Debate Rounds (4)
Smoking Ban: "A smoking ban is a public policy that includes criminal laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in certain public places and workspaces." (http://www.debate.org...)
72hrs/6,000 Characters/select winner
1st round: acceptance
2nd round: opening arguments
3rd round: rebuttals
4th round: summary, no new arguments.
Thanks to Kingofeverything for accepting this challenge.
My case here is quite simply. First, an intro to ethics that will frame why the reader should care about this topic. I will then demonstrate the harm of smoking, and demonstrate how smoking bans address these harms.
An Intro To Ethics:
Ethics delves into what ought to be rather than what is. Henry Sidgwick rightly points out a typical flaw made when determining what ought to be done. “we frequently prescribe that this or that `ought' to be done or aimed at without any express reference to an ulterior end,” (1) As John Stuart Mill says “All action is for the sake of some end.” In order to determine what we ought do we must observe what the results will be from that action. What ends are produced? “all the rules of conduct which men prescribe to one another as moral rules are really---though in part unconsciously---prescribed as a means to the general happiness of mankind,” Henry Sidgwick (2) Any moral code is a means to an end. Thus to affirm the resolution that society ought to implement or maintain a smoking ban I need to show that by doing so the general happiness of mankind is produced or preserved.
“Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.” (3)
“If smoking continues at the current rate among U.S. youth, 5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every 13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today.” (3)
“Those who live in homes with smokers have a 20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than those who do not live with a smoker. Many see it as unfair that others have to suffer the effects of secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the decision for exposur to it. Non-smokers who worked with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no choice but to face exposure to the smoke.” (4)
It is evident that smoking as well as secondhand smoke is detrimental to health.
“Smoking bans remove these risks for many people. The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.”(4)
It is clear that society ought to implement or maintain smoking bans.
Contention One: Tobacco is good for the economy.
As of 2014, about 264 billion cigarettes were sold into the U.S. The average cost for a cigarette is about $6.28. Now of you do the math, that means as of 2014, $1,657,920,000,000 is put into the industry to employ people that want to work for tobacco farms. They can also tax the cigarettes, which is proven to reduce smoking, and is a closer method to preventing smoking from becoming a bigger issue than simply banning it. With all of the money that is made from cigarettes, the industries can use their money for beneficial purposes, and heck, this is just from cigarettes alone. Combining those statistics with use from pipes and cigars, this further bolsters my point and will allow more people to have jobs.
Contention Two: Tobacco is an addictive drug
Tobacco contains a substance called nicotine, which is also present in coffee. This causes people to be addicted to tobacco and keep using it. Out of the 80% of people who who want to quit smoking, only 5% are able to actually quit smoking. Now where am I getting with this?
Tobacco is harder to quit than alcohol is. What did the attempt t ban alcohol cause? The Prohibition. This was an event where people would sell and buy alcohol illegally and would still proceed to drink it, and caused the Mafia to form. The Mafia killed our cops and citizens. I wouldn't want another crisis like this to occur.
Conclusion: To tie my arguments together, I must conclude that keeping cigarettes legal is the safest method for the citizens and also is financially the most beneficial method. With a complete ban on tobacco, people will just keep smoking and refuse to abide the law, poverty will increase because less people will get jobs, and another group like the Mafia will cause crisis.
Contention One: Tobacco is good for the economy:
Essentially Con argues against smoking bans by referencing the money made. Consider if you would the reality that by allowing harmful substances like tobacco to be legal, our society has monetized a human life. Profits are made and jobs created but society pays the ultimate price in life’s lost. Remember these lives that are being liquidated for the tobacco industry include some 41,000 deaths per year from second hand smoke. A smoking ban would negate or at least mitigate the damage done to society in this way. I leave this contention with a few questions. What good is a job if you are not alive or healthy enough to work? What good is a wealthy society void of justice that allows 41,000 people to be killed by others annually? What price is my opponent willing to accept in exchange for thousands of innocent lives lost? Consider this contention mitigated.
Contention Two: Tobacco is an addictive drug:
Con’s second contention is fascinating. He claims that because tobacco is so addictive we should not have smoking bans. This is perhaps the greatest argument that could be made in favor of a smoking ban. Any substance as harmful has tobacco that is coupled with its addictive nature is clearly and indisputably dangerous. Somehow con has thought that the concept of a smoking ban would case a mafia resurgence. This is absurd, there are plenty smoking bans in the world with no sign of the mafia…
Perhaps con could elaborate on why a smoking ban would result in an uncontrollable mafia.
I have clearly illustrated the harm posed by smoking. A smoking ban addresses these harms. Unless you think money = morality or are convinced that a mafia will be the result of a smoking ban (Neither of which seem even slightly reasonable) I implore you to vote Pro!
KingofEverything forfeited this round.
Remember no new arguments in last round.
KingofEverything forfeited this round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
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.