Smoking should be banned!
Debate Rounds (3)
Best of luck to you pro.
Banning Tobacco Companies can harm the economy in numerous ways.
Philip Morris International is a big Tobacco company. It's annual income is around $80 Billion dollars. This company is global and obtains sales from many countries. This means that they have plenty of factories. This means many jobs have been made since the company has made a lot of factories. If you shut down this one business and outlawed tobacco, you'd destroy a lot of jobs. According to my source, about 91K jobs would be lost (as of 2013).
Regardless of the date, about 90K jobs, give or take, would be lost. This would heavily impact the economy of the U.S and the countries they operated in. Taxes are imposed on goods going in and out of countries. By shutting down this business, trade would be lost which would impact the economy and the taxes imposed on them would be lost which would also impact the economy. And that is only from ONE company. Imagine if every tobacco company in the U.S got shutdown to make tobacco illegal. The number of jobs lost would range in the millions. Every company, big or small.
So already you can see what a significant impact it would have on the economy and the large amount of jobs that would be lost if tobacco became illegal.
Dear opponent, the information you stated- are you saying that money is more important than the health of human lives?
Okay, so the impacts on banning tobacco would put prodigious effect on the loss of many jobs as well as factories being forced to shut down. But don't you think that although it will leave many jobless, it should be considered as a sacrifice in order to survive a healthy life? The future could solely be blamed onto us if we do not act.
Wouldn't it be better to know that even if this generation doesn't get the reassurance of cancer-free health, the coming generations can count on a more reliable security of good health? Wouldn't that be more important for humanity: reducing the many dangers this world is excruciating? And the problem actually gets worse!
"are you saying that money is more important than the health of human lives?"
"although it will leave many jobless, it should be considered as a sacrifice in order to survive a healthy life?"
How easy is it to get a new job immediately after losing one? Not easy is the answer. Jobless people that can't find work don't live healthy lives. If you banned tobacco, it would be even MORE difficult to get a job after closing down big factories that gave tons of jobs in the first place.
"of cancer-free health"
There is definitely more than one source of cancer other than tobacco.
"reducing the many dangers this world is excruciating"
I assure you: Tobacco is the least of your worries.
ii. Religious issues
Native American tribes use tobacco in rituals so to ban it would conflict with religious beliefs in the U.S. The first amendment allows the freedom of religion and banning tobacco would be infringing the first amendment as it would take away the rights of native American's rights to have a religion and for it not to be infringed upon by the government.
In this last round I will cover the following:
a] Health and Harm
b] Effects on Economy, and
c] Religious Concerns
a] HEALTH & HARM
Firstly, I believe that everyone is aware of the outcomes and effect that would take place with tobacco smoking and just smoking in general. But
2 prime incentives (amongst others) on putting forth the prohibition in the sales of cigarette is directly due to the loss of human lives and product manufacturing deficiency (it will be informed in my next point).
i.According to the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2008, tobacco has been positioned as the world's single greatest cause of preventable death. This drug is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide in both developed and undeveloped countries. Tobacco is known as a major risk factor in common diseases such as heart attacks, emphysema, cancers, strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, impotence, infertility-- and the list goes on.
ii."Apart from reducing human suffering, abolishing the sale of cigarettes would result in savings in the realm of healthcare costs, increased labour productivity, and lessened harms from fires, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, and a smaller global carbon footprint. Abolition would also put a halt to one of the principal sources of corruption in modern civilization, and would effectively eliminate one of the historical forces behind global warming denial and environmental obfuscation."
And that statement has justified this point.
b] ECONOMY EFFECTS
Opponent"s claim: "If you banned tobacco, it would be even MORE difficult to get a job."
i.No, it"s not simple to obtain a job after factories has closed. However, the costs of smoking are alternatively more excessive than the incomes from cigarette sales. In 2004, the US Centres for Disease Control & Prevention approximated that tobacco smoking led to health costs and productivity losses that totalled an average of $10.47 per pack sold and used in the U.S. This means that profits made are lost in direct medical care of adults, loss of productivity due to premature deaths and exposure in second-hand smoke, and so the point in introducing smoking manufacturing is impractical in the first place.
ii.People will be left jobless, and their chances of finding a new job are slim, but like I have mentioned in my first round, this is a sacrifice human need to make in order to secure the survival of humanity and future generations.
Is it not more important to consider the lives of human health with higher sums of capable deaths than people without jobs? The answer should be no.
c] RELIGIOUS CONCERNS
This round is not based on a rebuttal of religions as it will create influential debates in regards to the difference in beliefs people have of which is unfair.
I totally agree with people"s rights in their psychological beliefs and values, so therefore in this circumstance I will agree only on a term that smoking tobacco should NOT be banned unless for religious purposes. There are other methods, such as recreating entheogen in a legal and safe way.
Now I may be taken as a hypocrite for this decision, but who am I to argue with other"s beliefs? I am after all a dedicated Christian and I will not be satisfied and will be outraged if my religion has been forced to delete.
Because of my understandings in the aftermaths of banning tobacco for our living sake"s I may make a compromise in a situation to settle the debate.
Tobacco may be used ONLY if it is for religious purposes, and even if I have agreed upon protecting the lives of human" this is why compromising this idea is suggested.
However, I hope people agreeing with the religion that uses tobacco can reflect upon the points I have made and the association of many risk it generates.
There are many reasons why tobacco smoking should be banned and my arguments are just to name a few.
I thank my opponent for taking part in this debate and wish him good luck for the votes.
Furthermore, I apologize for my imperfections and misunderstandings in my argument. I hope there are people who support this idea than actually not taking part to help our world.
"in 2008, tobacco has been positioned as the world's single greatest cause of preventable death"
Ah yes that was in 2008 but what about now? That was 6 years ago. A number of things have changed.
" This drug is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide"
Contradiction that I will soon point out.
"In 2004, the US Centres for Disease Control & Prevention approximated that tobacco smoking led to health costs and productivity losses that totalled an average of $10.47 per pack sold and used in the U.S. This means that profits made are lost in direct medical care of adults"
Yet the Tobacco Companies still make billions of dollars. The expense you have listed is included in the expenses in the ledgers and journals of the tobacco companies. They have be accounted for.
"People will be left jobless, and their chances of finding a new job are slim, but like I have mentioned in my first round, this is a sacrifice human need to make in order to secure the survival of humanity and future generations."
So increasing the odds of making the future generation poor is a secure way to ensure survival? Poor people don't live as long as the middle class or upper class.
They can't often afford health care so we can conclude that banning cigarettes for better health care won't work if they can't afford it, and since the big businesses being taxed no longer exist income would be down so you can afford to help the poor much. If anything, it would make things worse.
I thank my opponent for this debate. It was enjoyable.
However I need to point out a major contradiction in my opponent's claims. As mentioned I was going to return to it.
"' This drug is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide'
Contradiction that I will soon point out."
Look at my opponent's page and scroll down to the "big issues". You will see that they support drug legalization.
To make it short, they want to ban tobacco smoking for the harm it causes yet they want to legalize drugs, despite the harm they cause. If it's for medical reasons or not, drugs have often quick short term effects that often lead to death.
Cocaine was used as a form of medication but it's harmful effects led to it's ban. Drugs in medical science don't work, so for my opponent to support the legalization of something like cocaine for medical purposes is not justifiable because it does have harmful effects, even if it's used in the medical field.
I am simply pointing something out. Looking at the facts. Be sure to include this in your vote. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's resolution is that smoking should be banned. However, in round 3 Pro said: "Tobacco may be used ONLY if it is for religious purposes." By saying this, Pro has conceded and negated her own resolution. Pro has essentially admitted her own defeat by saying that there are some instances in which smoking should not be banned. For this reason, arguments easily go to Con. However, Con loses conduct for mentioning Pro's stance on drug legalization on her Big Issues. By attacking Pro as a person rather than Pro's position in this debate, Con has committed ad hominen, which is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, not all debates reflect debaters' Big Issues. It is possible that Pro was playing devil's advocate, as many debaters often do.
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.