The Instigator
brianjustin3709
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

THBT smoking should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/27/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,869 times Debate No: 78924
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (0)

 

brianjustin3709

Pro

Hello, today we have 4 rounds

1. Pro accepts, Con makes arguments
2. Pro makes arguments only, Con makes rebuttals
3. Pro makes rebuttals, and Con makes his Conclusion
4. Pro makes Conclusion, and Con follows the words "No round as agreed upon"

Today I will doing this debate with lannan13.

Rules

1. No forfeiting
2. No flaking
3. No trolling
4. If not follow rules 7-points to the other side


Definitions

smoking: the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon

illegal: not according to or authorized by law

ban: to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something

Sources

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
brianjustin3709

Pro

1. I will go on my first argument which is that it decreases population

Smoking affects human lives in many different ways. First is that it is unhealty which I will say in my next arguments and second it is baf air which makes pollution. First I will tell you about the unhealthy things about smoking. First, it destroys your lungs. Imagine this. What if you were trying to smell and breath in the pollution out of a car and also smoke out of a fire. That is the same as smoking. I will give you a picture of your lungs.




There will be those white things on you lungs with is basically bad things that might kill you. Many people die because of this.
I will say my second reason for the population is that it destroys the enviornments. Because we will breath the bad air if we breath bad air then are lungs will be like the picture above. Also don't blame about cars. Smoking makes almost the same amount of pollution.

Burning cigarette on ash tray

Also do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is bad for the lungs and will make cancer.

2. Very easy to die

Now I will explain more about it. First It is bad for your lungs. In the pictures above, do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is the bad thing that goes in your body and make you not breath with the white things in your lungs.




Risks_form_smoking-smoking_can_damage_every_part_of_the_body

Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It’s linked with an increased risk of these cancers:

  • Lung
  • Larynx (voice box)
  • Oral cavity (mouth, tongue, and lips)
  • Nose and sinuses
  • Pharynx (throat)
  • Esophagus (tube connecting the throat to the stomach)
  • Stomach
  • Pancreas
  • Cervix
  • Kidney
  • Bladder
  • Ovary (a type called mucinous ovarian cancer)
  • Colorectum (the colon and/or the rectum)
  • Acute myeloid leukemia


That is a lot from smoking. Also you die fast if you smoke.


3. Expensive Cost

Well, this isn't a matter a lot but the cost just gets higher and higher.

Smoking puts a financial burden on society. According to the CDC, this burden continues to rise, with approximately $193 billion spent annually in the United States---$97 billion from lost productivity and $96 billion due to smoking-related health care costs, respectively. The Society of Actuaries reported in 2006, which is the latest data available, that secondhand smoke costs the U.S. around $10 billion a year: about $5 billion in medical costs associated with secondhand smoke and $4.6 billion in lost wages---youth exposure was not included in these costs.

Also many people think you need smoking for stress. However there are ways to reduce stress.

Sources

http://idebate.org...

http://www.livestrong.com...

http://www.historyandheadlines.com...

http://www.mirror.co.uk...

http://www.livescience.com...

http://www.heart.org...

http://www.beautyprog.com...

http://www.webmd.com...
lannan13

Con

Alright, I'd like to thank my opponent for this challenge so let's jump straight in to this debate.

Contention 1: Privacy and the Right to Choose.

Though with me being a Conservative you'll probably never see me argue for the "Right to Choose" except in the case of economics. Here we have to see that the businesses should have the right to naturally choose who to cater to and what group of people to serve to, before you go out and go on a tangent with illegal things, let's look at the status quo. Though many places do not need the law to ban smoking in their restraunts. Those that do not chose to do so to allow those who smoke eat and smoke at the same time. We have strip bars legal in the US, but do we require everyone to go to the strip club and see what they have "on the menu." The answer is no, we also do not do the opposite. We do not go into these bars and mandate that they cannot strip nor do we mandate that they get rid of the "entertainment" to protect the "common good." My opponent's stance declares that we should enforce the government's banning onto many other people's moral's and habbits. I mean let's observe this again with another example. The US has an obesity epidemic, but yet do we go around and lock people's refridgerators or state when they can and cannot eat? The answer is no, so if we cannot outlaw something like fast food or strip clubs under the same argument that you are clammering for here there is no reason for criminalisation of tabacco in order to get rid of smoking.

Outlawing this industry would have immidiate economic impact. The Cigarette Companies make a toatl of $346 billion per year. [1] They have a total of 1.6 million jobs and a lot of the tobacco farmers, 136,000 farmers are entirely dependent on it's legalization. [2] We can thus see that if we push for the industry to be illegal we will see a massive amount of Americans join the unemployment lines and prices of other goods will go up. The reason behind this, as I have previously shown, 136,000 farmers out there use tobacco as their cash crop, but also grow a great deal of other things. If this resolution passes we will see a rise in food prices in result of this industry closing. We can see that tabacco is only 3% of the tabacco farmer's production while it amounts to 71% of their profit. They use way over double that to produce food products while 21% is a woodlen. [3] From 1950 to 2000 we can actually have seen that the tabacco industry's employment has decreased 16% each year due to the anti-tobacco ads causing a great deal of unemployment that has already devestated the economy. [4] Now if we compare Tobacco sales to national income from 1970 we can see that as the US wages have increased by 150% as Tobacco sales have actually decreased by $2-3 billion, note that this is adjusted for inflation. [5] Note that this was from the

Contention 2: Benefits of Smoking

Yes you heard me right, benefits. There are several benefits here that actually help people when you smoke tobacco here. In 2007, Harvard released a study showing that smoking actually reduces the risk of Parkison's Disease. Parkinson's costs the average American $25 billion per year and hurts the economy due to worker's that would normally work until their 60s go out of work 20 years eariler and not only does this hurt the individual, but the overal American economy as well. [6] Next is obseity as I spoke about in my last contention. We all know that tobacco is a hunger representant and it also makes people more disgusted by food. This was why it was so big in colonial America as it helped people survive more because of it. [7] The obeseity rates are horrific. It costs the US over $190 billion per year which is 23% of all medical spending in the US. This is something that needs to be addressed. The next one is a biggie, reduces death risk after a heart attack. We can actually see that smoker's who have heart attacks tend to have a lower risk of death than those who don't. The reason behind this is that the smoking actually helps remove plaque from the atteries. The same can be done to a non-smoker, but this has to be done with balloons which is more ineffective and can even increase the risk for death.

Contention 3: Tobacco-like alternatives

My opponent gives this resolution, but he fails to observe that there are "healthier" alternatives to smoking that are still tobacco like. The Sweeds use a smokeless tobacco called snus. The Sweeds have found it to not have a link between it and cancer. Not to mention that one using snus saves you $582 per year. [8] This product contains no niccotine and has seen a 20% smoking and snus usage decrease as a result. We can easily see that this is one way to eventually ween a nation off of tobacco as Pro like's and it's more economically feasiable. The next key alternative with tobacco is that of Electronic Cigarrettes, AKA E cigs/E cigarrettes. These have been shown to decrease smoking rates by 81% of users. Not to mention that this is a lot cheaper than a pack of cigarettes as a single E cigarette costs $40 while a pack of cigarettes is about $4. In 10 packs the E cig has paid for itself.

Sources
1. ( http://tobaccoatlas.org...)
2. ( "The Economic Impact of the Tobacco Industry on the U.S. Economy", Price Waterhouse, 1992)
3. Calculated by ERS using data from 1997 Census of Agriculture
4. Johnson, Paul R. The Economics of the Tobacco Industry. New York: Praeger, 1984.
5. Gale, Fred. What Tobacco Farming Means to Local Economies. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv. AER- 694. Sept. 1994.
6. ( http://www.pdf.org...)
7. ( http://www.livescience.com...)
8. (https://www.heartland.org...)
Debate Round No. 2
brianjustin3709

Pro

I am very sorry that Con did not find the rules and not follow the directions. However, voters should think about this. Anyways, we changed it into
1. Acceptance
2. Contentions
3. Rebuttal
4. Conclusion

Rebuttals

1. In Con's first argument was that Privacy, and Right to Choose, we should ban smoking because then we will get less harm for pollution, because fast foods, do NOT give a harm to the environment and also it gives us less harm when we just eat fast-foods and not do smoking. Also tobacco ISN'T only for smoking so those 1.6 million jobs can not be for smoking such as tobacco chewing. Even if we illegalize it then still farmers can make different ways to use tobacco, or just can grow other crops that are healthy such as potatoes, carrots. Also tobacco takes up space. Farmers use many of their land to put tobacco, and it takes up many space, so it isn't a benefit to the farmers who bought the land, and who bought the tobacco. Also you did not finish your argument.

2. In Con's arguments of benefits, there is way more bad problems, then benefits. First you destroy your health, like you lungs, and your kidney to reduce risk of the Parkinson Disease which is not common and there are other ways that you can solve the Parkinson Disease. Yes, long time ago tobacco was useful, but these days, there is other ways to digest food without using tobacco. Also even if it removes plaque, it is also because of tobacco

3. WE are just banning tobacco, not like-alighting, so please read the resolution.


Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.mayoclinic.org...


Risks_form_smoking-smoking_can_damage_every_part_of_the_body
lannan13

Con

I understand that I have misread the instructions and will surrender my conduct point if needed. Many of my opponent's arguments tend to mesh together, so I will include them into many different categories.

Contention 1: Privacy and Choice

My opponent goes into this argument and states that it would be less pollution, but we can see that this is false. That is like attempting to banning couches so fat people will stop laying on them and being "couch pottatoes." We have to realize that this is a bonus for businesses and that they need the extra money and to ban this would cause people to lose money and more likely just smoke at home as many people do. We can see that the current smoking ban in public places really hasn't affected smoking in general, but has just moved were the smoking occurs at. My opponent then tries to state that it makes our eating healthier since we aren't also smoking, but this is incorrect. Obseity is a large problem and we don't go after it by locking people's fridges or going out taking all the food telling them when they can and cannot eat. My opponent also argues that this hurts the poor since they can spend it elsewhere, but this is a fallacy. Let's apply this to another sinario. If we ban houses then we can by more food and just live under a bridge, but the sole fact that we have food is better than having a house and we still have a roof over our heads as it's the bridge. So should we ban houses to do this? The answer is a rediculous no. The same can be applied to the fallacy that my opponent has provided.

My opponent tries to state that the famer's can just grow a different crop, but when we look at the math that I provided in my last round. We can see that the farmer's tobacco growing is only 3% of their actual budget. Their food usage is 12% while their woodlen is 21%. [1] So even if we replace that 3% with food we can see that their profits would plummet as their profit is 71% from tobacco. This would harm our farmer's severally and this is something that my opponent has failed to see.

Contention 2: Benefits

My opponent tries to tries to shrug off my Parkinson's advantage, but this is something that cannot be taken lightly. We can see that currently over 1 million people in America have Parkinson's, but we see an increase of 600,000 new cases each year. [2] This isn't something to overlook as we need our workforce and this would help the American economy and help reduce Parkinson's disease. Though it doesn't make sense, try looking at how people with cancer are encouraged to get herpes to fight cancer. My opponent drops the obesity argument, so I'll extend that across the board. We can see that it is a major epidemic that needs help as it consums over 20% of the medical expenses in the US each year.

My opponent neglects to tell you that a large portion of smoking evidence is biased. National Institute of Health mathematician Rosalind Marimont and Robert Levy have found that smoking death studies tend to neglect other factors like poor diet and excersize and have found that the numbers are inflated by 65%. [3] There are many things that they exclude. Let's look at some other smoking facts, they found that, "Sure, these plant chemicals are measured in infinitesimal amounts. An independent study calculated 222,000 smoking cigarettes would be needed to reach unacceptable levels of benzo(a)pyrene. One million smoking cigarettes would be needed to produce unacceptable levels of toluene. To reach these estimated danger levels, the cigarettes must be smoked simultaneously and completely in a sealed 20-square-foot room with a nine-foot ceiling.

Many other chemicals in tobacco smoke can also be found in normal diets. Smoking 3,000 packages of cigarettes would supply the same amount of arsenic as a nutritious 200 gram serving of sole.

Half a bottle of now healthy wine can supply 32 times the amount of lead as one pack of cigarettes. The same amount of cadmium obtained from smoking eight packs of cigarettes can be enjoyed in half a pound of crab." [3]

So here we can see that smoking isn't as dangerous as expected and if you want to ban smoking then you need to go after these more dangerous things that are found in our everyday diet first.

Contention 3: Smoking Alternatives

My opponent claims that I am off topic, but fails to see that many of these things are smoking tobacco. So if we have to dismiss this argument then we have to dismiss my opponent's alternative argument in Contention 1. I extend all of this argument across the board.

Sources
1. Calculated by ERS using data from 1997 Census of Agriculture
2. (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...)
3. (http://www.freerepublic.com...)
Debate Round No. 3
brianjustin3709

Pro

Thanks for Lannan13 to make his rebuttal. First I have a few questions, that Con could answer.

1. Even though smoking makes the Parkison disease reduce, it still makes other cancers such as your lungs?
2. Of course it is less pollution because now many people won't smoke?

Now I will say my arguments 1 last time.

Arguments

1. I will go on my first argument which is that it decreases population

Smoking affects human lives in many different ways. First is that it is unhealty which I will say in my next arguments and second it is baf air which makes pollution. First I will tell you about the unhealthy things about smoking. First, it destroys your lungs. Imagine this. What if you were trying to smell and breath in the pollution out of a car and also smoke out of a fire. That is the same as smoking. I will give you a picture of your lungs.




There will be those white things on you lungs with is basically bad things that might kill you. Many people die because of this.
I will say my second reason for the population is that it destroys the enviornments. Because we will breath the bad air if we breath bad air then are lungs will be like the picture above. Also don't blame about cars. Smoking makes almost the same amount of pollution.

Burning cigarette on ash tray

Also do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is bad for the lungs and will make cancer.

2. Very easy to die

Now I will explain more about it. First It is bad for your lungs. In the pictures above, do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is the bad thing that goes in your body and make you not breath with the white things in your lungs.



Risks_form_smoking-smoking_can_damage_every_part_of_the_body

Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It’s linked with an increased risk of these cancers:

  • Lung
  • Larynx (voice box)
  • Oral cavity (mouth, tongue, and lips)
  • Nose and sinuses
  • Pharynx (throat)
  • Esophagus (tube connecting the throat to the stomach)
  • Stomach
  • Pancreas
  • Cervix
  • Kidney
  • Bladder
  • Ovary (a type called mucinous ovarian cancer)
  • Colorectum (the colon and/or the rectum)
  • Acute myeloid leukemia


That is a lot from smoking. Also you die fast if you smoke.


3. Expensive Cost

Well, this isn't a matter a lot but the cost just gets higher and higher.
Smoking puts a financial burden on society. According to the CDC, this burden continues to rise, with approximately $193 billion spent annually in the United States---$97 billion from lost productivity and $96 billion due to smoking-related health care costs, respectively. The Society of Actuaries reported in 2006, which is the latest data available, that secondhand smoke costs the U.S. around $10 billion a year: about $5 billion in medical costs associated with secondhand smoke and $4.6 billion in lost wages---youth exposure was not included in these costs.

Also many people think you need smoking for stress. However there are ways to reduce stress.

Why I should win this debate

I made strong points, and rebutted each of Con's points. Also Con didn't make a exact "rebuttal" but just argued my rebuts, like clashes.

Therefore I hope everyone votes for...

Pro!!!
lannan13

Con

Since this round is conclusions I'm not going to C&P my opening arguments and bore you to death more than you already are, but just thoroughly answer my opponent's questions and then move on to my conclusion.

1. The round about way of answering this question would be no! The reason being is how you asked it. Smoking once or a few times won't harm you. I have shown in my last round that you have to do so in an excessive amout. In that regards if you are looking for a yes answer you can find that it would be the same as saying that if you jump up and down 1 million times in a row you'll break your knee. It's something of that porposterous. This isn't even to mention the fact that I proved that much of the "smoking research" is bogus and ignores other factors.

2. That doesn't seem like a question, but more of a "jab." I do not think that it was intended to be answered, but I'll answer it anyways. Still a great deal. If we just look to the prohibition we can see though Alchol was still illegal people still drank it. I'll leave a meme bellow to show how hillarious that question was and why it's wrong.



In conclusion, we can see that we should not illegalize smoking and ban it. It is a great business venture and will do great things as I have shown that tobacco crop accounts for 73% of farmer's profit. The farmer grows 4 times that amount in other crops, but we can see that banning smoking would bankrupt a large protion of our farmers driving up food prices. We can see that much of the harms of smoking is over blown and should be discounted as workers from within the institution itself has shown that they fail to look at many key factors and should be discounted. We can finally see that I have addressed all of my opponent's points and have refuted them all. I have even brought up healthier choices that are still smoking and this was completely dropped by my opponent.

I thank you and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: The_American_Sniper// Mod action: Removed<

7 point to Con. Reasons for voting decision: There just wasn't much meat too Pro's arguments. He gives a medical disadvantage to tobacco, but never weighs its impact beyond the costs, merely listing all of the bad things it can cause without assessing how they play out. Con responds by a) showing that the costs are outweighed by costs to farmers, b) stating that the list of harms only results from extremely excessive smoking and therefore aren't likely, c) showing medical benefits of smoking that counter the harms, and d) examining other things that could be banned using the same logic. While d) just begs a number of questions rather than actually showing a negative impact to making tobacco illegal, a)-c) are all solid, and they dismantle Pro's argument, which is almost solely based on assertions. Pro simply didn't do enough to support his arguments or compare impacts, merely stating and restating them. Con does more than enough to show that that's not good enough and clearly outweighs. Thus, I vote Con. "Whiteflame's RFD"

[*Reason for removal*] Voters must produce their own independent reasoning for why they decided to vote for a given side. By posting my RFD, this voter doesn't show that he has read the debate or comprehended it, and has not provided independent feedback to the debaters.

Note: Contrary to the views of the reporter, there's no clear discrimination in this RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Honestly, you've earned a lot of respect on this site for the effort you've put into your debating. I've seen the strides, and the willingness to challenge yourself against difficult opponents. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Thanks for that Whiteflame. :D
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
lannan, you're a special case. You've made a significant effort to improve and face difficult debaters. I'd say that the majority of people who have a substantial losing record aren't in the same boat as you.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Wait, was that suppose to have been an insult?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Yeah, but why that particular range? It seems odd to restrict voting solely to people BELOW your own ELO, not to mention one that encourages both brand new debaters and debaters that lose most of their debates to vote.
Posted by brianjustin3709 1 year ago
brianjustin3709
If lannan didn't do this debate he could have vote.
Posted by brianjustin3709 1 year ago
brianjustin3709
yes
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Wait, so you have to be under that to vote?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
So... that's an odd choice. Then get someone to vote in that range, lannan.
No votes have been placed for this debate.