Debate Rounds (3)
3. Rebut/ Defend/ Conclude
Smoking: the action or habit of inhaling and exhaling the smoke of tobacco or a drug.
Ban: A stop to
I will be making my argument.
I live in Paris, where smoking is legal. I honestly really hate the air, and know for sure there are a ton of pollution. I think that smoking should certainly be banned.
I. Secondhand smoking
III. Harm Principle
Argument I: Secondhand smoking
Lets, see why do everyone want to stop pollution and global warming? Also what is pollution?
Lets do this into premises
1. People also talk about stopping global warming and pollution
2. What is Pollution?
3. Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants.
4. Also this is bad for your health
5. Does smoking have pollution?
6. Yes it does
7. And pollution is bad for people, bad health
8. Because smoking has pollution, it is bad for your health
9. This means that smoking should be banned.
I will explain why smoking is bad for non-smokers. As I said in the premises, smoking has pollution. This means that people's lungs will get unhealthy.
"Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke."
Why do non-smokers have to die for people just do let people smoke? We are giving up many lives, banning smoking is much better. Without smoking do you die? No you don't. With smoking do other who not smoke not die? They do, meaning that secondhand impacts are bad, vote for Pro.
From quote: http://www.cdc.gov...
The source I gave has tons of info of secondhand impact.
Argument II: Pollution
As I said in my premises, pollution can cause you harm, your health harm. Because smoking has this, and the world will be more polluted, artic animals will die, glaciers, 97% of the fresh water will melt with the salt water. Just for smoking do we have no do this and harm animals and people? No.
Argument III: Harm Principle
I saw many Con debates say the harm principle in their arguments. But however, smoking does harm others. I will give a list of how much it harms others.
1. Secondhand smoke
3. Economy Impact
4. Non-smokers have to pay for smoker's health because smokers are poor
You get it. The harm principle clearly then says Smoking should be banned.
As per the rules, I will be using this round to present my arguments, and will be using the next round to provide rebuttals against my opponent's arguments.
1) Crime Increase
From a historical standpoint, laws that prohibit the use of popular drugs have led to a significant in crime. This is true for both the current war on drugs, and Prohibition, which began in the early 1920s in the United States. As a consequence of increased crime during prohibition, millions of Americans were turned into criminals, resulting in an overflow of the legal system.
Is this different from smoking? Not really. According to the CDC, "...an estimated 40 million adults in the United States smoke cigarettes.". Even a fraction of that number would be a huge business opportunity for gangs who intend to sell these substances in the black market. On top of that, drug-war related deaths are extremely high. Approximately 85 000 people have been killed since Mexico's launch of the drug-war.
2) Tax Revenue
The legality of smoking allows the US government to generate billions of dollars in tax revenue. In 2013, over 4 billion dollars was made from taxes on cigarettes. By banning cigarettes, the government loses its ability to impose taxes on them, as well as its ability to monitor and regulate usage (such as age restrictions).
If smoking became a big problem, the government could simply increase taxes on cigarettes. This limits the number of users (by increasing costs), but also limits the operations of black-market sellers (because people are pressured to choose legal options over illegal ones).
3) Ease of Access would not be Affected much
Since I've been comparing the smoking ban proposal to the current situation with Marijuana quite a bit, I'll be carrying that analogy over here as well.
According to PewResearch, "Nearly half (49%) of Americans say they have tried marijuana". That means nearly half (which is about 156 million people) of America's population knows how to gain access this substance. So, going back to the idea of smoking, it is more than likely that millions of Americans will be able to get access to the substance despite issues related to legality.
4) Freedom of Choice/Personal Liberty
People should be able to decide whether or not smoking is prohibited from their property or not. This means that if someone decides that others may smoke in their property, they should be able to do that without a third party overruling that decision. If someone inside that property is not comfortable with second-hand smoke, they have the right to leave, but they do not have the right to prohibit smoking in someone else's property.
That being said, the opposite situation can also be true. If a property owner decides to ban cigarettes from their property, they should be able to do so, and they have the right to kick out anybody that doesn't abide by those rules.
An overall ban, however, enforced by the federal government, impedes these rights of property owners, and is therefore, not a good idea.
I will be posting my rebuttals this round. My opponent should have made his rebuttals, so that I can make my defense. My opponent cannot make his defense, because it is unfair if he does and I can't.
I: Crime Increase
II: Tax Revenue
III: Ease of Access would not be effected much
IV: Freedom of Choice/ Personal Liberty
Rebuttal I: Crime Increase
My opponent says that popular drugs have led to a signficant crime. My opponent says that gangs will sell it to the black market.
"Richer countries invest more than poorer countries. This is clear from figure 1. Notice that PPP investment rates are 2-3 times higher for US and Norway compared with poorcountries like Mali and Kenya. Thus both faster growing and richer countries invest more than slow growing and/or poor countries. "
So, basically we are debating about America, that means that smoking, tobacco and cigarettes are about 2-3 times its actual cost.
What is the cost of smoking?
"According to The Awl's annual cigarette price check, for which they call delis in each state and ask how much a pack of cigarettes costs, New York clocks in with the most expensive, at more than $14 a pack. In Kentucky, where the cigarette tax is just 60 cents, a pack costs$4.96, about a third of its cost in New York. "
The cost is 4.96. About 5 dollars. Then this means that when you buy it is about 10-15 dollars. Criminals don't have lots of money, or gangs to buy this. This much cost for 10-15 dollars will be useless, as most people think.
Also many people who don't want to do illegal things, a majority would not. Also we can easily make pollution smaller, because we can catch people who illegally bought it, many people will not by following the law, which will make about 20% of what is was normally.
Rebuttal II: Tax Revenue
This argment is basically about economy.
My opponent says that the government gets lots of money from smoking.
However, the medical illness of smoking costs 170 billion in 2014 . How much for taxes? 4. How much for medical illness? 170. My opponent might say that the smokers pay for this, but then because of the lack of money, non-smokers pay more. This is just bad for non-smokers, because evn though they are getting harmed, they are paying the medical bills.
Rebuttal III: Ease of Access would not be effected much
I rebutted this in the first argument
Rebuttal IV: Freedom of Choice/ Personal Liberty
My opponent says that they have the right to smoke. But then don't non-smokers not have the right to roam free with no smelling bad smoke that pollutes them? Smokers are not the only people, non-smokers are much more than smokers, meaning they should have more rights
Thanks. Remember, no defense.
My opponent says I should have posted rebuttals in R2, but if that was the case he wouldn't have written that R3 is for rebuttals in his first post. Second of all, I was under the impression that this was a 4 round debate because of what he wrote in R1, so apologies for that.
I will avoid defenses to keep the debate fair.
1 - Secondhand smoking
First off, there are some serious issues with the list of premises given by my opponent. He says that because smoking is bad for your health, it should be banned. By that logic, cars should be banned too.
He provides a statistic that explains how many non-smokers have died from secondhand smoke since 1964. He doesn't explain how his proposal to ban smoking solves this issue, and doesn't take into account the repercussions of his proposal. In R2, I have explained how the increases in crime are a huge issue to be worried about if a smoking ban takes place. Sure, you're going to save a fraction of the number of people who die from secondhand smoke, but drug-war deaths will increase drastically.
2 - Pollution
Pro has not given any sources to back up the claim that smoking is the cause of all those things he accused it of doing. He just makes the claim that smoking kills animals, and therefore should be banned.
In fact, the amount of CO2 released from cigarette smoke has a negligible impact on climate change. Of course, the process of growing the tobacco has significant effects on the climate, but banning cigarettes is not the solution. Banning cigarettes is just another way of saying "Let the drug cartels handle it.". This means that Government completely loses control of the regulation (such as taxes) on the emissions caused by its production. The increase in business for the drug cartels also results in higher production for lower cost, which completely goes against the point of banning cigarettes in the first place.
3 - Harm Principle
Points #1 & 2 are just reiterations of the first two arguments, which I have rebutted.
Point #3 - Simply saying "Economy Impact" doesn't clearly address the issue of how smoking affects the economy. I'm assuming that he means to point out the 'lost productivity' from smoking. Let me just say that this productivity would not be gained back by the banning of cigarettes. As I mentioned in R3, the way to lower purchases of cigarettes is to simply increase taxes on them. When there is a legal option competing with an illegal one, people tend to avoid the illegal ones at all costs. When you make the illegal option the ONLY option (by banning cigarettes), people have no choice but to provide the drug cartels with business.
Point #4 - Pro doesn't take into account the repercussions of the smoking ban. Just like prohibition, billions of taxpayers dollars will be wasted because of the overflowed legal system, and taxpayer dollars would STILL be used to provide healthcare to those who have illegally smoked cigarettes.
Pro's arguments are centred around the fact that cigarettes are bad. That, however, is not the topic of the debate, which is whether or not banning them is a good idea. I have sufficiently rebutted Pro's arguments to conclude that cigarettes should not be banned, and the affects of doing such a thing would have repercussions that defeat the purpose of banning them in the first place.
For those reasons, vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 7 months 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 pointed out that there are significant individual and secondhand harms to smoking and argued that as his/her primary reason for instigating a ban. However, Con likewise brought up a case involving more of logistics of a ban. Since the resolution doesn't provide a framework for the ban (i.e. *should* [moral obligation] we ban smoking), I am left to preferring whichever arguments make the most sense. Because Con pointed out that a ban would have issues in terms of feasibility and economically, I am forced to prefer these. This is because: a) he/she attested that Pro's logic for banning them based on danger/health reasons was misleading and inapplicable, and b) these arguments actually have impact without being sufficiently refuted. Moreover, the link was never adequately established between animal deaths and smoking, and Pro's rebuttals were quite indirect. For these reasons, I vote Con. ***[[[ If you have any questions about my vote, PM me, I'm happy to explain further. ]]]***
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.