The Instigator
ConserativeDemocrat
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Killerchicken12
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places.

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...
ConserativeDemocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 91785
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

The debate is self-explanatory

Definition:
Public Place: A place where members of the public are able to access. Examples are a public pool, on the street or sidewalk, outside a buisness, inside a park, inside an amusement park.

Rules:
1) Post an argument in round one.
2) No trolling, semantics, kritkiks and so on
3) FF = loss
4) Cite sources
5) Only accept this if you will debate all 5 rounds

Good luck!
Killerchicken12

Con

Hello. I'd like to thank pro for opening the argument, as in the next 5-6 rounds, I will have convinced you that Smoking in public places such as Streets, Sidewalks, and amusement parks is constitutional, and the legalization of it is very American.

I'd like to start off with the simple fact that America was founded on Tobacco. Being a History enthusiast, I know that Jamestown was founded on may 4th 1607. This settlement is considered to be the largest of colonial settlements (Larger than Plymouth) and unlike Plymouth, set the stage for both colonial rule under Britain, and American Independence. Plymouth consisted of puritan peoples who were discriminated against in England. this settlement grew, and eventually came under the control of England again, and therefore was not successful in the terms of it's original purpose to separate from England. Earlier in the century, a Company of Englishmen who wanted toProfit created Jamestown on the idea that this settlement will be free of British regulations, AND it will benefit the Motherland. Unfortunately, Jamestown suffered in it's early stages. More than 60% of it's inhabitants died during the first few years, and It was turning no profit.

That is, until John Rolfe introduced tobacco to the settlement. Jamestown eventually got rich off of tobacco, and this success spurred the English Government to create Colonies that stretched further inland. Without Tobacco, there would be no inspiration or motive for the British Government to invest in more colonies. (Granted, Not all colonies were tobacco producers, but the Tobacco production at Jamestown had a major role in forming the colonies). Not only this, but Tobacco farming provided farms, money, and even saved lives, as the crops the farmer's grew provided for 5-6 people at a time (Larger households).


Not only do we owe our independence and America to the Tobacco industry, but the Industry also gave jobs during the Great depression in the south, and it still today makes up a large part of the U.S. private Industry, netting Billions of Dollars annually (35.1 billion in 2010).

My second point is that it is un-constitutional, and Illegal to deny smoking in public places such as sidewalks and streets, as they are not privately owned. To say that Smoking should be outlawed on Sidewalks and roads is Un-American, and Un-constitutional. Not only this, but it is pointless and impossible to force the most liberated peoples of this earth (that also are the most Highly armed in the world), to give up Millions of dollars, give up their right to smoke Tobacco, and to enlarge an already too-powerful government.

Given the freedoms granted to us by our founding fathers we have a choice as to whether or not we want to be around smokers. There is no evidence that smoking in open places can have adverse or lasting effects on second hand smokers.

There is no law, or power given to the government that allows them to take away the privilege of U.S. citizens to smoke, therefore under Article 10 of the Bill of rights grants any privilege not granted to the government to the people. Therefore the Government should not be able to Ban Tobacco products on public, open areas. However, Privately-owned areas which may also be public, such as Privately-owned parks, and Public schools may legally ban smoking.

In conclusion, It would infringe upon your rights as an American citizen to make your own decisions, where it does not infringe on other people’s rights.

Debate Round No. 1
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

Thanks you accepting! I hope we can have a good debate togeather. Pardon my spelling and the like, as I am doing this on a mobile phone.

But on to my argument.

We all know smoking is awful. It causes a ton of diseases, takes years off your life, and kills other people as well. Scientests have studied the affects of second-hand smoke, and found that it is even more dangerous then first-hand smoke [1]. This is because the dangerous chemicals are released in a higher concentration and they linger in the air for several hours. Some health problems include cancer, heart disease, breathing problems, SIDS, and many more harmful diseases. With that being said, why should we allow smoking in public areas? A response might be, "Well, you might only be breathing it in for a few seconds when a smoker walks by." However, as wrote before, the smoke lingers for several hours, and tons of people smoke on sidewalks and in public areas. So that means is that if you walk outside for 2 hours, depending on where you are, you basically smoked 1-3 cigarettes. So it can be very dangerous just to be outside near smokers. So why shouldn't we ban smoking in public areas? It not only is killing you, but the innocent people around you. Another benefit will be that all the cigarette butts will not be thrown all over the ground, reducing litter, and will remove the danger of little kids eating cigarette butts while in the public. Plus, some of the common arguments against a smoking ban won't work. There also is a monetary reward to this. The "Prohibition doesn't work" argument won't work because people can still smoke, the "We will use billions of dollars argument won't work" because 156 billion dollars are lost because of second-hand smoke, and the "People will still smoke" argument won't work because this wouldn't ban smoking, it would only ban it in public, where it is easily enforced.

Rebuttals:

First off, yes, America did need tobacco to become sucessful early, but this is hardly an argument for this topic.

"Given the freedoms granted to us by our founding fathers we have a choice as to whether or not we want to be around smokers. There is no evidence that smoking in open places can have adverse or lasting effects on second hand smokers."
I disagree. Second hand smoke has many effects on people, killing 500,000 + people per year. And we often do not have the choice to move away from smokers. And why should we have to move away, when it is easier for smokers just to smoke in their homes.

"There is no law, or power given to the government that allows them to take away the privilege of U.S. citizens to smoke, therefore under Article 10 of the Bill of rights grants any privilege not granted to the government to the people."
First off, I never specified that my idea had to be in America. And next, if this was to be implemented in America, it doesn't need to be done by the Feds; it could be state or locally done.

"but it is pointless and impossible to force the most liberated peoples of this earth (that also are the most Highly armed in the world), to give up Millions of dollars, give up their right to smoke Tobacco, and to enlarge an already too-powerful government."
As shown before, this will have many benefits.

To conclude, my argument boils to 3 points. First, this will save the US at least 100,000,000,000 dollars per year, will save thousands of innocent lives, and will reduce litter. Good luck!

Sources:
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://my.clevelandclinic.org...
http://www.cdc.gov...
Killerchicken12

Con

It is well known that Smoking isn't the best of things for your body, but if you wanted to have a good V.S. Evil argument (as you clearly are trying to make this argument) than you should try to debate something such as Abortion, or Legal Marijuana. Tobacco is not nearly as hazardous as crack, weed, pot, or just about any other drug for that matter. In addition, all adults should have the right to harm themselves (to a certain extent) if they so choose, just as long as it does not harm others.

Despite Pro's Mis-guided argument, smoking in OPEN public places has not been shown to have any lasting effects, as the Cigarette smoke does not linger as long as pro may think, and in addition, forcing smokers to smoke at home home will dramatically increase deaths from second-hand smoking, as an A.C. unit is far inferior to the wind and general openness of the outdoors. If your idea (Which by the way, Violates rights and contradicts both law and common sense) is to be put into action, both children and adults will die from the smoke that cannot be cleared from inside a house.

In addition to the lives killed by your half-thought plan, 660,000 American workers will be left jobless, as the Tobacco industry will sharply decline. Even more workers will get laid off from convenient stores, and pubs.

In Conclusion, trying to take away Smoking in ALL public places(I re-assert my point) is overstepping certain bounds, and by doing so you will cause riots, boycotts, and anger in many loyal citizens, who by the way are not harming anyone by smoking.
Debate Round No. 2
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

Thanks for responding!

First off, weed and pot are the same thing, and tobacco is smoked in public, weed isn't. As for crack, that is an illegal drug is not common in public, while tobacco is. Next, you claim that "Tobacco smoke doesn't linger as long as pro thinks." Tobacco smoke lingers for 4 hours, (link above) so citation needed. Your next point is a strawman argument; I never said adults would have to smoke in their house, only not in public. And what is a V.S Evil argument? I'm trying to make sure I don't die of cancer because someone is smoking while I am on the sidewalk, or at an amusement park.

You then claim that 660,000 workers will he laid off. Citation needed. As I've shown before, eliminating the 156,000,000,000 spend on healthcare in the US alone for healthcare (link above) will easily outweigh any damage to the tobacco industry.

"In Conclusion, trying to take away Smoking in ALL public places(I re-assert my point) is overstepping certain bounds, and by doing so you will cause riots, boycotts, and anger in many loyal citizens, who by the way are not harming anyone by smoking"
First off, how do you know riots will take place? We are not banning smoking, only making sure innocent people won't die. Next, there is no legal right to smoke. But have you heard of a crime called manslaughter? Definition of manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder. Again, second hand smoke kills 600,000 plus people per year. Smokers killed them, without malice, so that is manslaughter. And unlike smoking, you do not have a right to commit manslaughter. No matter how you frame it, when you smoke on the sidewalk, you are killing everybody around you.

I see you dropped my environment argument.

To conclude, I will do some math. An estimated 42,000 Americans die every year from secondhand smoke every year. 600,000 people die from second hand smoke worldwide every year. It is clear that if we ban smoking in public, thousands of lives will be saved. Now for money. You state that the tobacco industry is worth 30 billion in America. But, smoking costs us 300,000,000,000 dollars per year in costs. Secondhand smoke costs us 150,000,000,000 per year. These costs dwarf the pluses of smoking. Obviously we need to do something, so why not ban smoking in public?

Good luck!

Links:
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com...
http://www.cdc.gov...
Killerchicken12

Con

Killerchicken12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

Forfeit :(

Vote Pro!
Killerchicken12

Con

Unfortunately, I was pre-disposed during the time of the last argument (Vacation). Last round, you asked for citation, therefore I will oblige you.
Unfortunately, Your Statistic of "600,000 Die each year of second hand smoke" is horribly wrong. If you had actually taken a look at other sources (Instead of taking the largest number out there) you would have realized that many other sources say 440,000 (I will list the link below).
Your source is unreliable. Your source didn't even list their sources for this statistic (Besides mentioning a "new study") and moved directly on to other statistics that were actually supported.

My next argument is not a straw man, but it is logic. It is not hard to tell that if someone isn't allowed to smoke in public, they will do it in their private homes. Your next statement (Playing dumb) is childish. You know you are doing it, and you clearly cannot come up with any argument besides "Smoking slowly kills". You have no historical evidence that banning things such as smoking works, nor do you have any idea what the consequence of banning smoking in public places would be.

You asked for citation for my 660,000 number. I will provide it below. Moving on to your claim that the government spends 156,000,000,000 on healthcare in the US alone. At points like these, I wonder why the Government is paying our Health bills in the first place (Because of Liberal ignoramuses). The government SHOULD NOT pay for the bad choices made by it's citizens, but in the U.S., the government is required to protect it's citizen's rights to make bad choices.

"First off" I am studying to become a Historian. from looking at well-known history, we can tell that banning cigarrettes in public places will NEVER work. Look at Prohibition for example, there are multiple instances of mob violence AND the law was repealed. I wonder why? Your argument has been tried, and it has failed. Similar ideas has happened 100 years ago. If they had succeeded, smoking would be gone by now.

You claim that anyone who smokes is a murderer, but I re-assert my point that you ALWAYS have a choice as to whether or not to be by smokers. It is very rare that you are forced to be by a smoker for a long period of time. If we look at the definition of "Murder" we would know that "Murder" is intentional, as is Manslaughter. If someone hangs out around smokers every day and dies from it, It is not the smokers fault. (Personal responsibility, and common sense).

Lastly, you assume that all of the U.S. Healthcare payments are for smoking, but the amount of money lost in the government is much less than you think. In fact, you failed to realize that even though it may save the U.S. government some money, it would perminately damage the private industry, and lead to borth Farmers and convenient stores going out of bussiness.

I assert another point- not so long ago, the tobacco industry made countless people rich, supported the war effort in ww2 and many other wars, provided hundreds of thousands of Jobs, and had a key part in making America what it is today. If the smoking industry hadn't declined, than perhaps it would still be one of the largest industries today (it is till very large).

In Conclusion, I will address your "environmental argument". I am not particuarly in favor of ruining our planet, but smoking does not give a significant amount of harmful chemicals in the air. What I AM in favor of, is protecting an endangered species called "job creators", because most products are moving to China or Mexico who unlike us have NO CONCERN whatsoever for the environment and sadly, banning tobacco will not help our "Golbal warming" dilemma.

On the bright side, after you ban tobacco and put hundreds of thousands of workers on the street, we will have more time to enjoy the newly saved giant pygmy squirrel!

https://www.sharecare.com...
http://www.encyclopedia.com...
Debate Round No. 4
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

Hmm.

Rebuttals:

First off, my source for the 600,000 thousand included a link to WHO, which is a very reputable source.

Next, your argument was absolutely a strawman. I never stated that people would have to smoke indoors, but just not in public. They can smoke outside, by their home. I fail to see how this is "playing dumb".

Your next point is another strawman. I said "We" spend the money on healthcare. I never said the government pays for it. I win this point.

As for prohibition, the comparison is not even. In prohibition, the law was not enforced and they completely banned alcohol. If you ban smoking in public, the law will be easily enforced, as people will easily see you, and we are not completely banning smoking, so there won't be mob problems, as it isn't illegal to own cigarettes or smoke them. You only can't smoke in public.

Really? "you ALWAYS have a choice as to whether or not to be by smokers. It is very rare that you are forced to be by a smoker for a long period of time."
It is no secret that many people smoke in public. Many people have to walk in public, to their jobs, to lunch, to businesses, and that is every person in America. You can state, "Well, they shouldn't walk outside then." But shouldn't we make the people causing the problem have to change? Just smoke at home, and not in public where people don't want to inhale cancer.

Manslaughter is not intentional, as the definition shows. So if you smoke in public, and people die from the fumes, then that was manslaughter. Very simple. Yes, I agree that if you hang near smokers and you die, then that is partially your fault, but that is not the case in public. You are minding your own buisness. You should be able to expect to walk to a cafe from your job without inhaling poison.

"
Lastly, you assume that all of the U.S. Healthcare payments are for smoking, but the amount of money lost in the government is much less than you think. In fact, you failed to realize that even though it may save the U.S. government some money, it would perminately damage the private industry, and lead to borth Farmers and convenient stores going out of bussiness"
First off, citation needed. Next, how is the money spend on second hand smoke less than I think? I posted a source showing that second hand smoke costs us 156,000,000,000 dollars on lost productivity and healthcare costs. Your source showed that the tobacco industry payed 15 billion to workers. Simple math shows us we will be saving at least 100,000,000,000 dollars from banning public smoking.

Next, it is completely irrelevant to the resolution on what the tobacco industry did in the past. Honestly, I value the 100,000,000 lives lost to tobacco in the 20th century, and the 1,000,000,000 people who will die in the 21st century over the fortunes tobacco has made.

"In Conclusion, I will address your "environmental argument". I am not particuarly in favor of ruining our planet, but smoking does not give a significant amount of harmful chemicals in the air. What I AM in favor of, is protecting an endangered species called "job creators", because most products are moving to China or Mexico who unlike us have NO CONCERN whatsoever for the environment and sadly, banning tobacco will not help our "Golbal warming" dilemma."
Another strawman. I never mentioned air pollution, or "golbal warming" was called by Con. What I did mention was litter, which is undeniably a problem public smoking contributes too. You also dropped my other point about how small children eat discarded cigarette butts.

Just to empathize this point, as I have shown earlier, tobacco smoke lingers for 4 hours. Many people smoke all over public areas. So if you walk around a city, you will constantly be inhaling toxic fumes.

To conclude, I have made my counter arguments, and I have shown that many of Con's arguments are strawman arguments. My main points stand: 1) We will save hundreds of billions by banning public smoking worldwide 2) We will save tens of thousands of lives 3) Litter will be reduced 4) The common "prohibition" arguments don't apply.

Good luck!
Killerchicken12

Con

Rebuttals of the Rebuttals:
Your Source may have given "WHO" gave the statistic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is right, nor does it explain why other sources give other statistics. You have failed to give an adequate reason as to why your source was factually sound other than "It came from a trustworthy person".

You have not won this point. Though useless to the subject, the Government does pay some of our Health insurances in the U.S.A. (Obamacare).

As for prohibition, the comparison is even enough. It cannot be debated that if you ban an everyday house-hold item that hundreds of thousands of people use, you are bound to have both Rioting, and Legal troubles. this can without question be compared to prohibition, and though they are not completely similar, they both have roughly the same attempt: to lessen the use of harmful products that lots if not most people use.

Only a weakling would claim that the slightest smell or breath of Tobacco is poison. You are not breathing poison while walking around the streets, nor does is permanently effect you if you don't do it on a constant basis. You had previously suggested that by walking in the streets by a smoker, you would get cancer.

"Just smoke at home, and not in public where people don't want to inhale cancer."- Pro cedes to my point that my previous arguments were not straw-man. Pro clearly wants smokers to smoke at home, which extremely hazardous to guests, and Family. Pros Idea will kill more than it saved. a whiff of smoke outside is harmless, but inside, it can build up and cause Thousands of dollars in Damage, and it can permanently injure anyone inside the home.

On to the definition of Manslaughter. Smokers do not smoke with the intent of killing other people, and therefore is not manslaughter. Not every piece of town has smoke in it, and very rarely are you forced to be in a certain narea at a certain time that has a substantial amount of smoke to give you cancer, or any other lasting disease.

Moving on to the payments of the U.S. Government. Pro has clearly shown the amount paid by the U.S. Government to pay for it's citizens health, but has failed to prove that it is Morally correct, nor constitutional to take away cigarrettes. Pro's view is not possible logistically, is not accepted socially, and is not allowed constitutionally. Pro's idea will overstep the bounds of Government, cause mass lawsuits between the states and Government, and will also bring rise to protests and riots, as does every other arguable law (judging by how much protesting happens from taking a flag off of a building, I would expect Thousands of more to protest for something that is actually used today).

Pro has failed to understand that the private industry is seperate from Government expenditures. By removing one brick from the private industry, you will cause many more to tumble down as well. The Tobacco industry is a very large brick at that, supporting the Farming Industry, Convienient stores, and over 2 Million jobs according to:

"The Economic Impact of the Tobacco Industry on the U.S. Economy", Price Waterhouse.

Next, you did not give any sources for how many people have died from Tobacco, nor can we know how many will die in the future. Judging by your statements, you do not appreciate history. Because of this you will fall into the same pitholes people did 100 years ago (especially in prohibition, which is undenyably similar and the same in many aspects). As someone who studies History, Law, and politics (As i am planning on becoming a historian), I can safely tell you that banning Tobacco will have many un-intended consequences.

Small children eat everything. You cannot blame cigarettes exclusively for children eating them. This argument is irrelevent, as toddlers choke off of Hotdogs more than they do cigarettes.

You do not constantly inhale toxic fumes in the city. City dwellers will tell you that many cities (excluding ghettos, tennaments, and slums) the area is relatively smoke-free. People have been living in cities for hundreds of years while people have smoked, but yet the life-expectancy for someone in the city is just as long as someone in the country.

In Conclusion, We can conclude based on superior evidence (and not just "Smoking kills you" that 1) Banning smoking in all open public places violates rights of the owner of the public place, 2) will perminately damage the private industry, costing thousands if not millions of jobs, 3) Banning smoking "Worldwide" is not possible in the first place, as it requires the power of a tyrant or dictator and 4) History tells us that Pro is wrong. Prohibition cannot be ignored or downplayed, as it is a perfectly valid point.

Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Killerchicken12 11 months ago
Killerchicken12
I appreciate the feedback! I wish there was too: I am used to debates in person, and I am relatively new to online debates.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 11 months ago
ConserativeDemocrat
Thanks!
Posted by dtien400 11 months ago
dtien400
Great great great debate guys! I'm not just being polite, I really enjoyed reading this one. @Killerchicken12 you had a really interesting take on the issue and I wish there was some way in the voting system to appreciate the spectacular arguments you made!! @ConservativeDemocrat congrats! You did amazing.
Posted by dtien400 11 months ago
dtien400
OK that sounds reasonable.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 11 months ago
ConserativeDemocrat
Vote, just give me conduct.
Posted by dtien400 11 months ago
dtien400
@ConservativeDemocrat

I'm interested in voting for this debate, but I can't until you tell me this: will you consider Con's accidental FF as grounds for immediate loss, as if explicitly stated in the rules? I would assume so, but you appeared to ignore Con's transgression.
Posted by DavidMancke 12 months ago
DavidMancke
Do it. Then all us evil smokers will have a "Smoke in" to protest. Other people smoking does not impact the lives of those who choose not to smoke.

The late stage health impacts of smoking actually reduce overall dependence on federal/national healthcare systems (the smokers don't live as long as non-smokers).

"Live and let die!"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtien400 11 months ago
dtien400
ConserativeDemocratKillerchicken12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited=loss of conduct. Both sides made minor S&G errors so this category is tied. As for sources, Con simply waited too long to post his sources, which is forgivable, but Pro's WHO source was faulty, so Con wins. As for arguments, Con barely loses. His arguments about health and history and the money generated by the tobacco industry are rebutted by Pro's arguments, but his argument that banning smoking from public places is unconstitutional is not. However, Con loses the arguments because of the debate's definition of "public place." Pro is speaking of any area in the colloquial public regardless of who owns it, and Con actually concedes to Pro's arguments by saying that, "However, Privately-owned areas which may also be public...may legally ban smoking," effectively shooting himself himself in the foot. If banning smoking in 'public' as of Pro's definition is not always unconstitutional, Con loses his best point, and Pro's health/money concerns trump Con's free will argument.