The Instigator
Phoenix.Wright
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
champ1976
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not banned

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 2 votes the winner is...
Phoenix.Wright
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,461 times Debate No: 21863
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Phoenix.Wright

Pro

Smoking is huge issue in society today and I am of the position that it should be at least heavily restricted. My opponent must argue that it should stay legal. The first round is for acceptance.

By heavily restricted I mean restrictions to outdoor public places such as building entrances, parks, playgrounds etc. So if I can show that smoking should be heavily restricted to these areas then I win, the banning is of smoking is extra.
champ1976

Con

I am a smoker. It's supposed to be a choice. But it isn't one. Because if I had a real choice I would have never started smoking. The truth is my mother smoked while I was a fetus and when I began to experiment in my early teens I was hooked. The longest I have gone without a cigarette was 5 months when I was in jail. I believe that the jail environment actually *allowed* me to quit. The day I got out I saw my mom smoking a cigarette and was right back on them. Listen, I'm all for a smoke-free world. I hate cigarettes with a passion. The problem is that there are no laws short of banning smoking to really curb the production and sales of tobacco. We not only need to stop producing cigarettes, selling cigarettes, and smoking cigarettes, we need to do so with the implementation of new smoking cessation products. Right now products and drugs used to curb the addiction cycle of the smoker are too expensive or have severe side effects. Products like the green cigarette allow smokers to get the nicotine without the smoke. But, that product is still far more expensive than a pack of cigarettes. So, my position on banning smoking is this:

We should ban smoking....EVENTUALLY! But for now, we should focus on smokers trying to quit on their own and begin producing smoking cessation products for them at such a low cost they can afford it. Perhaps make these products available out of the enormous profits the manufacturers made while still letting the manufacturers market those products. We should not restrict smoking in a free-air society because we have not been responsible toward the poor smoker who has accidentally perhaps at a young age picked up a habit that is considered to be the most addictive substance to man. Until we help out the smokers get off the tobacco we should all suffer -- that way it may actually get done.
Debate Round No. 1
Phoenix.Wright

Pro

Introduction and Concession from my opponent


My opponent gave an interesting response in his R1 response. He gave a personal story and his opinion on why smoking should be banned which was very interesting and I encourage him to continue to try to stop smoking cigarettes until it greatly damages his well being. The topic of this debate was supposed to be two sides arguing against each other but my opponent is in agreement with me with regards to my position which I outlined in the beginning. He agrees we should ban smoking whether it be eventually or in the near future. He said:

Listen, I'm all for a smoke-free world. I hate cigarettes with a passion.”

“We should ban smoking....EVENTUALLY! But for now, we should focus on smokers trying to quit on their own and begin producing smoking cessation products for them at such a low cost they can afford it.”

My opponent agrees with me which means this debate is over, however I will briefly list some of my arguments so that I have a case. Thanks for sharing your personal story by the way.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Contention # 1 People have a right not be exposed to damaging intoxicants from tobacco smoke


Second hand smoke is very well known and is said to be very damaging to health. The smoke is carcinogenic and is very toxic. Many precautions are taken to limit this in indoor places which is why it is usually banned to smoke indoors. Many people with chronic conditions such as Asthma and Bronchitis should not be exposed to these sorts of toxins


Contention # 2 Cigarettes cause a number of unnecessary issues that would be resolved if banned


Cigarette butts are a major cause of litter on beaches. Cigarettes cause burns to young children and their faces when adults are holding cigarettes to their sides and children come to close. The litter on the beaches are damaging to wildlife who choose to eat it etc and it causes problems for kids who play on the beach.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Conclusions


I wanted to give a very brief and weak summary of my arguments so that I at least have a case. This debate is concluded because my opponent is in complete agreement with my position. Thank you Con.

champ1976

Con

Perhaps my opponent would have enjoyed debating with a smoker who believes his right to smoke supercedes the rights of others to clean air. The truth is, smokers are not trying to take the rights away from other people...they are simply trying to protect their own right to smoke. My argument is this:

I do not support any anti-smoking campaigns until their is one built for the ones who suffer the most -- the smokers. Ultimately the smokers are the ones who are going to have all of the health problems brought on by nicotine. So, instead of simply making it illegal to smoke in certain places it would serve both my opponent and myself to prohibit the production and sales of tobacco. I believe that unless we beat Big Tobacco we will only be creating criminals. I 'm tired of the laws hurting the little guy but not helping stop the big bully. So, I ask my opponent to stop campaigning for a smoke-free world by punishing the smokers and take up a position against the Tobacco Industry. The fight there is even bigger because the government makes so much money on tobacco sales tax. How can we see that the government continues to make its money if we do not have products that sell and that are taxable?

So, please stop lobbying to stop smokers and start lobbying to take down Tobacco. If we hit supply, demand will surely topple. I believe we should have laws that impose restrictions and sanctions for producers, not consumers, of the product tobacco.

This argument can be continued like this:

Vote pro if you are more for creating more laws that punish smokers.
Vote con if you are for creating more laws that punish the Tobacco Industry.
Debate Round No. 2
Phoenix.Wright

Pro

Clarifications and Concession

Champ1976, if you read what I wrote so far I never suggested we should put pressure on the smokers at all. I was being ambigious. I agree with you that we should actually put more pressure on the tobacco companies (there should also be time so smokers can quit more easily) but those are details with regards to my position in the general debate topic which is: Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not banned. You and I are both in agreement with this topic with regards to my position which means that you have conceded the debate. You can make a seperate debate on the best option to stop smoking. You were suppose to be arguing that smoking should not be banned and not heavily restricted. You specifically agreed that we should eventually ban smoking!


"So, please stop lobbying to stop smokers and start lobbying to take down Tobacco. If we hit supply, demand will surely topple. I believe we should have laws that impose restrictions and sanctions for producers, not consumers, of the product tobacco."

“Listen, I'm all for a smoke-free world. I hate cigarettes with a passion.”

“We should ban smoking....EVENTUALLY! But for now, we should focus on smokers trying to quit on their own and begin producing smoking cessation products for them at such a low cost they can afford it.”


All these show my opponent agrees with my debate position. Even though we may differ on how to stop smoking, he agrees that smoking should be stopped whether in the near future or far future. I will clarify the debate positions as my opponent is trying to change it:

Pro is arguing: Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not banned
Con is arguing: Smoking should not become banned or heavily restricted

My opponent agrees with my position, therefore he has conceded
champ1976

Con

champ1976 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Phoenix.Wright

Pro

My opponent has conceded the debate Vote Pro
champ1976

Con

champ1976 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by champ1976 5 years ago
champ1976
Geez phoenix...okay.......calm down. Go outside and have a smoke or something. ;o) lol
Posted by champ1976 5 years ago
champ1976
Hey Phoenix....good debate. This was my first...sorry if I abandoned protocol. I'm sad to see that there was an outcome after only 2 votes. But, I'm glad that you won because as you know, I agree with you. What I was doing though if it was misunderstood was acting as if you were trying to impose a law NOW that restricted or banned smoking. I think that NOW is not the time for this and that big tobacco needs to be controlled. I felt that smokers should not be penalized legally...incarcerated, fined, etc. for smoking because the country right now leaves it as a "choice." It's a freedom and I expect it to remain completely free of legal penalties until the product itself is banned. If a black market develops then I believe people should be penalized for participating in that illegal market. So, ultimately what I was trying tot do waas prevent voters from passing legislation that penalizes free-choice smokers and propose legislation to bring down big tobacco. I think we have a responsibility towards the smokers as well as the non-smokers and we need the non-smokers to be irritated by smoke to pass the laws. :o)
Posted by Phoenix.Wright 5 years ago
Phoenix.Wright
Your trying to change the resolution of the debate. I specifically said that my opponent must argue it should stay completely legal.

Both you and I are proposing different ideas for eventually bannning smoking but you shouldn't even be saying it should be banned eventually or stopping tobacco companies etc.
Posted by Phoenix.Wright 5 years ago
Phoenix.Wright
I agree with you but if it was banned immediately, there would be a huge rebellion since it is very hard to stop right away and there would be a huge black market. What I would propose is to give time much like rehabilitation, techniques etc to slowly stop it. After 4-5 years after less people use it then ban it.
Posted by Riza_Rosette 5 years ago
Riza_Rosette
I don't think people will stop smoking of their own volition, because they can't.
We should make everyone quit, cold turkey.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Phoenix.Wrightchamp1976Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded, losing arguments, and forfeited, losing conduct. Pro's arguments were extremely weak. His argument about "forcing" does not apply to people who enter smokey places voluntarily. Many activities pose potential dangers: driving, cooking, even bathing. But no contest.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Phoenix.Wrightchamp1976Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF