The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

THW ban smoking

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 65475
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




In the 1930s, the government of the United States of America put a probation on the drinking and distribution of alcohol. Guess what the result was? Chaos ensured. A black market was created run by gangsters and mobsters. It gave them even more to do, run a system so dangerous that America actually pulled back the ban.

As side negative, I firmly believe that this will happen again but in the image of smoking if smoking is banned. This is the last thing we need in our society. Now essentially, what are my key points for this debate? I will be illustrating to you how smoking is a choice and how there are already negative advertisements of smoking in the media.

If you choose to smoke(emphasis on choice), you personally walk into a store, open your wallet and pay the cashier willingly for the pack of Marlboro. No one is forcing you to smoke. Just like the consumption of alcohol, smoking is consciously done. You are the one reaching for the pack and you are the one lighting the cigarette to your lips. There is no need to prohibit smoking when the direct people that smoking is affecting are aware of how it contributes to health problems. Now this leads to my next point.

The media mass advertises the negative effects of smoking constantly. You see warnings on the pack and you see billboards showing the problems smoking leads to. In this way, society is already cognizant of how cigarettes are bad for the human body. People know that cigarettes are bad for them and the people that choose to smoke are readily aware also, so why do we have to get out of our way to ban smoking?

Like I've mentioned before, the prohibition of alcohol caused chaos within the nation. There was so much backlash and danger for the government trying to protect its people that there was actually more damage done. If smoking is banned, there will be a repeat of history. There will be a cigarette black market and once again an attempt by a government to protect its people will ultimately fail. People are already aware of the problems smoking causes and choose to smoke anyway. Those people(these people are people that smoke knowing that it will kill them, what makes you think they'll stop if there is a ban) will participate in the black market if the ban made. Overall, the decision of the government banning smoking is not carefully thought out. The only slightly valid argument for the proposition is that smoking is dangerous, but as the opposition I have provided a rebuttal that smokers are already aware and choose to do it despite the health problems. This is why, the resolution must fall.


I think that cancer rate would go down and smoking is diminishing faster these days anyways so why no banded it.
Debate Round No. 1


Of course there are positives to having a society with less smokers. However, what the proposition fails to realize is that this ban would result in so much negative reaction from the public. The cancer rate would go down, yes, but there would be more danger in the streets because of the potential black market like I've mentioned earlier. There would be so much chaos within communities that it would danger the people more than the rate of caner affecting them. The proposition is right when he states that smoking is diminishing faster these days but that has no relevance to what this debate is about. This debate is on banning smoking. Banning smoking would cause more people to go in danger. Despite the government's efforts to help it's people they're still going to rebel in some way if the government limits them. Have you ever really wanted McDonald's as a kid but never got it because your parents insisted that you eat dinner at home? How badly did you want to rebel? Have you ever really wanted that candy bar from the trip to the market but your mother told you that you couldn't because it would rot your teeth? How badly did you want to rebel then? This whole debate of banning smoking isn't just a quote on quote why not question. We have to put more thought into this. There is so many negative outcomes that could sprout from banning smoking.


are you a smoke. it would make sense to back it up Tobacco: The True Cost of Smoking
Tobacco use remains the single largest preventable cause of disease and premature death in the US, yet more than 45 million Americans still smoke cigarettes. As of 2010, there were also 13.2 million cigar smokers in the US, and 2.2 million who smoke tobacco in pipes.

This infographic illustrates findings from the Tobacco Atlas, 4th Edition, that show the significant harm, both financial and physical, that tobacco use causes to the smoker and to society at large.
Smoking bans quickly and dramatically cut the number of people hospitalized for heart attacks, strokes and respiratory diseases such as asthma and emphysema, an analysis out Monday shows.

Heart attack hospitalizations fell an average of 15% after communities passed laws banning smoking in areas such as restaurants, bars and workplaces, according to the largest analysis of smoke-free legislation to date. The analysis included 45 studies covering 33 laws in American cities and states, as well as countries such as New Zealand and Germany.

Stroke hospitalizations fell 16%, while hospitalizations for respiratory disease fell 24%, according to the study, published Monday in Circulation.

The more comprehensive the law, the greater the impact, says senior author Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California-San Francisco.

For example, a 2002 law banning smoking only in restaurants in Olmsted County, Minn., had no effect on heart attacks, according to a study also published Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine. However, hearts attacks fell by 33% after a 2007 law that expanded the smoking ban to all workplaces, including bars, according to the report, from Minnesota's Mayo Clinic.

That drop is especially impressive, given that people in Minnesota got less healthy in the same time, with higher rates of diabetes and obesity. Rates of high blood pressure and unhealthy cholesterol levels stayed the same.

Glantz says state lawmakers should consider these findings when voting to exempt certain facilities, such as bars or casinos, from smoke-free laws. "The politicians who put those exemptions in are condemning people to be put into the emergency room," Glantz says.

David Sutton, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, the country's leading cigarette maker, says his company agrees that secondhand smoke is dangerous, but he says smoking bans aren't always necessary, and that businesses such as restaurants can accommodate non-smokers through separate rooms or ventilation.

"Reasonable ways exist to respect the comfort and choices of both non-smoking and smoking adults," Sutton says. "Business owners -- particularly owners of restaurants and bars -- are most familiar with how to accommodate the needs of their patrons and should have the opportunity and flexibility to determine their own smoking policy. The public can then choose whether or not to frequent places where smoking is permitted."

Neither report provides information about why smoking bans reduce heart attacks. But Glantz says smoke-free laws tend to lead people to smoke less or quit altogether.

Fewer people smoked at home, as well. The percentage of smoke-free homes in the state grew from 64.5% in 1999 to 87.2% in 2010, a period in which state and federal taxes also rose significantly, the Mayo study shows.

Smoking bans also protect non-smokers, says cardiologist Raymond Gibbons, past president of the American Heart Association, who was not involved in either study. Cigarette smoke can trigger heart attacks in non-smokers with underlying heart disease, he says.

R03;Secondhand smoke affects a non-smoker's blood vessels in as little as five minutes, causing changes that increase the risk of heart attack, according to the Mayo Clinic study. About 46,000 non-smoking Americans die from secondhand smoke exposure each year, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Smoking bans also reduce health care costs -- for individuals, health plans and government payers, Glantz says. Total savings ranged from $302,000 in all health care costs in Starkville, Miss., to nearly $7 million just in heart attack-related hospitalizations in Germany, according to the Circulation study.

"If politicians are serious about cutting medical costs, they need to look at this," Glantz says. "The best way to keep health care costs down is to not get sick. ... There is nothing else you can do to have these big an effect on hospital admissions."
Debate Round No. 2


cyndthesizer forfeited this round.


say_what_you_need_to_say forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.