The Instigator
Harry123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Solomon_Orlando
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Smoking all-out 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,001 times Debate No: 69815
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Harry123

Pro

Smoking should be banned not only in public places but simply everywhere. The issue concerning smoking is that not only does it damage your own health but it also harms your surroundings - both other individuals who are exposed to secondhand smoke and the environment.

The liberty to choose whether or not to smoke is in theory a reasonable idea but in reality rather irresponsible. Nonsmokers are in many cases not in a position of liberty to choose whether they wish to be exposed to secondhand smoke or not. In fact the effects of secondhand smoke are considered relatively the same as smoking, which causes lung cancer, heart disease, pneumonia, bronchitis and severe asthma. These consequences should be lit up and not by lighting a cigarette!
Solomon_Orlando

Con

While your heart is in the right place (eliminating second-hand smoke, protecting the public, et cetera), this wide-spread smoking ban that you're trying to execute would be more of a detriment than a benefit. What you're insinuating is borderline prohibition which, in the past, was not that bright of an idea.

Starting in 1920, there was a nationwide ban on the importation, transportation, production, and sale of alcoholic beverages throughout the United States. This movement was led by several groups of prohibition supporters, but they were given the nickname "drys", as they were vehemently against anything in regards to alcohol. I think you are very similar to them; your heart is in the right place, as the "drys" only presented this for public morals and health, but failed to recognize the unintended consequences of such constitutional banning. ...and these said consequences could be very dangerous, even more dangerous than alcohol consumption itself.

Organized crime was influenced heavily by the Prohibition, which encouraged Mafia groups to respond to the ban on alcohol by using organized bootlegging. In short, bootlegging was used as a way to black market alcohol and the black market only brought about more crime. Studies show that, in over thirty major U.S. cities during the years of 1920 to 1921, the number of crime increased by 24%. Quoting the study: theft rose 9%, homicide by 12%, assaults by 13%, drug addiction by 44%, and police resource costs were raised by 11% - all a result of black-market violent. The same black market that only bootlegged in response to the wide-spread alcohol ban.

Then came the illegal speakeasies, establishments that sold alcoholic beverages illegally. So, regardless of this ban on alcohol, people still had the desire - and the place - to drink. Even though the "drys" set out to take away this dangerous and controlling substance, people were still finding ways to use it - whether it be through the speakeasies that littered the country, or through the black-market run by violence and crime.

Remember, this is in the 1920's, when technology hadn't even surpassed the typewriter. It was more difficult back then to run alcohol illegally, especially through the Mafia. Think about now - 2015 - and how we have so much more technology than what we had back in the twenties. Think about the Mafia now and how it's been replaced with more malicious and crime-ridden groups. So, we still need to keep in mind how dangerous it was to ban alcohol back then and how it would effect us today if we had that same prohibition stance against smoking.

In short, I understand that you want to help people with smoking, but certainly prohibition is an overstepped facet of that solution. We'll only be driving people to do it more - and do it illegally. We will likely find cigarettes being smuggled around easily (given how our technology is today) and we'll find people doing it illegally just as much as they're doing it now. We'd be forcing people into a corner and there's nothing good that can come out of that. Instead, we should find better alternatives to get rid of smoking.

Also, keep in mind that cigarette smoking has been on a steep decline since 1965. In 1965, the percent of adults that smoked was a staggering 42.4% and since the recent 2011 charts, it's come down to a wonderful 19%. So, I think we're doing all right with keeping it legal and I think we'd do even better without a prohibition.

Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Harry123

Pro

Seen from my point of view it seems wrong to prevent the prohibition of smoking, which would cause a positive and healthy development in many peoples lifestyle, due to a possible increase of criminality. A smoking ban will of course result in difficulties but these difficulties should be coped with and solved. Fortunately history will help us to anticipate the possible issues, which are likely to develop and in that way we will be more prepared.

At least 250 of 7000 chemicals, which have been identified in secondhand smoke, are harmful. Approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have because of exposure of secondhand smoke died due to of health problems since 1964. These are innocent lives, which could have been spared with a smoking ban. The steep decline of cigarette smoking you mentioned is indeed positive and this is a obvious reason why we should continue in fighting for a even greater decline. Campaigns on how to achieve a better and a healthier lifestyle would be helpful in order to carry out a smoking ban. Think of all the secondary complications, which could be spared resulting in people to stay on the labour market for a longer period and the hospital service would also save money.

Narcotics are also illegal and of course it causes some degree of criminality but it can not in any remote way be compared to all the lives that this prohibition have saved. A smoking ban would be a tough change and it will take time for people to become accustomed to the radical changes but it will be worth it.

http://www.cancer.gov...
http://www.cdc.gov...
Solomon_Orlando

Con

Seen from my point of view it seems wrong to prevent the prohibition of smoking, which would cause a positive and healthy development in many peoples lifestyle, due to a possible increase of criminality. A smoking ban will of course result in difficulties but these difficulties should be coped with and solved. Fortunately history will help us to anticipate the possible issues, which are likely to develop and in that way we will be more prepared.

The effectiveness of the smoking ban, once enacted, would be efficaciously erased by this "possible increase in criminality". If you go back to the Prohibition, you can clearly see that there was little-to-no point for their alcohol ban. Many of the "drys" took it upon themselves to raise the same questions you're asking now (health and moral issues), but it really only expanded criminality for that short period of time until the ban was repealed years later. Is it really that much of a stretch that this happens again after we ban cigarettes?

We're also not talking about a couple percentage points more criminality, we're talking huge strides in lawlessness. Aside from the obvious organized crime from the Mafia and it's bootlegging in the Black Market, we can show that there were plenty of other drawbacks to this ban, such as:

" Disrespect for the law.
" Decrease in respect for religion.
" Permanent Corruption of Law Enforcement.
" Overburdened police, courts, and penal systems.
" Changed our country's drinking habits for the worse.
" Prohibition was phenomenally expensive.

Regardless of whether or not you believe that a smoking ban would have more healthy benefits, it would no doubt cause these things to happen. Maybe not to the severity of Prohibition, but these are definitely things to keep in mind when throwing out such a wide-spread ban on a nation's favorite habit. Preparing for this won't be easy, anyway. It's hard to prepare for something that is going to be so staunchly opposed.

It's going to cost some serious time, money, and effort. Things that, in the current state of affairs throughout the world, nations simply don't have. I don't think any nation, in 2015, is ready to deal with a Prohibition-type outrage, even with the health benefits you tack onto the ban. That's just from my own perspective of how things are operating right now, but it's not too outlandish to say that this type of embargo would lead to disaster, one way or another.

At least 250 of 7000 chemicals, which have been identified in secondhand smoke, are harmful. Approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have because of exposure of secondhand smoke died due to of health problems since 1964. These are innocent lives, which could have been spared with a smoking ban.

Well, here's something we can consider to aid your secondhand smoke issue. Instead of having a Prohibition and banning smoking everywhere, why don't we institute a banning of smoking in public? We're already banning public smoking in certain areas, so would it really be that difficult to get a public smoking ban everywhere?

Think about the benefits of this public smoking ban. We can continue to tax people for cigarettes, which is a helluva lot of money, might I just add. Back in 2010, we received twenty-five billion dollars in federal collections and ten billion in state collections. If we ban smoking in public, I can't say these won't go down, but federal and state collections will still see a large chunk of change in their wallets.

Then, with this ban, we can protect people from secondhand smoke. In fact, many people are already on board with this decision. A poll in early 2014 said that over half of America's population was for a public smoking ban, whereas another half was against the banning of it completely. This means that we can effectively rid public places of secondhand smoke, but still allow people to smoke at their own leisure without history coming back to bite us in the butt.

Even so, I understand your concern for people and, while it's great to try and look out for other people, they're still going to put harmful chemicals in their body. We can't change how easy it would be to get cigarettes after this smoking ban and we also can't change the amount that chain smokers will use after this embargo - but, what we can change, is where these people do it at. That, I think, is a good enough solution for both the smokers and the people that experience secondhand smoke in public.

Sources.
http://www.patheos.com...
http://www.gallup.com...
http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Harry123

Pro

It is still my opinion that a total smoking ban would be beneficial for our lifestyle. It is however a long-term target to achieve a change of attitude towards the population and to prepare the authorities for this radical change. A public smoking ban is definitely a positive direction for improving the environment for the secondhand smoke. Several countries in Europe have already implemented a total smoking ban in public areas. Since the 15 of August 2007 a legislation has been valid in Denmark concerning smoking where people who move among and stay indoors on workplaces schools, universities, public institutions and restaurants have a legal claim on not to become exposed to secondhand smoke. Although this legislation has caused some criticism it has also resulted in a positive development. In fact nine out of ten private companies in Denmark have as a result banned the employees to smoke indoor.

"Think about the benefits of this public smoking ban. We can continue to tax people for cigarettes, which is a helluva lot of money, might I just add. Back in 2010, we received twenty-five billion dollars in federal collections and ten billion in state collections. If we ban smoking in public, I can't say these won't go down, but federal and state collections will still see a large chunk of change in their wallets."

It seems morally incorrect that the state and federal collections' budget are dependent on the income of the cigarette sale. It seems wrong that the state should own money from a product, which makes people addicted and that harm themselves and the surroundings. If money were considered so important for the society and moral less meaningful than a legalization of drugs would be beneficial for the budget as well. Since the income from the sale of cigarettes is a part of todays budget than it is clear that we are talking about a long-term project to achieve a total smoking ban. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, a saving will also appear as employees will be able to stay on their workplace together with the hospital service, which also would save money.

" Disrespect for the law.
" Decrease in respect for religion.
" Permanent Corruption of Law Enforcement.
" Overburdened police, courts, and penal systems.
" Changed our country's drinking habits for the worse.
" Prohibition was phenomenally expensive.

It is unclear to me how a total smoking ban would result in a decrease in respect for religion. I think that it is wrong not to take action against a project which would benefit the whole society due to fear of what might happen (reference to above bullet points) instead of facing the consequences as a challenge which can be defeated.
Solomon_Orlando

Con

A public smoking ban is definitely a positive direction for improving the environment for the secondhand smoke. Several countries in Europe have already implemented a total smoking ban in public areas. Since the 15 of August 2007 a legislation has been valid in Denmark concerning smoking where people who move among and stay indoors on workplaces schools, universities, public institutions and restaurants have a legal claim on not to become exposed to secondhand smoke. Although this legislation has caused some criticism it has also resulted in a positive development. In fact nine out of ten private companies in Denmark have as a result banned the employees to smoke indoor.

That's what I've been saying throughout my arguments and I agree with you wholly. It would be more beneficial for our nation if we had a public smoking ban, rather than a full-out ban on smoking altogether. I'm glad that you've listed a country that's done this and how the benefits of a public smoking ban can have positive and substantial changes. With that information, I'm not sure why you're still trying to advocating for a prohibition of cigarettes, as it seems that the benefits of just a public smoking ban are enough to eliminate second-hand smoke.

Going off of what you've written below that post, you're now treading on the "It's dangerous for people, so we should get rid of it" argument. Which, true, cigarettes are dangerous, but you're not going to get anywhere with a prohibition. Cigarettes will move underground, in the Black Market, just like alcohol did during the Prohibition years ago. In fact, these cigarettes might actually become more dangerous than what they are now. For the people that won't use the Black Market, they might turn to something even harder and more detrimental.

My point is, there's always going to be a way to get cigarettes, regardless of how threatening they may be. Even if you get rid of them, people will still continue to put horrible things into their bodies, you just can't stop it - it's an impossible endeavor. However, it seems that your main concern is the second-hand smoke, which you've already said can be ousted with a public smoking ban - there's really nothing else you can do, as these chemicals, as I've said, will always be available.

It seems morally incorrect that the state and federal collections' budget are dependent on the income of the cigarette sale. It seems wrong that the state should own money from a product, which makes people addicted and that harm themselves and the surroundings. If money were considered so important for the society and moral less meaningful than a legalization of drugs would be beneficial for the budget as well.

I never said that it was morally correct, but we're taxing people for the dangerous habit that they're going to indulge in anyway. We can't stop people from getting cigarettes, so we might as well drain them of money as another potential negative to their expensive habits - same goes with alcohol. My point remains, though:

Cigarettes, alcohol, and other dangerous chemicals are going to be used (widely) and there's nothing that you, or I, can do to effectively wipe it from our society. People will turn to something else or simply make it on their own. I mean, hell, look at marijuana - it's completely illegal (in most places), but we're still growing it and it's all over the place now.

It is unclear to me how a total smoking ban would result in a decrease in respect for religion. I think that it is wrong not to take action against a project which would benefit the whole society due to fear of what might happen (reference to above bullet points) instead of facing the consequences as a challenge which can be defeated.It is unclear to me how a total smoking ban would result in a decrease in respect for religion.

Well, back then, the Prohibition was advocated by religious people. I don't think that it would cause a decrease either, I think I must have just listed that on accident, my apologies. Anyway, it has nothing to do with fear (although, the detriments certainly outweigh the benefits, as I've stated above). It has more to do with the fact that an all-out smoking ban would just result in people turning elsewhere for their cigarettes, other than just buying them at a gas station.

We've made hard drugs illegal, but people still get them.
We've made marijuana illegal, but people still get it.
We've made certain chemicals illegal, but people still get them.

What makes you think that, by having an all-out Prohibition on cigarettes, wouldn't just result in people finding them elsewhere? Making cigarettes isn't difficult, either, which means it's even more probable that people would just make their own - and sell them for a profit! Not to mention, we have the internet. You don't think that others will just Google "How to make a cigarette" and go from there?

I'll summarize my main point again our of fear of being verbose.

If you make an all-out ban on cigarettes, you will drive people to go elsewhere for the same habit. It could be dangerous to get them and could cause a lot of unrest among people, without actually solving the addiction that people face. It would be a much more sound plan if you instituted a public smoking ban. You mentioned that Denmark has this and it's worked wonders for them.

So, if we can't make people stop their addiction and we can't pull these things off the shelf due to it's dangers, then a public smoking ban is the most that we can do to help people who don't smoke. ...because, let's face it, the people who smoke are going to continue regardless.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by NNEye 2 years ago
NNEye
That would simply be impossible to enforce. Remember prohibition? Although alcohol was outlawed, it merely went underground.
No votes have been placed for this debate.