The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Cezar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should smoking be banned?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Cooldudebro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 906 times Debate No: 42725
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Cooldudebro

Pro

Smoking is a harmfully habit that can lead to death! Your body becomes near dependent on it and it is hard to quit! Smoking doesn't present anything good for humanity! Cigarette smoke can also harm people around you because of the smoke it gives off. A useless habit that needs to be outlawed!
Cezar

Con

Well... as the Pro team said, smoking is a habit! It is hard to quit, yes, BUT you have to quit just when you are addicted to it! And you are addicted to it just when you start smoking! When is it legal to start smoking? When you are an adult, when you are able to make a decision for yourself, when you are ready to decide if this decision is bad or good for yourself! So humans should have the right to make this decision, because they have the right to choose for themselves.
Today's Proposition said that you harm people around you, but let's analyse this a little;
People you know: they take the decision to talk to you, knowing that you smoke, so is their decision
People you don't know: are protected by the law of not smoking in public places
So we see that actually today's pro gave us just statements, never explained them, or give us an example.
Though I am not a smoker myself, I firmly oppose the notion of banning smoking due to three reasons: that they are unenforceable, that they limit citizen"s freedom and cigarette industry brings practical benefits.

Argument 1: Unenforceable Nature of the Motion

There are about 43.5 million smokers in the US solely. In the same country, 21.5% of men and 17.3% of women are smokers . Cigarette is undeniable everywhere in modern society. Just about every convenient stores, newsletter kiosks and supermarkets sell tobacco. Cigarette industry is an industry that has a size of few hundreds of billion dollars. In some occasions, cigarettes are also handmade with rolling paper and cigarette leaves. From these factors, we can already see that cigarettes are easily acquired and easily made as well. When cigarette is so abundant in quantity, it is very unrealistic to enforce a cigarette ban. Passing of the ban would primarily be unrealistic. Giant tobacco companies worth billions and billions would oppose the ban with every resource they can afford. For the sake of argument, let's assume tobacco companies decided to forsake their lucrative business and became philanthropists by miracle. Even then, we face predicament of having to sabotage all tobacco farms and infrastructures. When that happens, incredible amount of stockpile of this new illegal drug would have to be disposed and be taken care of. These few things are already unlikely to happen. But even under assumption that they happen, the ban would still have to be regulated. Are we saying we are going to place police officers in public places to follow track of cigarette smoke and arresting smokers?

Again, for the sake of argument, let us imagine we live in world with cops chasing for cigarette smoke and tobacco companies became nice enough to forsake their multibillion corporations. Cigarette ban would still be ineffective since it will open up a black market. India bans cigarette from other international brands and this action enforced by Indian Government was admitted by the government (Tobacco Institute of Indian States ) to only result in an exponential increase of these banned cigarettes being smuggled in. Banning cigarette is fundamentally unenforceable and purposeless. Even by miracle, if total ban of cigarette actualized, the ban would not serve its purpose since market of contraband will emerge as seen in similar case of India.
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Pro

First off. I would like to congratulate Cezar on taking this debate.

Unfortunately, cezar some made some mistakes in his rebuttal that need to be pointed out.

This is what my opponent previously stated,

Rebuttal 1:

"Well... as the Pro team said, smoking is a habit! It is hard to quit, yes, BUT you have to quit just when you are addicted to it! And you are addicted to it just when you start smoking! When is it legal to start smoking? When you are an adult, when you are able to make a decision for yourself, when you are ready to decide if this decision is bad or good for yourself! So humans should have the right to make this decision, because they have the right to choose for themselves."

End of quote

The first two sentences do not make any sense. he is saying you need to quit when you are addicted, but you are addicted when you take your first smoke of the cigarette. So he should re word this to make it clearer. The third sentence really is and is not true. First, a lot of people start smoking because their friends and family are smoking. Peer Pressure is a major issue

Rebuttal 2: Will be focused on the last sentences in this paragraph.

http://kidshealth.org...

Many smokers start smoking when they are underage, because they want to fit in. In the link, this describes peer pressure for a child. Then does that mean if their siblings, friends or parents smoke, they will think it is normal.In this article, it says that 9 out of 10 smoker start before they are 18 years old.

http://kidshealth.org...

This is also an article about peer pressure. If you read this, it will show that everyone is effected with peer pressure. It even lists one of the examples of peer pressure as smoking. Hmmmm. Peer pressure occurs mainly in children and teens, and 9 out of 10 smokers start smoking before they are 18. Connection? Yes!

Rebuttal 3: This rebuttal will be focused on this paragraph
As My opponent previously stated:

"Today's Proposition said that you harm people around you, but let's analyse this a little;
People you know: they take the decision to talk to you, knowing that you smoke, so is their decision
People you don't know: are protected by the law of not smoking in public places
So we see that actually today's pro gave us just statements, never explained them, or give us an example.
Though I am not a smoker myself, I firmly oppose the notion of banning smoking due to three reasons: that they are unenforceable, that they limit citizen"s freedom and cigarette industry brings practical benefits."

End Of Quote

Smoking is bad for other people, but if your friend is smoking, you are still going to want to hang out with him right? It's like saying you aren't going to spend time with your parents because they are smoking. Yes. There are laws protecting you from smoke in some places, but I have seen very few places that have rules and they can smoke fast so no one catches them. Your sentence saying they are unenforceable, is like saying we should lift the ban on pot just because some people live where they grow pot for medical reasons. tobacco has no medical properties, so we would stop growing tobacco wherever the ban is enforced! So you are saying every drug should be allowed because it limits a persons freedom? That is not right. We outlawed those drugs because they do harm and have no benifits, just like tobacco! So you are saying that we should sell cocaine because there would be a benifit finacially. It's like you are saying that, but instead of cocaine, it's tobacco!

Rebuttal 4:

As my opponent previously stated:

There are about 43.5 million smokers in the US solely. In the same country, 21.5% of men and 17.3% of women are smokers . Cigarette is undeniable everywhere in modern society. Just about every convenient stores, newsletter kiosks and supermarkets sell tobacco. Cigarette industry is an industry that has a size of few hundreds of billion dollars. In some occasions, cigarettes are also handmade with rolling paper and cigarette leaves. From these factors, we can already see that cigarettes are easily acquired and easily made as well. When cigarette is so abundant in quantity, it is very unrealistic to enforce a cigarette ban. Passing of the ban would primarily be unrealistic. Giant tobacco companies worth billions and billions would oppose the ban with every resource they can afford. For the sake of argument, let's assume tobacco companies decided to forsake their lucrative business and became philanthropists by miracle. Even then, we face predicament of having to sabotage all tobacco farms and infrastructures. When that happens, incredible amount of stockpile of this new illegal drug would have to be disposed and be taken care of. These few things are already unlikely to happen. But even under assumption that they happen, the ban would still have to be regulated. Are we saying we are going to place police officers in public places to follow track of cigarette smoke and arresting smokers?

End of quote

Yes! Just like if they catch you with pot, they arrest you. it should be the same with smoking! Yes it can easily be made, but it can be regulated just like pot. Everyone sells it and the government can let them sell their supplies one last time, or send police or citizens to destroy the mass.

i have proved the con's statements false. If he wishes to question me again, he may do so and I will try to prove hime wrong again!
Cezar

Con

Ok... Sorry for being rude, but can I start laughing? Today's team Proposition said that I made some mistakes, but let me talk a little about his Rebuttals.
About his first, second and third Rebuttals, all of them where based on peer pressure, which I think is suck a minor issue in front of what will happen if we ban smoking. First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes.

Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer.

Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option.

Now, about the 4th Rebuttal, the lowest one from my point of view:
As he said in his first argument "Your body becomes near dependent on it and it is hard to quit!" So we can tell that if we ban smoking 99% of the 43.5 million smokers in US wouldn't stop smoking because they couldn't. So will you arrest 43.5 million people? It is IMPOSSIBLE. It is IMPOSSIBLE to ban smoking. And even if the government would "let them sell their supplies one last time, or send police or citizens to destroy the mass.", I talked above about the Black Market, which would have a lot of benefits after banning smoking. Banning smoking will also be a negative BOOM in the economy, because it is a major part of it, and the state would loose a lot of money.

Now, I want to give another argument:

Argument 2 : Democratic systems should educate on smoking rather than restrict it

The principle of democracy is to let people make their decisions and to ensure, that the decisions they make are as informed as possible. Due to the maximization of an individual's happiness the government should only have the possibility to give information to their citizens and let them all decide, how they want to make use of their freedom of choice.

One of the options is a targeted campaign against smoking and information on smoking harms. Actually, the National Bureau for Economic research states that there has not been enough investment in counteradvertising, which is designed to reduce consumption and also fits into the framework of a response function."The counteradvertising response function slopes downward and is subject to diminishing marginal product. The levels of counteradvertising that have been undertaken are small in comparison to advertising. The empirical work finds evidence that counteradvertising does reduce consumption."1

So before limiting the citizens freedoms the state should try the "soft line" with informing their citizens.

1 Henry Saffer, The Effect of Advertising on Tobacco and Alcohol Consumption, The National Bureau for Economic Research, published Winter 2004,

And now at the end I want to make an observation... In this hole debate, until now we see that team Proposition has never given us a concrete Argument. His debate is based only on Rebuttals, and I expect to see at least one argument, because until now we see no case from team Proposition!
Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Pro

First of, the con didn't even TRY to disprove any rebuttal except rebuttal 4. So that was a lie right there rebuttal 1: the rules for tobacco on the black market would be the penalty for anything you buy on the black market. If you are caught, you are arrested people relocating their funds don't really make a lot of sense. You're saying people would relocate it because of the the smoking ban. Taxes have not effect on money stored in the bank. Cancer and emphysema are nothing to be taken lightly! Why even take the risk? Also, you are not basing the fact that people can sneak cigarettes, and there are very few places that actually have codes that stop them from smoking in a building.

Rebuttal 2:
This can easily be taken care of. After the government disposes of them We give all Americans 10 days to smoke the cigarettes they have, and after the ten day period, people can't smoke and will be arrested if they do. You say that the states will lose money? They will, but a lot of lives will be saved from severe side effects from smoking. So, your saying you can put a price on a human? That is not right!

Rebuttal 3: kids are educated in school already that smoking is bad, but here are some reasons they do smoke:

Rebellion,
Peer pressure
Because they want to try it.

Kids are tempted to do bad things and a lot of times kids do those things.

Your main argument is really how would we do it. I say, let the government decide. The debate topic is should smoking be banned not how can smoking be banned.

Health is dramatically effected by smoking by these three main diseases.

Lung cancer: this is normally fatall. Even though smoking only increases the risk slightly, why take the risk?
Emphysema: 1 out of ten smokers get this. That means that if a 43.5 million people smoke, 435 thousand people are effected by this. Emphysema, is where the air bags in your lungs pop, making it harder to breath
Chronic Bronchitis, a constant irritation in the bronchial tubes, by smoking! Or being around someone who smokes, and causes constant coughing and It makes it hard to breath.

The argument is should there be a ban, no how to have a smoking ban! My opponent is totally off topic!
Cezar

Con

Ok... I think that team Proposition isn't really reading my arguments or rebuttals.
Firstly, he says I disproved just rebuttal 4, but I said that first, second and third rebuttals put in balance with what would happen if we ban smoking are NOTHING! :)
Moreover, he said that the rules for tobacco on the black market would be the penalty for anything you buy on the black market, BUT what I said is that we must not improve the BLACK MAKET, and that's what banning smoking will do, as I explained earlier in my arguments! :)
About rebuttal 2, well I start to realise that the Proposition lives in a utopic world, where if you tell a human that from tomorrow you can't smoke, he will stop. It is NOT TRUE! Every smoker will continue smoking, so we don't actually save any life by implementing such a law! So the only thing we really do is improving black market, and make the state to loose money!
And finally about your least rebuttal, you tell me that it is not relevant talking about how will we implement it, BUT I assure you that if I don't have any idea of how to implement something, I don't have any basis on debating why should I ban or not smoking. So the Opposition is asking you to give me a correct way of implementing this law. Because if you can't, why would we debate it? If you can't I WN ! :)
Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Pro

This is how it might go,

1st step: ban!

The ban will be in place, stating that all stores may sell their remaining stockpile of cigarettes to the mass one last time.

2nd step, the last three weeks.

The government then gives smokers three weeks to smoke the cigarettes they have or have purchased from the 1st step. After that, step 3 comes into action.

3rd step, the ban kicks in.

In this step, any distribution or smoking of cigarettes, will result in jail, and will be considered a drug charge.

4th step, the black market

In this last step, undercover agents go to the black market, and purchase their cigarettes. Then they burn them. We can't totally stop distribution, but just like drugs, we can sentence them to jail!

If this ban sets in, future generation will either not smoke or will smoke very little, and will be jailed if caught!

Also, the black market is hard to get into and hard to locate. If the black market were that easy to locate, the government would have destroyed it years ago!

I have proved the following points,
The main reasons people smoke are rebellion to their parents, to fit in, and because it seems Normal
Warning the future generations of smoking risk barely helps
Smoking is bad for you and other people
The ban be enforced in a effective way
Diseases I have stated would not effect the future generations.

Ladies and gentleman, I have proved that banning smoking will do good for any country! Thank you for reading the debate and good luck to my opponent, which, must say why he thinks smoking is better for society. Thank you.
Cezar

Con

Sooo ... At the end of this debate, we see that the Proposition really lives in a sooo utopic world in which such a plan as he gives might work!
Firstly every smoker will revolt in such conditions. The team Pro stated that they are addicted to smoking so they will have revolts in front of these rules. The black market will expland because so much smokers will want to buy cigarettes, so the only thing you do by banning smoking is actually:

1. EXPAND THE BLACK MARKET
2. INCREASE THE NUMBER OF REVOLTS
3. DECREASE PEOPLE'S RIGHT OF LIBERTY IN DECISIONS

That's what I actually stated, explained and exampled. I hope you understood all these and vote for not banning this STUPID LAW! :)

Have a nice day ! :)
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Cezar 2 years ago
Cezar
@Stirling

I think team Proposition doesn't really understand the really issue in banning smoking, so I tried to explain him better what is with all these :) !
Posted by Stirling 2 years ago
Stirling
AND all the prison money for those 43.5 million people will be tax money from the hard working Americans
Posted by Stirling 2 years ago
Stirling
cooldudebro it would be awfully hard to arrest 43.5 million people dontcha think?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
CooldudebroCezarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: All right, let's start with conduct. Conduct was decided by con's quote: "I'm sorry to be rude, but can I start laughing?" Con showed about the charm of a warty frog there. Pro wins conduct. As for S&G, it was bad on both ends, with multiple spelling and grammar mistakes in every round. It would be unfair to reward one with the point and another one not with it. Now onto convincing arguments. Con did have more convincing arguments at first, not to mention that PRO did not refute them to the best of his ability, but faltered later on. He became so sure that he would win that he let his whole debate structure fall apart, while pro didn't, and kept his debate going. So kudos to pro for winning the argument section. Both debaters kept their sources at an absolute minimal, so no points will be rewarded, even though pro did use some. However, to gain these points, he must use them more organized. However, in the end, pro wins in a debate con probably should've won.