The Instigator
Rich1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Smoking ban is unacceptable

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 2 votes the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 69588
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Rich1

Pro

The reason the smoking ban is unacceptable is because, it is a human right to smoke. We are a country of freedom. We are allowed to be the person we want to be and we make our own happiness.
Smoking is unhealthy that is proved by science and a lot of experts says that it is a bad choice to make, but it is our choice and it is us who decide whether we want to smoke or not. The smoking ban is taking the happiness from us. At restaurants, some of us like to have a cigarette before and after the meal. This makes us happier and makes us feel good, so why should we be robbed from that greatness in our lives.
Emilrose

Con

Accepted.

=Benefits=

The improvement in health remains one of the strongest benefits in a smoking ban. A 2014 international the Lancet report [1.] found a 10% decrease in premature birth and severe child asthma attacks within a year of anti-smoking laws being introduced. In addition, the report also concluded that there was a 5% reduction in children being born very small for their age.

One of the leading study authors involved commented:

"Our study provides clear evidence that smoking bans have considerable public health benefits for perinatal and child health, and provides strong support for WHO recommendations to create smoke-free public environments on a national level."

To point again to it its significance, the report was was a direct assessment of 11 studies conducted in North America and Europe, which involved more than two million births and alsmost 250,000 asthma exacerbations. The studies definitively show that children [whether indoors or out] receive some of the worst impacts, finding that they account for over a quarter of all deaths due to exposure to second hand smoke [2.]

Because of the detrimental health effects of smoking, naturally a lot of money is saved in implementing anti-smoking laws or an outright ban. The American Heart Association found that a ban would significantly decrease the amount of emergency room visits; who would bring down the cost considerably. Medline Plus even reported that the United states would save up to $92 million each year if a smoking ban was implented [3.]

As can be seen, the benefits expand to both health impacts and significant saving in costs.

I'd point out that Pro has presented a case without including any sources or additional information in support. The BoP is on them to sufficiently prove that smoking should not be banned. Enjoying it "at restaurants" and it making people "feel good" do not provide valid reasons. More importantly, just because Pro finds smoking a "greatness"; it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else does. People could argue that having laws against other drugs is "robbing them of a greatness". It would be on them to show how they are objectively great and why they should be completely legal.

[1.] ] http://www.bbc.co.uk...

[2.] http://www.sciencedaily.com...

[3.] http://www.livestrong.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Rich1

Pro

Asphalt is just as dangerous as smoking. The fumes from asphalt can give headache, skin rash, sensitization, fatigue, reduced appetite, throat and eye irritation, cough, and skin cancer. So why should it only be smoking that should be banned. When we walk outside on a hot summer day, we can see the heat on the asphalt. That is the poisonous fumes from the asphalt. So every time we walk outside we are exposed by this dangerous poison.

https://www.osha.gov...
http://news.harvard.edu...
http://www.invw.org...

"To point again to it its significance, the report was was a direct assessment of 11 studies conducted in North America and Europe, which involved more than two million births and alsmost 250,000 asthma exacerbations."

You say that smoking is the main cause of births and asthma exacerbations, but it is only one of many. According to http://www.nhs.uk... then there are many other causes to asthma. See also:
http://www.webmd.com...

"Because of the detrimental health effects of smoking, naturally a lot of money is saved in implementing anti-smoking laws or an outright ban. The American Heart Association found that a ban would significantly decrease the amount of emergency room visits; who would bring down the cost considerably. Medline Plus even reported that the United states would save up to $92 million each year if asmoking ban was implanted"

Smokers are not only an expense for the government because all of the money we use on cigarettes is basically taxes, which is shown in the following two links:
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...

Why should we stop smoking when we are helping create workplaces? Let us start from the beginning. It all starts with an idea, a lot of people are trying to figure out what the newest cigarette should contain and after the idea it needs to be produced, this create a lot of factory work, both from the production but also for the packing, doing the production we buy the products we need, such as paper, filter, cardboard, all the tobacco, plastic and so on. So we make other factories work as well. After the packing we need someone to deliver the cigarettes to the stores and so on. If we accepted the smoking ban, then we would lose a lot of working places. Another workplace we are aiding is the hospital, because if we end up at the hospital, we need to pay for our treatment. All in all, then the government would lose a lot of money if the smoking ban was accepted.
Emilrose

Con

=Rebuttals=

Pro claims that "asphalt is as dangerous as smoking", however, the resolution is exclusively about smoking and not anything else that could potentially be dangerous. The difference between asphalt and cigarette smoking is also significant. One of them is essentially what people do for pleasure [as with alcohol consumption,etc.] while the other fulfills a practical purpose and is a basic necessity if we are to have roads and pavements. Pros argument is entirely negated by the fact that asphalt is an integral part of construction. Without it, we would not have the same transportation, recreation [I.E play/sports grounds], agricultrure, and builing construction such as floorings that we currently do have. [4.] There are countless objective advantages to asphalt, the main one being that it enables everyday commuting and is cost efficient. Overall, asphalt is also safe; meaning that Pro has outlined a rather large fallacy. Asphalt is regularly come into contact with and no way has it ever negatively impacted people to the same extent that smoking has. And once more, I'll reiterate that it does fulfill a practical purpose.

A total of 90% of all paved roads are are paved with asphalt. [5.] Unlike asphalt, cigerette smoking is directly inhaled and is thus one of the most widely reported on health concerns there is.

Pro also states: "You say that smoking is the main cause of births and asthma exacerbations, but it is only one of many."

Firstly, I didn't actually say that it was the "main cause". Rather I included actual studies that found second-hand smoke to one of the larges components in premature birth and asthma attacks. The studies concluded that there was a 10% reduction in premature birth/asthma exacerbations, as well as a 5% one in children being born unusually small.

Another study conducted by the American Heart Association and Journal of American College of Cardiology found that there was a 17% reduction in heart attacks in European and American cities that had implented a ban. [6.]

"Smokers are not only an expense for the government because all of the money we use on cigarettes is basically taxes."

Not exactly, as highlighted in the previous round; the financial costs to smoking are extremely high.

Pro further argues that a ban would lead to less financial benefits, but again fails to link a source that *really* supports this assertion. Not do smoking bans have huge financial benefits to the health sector, one could also argue that it benefits public business as people who do not smoke are more likely to come to restaurants and bars that disallow it, therefore actually adding to customer. It's unlikely that workplaces would be as impacted as Pro seems to imply, particularly in "aiding" hospitals as these are the places that have benefited financially with a smoking ban. On the contrary to losing money, they would gain it. The figure $92 million, in America alone, offers good proof of this.

Two years after a ban had been implented, another British report concluded that: "Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry." [7.]

I'd point out again that Pro has yet to support earlier arguments made. Namely that "it is a human right to smoke." Along with "We are allowed to be the person we want to be and we make our own happiness."

Pro should particularly expound on how it is a "human right" to smoke. Both statements are clearly built on fallacies.

[4.] http://www.eapa.org...

[5.] http://www.eapa.org...

[6.] http://edition.cnn.com...;

[7.] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Rich1

Pro

Smoking is a choice that the individual make, and therefore it should be up to the individual person if he or she wants to smoke or not. I earlier mentioned that it was a human right to smoke and failed to explain why. America is a land of freedom and liberty; we have the right to speak and to do what we want. Our society tells us that we need to pursue our own happiness but it does not tell us what kinds of happiness we are allowed to pursue and which we are not allowed to pursue. Therefore we need make those choices of what we think will make us happy ourselves and then try to get that. There are some who wants to owe a mansion and some who wants loads of children and then there is us who finds smoking a greatness in our life.

"People could argue that having laws against other drugs is "robbing them of a greatness""

I am not saying that just because we find it a pleasure to smoke, that all others should start smoking or that drugs should be legalized. I am just saying, if the government is making everything that can hurt you illegal, then we should be covered up in sterilized safety boxes. If we kept smoking legalized then people should think more and ask the question to themselves: do I or do I not want to smoke? This would make people use their brain more and make them stronger instead of just being afraid of everything that are dangerous.
Emilrose

Con

Pro states that: "Smoking is a choice that the individual make, and therefore it should be up to the individual person if he or she wants to smoke or not. "

Which still fails to explain *why* smoking should not banned. Literally anything can be an individual choice, but that does not mean it should be a legal or fully accessible one. Technically, taking recreational drugs is an "individual choice", but again, that provides absolutely no valid reason as to why they should not be banned.

"I earlier mentioned that it was a human right to smoke and failed to explain why. America is a land of freedom and liberty; we have the right to speak and to do what we want. Our society tells us that we need to pursue our own happiness but it does not tell us what kinds of happiness we are allowed to pursue and which we are not allowed to pursue."

As with round one and two, this still isn't outlining how smoking is a "human right". For it to be that, it would have to be universally categorized as "rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons." [8.] Cigarette smoking is in fact no more of a human right than alcohol consumption or any other commodity that is not considered a neccessity. Pro claims that those living in America have the right to "speak and do what they want", which is quite evidently not the case. People cannot say anything they want [9.] nor can people do anything they want without expecting any repurcussions. An example would be if someone wanted to rob a business, in doing so, they are a breaking the law and thus face a penalty.

"Therefore we need make those choices of what we think will make us happy ourselves and then try to get that. There are some who wants to owe a mansion and some who wants loads of children and then there is us who finds smoking a greatness in our life."

Once again, smoking making people "happy" fails to provide an objective reason in support of Pros resolution. More importantly, Pro hasn't even proved that smoking does in fact in make people happy, and exclusively relies on personal opinion. The same also applies to showing how smoking is a "greatness" in ones life. It being a "greatness" to one person certainly doesn't mean it is to others, nor does show how it should be legal.

"If we kept smoking legalized then people should think more and ask the question to themselves: do I or do I not want to smoke? This would make people use their brain more and make them stronger instead of just being afraid of everything that are dangerous."

Again, does this clearly outline why smoking should be legal? The answer is naturally no. Just because people would be able to make the decision to smoke; it does not mean it should not be banned. As previously argued, people can make the choice to do anything but that doesn't exactly show why they should be able to do it. Likewise, this certainly doen't mean they're doing any brain work or are "stronger" for making that choice.

=Conclusion=

Pro has made a number of unproved statements and has failed to fulfil his BoP. All arguments made by myself have included reliable sources in support and each point of Pro has been fully negated, therefore, vote Con.

[8.] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[9.] http://thefreethoughtproject.com...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MissYRuby 2 years ago
MissYRuby
If there was a smoking ban I would be ecstatic! It would be wonderful on peoples health and on their money. Even if smoking isn't banned, I hope some sort of laws on smoking are made as no good will come of smoking in the end.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
Rich1EmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 for obvious reasons. Arguments because CON rebutted every one of PRO's points, while PRO dropped pretty much all of CON's.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
Rich1EmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro never negates the positive health benefits and therefore money saved from a smoking ban. Pro simply claims other things also cause negative health benefits but that doesn't prove a smoking ban is bad. It doesn't prove anything really; alternate causality arguments only make sense if they prove that smoking isn't harmful, which would be pretty hard to do. Pro claims smoking is a basic human right, but is willing to concede that the government can ban drugs, so his articulation of a semi-harm principle-esque argument doesn't make sense if he concedes that the government can ban alcohol and other drugs. Pro also just doesn't say where this moral imperative comes from. Pro claims cigarettes are expensive because of taxes, but Con's argument was the expense in terms of negative health outcomes. Con resoundingly wins arguments. Sources: Con had more reliable sources, e.g. studies on aggregate effects, and used a much better citation format.