The Instigator
CloudNine
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Steve221
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Smoking Should be Banned

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 4 votes the winner is...
Steve221
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,846 times Debate No: 19552
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

CloudNine

Pro

In this debate I will taking the position that smoking should be banned, whilst my opponent will be assuming the position that smoking should remain legal.
Round 1 will consist of opening arguments solely and any definitions either side wishes to post. Round 2 will be for rebuttals and any further arguments. Round 3 will be for defences and further rebuttals. Round 4 will be for a summary of arguments and conclusion with final point.

Round 1:

Smoking - The inhalation of the smoke of the burning of tobacco encased in a cigarettes, pipes or cigars. (1)

Point 1 -- There can be no doubt that smoking is harmful to ones health. Each year, nearly 6 million people die from tobacco, with 600,000 of those people non-smokers who were exposed to second hand smoke. One person dies every 6 seconds from a tobacco related illness (2) and the American Cancer Society has stated that more people die from smoking than AIDS, car crashes, alcohol, drug abuse, fires, suicides and murders combined each year. This startling fact should not come as a surprise to anyone who understand the effects that the some 4,000 chemicals in a typical cigarette have in the human body.

Tar is a sticky black substance that forms deposits inside the lungs of those who inhale the smoke, causing lung cancer and a myriad of respiratory diseases. Carbon monoxide is a compound that reduces the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells leading to respiratory problems and can also damage the linings of the arteries, allowing fat to build up inside them, leading to a potential heart attack. These are just 2 of the other 200 "toxic" chemicals found in tobacco smoke. (3)

Smokers are 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Moreover, smoking accounts for 14% of premature deaths and 10% of all infant deaths. It is clear from this evidence that smoking is extremely harmful to the human body and a responsibility of governments is to protect its people from harmful things. It is for this reason that cocaine, rape and speeding are all illegal and if the same logic was to be applied to this subject than tobacco products would join that group.

Point 2 -- As briefly alluded to in some of the statistics above, smoking doesn't just effect smokes, it also affects those around them too. 600,000 non smokers die every year due to inhaling someone else's tobacco smoke. Why do they have to die? Moreover, 28% of children who died in 2004, had deaths attributable to second hand smoke. Is it fair for someone who wants to remain healthy, to have to share the street with a smoker who has no regard for the problems that their disgusting "habit" causes. If the claim to personal freedom is made, then why is the claim of non smokers being ignored?

Point 3 -- Smoking also leads to impoverishment of those in lower income countries. 80% of smokers live in middle to lower income countries where the health care is at best, inadequate and therefore they carry the greatest burden. (4) In families from countries that fall into this category, children are sent out to work on the tobacco in order to gain money for the family. They are exposing themselves to the risk of contracting green tobacco sickness which is caused by absorbing the nicotine through the wet leaves. Additionally, the plethora of deaths caused by smoking means that families are left without a means to provide an income and this leads to them being trapped in the poverty cycle as a direct effect of smoking. All the while, the CEO's of these multinational tobacco companies are living green of the billions that they are making from this sickening trade. If political leaders condemn the actions of Mubarak and Gaddafi, then they are guilty of first degree hypocrisy if they do not include Michael Szymanczyk in the same breath.

I wish my opponent all the best in this debate.

References:

(1) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

(2) - http://www.who.int...

(3) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

(4) - http://www.who.int...
Steve221

Con

Round 1.

Smoking: a choice someone makes to inhale tobacco

point 1... If smoking where to be banned it would result in problems in the economy.
A) tobacco makes a significant contribution to the balance of trade for the United States. In 2002, tobacco leaf and products contributed $1.7 billion to the trade balance. In the past decade, its contribution has reached as high as $5.9 billion dollars.
B) tobacco is grown in North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Virginia, and West Virginia. With about 80,000 Tobacco Farms and roughly 300,000 jobs. that would be lost if tobacco was banned.
C) The United states took in approximately $25,000,000 Federal tax dollars and $9,000,000 State tax dollars in 2010. in 1980 it was at an historical high taking in approximately $600,000,000 dollars. Now Immigrate if you will if smoking was banned and America lost all that revue. There would be disastrous problems.

point 2.... It would also have serious complications for other countries economy's.
A) The United States is the leading importer of tobacco. If other country's lost that revue it would result in serious complications in their economy as well as ours.

point 3... Not all tobacco is bad tobacco.
A) Tobacco by itself is not as harmful as you may think. It is all the other stuff they put in it that is most harmful to your body and the others around you. But why put a ban on something that by itself is not actually that harmful. Its the manufactures doing that all the negative stuff is in tobacco.

point 4... The lighter side of smoking
A) Smoking while harmful does have some benefits as well. It is a great stress reliever, smokers tend to be thinner, and could even introduce you to new people. which would be good for your social life as well. It can help with anger, depression, and much other stuff. While it does come at a cost. which could be your health.

and finally point 5... It comes down to a choice.
A) Sure smoking is harmful, sure it might even be harmful to someone standing next to you. However it is still a personal choice. Why should smoking be banned for everyone? What if an elderly lady decided she wants to smoke? She lives alone and has no children and never leaves her house? she shouldn't make a personal choice on weather to smoke or not? That should be a decision left to her not the government to decide if its not the right thing for her to do.
Debate Round No. 1
CloudNine

Pro

From the outset I would like to dismantle the attempt at defining smoking by my opponent. They claim that smoking is a "choice" made by someone. Well, when someone is walking behind a smoker and they inhale the sidestream smoke, they are not making the choice of inhaling the tobacco smoke, rather they are just naturally breathing and this tobacco smoke just happens to be polluting the air space at that time. Secondly, you do not inhale tobacco, you inhale the smoke from burning tobacco.

Rebuttal 1 -- My opponent makes the bold statement that if tobacco were to be banned, it would result in economic problems. Firstly, the contribution of tobacco money to the economy of a nation is grossly overstated. Whilst, a few billions of dollars may be brought in each year from various exports and taxes; this shrinks in size when compared with the $200 billion dollars lost a year dealing with the negative consequences of tobacco. (1) On the topic of jobs, would it not be commendable for a government to stop people from making death dealing drugs and instead move them into a job or career where they could actually benefit their nation and contribute to the strain placed upon their hospitals.

Rebuttal 2 -- The economic aspect is dealt with in Rebuttal 1 but I would like to make the point as to whether money is more important than 6 million human lives a year. Moreover, the cultivation of tobacco can be economically detrimental to developing countries. When resources are put into tobacco production they are taken away from food production. Large amounts of firewood that could be used domestically for fuel and heating are instead used for the curing of tobacco.

Rebuttal 3 -- Tobacco contains a compound called nicotine. This compound is what causes the addiction and tobacco companies have devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that this compound is properly diffused into your body. As mentioned above, the most destructive of all ingredients in a cigarette is tar; and by the way, tar is naturally there, it is produced by the burning of tobacco. My opponent claims that it is the manufacturers fault for placing of of these chemicals in tobacco. As I have shown the two most problematic of chemicals are already there in tobacco. Moreover, it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans, the fact of the matter remains that cigarettes contain these things and will cause great damage. My opponent makes the valid claim that we should not put a ban on something that is not itself harmful. I accept this position but what is being debated here is not the banning of tobacco, but the banning of cigarettes, pipes and cigars. In short, the smoking of tobacco. Tobacco is a plant found naturally on 5 different continents. It would impossible to ban this plant. But it's harmful use should be banned.

Rebuttal 4 -- "The lighter side of smoking." I'm not sure if my opponent didn't read the statistic that 600,000 non smokers die from smoke each year or just doesn't care but there is no light side to something that is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. The long perpetuated myth that smoking relieves stress can be simply destroyed. When a smoker begins smoking they lay the foundations of a nicotine dependence. Soon enough, their brain tells them that they need more of this nicotine to sustain themselves. It is during periods of no cigarette consumption that tension begins to build up. Once lighting up, the cells are fed their nicotine and it is this that leads to the feeling of relaxation. Basically, it is just a placebo effect. You tell yourself that you will feel more relaxed and therefore feel more relaxed after smoking. If someone wants to relieve stress then why not go for a walk, or listen to relaxation music instead of breathing in these 4000 nasty chemicals. Furthermore, my opponent seems to think that the cost of smoking to your health is not too important.

Smoking also costs a person a great deal amount of money a day. A 20 pack of cigarettes costs around �7 here in the UK. Now, if someone was to smoke 40 cigarettes a day, this would be �14 a day. Now multiplying that by 365 means that the total cost a year on killing yourself would be �5110. I leave it to you to think of what else could be done with that money.

Rebuttal 5 -- The idea of personal choice is important but I would like to make a comparison here to elucidate the reason as to why smoking should be banned. If a company produces food that is poisonous or another company makes a car that has safety defects, these products are removed immediately. Since all tobacco products are highly poisonous and lethal, they should be taken off the market. Moreover, governments should intervene when someone is seeking to harm themselves. It is the role of a government to take care of its citizens and ensure their safety is a top priority. Allowing their citizens to kill themselves would mean a government which neglects its people and overlooks the importance of a healthy nation. In order to address the situation created by my opponent of an old woman isolated from society choosing to smoke I would suggest that it would be wrong for the family of this woman to leave her alone as if she doesn't matter. Now the fact that people would be visiting her would now mean that her smoking would damage their health and therefore should be rightly banned.

Further point 1 -- Briefly mentioned above in Rebuttals 1 and 2 were the negative economic aspects of smoking. The cost to a health service is colossal and one of the reasons why hospitals struggle to cope. Smoking related diseases account for over 20% of all hospital issues and if this were to be cut, them more time would be placed on other pertinent issues.

Further point 2 -- In a poll conducted in the UK, 70% of respondents claimed that wanted to quit smoking. Restrictions will aid them in their quest to rid themselves of this problem and is surely a benevolent act on the part of a government.
Steve221

Con

I would like to start by clarifying my usage of the word choice. It is a smokers choice weather to smoke or not, weather it be in public or private. As for the person walking behind me who innocently has to breath in the smoke well he also has a choice. There is no reason he cant move or stop and let said smoker get more in front of him so he can have clean air. It seems inappropriate to tell someone they cant smoke because it harms someone else when someone else can easily make the choice to remove them selves from the situation if they see it as a threat to their body.

rebuttal 1... While I agree with the opposition that there is a vast amount of money spent dealing with the negative consequences of smoking, banning cigarettes would still in fact ruin economies. Maybe larger ones might be able to survive the economic stress this would cause, but weaker economies around the world would have a much greater chance at crumbling.
Also on the top of jobs my opponent stated and I quote: "On the topic of jobs, would it not be commendable for a government to stop people from making death dealing drugs and instead move them into a job or career where they could actually benefit their nation and contribute to the strain placed upon their hospitals."
First off cigarettes are not classified as a drug. Second off and in my opinion more importantly, I do not believe it is the government's place to "move" any person into a job/career that the had no intention on taking up in the first place. I am aware that my opponent is not from America but that is a core fundamental of America. It is no place for the government to "move" anyone into doing anything they do not desire to do.

rebuttal 2... my opponent stated "The economic aspect is dealt with in Rebuttal 1 but I would like to make the point as to whether money is more important than 6 million human lives a year." I would like to first state that money is not more important then human life, however if the economy were to collapse due to banning smoking. then we would face new issues. such as poverty, starvation, and homelessness just to name a few this would cause a much greater strain on our hospital's then smoking. Also by banning cigarettes your creating a black market effect on them as was the case during Prohibition. Which in turn would cause a great strain on are law enforcement industries as well as our courthouses. So in turn if you were to take the 6 million deaths a year and compare this to the amounts of death that could happen to everyone, not just those who choose to smoke. I have to ask is it worth taking a chance and possibly endangering hundreds of millions of lives?

rebuttal 3... My opponent states "Tobacco contains a compound called nicotine. This compound is what causes the addiction and tobacco companies have devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that this compound is properly diffused into your body" Sounds pretty nasty right? However after stating this my opponent then goes on to contradict himself by stating " it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans..." However by the oppositions own admission states tobacco companies devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that the compound called nicotine is properly diffused into your body. So yes it does matter if humans add their own chemicals. perhaps there should be tighter regulations and more of a watchful eye on these companies, however calling for a ban on cigarettes in general is not the answer, and as I stated in rebuttal 2, could just lead to more problems.

rebuttal 4... my opponent states "I'm not sure if my opponent didn't read the statistic that 600,000 non smokers die from smoke each year or just doesn't care but there is no light side to something that is the leading cause of preventable death in the world" First of I would like to stress that I absolutely do care that many people die each year due to second hand smoke. however as I previously had pointed out, it is within their control to rid themselves of that exposer if they deem it to be dangerous to their body's. Further more I would like to point out that smoking is not the leading cause of preventable death in the world, that in fact would be heart disease. and before anyone jumps on that statement saying that it is not preventable I would like to point out that a majority of people that die of heart disease each year are statistically overweight and not in great health. which is absolutely preventable by eating well and exercising. Furthermore I do not think it is up to the opposition to suggest alternative methods for stress reliving. I brought this point up because smoking is a legal way one can achieve this.

My opponent also states that " that the total cost a year on killing yourself would be �5110. I leave it to you to think of what else could be done with that money" which in turn I would like to state as I have before already. that It is not up to the government or any other person on how anyone decides to spend their money. This debate is not about how much money one spends on smoking each year, or as my opponent stated how much it would cost to "kill yourself." Very few people know how they are going to die. someone can smoke for 90 years and get hit by a bus. Smoking did not kill them. so that argument is invalid, and would like to ask my opponent to stick to the debate at hand.

re-cap of points made in my rebuttal's...
1. smoking does not always kill a smoker, nor does it always kill a second hand smoker
2. It is not the government's job to make choices for us the people.
3. there should be tighter regulations and a more watchful eye on the tobacco industry.
Debate Round No. 2
CloudNine

Pro

I would like to ask the question as to how my opponent comes to the conclusion that a smoker gets priority over a non smoker with regards to space on a street. Additionally, if someone was wielding a knife on the street then I would deem it appropriate that this person is told to move as they may cause harm to others. The same is in the case of smoking as this causes great harm to other people.

Defence 1 -- I thank my opponent for clarifying the fact that cigarettes themselves are not drugs, but instead are filled with drugs. Without these drugs you would not have a cigarette as there would be nothing to smoke. Secondly, I wish to expound upon what I said earlier with regards to jobs. It is not the right of a government to move somebody into a job that they do not wish to take. I agree with this principle, but what I was trying to say was that, instead of allowing people to make these death dealing products, would it not be commendable for a government to stop this industry and therefore free these people to pursue a more benevolent career and benefit themselves and their society in a manner which doesn't lead to the deaths of thousands of people.

Defence 2 -- Poverty, starvation and homelessness are not new issues. Rather they are the most pertinent of issues that effect all countries around the world and the tobacco industry aggravates the conditions. As mentioned above, the banning of smoking would mean the children of poor families living in countries like Brazil, China and India, would not have to be forced to go and contract green tobacco sickness as they go an earn a living for their family. Furthermore, how ironic is it that whilst the issues of poverty and starvation are raised, more money is spent on cigarettes, cigars and pipes in the undeveloped world than on food.

The Prohibition argument is now used to claim that the what happened during this era would be repeated if cigarettes were to be banned as well. Most smokers are law abiding citizens who if cigarettes were to be banned, would not resort to criminal activities. On the contrary, as mentioned in my argument in Round 2, 70% of smokers said that they want to quit. I truly believe this number to be higher and therefore as argued previously, any ban on smoking would aid these people to stop killing themselves. Moreover, the reason for the opposition which occurred during the 1920's was in part due to the fact that alcohol was part of the American culture and way of life. People go to bars and clubs to have a drink. Not to smoke. You never hear people saying lets go and smoke tonight. Never. But you do hear them saying lets go out and have a drink. The smoking only happens because they are addicted to it. In answer to the question "is it worth taking a chance and possibly endangering hundreds of millions of lives?", I will answer by responding that it is not a chance being taken, but rather a benign and humane move to save hundreds of millions of lives.

Defence 3 -- My opponent has claimed that I have contradicted myself. Firstly, the extract quoted was being used to describe what was contained within cigarettes and the fact that the tobacco companies had added toilet bowl cleaner for greater effect. Apparently, I contradict myself by then saying that "it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans...". If instead of jumping with joy at an apparent contradiction, my opponent should have took the time to re read what I had wrote and understand that I was referring to the point I had made earlier that the, "two most problematic of chemicals are already there in tobacco." This means that whether or not humans add any other nasty chemicals, the two most destructive ones are already there naturally, therefore cigarettes are inherently death causing objects.

Defence 4 -- My opponent claims that it is within the control of non smokers to determine whether or not they die from second hand smoke. What about the 8 month year old baby who has a mother that smokes. Or the 3 year old toddler? Can they just up sticks and move when their parents light up. Please rethink your logic, it would make any reasonably humane person sick.

It is then claimed that heart disease is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. In fact, hypertension is whilst an offshoot of heart disease, it is an established fact that smoking directly contributes to the damage caused by heart disease. Moreover, it is well within my right to suggest alternative methods for stress reliving. I have not enforce it upon anybody have I? I haven't demanded that my methods be accepted. More to the point, I have already demonstrated how the myth about how smoking is a great stress reliever can be destroyed. Just take the time to read it.

Defence 5 -- According to my opponent I have strayed from the topic of debate. All I did was supply some figures for consideration of the impact that smoking has on the financial matters of things. It is this side that my opponent seems to be concerned with most readily and therefore I would have assumed that they would have appreciated any $$$ signs from my side.
Steve221

Con

My Opponent asked where I drew the conclusion that a smoker gets priority of a non-smoker in the street. Well that is simple neither the smoker nor the non smoker are breaking the law. Therefore if someone is smoking next to someone else it is up to the latter to remove himself from that situation if he does not approve. And in response to my opponent's example of comparing a man wielding a knife to a man smoking, well that is ludacris on many levels. And I believe that demonizing smokers to be "knife wielding lunatic " is unnecessary knowing said smoker did not break any laws to begin with.

Defense1... my opponent stated "cigarettes themselves are not drugs, but instead are filled with drugs. Without these drugs you would not have a cigarette as there would be nothing to smoke." However if one were to remove all fillers there still would be tobacco to smoke. Which is a natural substance found all over the world. Further more I would like to thank my opponent for correcting his statement about jobs. However I would like to answer the question "would it not be commendable for a government to stop this industry and therefore free these people to pursue a more benevolent career and benefit themselves and their society in a manner which doesn't lead to the deaths of thousands of people" First I do not think I agree with your definition of free. regardless of the governments best intentions it would not at all be "free" to force these people to do something different. And further more they are in a occupation that benefits themselves or they would not be doing it. As for society Perhaps they are helping more then they are hurting by keeping the jobs that they have the right to keep. If they were forced out of their jobs then why not force out butchers for contributing to unhealthy diets?

Defense 2. I am aware that poverty, starvation, homelessness are not new issues. As I have mentioned before by banning smoking it could cause economies around the world to crumble. Your example of children working for their family's in poverty stricken country's is perfect for proving my point while you see this as a bad thing, which it is. undoubtedly, but if you ban smoking your hurting that child more then if you didn't. By banning smoking your taking away that family's only job. now you have taken away their only source of income. What is to happen to them after they no longer can even afford one meal?

as for the prohibition argument you claim that it would not happen because smokers are law abiding citizens and 70% of smokers want to quit anyway. You also state that comparing this to 1920's era was irrelevant because drinking was a lifestyle back then. Well first some smokers are law abiding citizens and some aren't. That statement alone proves that it could happen. But lets focus more on the 70% of smokers that want to quit. What about the other 30% they must represent some millions of people around the world, and they, the ones who do not desire to quit wouldn't take it upon themselves to profit from the banning? and as for the 70% that do wish to quit, how many of them would honestly pass up a pack of smokes if they had a chance to get some. Mind you even when they want to quit they choose not too.

Defense 3. I will take this opportunity to show that yes my opponent did in fact contradict himself. In one statement it was claimed "tobacco companies have devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that this compound is properly diffused into your body" and in turn he also claims " it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans." while your first statement is suggesting that nicotine is diffused through a humans body because of the toilet bowl cleaner the tobacco companies are putting in it. Which would lead me to believe that your next statement that it doesn't matter if humans add their own chemicals because they bad stuff is already there. So if there weren't any toilet cleaner in said cigarette then by your own statement alone it would have a different chemical reaction then if the cleaner was there. Thus making it very important what humans add, and as I stated before calls for more regulations and a closer watch on the industry, however does not deserve an outright ban.

Defense 4. My opponent claims that the 3 year old boy cant just get up and walk out and thus has to be exposed to second hand smoke. I agree with that statement. However I would like to argue two facts. 1. what about the hard working mothers that want their cigarettes and do not smoke in the house? should they be punished because some do? 2. Generations of people have grown up with smoke, and lived to tell about it. It should be noted that not all children die because of their parents habits.

my opponent goes on to say "It is then claimed that heart disease is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. In fact, hypertension is whilst an offshoot of heart disease" Ok studies also show that a bad diet is directly involved as well. So lets go out and ban red meat, sugar, pop, candy ect.. the point I am making is that while it contributes the smoker has a choice if they want to smoke or not. and as for the stress reliving part perhaps my opponent should read a little further down in his own reference site. which could be found at
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
on that very same site it states and I quote "Depending on the circumstances and the amount consumed, nicotine can act as either a stimulant or tranquilizer. This can explain why some people report that smoking gives them energy and stimulates their mental activity, while others note that smoking relieves anxiety and relaxes them"

Defense 5: My argument was solely based on an economical level. What people do with their own money is their own business and debating that it is wrong to spend any amount of personal money on smoking, is off topic, While I understand your OPINION that one shouldn't spend money on smoking. it is in their right to do so, and not what we are debating.
Debate Round No. 3
CloudNine

Pro

I wish to thank my opponent for engaging in this interesting and energetic debate.

I still seek to understand why the non smoker is compelled to move from an area where someone is smoking? For what reason must the non smoker move?

Secondly, I didn't define free as my opponent claims, instead I said that it would be good for governments to free their citizens from making cigarettes. This means that these people can now search for a job that they want, without any input from the government unless asked for. There is nothing forceful about that. Moreover, the claim that butchers should be forced out by using the same logic is nonsense. What study has demonstrated that meat causes death?? How many studies have conclusively proved that smoking leads to death in a myriad of manners. It is the other aspects of a persons life, or rather their lacking of exercise which leads to an unhealthy body. Therefore, butchers can keep their jobs as they supply food, whilst those making cigarettes produce products of death.

Furthermore, the idea that the only job a poor family can have is growing tobacco is not true. Although it is a very sad situation in societies other than our owns where there are no jobs to go around, I would suggest that some sort of provision be made available by the government for that family until they can find a suitable source of income. Plus, I hope my opponent would agree that terminating the contracting of green tobacco sickness is a good thing.

As mentioned previously, a ban on tobacco would be very different from alcohol. What I believe would be essential if such a predicament were to arise would be proper law enforcement. Strict punishments and tighter regulations would mean that the events of the 1920's are not repeated and instead people can live in peace without having to die from second hand smoke.

Just to clarify this idea of contradiction, I am going to make clear this point again. Whether my opponent fails to understand the simple chemistry behind the process, or it is the semantics which have caused his confusion, I will now elucidate that there was no contradiction in what I said.

Diffusion: The passive movement of particles along a concentration gradient. For example, from an area of high concentration to low concentration.

Firstly, nicotine can perfectly diffuse through the human body without any external aid. Secondly, tobacco companies have added toilet bowl cleaner in order to increase this rate of diffusion and therefore increase the rate of consumption of cigarettes, meaning that the consumer purchases more. This means that the toilet bowl cleaner doesn't change the reactions that would take place, it just makes them occur faster. Next, tar is ALREADY NATURALLY found in cigarettes and is called by many health professions "the most dangerous chemical in cigarettes". Therefore, when I say that "it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals (toilet bowl cleaner) are added by humans", I am making a direct reference to the fact that although the toilet bowl cleaner aggravates the effects of smoking, the two most dangerous compounds are already found in tobacco naturally, without any human interference.

Additionally, how many industries can one name that have had tight regulations placed upon them but have failed to act correctly. The media in the UK had regulations strapped to them and still hacked the phone of a dead teenage girl in the search of a story to print. If my opponent truly believes that an industry out to make money will sincerely listen to regulations if they haven't already, then they are naive to say the least.

So because a mother works hard, that means she can poison her children? If I work hard, does that mean I can pour alcohol into my child's milk? Furthermore, 50% of all smokers die from a tobacco related disease. The idea that for a few to have pleasure, a lot should die is disgusting.

The idea that smoking is a choice is combated through the fact that nicotine is an addictive drug. This means that after a while, smoking is no longer down to choice, but chemical compulsion. Thus, the volition of the person has been removed and they can only continue until killing themselves, someone else, or quitting. If legislation banning smoking were to exist, these people could be saved.

Summary of main arguments:
1)Smoking kills 6 million people a year.
2)600,000 of those do not smoke.
3)It contributes to the continued impoverishment of the world's poor.
4)It places a huge strain on a nations healthcare system.
5)Smoking is not a real choice, but chemical compulsion.

Vote to stop 6 million deaths. Vote to stop money being wasted on preventable diseases. Vote Pro.
Steve221

Con

I too would like to thank my opponent for taking part of this debate.

The non-smoker must move because there is absolutely no legal reason that the smoker has to move, therefore if he is not comfortable with the conditions of his environment then he must decide for himself weather to remedy the situation or not.

I would also like to state that it is not the governments job to decide what any person does for a living. And furthermore it is not fair to assume that people don't want these jobs as my opponent stated. That is a opinion and not a fact some people do want those jobs. and The government should not be allowed to tell them no.

As for the point about family's in third world countries. where that is their only job. These are not countries where a family has an option to walk down the street and file for unemployment or go to school. these are countries where the government rules with a fist. and if they lost their job they would lose everything. It is sad but it is true. I would hope my opponent can realize that there are bad places like this in the world and by taking away the one source of income it would lead to many deaths of innocent family's.

as for the argument that it would cause a black market effect. I would like to point out that there is a market for everything that is not legal. Weather it be human trafficking, sex slaves, drugs, or any other countless thing that is outlawed. It is still available to those who seek it. And I I believe that banning smoking would lead to an increase in violence and create problems throughout the rest of our government such as tieing up court systems to increased taxes on everyone to pay for more protection from law enforcement.

As for the fact of my opponent contradicting himself I would like to say that I give him the benefit of the doubt that he does not understand that the two statements I quoted him saying directly contradict one another. I have shown him how and why that was a contradiction and have explained that to the best of my ability.

As for regulating this industry I agree that it has failed before however that does not mean it wont work.

As for my opponents argument that a hard working mother should not be allowed to smoke at home. I would like to point out two things. 1. my opponent has compared smoking around a child to pouring alcohol in the child's bottle. One of those things is highly ill-leagel and the mother would get arrested for child endangerment, smoking around the child is not ill-leagel and while it can be harmful it is ultimately the mothers decision to do so or not. I would also like to point out that there is no plausible way for the government to keep tabs on everyone in America to make sure they are not smoking around children. It is absurd and just cannot happen.

Summary of main arguments. and points proved.
1... the banning of smoking would cause economics around the world to crumble and lead to death and devastation.
2... adult smokers and adult second hand smokers have a choice.
3... In many third world countries this is a family's only source of income and may die without these jobs.
4... the banning of smoking would create domestic problems with court systems, law enforcement, hospitals, and black markets.
5... smoking does have some positive side effects as proved by my opponents own reference site.

vote pro to save lives of family's overseas.
vote pro to save free choice
vote pro to to save jobs, and economies all over the world.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
CloudNineSteve221Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter votebomb because logic rules did leave a good RFD and jake only gave 5 out of 7 which to me isnt exactly a vote bomb...
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
CloudNineSteve221Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Both logic rules and jake boatman votebomed. Jake didn't leave an RFD, while Logic had a very bad RFD. Counter-vote bomb
Vote Placed by JakeBoatman96 2 years ago
JakeBoatman96
CloudNineSteve221Tied
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: .
Vote Placed by logicrules 2 years ago
logicrules
CloudNineSteve221Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No question smoking may be harmful. The studies on second hand smoke ALL conclude no harm from second hand smoke. (common beliefs notwithstanding) Thus it is a choice, perhaps harmful. I did like the argument that smokers get preference, but that too would be the choice of the non-smoker.