Smoking in public has to be banned
Debate Rounds (3)
When many items, not excluding cigarettes became manufactured, producers found cheaper alternatives of components, which were included into manufactures.
If we are looking at a life of a cigarette, it starts in the leafy tobacco plant that grows in warm climate. For better growth, farmers use fertilizers that already contain dangerous for human"s health chemicals. After picking the tobacco leaves, they dried and crushed into small pieces. Soon after, other chemicals and artificial flavorings are added. Out of four thousand chemicals added 51 are known as carcinogenic. Many of those chemicals are poisonous, yet people do not pay attention where these chemicals might likewise be met. Carbon monoxide, tar, ammonia, methanol, butane" These components do not make much sense if people do not know their initial purposes. For example, ammonia is known by its being the main component of cleaning products such as toilet cleaner. Well known nicotine is used in bug sprays, arsenic " in a rat poison.
Of course, everyone have heard changeless reasons of smoking being bad for our health, yet it is people"s personal decision whether they want to smoke or not. However, smokers ought to think about other people health while smoking in public places. Being outdoors, where different age groups of people are also present, smoking is the sing of irresponsibility. Smoking in public areas has to be banned.
Yes, smoking kills. Yes, it is carcinogenic, thus any person can get cancer because of genetics and in case of cancer cells presence in human"s body, which happens frequently. Chemicals that are inhaled while smoking increase the change of the cancer cells mutation, which causes cancer of larynx, lungs, mouth area, breast and other parts of a body. Cancer is a disease, which kills its owner continually, giving only a small percentage of having a remission. According to the US statistics, 1,658,370 people were diagnosed and 589,430 died from cancer in the year 2015 on its territory. Therefore, person who smokes in public is slowly killing himself and people, who are standing next to him or just going near-by.
Think about the different age groups that were mentioned before. Everyone is going out or is taken outside during the day. Newborns, children, teenagers, young people, adults and seniors. They are inhaling the smoke with all the chemicals that unknown person is producing by smoking a cigarette. The smoke is flowing from their nostrils to their lungs; blood circulation absorbs small particles of the dangerous chemicals. It is believed that being a second-hand smoker leads to worse consequences because person simply does not have a choice " he is inhaling a smoke against his will. Many second-hand smokers develop asthma, reproductive system problems, and heart diseases; it increases the chance of getting cancer. That is the reason why smoking in the public places has to be banned. Why children have to breathe in the environment, which kills them? They have no choice. There were 9,3 percent of children, which is equal to 6,8 million, who already have asthma in the year 2012. Imagine how the number has increased through out the years if 3,932,181 infants were born the next year? People, who smoke in public do not think, that they are slowly destroying someone life just by lighting on the cigarette.
"Children see " children do". Terrifying statistics about the correlation between smokers and the age they started developing their bad habit: 90 percent of smokers began before age 19. Every teenager might get under a peer pressure and start damaging his body this way. They should not be judged. Why? Those teenagers, who are getting under the pressure, took an example on the streets, where adults show their passion to smoking cigarettes. Why do not they shoot themselves? It also kills. Yes, bullet makes it much faster, but it has the same effect. Why do elder people show a bad lifestyle example to teenagers, who will grow up and will do the same to the next generation? It is going to happen repeatedly if people do not stop it. The percentage of teen smokers, who will continue smoking and might die premature, is equal to 30 percent. Moreover, their death will be related to illnesses, which are developed by smoking. Smoking ban will give teenagers a chance to choose their lifestyle themselves.
Let me talk about a place we live: our planet. We all know that pollutions, which are anthropogenic, do not make any goods for our air. People have already built uncountable number of factories and are using fossil fuels as an engine for their vehicles. Pollutions that are man-made damage our planet. Smoke, which comes from a burning cigarette, pollutes the atmosphere as any others. If smoking was not allowed in the public, there would be less people, who smoke in general, which means pollutions would decrease.
However, air pollution is not a single environmental damage that cigarettes create. As everybody knows, after smoking a cigarette, there is a stub left. Usually, people do not pay attention to throwing it to the special waste-bit. Overall, cigarette-stubs composes up to one third of America"s litter. If it is taken worldwide, 4,5 trillion cigarette-stubs are littered every year. It takes around 5 year for cigarette-stub to decay in the ground and during this period chemicals, which were contained in the cigarette and its filter, are going to be absorbed; this contaminates our planet. If people did not smoke in public areas, they would simply not throw cigarette-stubs on the ground; thus, special smoking areas are going to be much better for the environment.
As a conclusion, I want to say that the United States of America is one of the greatest countries, yet environmental problems, people"s behavior and habits might destroy its greatness from the inside. Let us make our country better by banning smoking in public places, so our future generation will appreciate effort that we have put into our development. Let us improve. Let us show our care.
The banning of smoking in public places may have some positives but it is for certain that more things will be affected negatively.
Your first point was that cigarettes are poisoning people and giving them cancer. I believe this is true. There was another point that also agreed that yes, it is a person's choice to smoke. Also, only the second-hand smoke even having any affect towards the ban.
The chemicals that the people smoke in the cigarettes is not the main point in this other than for the fact of the second-hand smoke. According to the EPA, the risk ratio for forty years of exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. The 6.8 million children in the United States that have asthma only account for 2.1% of the entire United States population (Not saying that it isn't a lot). According to some calculations I have made, that would only be rounded to about 9.2% of all children in the United States, which currently holds a child population of over 74.2 mil. The current amount of kids affected by asthma is 6.8 million, as said before, but that is not how many of them have gotten asthma by second-hand smoke. Children are more than likely to develop an illness for a short period of time from it than ever getting asthma. The children that do have asthma are affected by smoking with more frequent asthma attacks.
The banning of smoking in public places would infringe private property rights. "Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities" (Wikipedia 2016). Cigarettes are private property and are used for personal consumption. Banning smoking in public places would infringe on these rights to have cigarettes and smoke them in public places. 40 million adults in the United States would be affected by this ban.
Several of the campaigns against tobacco use it to demonize smokers only based on the chemicals and supposed science in behind the real cigarette.
Your argument on "Children See." "Children do." explains on how teens are more influenced to smoke because of peer pressure, adult and elder"s passion for cigarettes and the premature deaths caused by the chemicals in the products. Several campaigns insist we ban public smoking because it does influence teenagers. Sadly, that is not the problem. According to CDC (2014), by achieving a teen smoking rate of 15.7 percent, the United States has met its national Healthy People 2020 objective of reducing adolescent cigarette use to 16 percent or less. Teens are less influenced now than ever to smoke cigarettes. You also asked the question of why not shoot themselves? Teens that do smoke only do it to try to destress from a situation, not to kill themselves. No one smokes to slowly kill themselves. If someone wanted to kill themselves then yes, a bullet would be easier. But this argument is not on if teens should just kill themselves if they want to smoke cigarettes because apparently that's what would happen anyways. There is a thing about reality; we all die. It would be like telling someone to kill themselves just because they know that their lives will inevitably end in the next 60-65 years. Teens also have a sense of responsibility that they will gain and they will be able to make their own choices, whether it is to smoke or not to smoke.
Your next argument explains that a burning cigarette causes a lot of pollution. This conflict can be resolved by electronic cigarettes. In April 2014, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a report summarizing a survey of more than 19,000 past and present users of electronic cigarettes " the largest survey of its kind to date (From the Article "In Defense of Smokers"). Just one of the things that the survey found was that electronic cigarettes helped 81% of the survey respondents quit smoking. Among those who had not quit entirely, one-third were non-daily smokers, and the rest had decreased consumption from 20 cigarettes to 4 per day. A lot of them switched to electronic because they were concerned about the second-hand smoke exposure. It even worked for highly dependent smokers. The amount of pollution caused also by stubs can be fixed also by the electronic cigarettes. You also stated that several people throw their stubs on the ground instead of throwing them into the trash. Normal garbage cans in public places also have a sand/gravel/rock ashtray just for the people that need to put out their cigarettes if they do not use electronic cigarettes.
For my conclusion, Smoking should not be banned in public places. There are very simple ways that America can fix its errors. America is a great country, as you said. But, America can be an even greater country if it would take these things into consideration and try it's best to fix the problem. You cannot snuff out a problem by passing a law against it and thinking that the problem is ultimately over. Fix the problem with what it needs.
Your second argument was banning smoking in public places will infringe private property rights. I can slightly agree on that point. However, smoking in public approaches the line of infringing the World Health Organization Constitution"s point of having ""the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being." Simply saying, very human being has rights on being healthy. Smoking in public places will damage human"s health. Therefore, it has to be banned. Special smoking places should be built in order to satisfy smokers" needs, because no one can say a word about someone"s decision to smoke as soon as person is old enough to do that. Yet smoking in public places, especially indoors, has to be forbidden.
Taking a step back to the teen smoking, you understood one of my rhetorical questions in a reversed way. Shooting oneself does not mean that teenagers, who smoke, want to kill themselves. By following your logic, everyone, who smokes, simply wants to die, what is not true and both of us can agree on that. Comparing a bullet to a cigarette was the way to make statements "smoking kills" and "smoking leads to premature death" even more clear. "Teens are less influenced now than ever to smoke cigarettes." It might be a result of restricting smoking and tobacco consumption age in several states. A purchase of tobacco products is illegal for everyone, who is under-aged, who is not 18 years old yet. In some states, it is legal to smoke even though person is not 18 years old. Their sense of "responsibility" is taking over and most of the teenagers start to smoke by being provocatively influenced.
Electronic cigarettes, as a suggestion to decrease air-pollutions caused by cigarettes, is a good solution. Nevertheless, there are things about e-cigarettes that are also dangerous for our environment that you could not think about at the first place. Going a bit in-depth, there are two types of electronic cigarettes: rechargeable and non-reusable e-cigarettes. Non-reusable cigarettes do not cause a lot of waste as they have been thrown away; some of their part might be reused as something else made of metal. Unfortunately, smokers, who decided to switch to e-cigarettes, would not choose non-reusable electrical cigarettes because it would be costly for them: in average, these e-cigarettes last only for 300 to 400 puffs, which is not a lot for a daily-smoker. Why is not the other type of e-cigarettes better than normal cigarettes? Rechargeable cigarettes contain a small batteries, that could not been thrown away, they are harmful for the environment as any other batteries. All batteries contain toxic chemicals that cause damage for the environment. Second con of rechargeable e-cigarettes is their electricity consumption. According to The World Bank (IBRD and IDA), 83,6 percent of American"s total electricity consumption is produced by burning fossil fuels. If all 40 million people, who smoke in the United States, did prefer to smoke electronic cigarettes over traditional cigarettes and their choice was be buying rechargeable cigarettes, they would be in need of electricity. As we know, burning fossil fuels causes bigger problems: greenhouse effect, acid rains, etc. Electronic cigarettes demand electricity to recharge; therefore, more pollutions in the atmosphere and our world is going to be contaminated.
Of course, there are many advantages of e-cigarettes, as you mentioned: they help people cut down on smoking or quit doing it completely, they do not litter, if not thrown on the ground on purpose. However, it had to be mentioned, that there are cases of the electronic cigarettes" explosions. The e-cigarettes are devices, which sometimes refuse to work and requires care. Negligent use of the e-cigarettes might lead to their explosion and following injuries after it. For example, CNN"s report was dedicated to the e-cigarette explosion in costumer"s pocket on the local gas station on February 25th year 2016 in Owensboro, Kentucky. "Big fire, and he was burning," Jassie Singh, who was working the register at the time.(1 ) Man left with the third-degree burns all over his leg. Other incidents, mentioned in the same report, are spontaneous electronic cigarettes explosions, which leaded to man"s hospitalization and 3-years-old child"s first- and second-degree burns. These accidents are concrete examples of e-cigarettes being dangerous. The explosions may happen in public, where they will harm not only an owner of an e-cigarette, but also people around him/her.
My conclusion is, problem of smoking has always been present and restricting the law by banning smoking in public places will be a small step to solving the problem in general. The United States is ranked as 51st country in a list of cigarettes consumption per adult per year, what is equal to 1,028 cigarettes. Hopefully, smoking ban in public would decrease this number and American will become a country of a dream for everyone.
You mentioned while countering my second argument about "The highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being, "as said by the World Health Organization Constitution. Yes, everyone does have the right to live a full and healthy life. Smoking in public places may damage a human's health, but second-hand smoke will not damage you as much as things we breathe in, absorb and smell all the time. People smoke outside in public all the time and is their choice as a human being, they want to have their "highest attainable standard" of health. They also have that right as well. There are usually warning signs to places that allow smoking indoors, so it is the fault of the person coming into the place and inhaling that smoke if they do not read the warning sign.
Your rhetorical question more than likely puts that effect and emphasis on why not kill yourself if you smoke. The logic that I was following was the logic that you were sending to me.
The electronic cigarettes, rechargeable or not, can be made even better, which includes the electronic cigarette explosions. As soon as electronic cigarettes get more attention, the better and safer they will be.
For my conclusion, smoking is a problem that does require attention but can be easily solved by supply and demand. The consumers of the cigarettes have the control on how the rules will be pulled and what will be made in the cigarette industry. America cannot put an ultimate ban on cigarettes in public places because that is what runs America. More than 20% of America smokes cigarettes, and since the taxes on cigarettes are high, cigarette taxes bring in the most revenue. America will always be great, but even greater if we share the innovation and technology of electronic cigarettes and safer cigarettes for the public. If we can do this, this particular argument wouldn't even exist.
valeriyayuhtanova forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.