Smoking (not marijuana) should be banned
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be arguing that smoking is such a bad thing that it should banned (made illegal).
I will begin with my claim and will follow with evidence.
Claim: Smoking cigarettes is horrible for your body and the body's of people around you and therefore it should be banned.
I will begin by using the site http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... for my evidence because it is a government site and therefore should be very reliable.
point 1. 1 in every 5 deaths in the USA are caused by smoking, this is insane that means that 1/5 of the USA's deaths are from smoking, an obvious reason to ban it.
point 2. Smoking has many long term affects including but not limited to cancer,lung problems,speech difficulties and diabetes. To address the risks you take by smoking observe the picture below
point 3: Ever seen the videos like this
notice that these are made by the center of disease control. These videos are showing what happens to the people that are lucky enough not to die from smoking but it is hard to say they are lucky at all with the condition they are left in.
point 4: Smoking is highly addictive meaning if you just smoke 1 or 2 times there is a very high chance you will become addicted and dependent, please take the time to read this exert from
"Regular use of tobacco products leads to addiction in many users. Nicotine is a drug found naturally in tobacco, which is as addictive as heroin or cocaine:
When taken in small amounts, nicotine creates pleasant feelings that make the smoker want to smoke more. It acts on the chemistry of the brain and central nervous system, affecting the smoker"s mood. Nicotine works very much like other addicting drugs, by flooding the brain"s reward circuits with dopamine (a chemical messenger). Nicotine also gives you a little bit of an adrenaline rush " not enough to notice, but enough to speed up your heart and raise your blood pressure.
Nicotine reaches the brain within seconds after taking a puff, and its effects start to wear off within a few minutes. This is what most often leads the smoker to light up again. If the smoker doesn"t smoke again soon, withdrawal symptoms start and get worse over time.
The typical smoker takes about 10 puffs from each cigarette. A person smoking a pack per day gets about 200 "hits" of nicotine each day.
Smokers usually become dependent on nicotine and suffer physical and emotional (mental or psychological) withdrawal symptoms when they stop smoking. These symptoms include irritability, nervousness, headaches, and trouble sleeping. The true marker for addiction, though, is that people still smoke even though they know smoking is bad for them " affecting their lives, their health, and their families in unhealthy ways. In fact, most people who smoke want to quit.
point 5: Smoking is a waste of money, the average cost of a pack of cigarettes ranges from $4.96 Kentucky to $14.50 New york. http://www.theawl.com...
From those 2 numbers we can get the average cost of a pack of cigarettes in the USA which is $9.73. If we look at the average number of cigarettes smoked by a smoker per day we get just over 1 pack (20 cigarettes) but we will round to a pack to make the numbers easier. Therefore a smoker spends $3,551 per year on cigarettes ("national average spent by lower- income smokers " those with a household income under $25,000 " was 14 percent" http://abcnews.go.com...).
point 6: Using the data from my fifth point we can see that if a low income individual gets addicted to smoking (which is very likely to happen) then they will be spending $3,551 per year on cigarettes, think about the other things these low income individuals could be using that money on. According to http://earlystart.blogs.cnn.com... it costs a family of 4 $146 for food each month this means that they will spend an average of $7,008 dollars on food per year (keep in mind this is the bare minimum of food needed) I am sure that if a family of 4 making $25,000 or less could save $7,102 on not smoking (both parents are average smokers) that it would make a big difference on the quality of life for them and there children.
point 7: A lot of people will argue that if you are only harming yourself then it is your decision what you do and I would generally agree with that. However this is not the case with smoking, while smoking you are harming the people around you in two ways.
Second Hand Smoke:smoke inhaled involuntarily from tobacco being smoked by others
"Second Hand Smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals. Many of these chemicals are dangerous; more than 50 are known to cause cancer."
Third Hand Smoke:"Tobacco smoke gets into the air and its residue stays on walls, floors, furniture, toys, and clothes. This smoke that adults carry around with them on their clothes is called thirdhand smoke."
Smoking and Children:"Parents who smoke cause many health problems for their children. Some of the problems they cause are making asthma worse, bringing on more colds and ear infections, and increasing the risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Also "Research has shown that smoking during pregnancy causes health problems for both mothers and babies, such as: Miscarriage,Premature (early) birth,Low birth weight
(three final points from http://www.smokefreephilly.org... )
Conclusion: Smoking is not only a serious health hazard to yourself but also to people you are around while( and after) smoking, and your children. Smoking is addicting and is very expensive, Overall there are no pro's to smoking and lets not forget 1/5th of the deaths in America each year are caused by smoking. Those are the reasons that we need to ban smoking.
Here's why I don't think we should ban smoking:
1. Smoking is a right of the individual. A right is something that you own, it is not synonymous to just or acceptable. Since you owned the cigarettes that you brought from your local stores, you can smoke them. If you smoke while you're pregnant, that's your responsibility.
2. The tobacco industry will suffer immensely from the ban, causing many other businesses to crumble. When the tobacco industry dies off because of the ban, it shall cause investors to crumble too. This will also cause food industries to die off. Remember, tobacco is made from planting, vegetables and food are also made from planting. These two industries are really close together.
3. If you make smoking illegal, then people will get it illegally. It doesn't matter if you enforce this ban with punishments, just look at meth for gods sake. Most of all, more violence will come out of this ban. Look at the Mexican cartel, they smuggle weed into our country because its banned. Now they're gonna smuggle smokes.
Some slick rebuttals for ya:
1. You describe how many people die because of smoking. It does not matter how many people die from smoking. It is not my problem. Just because it was their choice and they did not take responsibility for their actions does not mean someone else shouldn't smoke.
2. You describe how bad smoking is. Irrelevant.
3. No, I haven't.
4. Oh it's addictive? So? Again, it's the smokers choice that they are smoking.
5. You go into the cost of smoking. Yes, it's quite expensive. Wanna know why? Because the government taxes the living HELL out of this product to discourage people from buying it because it's bad for your health. Maybe if these liberals just REALIZE that they don't get to make other people's decision then people wouldn't hate them as much.
6. Yadadada, more data about cost of smokes.
7. You're harming the people around you. Look at my alternative coming right about now: Instead of banning smoking altogether, there should be places where you can smoke and cannot smoke. This is the best alternative because smokes wouldn't become black market material, and it doesn't interfere with peoples lives as much.
You said "It does not matter how many people die from smoking. It is not my problem. Just because it was their choice and they did not take responsibility for their actions does not mean someone else shouldn't smoke."
I disagree and think it is a serious problem if 1/5 of our population are dying from it. You are more likely to die from secondhand smoke than something like Ebola. ( We now know that 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure http://www.no-smoke.org... and 4,493 have died from Ebola http://www.bbc.com...) So to be realistic this could become your problem very easily if someone around you is smoking. You go on to say that they did not take responsibility for their actions but that statement doesn't make sense at all. I will point out some problems with that
1. Look at these numbers ( According to the report, 68.8 percent of current smokers say they want to quit and 52.4 percent tried to quit during the past year. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... ) That alone disproves your argument that they didn't take responsibility, 52% means that more than half (the majority) of smokers have tried to quit, therefore they have tried to take responsibility but it was too late. This brings me back to my research on how addicting smoking is. Since smoking is so addicting you could just try it 1 time not intending to ever do it again and you could become addicted and still get affected
2.("Smoking begins to cause damage right away and is highly addictive. Several studies have found nicotine to be as addictive as heroin, cocaine, or alcohol; it is the most common form of drug addiction in the United States. http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com...) This is another clear argument that disproves your statement, this means that if someone smokes just a couple of cigarettes and manages to quit (which is very unlikely but would mean that they took responsibility of there actions) they are still extremely likely to cause longterm health effects and possibly die from smoking so even if you do take responsibility you are still at risk. If the US government can stop ban the #1 preventable cause of death they definitely should. This is not about you con so why even say "it is not my problem" because that doesn't matter, what does matter is that if Tobacco kills up to half of its users, and 42.1 million people (over the age of 18) use it, then it is a serious issue for our country and should not be allowed.
2."You describe how bad smoking is. Irrelevant." How is that irrelevant, the reason I want to ban it is because it is so bad so this is not irrelevant. Usually a pro smokers defense for smoking is that it is not very bad for you and not very addicting. That is why I have supplied the data showing that it is bad and addicting. Now you are showing me that you can not prove that smoking isn't horrible for your health so you will write it off as being "irrelevant". So I would like you to explain how this is irrelevant without using your one strong argument that if people want to smoke it is their right.
3. I posted this video http://www.youtube.com... This video points out 3 things,
1.People that smoke do regret it
2.Once again it shows how bad smoking is for your body
3. This one is really important. The C,D,C or center of disease control was the branch of government to create this video
Centers Of Disease Controls:The US agency charged with tracking and investigating public health trends. The stated mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, commonly called the CDC, is "To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. (" http://www.medicinenet.com... ) This agency was created by the government to help prevent the most important public health issues, so If they are worried about smoking then we should all be worried about it because it is most definitely a very serious issue. And to Con's argument about smoking being a right i have a very obvious counter, IF THE GOVERNMENT THINKS SOMETHING IS A DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY (Guns for example) THEN IT IS NO LONGER THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS because the government is meant to make those important decisions and that is exactly what they are trying to do with smoking. (note that my opponent had no rebuttal to this.)
4. I explained how addicting and dangerous smoking is and Con simply went back to his "rights" argument but again I will tell you that if the Government thinks something is so dangerous that it is a threat to our country than it is their right to Ban it. Also a lot of people do not intend to smoke around 60% but because of addiction they can not help it. Banning smoking would help prevent these people from making a bad decision because it is a proven fact that not as many people will do something when it is illegal.
5. Con's rebuttal that the reason cigarettes are so expensive is because "the government taxes the living HELL out of this product to discourage people from buying it because it's bad for your health. Maybe if these liberals just REALIZE that they don't get to make other people's decision then people wouldn't hate them as much." First of all this is a very unprofessional argument in which you bring your political views into the debate which is overall just silly. Secondly it does not matter why they are expensive, My point was that it is a burden on middle to low class family's and will decrease the quality of life, and though it is clear that you do not care much for others I do and I am sure that addiction is the problem and not that they really enjoy smoking. I also find it funny that you mention that it is not the governments decision what we do when it actually is. We in fact do not have the right to do whatever we want or this country would be a mess.
6. You did not have any rebuttal to this.
7. You actually had a fairly impressive solution on this one and at first one would think it would be a perfect solution but think about this, you have places you can and cannot smoke in public, People are still going to smoke in there homes and in less densely populated areas so although it would help it would not be as effective as an all out ban.
Now I would like to address your arguments for smoking:
1."smoking is a right of the people" like I said before since the government has control it can actually take away our rights if they think it is reasonable and also according to the numbers I have shown so far If there was a vote a ban on smoking would very likely pass, therefore it would be a decision by people. Also if you do a bit of research you will find out that "tobacco manufacturers or libertarian viewpoints focusing on individual freedom are often partially or completely discarded by politicians" (http://www.forbes.com... ) Meaning that this argument would have little to no affect in an actual voting situation.
2. Easily your best argument here you talk about the impact on the tobacco industry and the economy. Now I will give it to you that the tobacco industry would take a big hit if a ban of smoking took place But there are many other forms of tobacco (chewing etc) so they would still be growing it meaning farming would not take a huge blow, also this new space made from not growing something that kills 1/5th of our population could go to a good cause by helping grow more food that could help keep us alive. It is a fact that we are running out of farm land and with that we get more commercialized farming which means more disgusting meat from overcrowded farms.With all of the room we could free up by stopping the growth of Tobacco we could have bigger farms therefore better healthier meat, I'm not sure about you but I would rather have the food industry make money than the Tobacco industry. Finally I would like to bring to attention that studies show that bans of smoking actually increase the income of small businesses " An analysis by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research, released in June 2004, found that restaurant sales were up 7 percent one year after state's the smoke free law that made all public places and restaurants 100% smoke free took effect on July 1, 2003" http://no-smoke.org...
3. Your third that making Cigarettes illegal would make them have a more dangerous black market and you used the example of meth. First of all if 60% of smokers want to quit then only 40% of smokers would still want to smoke, from their less than half of them are realistically going to commit a serious drug offence to get a smoke and out of that 20% less than 10% will end up getting smoking and selling cigarettes, therefore making cigarettes illegal would stop about 90% of there use and would most likely stop almost all use in public due to not wanting to get caught (people do not walk down the street doing heroin and meth) As for the cartel, sure they will probably smuggle cigarettes over if there is enough of a demand but it will not have much of an affect simply because the cartel will always be smuggling things and there will always be drugs under demand that they will have to smuggle therefore cigarettes wont actually make much if any difference.
Thank you for reading this long debate and taking both sides into account.
1. Your data proves that smokers have tried to quit or want to quit. While it's true that they have tried to quit, they shouldn't have smoked in the first place. To support this, there is even warning labels on cigarette packets.
2. Why was describing how bad smoking is irrelevant? That's because most people know that smoking is bad. In fact, we continue to raise the risk of smoking even today. The American Health society is not stopping anytime soon.
3. Oh god did I spit out my coffee when I read this. You compare the dangers of smoking to the dangers of guns. You tell me that it's the governments duty to help the citizens. While I hate diving into politics, I see it necessary for the debate. Guns do not kill, people use guns to kill. The government takes them away because they see all those shootings. Did you know that if you take people's guns away, not only are you being a thief but you're taking what defends them from criminals? And if you do take away guns then criminals will just get them illegally and shoot the defenseless citizens? Smoking is dangerous. People regretting that they smoked goes back to 1. How bad smoking is goes back to number two.
4. Back to the government eh? While there is debate on what the government is suppose to do, most people believe that the government is meant to help people by taking money from other people, to regulate and provide welfare. That is not the governments job, the government is here to acknowledge our rights. The charities are here to help the people, the only difference is that donating to a charity is voluntary.
5. You criticize me for bringing in my political views but at the same time you do too. That is okay, because debating about banning cigarettes is also taking about government and if they are allowed to ban and regulate and if it is okay. Now you say that it doesn't matter that cigarettes are expensive, what matters is they bring a burden to a middle class family. That made me spit out my coffee once again. The more expensive a product is, the more financial burden it brings. Do not try to run away from my rebuttal, cigarettes are expensive because the government taxes them a lot and that matters. And the government deciding for me or else the country is a mess? What's wrong with freedom as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others?
6. Yes, I saw no point in refuting something that I already refuted. Cost of smoking? Stop the government from taxes them and they won't cost as much.
7. Of course you can smoke in your house. 4th amendment, anyone?
Time to DEFEND
1. The government taking away out rights is wrong. Voting about tobacco? What does this have to do with anything?
2. Alright, the tobacco company is a 2 trillion dollar industry. That would not cause the country an economic collapse if we ban smoking, that would cause the world economy to collapse.
3. Not going to cause a big difference if we ban smoking? Are you serious? You even tell me that if 60% of smokers want to quit, they will quit if we ban smoking. No, nicotine is an addiction. It does not go away that easily. And for the 40% that wants to keep smoking? You tell me that only 20% are realistically going to commit crimes to get smokes. Where did you get that from? Regardless, people are still going to get arrested for buying a product in a different way because it has been banned. And the cartel not being more dangerous if they start smuggling more drugs?
What the hell?
If the cartel starts smuggling more drugs, then they will get more profits. The more profits, they more weapons they get. And you're telling me they won't get more violent?
-thank you for your understanding
frostyclaw forfeited this round.
Man_Of_Few_Words forfeited this round.
frostyclaw 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.