Should smoking be banned?
Debate Rounds (3)
Smoking should not be banned simply because it is bad for the smoker. After all, we can't make obesity illegal. it's still bad for you. It's a choice. This is an example of Nanny-Stating. You have no right to say someone can do something to their own bodies that they want to do, harmful or not. My opponent's Nannystate ideals can be summed up as follows:
The Nanny State: Saving you from yourself one basic right at a time.
Now, as to the effect on the health of others. If someone doesn't want to be in a restaurant where they smoke, they can go to another restaurant or go to the no smaking section. There are already designated areas for smoking in public areas. This is not as huge of a deal as people make it out to be.
Second hand smoke is affecting a lot of people worldwide. Did you know that just by breathing in second hand smoke, 3 million of your body's cells die? Should we just sit back and let smoking affect our bodies? No I do not think so.
I think that we should ban smoking to help save lives.
Therefore I think smoking should be banned.
I agree that second hand smoke is dangerous, but that does not mean the government should get involved. Whenever there is a crisis people always look to the government... instead of themselves. Look at these two scenarios that didn't require the government
1. Big Jimmy is a smoker, while his family is not. Big Jimmy smokes a lot and there is a ton of second hand smoke in the house. He thinks this is OK, but his wife and family doesn't think so. So, they first suggest that he should smoke outside. Then that it's very dangerous to the kids. Then the mother threatens to leave him for the safety of the children if he doesn't stop or at least smoke elsewhere. Solution: Big Jimmy either stops, because he loves his family, or he doesn't, which means he doesn't deserve a family in the first place. No government required.
2. Bacon House is a restaurant in Texas. It has a lot of families that come in each day to eat their bacon. However, truckers start hearing about Bacon House's food and start eating there too, but these truckers smoke. The families protest the second hand smoke and all sign a petition. Smoking is banned in Bacon House. No government required.
Just remember the people can take care of themselves.
If smokers can quit by themselves, is that not a choice for them to make?
However, the problem is that many smokers are ignorant to the fact that others are affected by their actions and do not make the choice to quit.
Thus, the government needs to step in and lend a guiding hand to push them in the right direction.
Also, if the government does not step in, there will be more and more underaged smokers.
Many of this smokers are forced into smoking by peer pressure and became addicted to it.
The government should ban smoking so that youth can live their lives to the fullest and not succumb to the temptation to smoke.
With that, I rest my case.
"Both your scenarios are contradictory to your statement in round one of the debate."
If you read my contentions, you will see this:
Smoking is bad for you. It is the job of the...
Smoker to quit on his own.
Non-smoker to encourage smokers to quit and and protect themselves as well without government interference.
See? No government required.
Now, my opponent gives a lot of facts and figures in his contentions, but he gives no sources, I will still address them.
"If smokers can quit by themselves, is that not a choice for them to make?"
Yep. Without government interference. The smoker's loved ones and friends can push him along, but it is ultimately the job of the smoker, not the government to quit.
"However, the problem is that many smokers are ignorant to the fact that others are affected by their actions and do not make the choice to quit."
I'm sorry, but you can't live in America without knowing that smoking is dangerous. Ads, billboards, everyday talk, you just know from a early age that smoking is bad.
"Thus, the government needs to step in and lend a guiding hand to push them in the right direction."
So let me get this straight, that government can't properly run the post office, airports, TSA, educational system, or DMV. It can't properly police our borders. It can't balance a budget. It's tax code is 78,000 pages of incomprehensible blah... but you should trust them to make personal decisions for them? (Oh, and by the way, a smoking ban is not the same as lending a "helping hand.) Yeah. I think I'll pass.
"Also, if the government does not step in, there will be more and more underaged smokers."
Yeah, cannabis has been illegal for a while in most states... sure stopped teens from smoking it. (<<sarcasm)
"Many of this smokers are forced into smoking by peer pressure and became addicted to it."
Really now... two words: "Personal responsibility." You are saying that the government should take over the basic personal responsibilities of a person to just say no to what people are saying? Great idea! (<<sarcasm)
"The government should ban smoking so that youth can live their lives to the fullest and not succumb to the temptation to smoke."
Oh my stars... This is what is wrong with America. Instead of teaching kids to just say "no," we should take away their freedoms and force them to be healthy. Thereby depriving them of the opportunity to mature and become a responsible adult instead of a parasite of society. Good gravy, man! Do you hear what you are sayin'?
My opponent has made his case. This was basically it:
"The average man is incapable of making good decisions so the government, which can barely run itself, should tell you what to do in your personal decisions."
Where does this logic stop? What you eat? What you drink? How much you drink? What animals you own? What tools you can buy? What books you can read? What movies you can watch? My opponent's logic says that if anything in those categories is bad for you, the government should make them illegal.
To my opponent, if someday your logic is carried out and the government makes everything that could possibly be dangerous illegal, just remember this. Whenever you eat. Whenever you do yardwork. Whenever you drive. Whenever you travel. Whenever you fly. Whenever you go to an amusement park....
Thank you, and goodnight.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case for public interest was weaker than con's appeal to freedom. Pro next time I highly suggest sources, particularly how much public money goes into treating old people with lung cancer.
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.