The Instigator
TheLibertarian76
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
LiberalLogic101
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Smoking Ban

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 2 votes the winner is...
LiberalLogic101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 467 times Debate No: 58651
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

TheLibertarian76

Con

First round is acceptance
LiberalLogic101

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
TheLibertarian76

Con

I will argue against smoking bans. Honestly, it's kinda like the war on drugs. People have the right to do stupid things. Go after the tobacco corporations, but don't ban smoking! What's next, alcohol? If history has showed us anything it's that prohibition does not work. Prohibition on alcohol did not work! Prohibition on drugs does not work! Prohibition on tobacco does not work! Having a war on tobacco and smoking will just turn into another fiasco like the war on drugs! Not to mention the costs of enforcing this law!

And if your one of those people who only wants it ban in certain places like homes, what if the home owner is ok with it! If he/she is ok with it, why does the government need to make the property owners choice and ban it there! Also, why would you ban it in public places! It is for the PUBLIC to use! So people can participate in whatever they want to do as long as it abides by the law!
LiberalLogic101

Pro

1. The Effect of Smoking Directly

Smoking effects nearly every organ in the body - the skin, the heart, the brain, the liver, the lungs, etc.. It also kills more people year around than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle accidents, and firearm accidents. The odds of a person getting lung cancer are multiplied by at least 25. [1] Lung cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S.A., [2] and 90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking. Smoking increases your likelihood of heart disease and stroke significantly, and if no one in the U.S. smoked, one out of every three cancer deaths could be prevented.

Smoking kills a massive amount of people - around 480, 000 people a year [1].

2. The Effect of Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand smoke is not much better. It exposes you to 7000 chemicals, 70 of which are known carcinogens. It causes 42, 000 deaths a year, [3] and since 1964, the Surgeon General estimates it has caused 2.5 million deaths [4]. As many as 40% of men, 35% of woman, and 33% of woman are exposed to secondhand smoke regularly. [5]

3. Will the smoking ban work?

You have mentioned that The Prohibition did not work. While that is true, smoking is a dying fad in the U.S.A.. In 2012, 18% of people were smokers, down from 24.7% in 1997, and 20.6% in 2009. It is also an entirely different issue than the prohibition and the two cannot be compared adequately. It requires examination of logical evidence, which I have found. Multiple college campuses, such as Amherst, Salem State, University of Massauchusets, and Northwestern University have initiated smoking bans. And, they have been working. [7] It could be reasonably assumed that a similar situation would arise if we initiated a smoking ban throughout the U.S.A., or in public places.

[Citations]

[1] http://www.cdc.gov...;
[2] http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com...;
[3] http://www.cdc.gov...
[4] http://www.cdc.gov...;
[5] http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com...;
[6] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...;
[7] http://www.bostonglobe.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
TheLibertarian76

Con

Which is exactly why you can go after tobacco company's. You can regulate them and control them if you want, but don't out right ban them! Declaring a war on tobacco would just cause billions of dollars to go down the drain by enforcing it. People drink soda, and it is unhealthy, and if you drink too much, you could become obese and potentially die from obesity. Should we ban soda?

I think we should have tobacco education, and educate people about the dangers of it. In fact, more and more addiction help centers are popping up. But declaring a war on tobacco would just waste a lot of money, encourage more people to do it, increase crime rates, because then we would have a bunch of "tobacco" dealers and cartels, and that would cause more gun violence (which you are clearly against) between competition and the police, which could also stretch the police thin, with having to crack down on all the smokers. Then we might have another government agency that would continue to waste our tax dollars; not to mention that would probably add significantly to how many people would be in prisons, causing the prisons to overcrowd, and then we would have to spend more money on prisons. Do you know how much money that would cost? Alot

But also, you want the government to make the choice for millions of property owners, that people can't smoke on their property. It is up to the owners, if they want that kind of activity going on, and if they do, the government shouldn't make the decision for them. Do you think that's right. When they start making decisions for people like that, what's to stop them from telling people where they're kids can go to school, and what they can eat and drink?
___________________________________
|PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK|
--------------------------------------------------

Also I find the "location bans" are really ineffective, because people do it anyway, which means you would still have to get people to patrol and enforce those unreasonable smoking bans.
LiberalLogic101

Pro

Yes, we can go after tobacco companies. The government is free to ban tobacco, and is it really any less than the government is spending on tobacco at the moment? The U.S. spends more than $289 billion a year due to smoking, with around $133 billion of it going to direct medical care. [1] Should we ban soda? No, because it doesn't hurt people who don't make the decision to drink it, and isn't near as destructive.

I have no arguments here, however, I have to open you up to a little bit of the world. According to your debate.org page, you are a 24 year old, which is 10 years older than me. I don't know how much you remember from your tobacco education, so allow me to fill you in. We were taught the bad things in around... I don't know... 3rd or 4th grade, definitely not into middle or high school, and here is how they "ensured" nothing would happen. We tied a knot in a string that meant we would never do drugs or alcohol. Useful. As a current teen, exposed daily to those who are just now beginning to smoke, I can tell you that 95% of people will just ignore you. And my decision to not smoke, to not drink, to not use marijuana (all of which I could do if I wanted, I have an older brother who has offered me these things on several occasions) is not in any part due to the education I have had on the subject from public education or otherwise. It has come from personal research - the place where I learn over half of my current knowledge base. Those who don't don't care about what they have been taught, it's just that they don't want to.

A war on tobacco wouldn't waste any more money than we spend on it now, and will save lives. Some places have actually found a decrease in violence upon a tobacco ban, [2] and there has no notable violent uprise in cities such as Helena, Montana. Rather, there has been a stunning decrease in heart attacks, and it has overall, gone quite well. [3]

Do you approve of heroin legalization? It's the same concept. A smoker doesn't affect one person. It affects a whole family, the environment, and people's health. Just because they want that activity going on, doesn't mean it's a responsible activity. Sometimes a government needs to make a choice for people's health, despite what the person wants.

I would agree that they are less effective. According to this San Diego University study [4], it is more effective to ban smoking altogether. According to a New York Times article I will cite below, smoking bans have been largely effective in most cities with little to no problems such as violence.




[1] http://www.cdc.gov...;
[2] http://rcnpublishing.com...;
[3] http://www.forbes.com...;
[4] http://health.ucsd.edu...;
[5] http://world.time.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
TheLibertarian76

Con

Yes I do remember my tobacco and drug education, but who ever said I condoned it. I have never smoked, I've never done drugs, and I don't drink.

Do you know what Else is not a responsible activity? Over drinking and getting a hangover in the morning. That could potentially affect other people with the behavior of the guy who over drank. So should we have alcohol bans? No.

And also, if you did declare a war on tobacco, it's just logic you would need to pay more. A. prisons, which since you said 18% of the population smokes, it is likely we would need more prisons and more maintenance for prisons to keep all the smokers locked up. B. Enforcement. You would probably need to pay more on law enforcement to enforce the war against tobacco.

Good For Amherst and the other colleges. It is private property, so they can do whatever they want with their property. I have no problem with that, I just don't think the government should make decisions for the millions of property owners in America.

And yes, I do realize that it spreads through the air, but if your so concerned about it in public spaces, why don't you get air filters? It actually is very effective.

http://www.rabbitair.com...

http://www.achooallergy.com...

Also Helena Montana might not have a lot of crime originally. I'm asking you to imagine a nation wide- or state wide ban. Don't you think crime rates would go up a little bit? One small town is not the equivalent of an entire state or nation. Also think what would happen If you initiated an all out smoking in Chicago or oh her cities like that. Heck think of what would happen if you did that in border cities like El Paso, where a reasonable amount of cartels are starting to operate. Also if you did do it on the border, it would just make it another opportunity for something the cartels could sell, not to mention probably increasing cartel activity in the United States. Organizations like this could come into play

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
LiberalLogic101

Pro

Alright then.

I would agree that is not an acceptable behavior and that it affects people - DUIs, mainly. Which is why... it's illegal. Public drinking is illegal. [1] Drinking and driving is illegal. [2]

So why is it not illegal to smoke in public? Or smoke in a way that would endanger others?

I did say 18% of the population smokes. However, not all 18% of them would have to go to prison. According to studies done in Ireland after their 1998 and 2004 bans on smoking in certain places - not even the whole country - 88% of people said that they quit after these were put into effect. So, obviously, it wouldn't be as bad as you think.

Assuming that the kind of ban put into affect would not jail people (I am anti-jail), it would actually gain money for the state in the form of fines. Assuming that it was the same thing as marijuana is (for most places, where I live, it's legal for people over 21), it would be a year in prison plus a $1, 000 fine [3]. For the prison, it would be 340 billion (based on [4]), which would be more than we are currently spending on tobacco by around 50 billion dollars, but wait... the fines. We can't forget about the fines. Which would be about 70 billion. It would cost less.

Yes, good for them. Those were merely examples of rules like that working.

Um... I hate to rain on your parade, but those are for houses. Only. They don't really work for the entire Earth.

Actually, Helena, Montana, has a very average crime rate. [5]




[1] http://criminal.findlaw.com...;
[2] http://dui.findlaw.com...
[3] http://norml.org...;
[4] http://www.lanecounty.org...;
[5] http://www.city-data.com...;
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheLibertarian76 2 years ago
TheLibertarian76
H us as gets a lot of good tax income from cigarettes.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by texans14 2 years ago
texans14
TheLibertarian76LiberalLogic101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had equal grammar and conduct. I think con had better arguments. Pro provided reliable sources in every round, while con did not.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
TheLibertarian76LiberalLogic101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Sources win. Cancre, etc. outweigh cartels. Pro proved efficacy.