also supports this claim as well.

"There is no risk-free level of contact with second hand smoke; even brief exposure can be harmful to health."

Pulled from the CDC website: http://www.cdc.gov...

"The entire scientific world says that there is no solid evidence that this phenomenon takes place."

I have provided some of the top names in medicine to prove this - the CDC, for example. There is a direct link between smoking and cancer.

"The campaign that has started globally on banning smoking from cafeterias and bars is wrong and if you are an American, unconstitutional."

First, we have not banned it entirely - but have rather limited it to certain areas.

And second, how is it constitutional that you can damage the health of another person in a place that they have just as much right as you have to be in? A restaurant, for example.

"I know smoking sucks for the smoker, and the smoke is a B word to smell, but that doesn't mean that you will force someone to stop it because you don't like it."

You say that is sucks for the smoker - how is it fair that the person nearby has to suffer? How is it fair that one can harm the health of another person without their consent?

And, although many see it as a ban on the smell, it truly is a ban on the health effects that go along with it.

"As i mentioned, the next day you might not want to sit next to me in a cafe because i wear a blue shirt, or i have tattoos of dragons, or whatever."

That is not harming any body's health. It is okay. Smoking harms others' health without their consent. It is not okay.

Quite simply, nobody has the right to harm the health of another person, plain and simple, in both public and private areas. If it were really about the smell, we would eliminate those with bad breath and no deodorant as well.

Vote based on who made the better argument, and who backed up their claims with fact and cited resources.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
Congrats to jvava. Well done :)
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
For voters: Keep in mind that there are sites that say SHS is bad for you, but no sites that say clearly it is not. That happens as scientists still don't know, that's why its not clear yet. The ones that say its bad for you are not scientists.
Posted by sodoff 3 years ago
sodoff
Probably healthier to breathe in BS than to breathe in second smoke that's the ironic part
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
AlexThunderjvavaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I was confused by the title - Pro presented arguments against smoking based on second hand smoke being dangerous. Pro presented a source. Pro gave a slightly better presentation.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
AlexThunderjvavaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had all the evidence and Con had nothing but unsupported claims. Second hand smoke has health risks, but they are overstated and in any case do not justify banning adults from voluntarily exposing themselves to second hand smoke -- so the BS part is the ban. But the debate was about health risks, not the ban, and Con didn't have any evidence to counter Pro.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
AlexThunderjvavaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Jvava gave more proof as to why second hand smoke was bad for you. AlexThunder, as much as I agree with him on how it's BS for the government to force businesses to make laws they don't want, didn't give proof to convince me.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
AlexThunderjvavaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Congrats to both. I think Pro made the better argument. He used more links, and focused on the direct link between SH smoking, and cancer. Pro seemed to argue line-by-line with more credible sources.