The Instigator
tennis47
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
miketheman1200
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Should smoking be illegal?

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 3 votes the winner is...
miketheman1200
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,952 times Debate No: 27942
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

tennis47

Con

Hey guys, smoking should definitely be legal. This is because 1) It's the smokers' choice, and if it's illegal to smoke they will probably keep smoking behind the police's back, and the crime rate will go up, 2) We already have places where they can't smoke, and besides, it's the smokers choice of where they want to lead their life, why should we have to push them somewhere else?

Good luck :)
miketheman1200

Pro

I would like to first thank my opponent for the debate topic.

I will be arguing that smoking should be illegal because of the harm it causes to the environment, individuals, and society.

I will address the initial statements made by con.

1.) "It's the smokers' choice, and if it's illegal to smoke they will probably keep smoking behind the police's back, and the crime rate will go up"

It may be the smokers choice, but what about the second hand smokers choice? Around 40,000 people a year die from second hand smoke, should their rights to life be recognized over the person who is choosing to harm themselves and inadvertently them? I would say yes.

Graph says US cigarette Consumption 1900-2006





This graph shows the decreasing popularity in cigarette smoking over the last few decades starting in the 1980s. If the trend continues anyone who hasn't gotten addicted already most likely wont, and anyone who has can be treated or easily dealt with through rehabilitation. The awareness created by modern medical science to the harms of smoking is causing the product to sell less and less every year. It wont take too much longer for most of the population to turn their heads at the prospect of Tobago use, this huge growth in negativity attributed with the product not only lets it become illegal with the consent of the people, but also accounts for those you claim will cause the crime rate to go up. There will be some who continue to smoke illegally, but at the point of illegalization it would not be enough to significantly increase crime rates.


2) "We already have places where they can't smoke, and besides, it's the smokers choice of where they want to lead their life, why should we have to push them somewhere else?"



I'll point back to the amount of people who die from second hand smoke to address this. Smoking is banned in most public places for a reason. It is a public safety hazard.


To conclude I would state that because of the implications smoking has on people exposed to it, and the inevitability of second hand smoke in an open smoking environment, smoking should be banned in all places to promote public safety and health.



Sources

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com...

http://www.cdc.gov...







Debate Round No. 1
tennis47

Con

So, firstly, we already have boundaries for smoking. It's the smokers' choice of where they want to lead their life, and besides, if the smokers are the ones wasting their money, then why should we care?

Next, I see from your graph that the number of smokers is going down, but it is still not confirmed that we will get rid of smoking.

-"There will be some who continue to smoke illegally, but at the point of illegalization it would not be enough to significantly increase crime rates"-. How do you know that for sure?

I agree with your arguments about second-hand smoking, but lets just put it this way:If the government wants to ban smoking, then WHY DON'T THEY JUST MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO MAKE and/or SELL CIGARETTES?
I cheerfully await your response. :)
miketheman1200

Pro

Thanks again for the thought provoking subject! My opponent failed to denounce most of my initial arguments made toward her statements.

"I agree with your arguments about second-hand smoking"

CON concedes that second hand smoking is a public safety and health hazard. I would also point out that the CDC source also states around 400 non smokers die a year from fires caused by cigarettes.


"So, firstly, we already have boundaries for smoking. It's the smokers' choice of where they want to lead their life, and besides, if the smokers are the ones wasting their money, then why should we care?"


Those boundaries were made because of the recognition of the effects of second hand smoke on none-smokers. I will restate myself, It may be the smokers choice but it isn't the non-smokers choice to inhale smoke when someone is smoking in a public place. We should care because it doesn't matter where you are, in a restaurant near a smoker, or at a crosswalk with a smoker. They are inadvertently harming you by smoking.


"Next, I see from your graph that the number of smokers is going down, but it is still not confirmed that we will get rid of smoking."


You cannot "get rid of smoking", it is an action. We are arguing Pro and Con in regards to the proposition, "Should smoking be illegal?". You are Con proposition, I am Pro proposition. We are not arguing "should we get rid of smoking" because that would be impossible.


-"There will be some who continue to smoke illegally, but at the point of illegalization it would not be enough to significantly increase crime rates"-. How do you know that for sure?


I will reference the use of medical science in discovering the extremely harmful effects of smoking Tobacco. This is what will progressively turn most people away from it. Take marijuana for instance. Medicine has proved that there are more risks to smoking tobacco than there are to marijuana. 42% of Americans have smoked marijuana despite it being illegal. This defiance is easier to achieve when the substance is less of a threat to a persons health. Something like tobacco though, has nothing to ride on. When you have to print huge warning labels about your products deadliness, it may stop creating incentive to buy it.

I await Cons response.

Sources

http://www.time.com...

http://www.cbsnews.com...

http://www.cdc.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
tennis47

Con

Look, on YOUR graph, the number of smokers is going down!

Also, we're all going to die someday, the average life expectancy has declined greatly, the oxygen level on Earth has gone down to 20%. If you die in a fire, SUCKS FOR YOU!

I cheerfully await pro's response. :)
miketheman1200

Pro

Thank you Con for the swift response.

I will address what little my opponent has presented.

"Look, on YOUR graph, the number of smokers is going down!"

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, please clarify.


Con tries to justify the harm caused by smokers by stating,"Also, we're all going to die someday, the average life expectancy has declined greatly, the oxygen level on Earth has gone down to 20%. If you die in a fire, SUCKS FOR YOU!"
The fact that we are going to die doesn't give anyone the right to speed up the process. You cant justify things with human mortality, because then anything would be justifiable.

I await a response and hopefully a stronger argument.
Debate Round No. 3
tennis47

Con

People die from jaywalking. People die from murder. People die from diseases. People die from war. People die from choking. People die from bleeding. Dying in a fire is just another thing to add to the list.

Have fun in life :)
miketheman1200

Pro

I have negated all of Cons arguments with little effort put back from her. Cons last argument was eight short sentences justifying that human mortality is an excuse to promote or allow extremely harmful products by listing ways you can die. None of these things related to the release of dangerous products into the market that have caused death and can be described as acceptable.

I'm going to leave it at this and get some rest. Have a good night.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by chocolatebanana124 2 years ago
chocolatebanana124
I think, personally, that smoking should be banned. I am doing this for a school debate and trying to find out as much info as possible. my mom used to smoke but when she read a debate about it she instantly quit. She got the idea of her father who is dead now... :( At least shes alive and means the world to me... comment back please

Girl online, going offline xx
Posted by tennis47 4 years ago
tennis47
You too! :)
Posted by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
Best of luck to us both! :)
Posted by Limited_Life 4 years ago
Limited_Life
Of Course not. First of all I myself have smoked Quite a bit 2-3 years ago. It's been awhile before I have smoked. Although i see nothing wrong with the substance, I do believe that it is one of the "Easy to handle Substances" Unlike Alcohol is obviously worse. But, Crime rates would go up, that's one more "legal substance" that we would have to teach out kids not to do. I understand that Marijuana is very easy to receive. Once it's 100% Legalized it's going to be distributed 100 time's more to children than it already is. It's going to be much easier to distribute due to it's lack of size. For the people who talk's about how it doesn't impact you behavior, You're lying to yourself and we both know it. Obviously Marijuana does have impact on you're body. It causes you to think differently, you act much slower, you zone out most of the time, you're just out of it weather you think you are or your not. We all know it's true. With all of this said, No it should not be Legal.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
I would have accepted this debate, but the fact that the crime rate will go up if smoking becomes illegal is really hard to refute. Besides, I don't have time to debate right now anyways. It's only school and job for me now.
Posted by baseballkid 4 years ago
baseballkid
make the resolution not question and I will fight you.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Allow me to accept
Posted by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
Well, if smokers do not waste millions of taxpayers money (health issue), I guess smoking should not be illegal. On the other hand, Tobacco industry contributes millions of taxes to the government...so I guess it is a kind of trade off.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Niwsa 4 years ago
Niwsa
tennis47miketheman1200Tied
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: Con never truly refuted Pro's arguments, Pro had sources.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
tennis47miketheman1200Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't adequately refute Pro's arguments, whereas I thought Pro successfully defended his arguments and at the same time refuted Con's points.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
tennis47miketheman1200Tied
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: mortality is not a good justification for anything. Pro had more sources