The Instigator
jordanbs
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mdb2290
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The government tax on cigarettes should decrease if locations where smoking is permitted decrease.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,343 times Debate No: 1403
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

jordanbs

Pro

In the wake of the transition to mandatory no-smoking restaurants, the american smokers are being subjected to more and more taxation.
I believe that if the government and large corporations insist on decreasing the amount of places smoking is allowed, then the tax on tobacco should be decreased.
mdb2290

Con

I'd like to thank my worthy opponent for posting this difficult but important topic to debate, and hopefully we can thoroughly debate both sides to come to an important conclusion. I will analyze the benefits of the tobacco excise, the benefit of increasing the number of places where smoking is prohibited, the results of these actions, the support for both arguments, and the evidence to maintain the tax.

Refutations:

1.) "...american smokers are being subjected to more and more taxation."

While it is true that in many states the cigarette tax is increasing, you portray this negatively, while in fact the majority of voters (smoker and non-smoker alike) support the tax increase. While I will go into this in more depth later, it is important to make this assertion early.

Seeing as this was the only real argument made in your intro, I will now support my case with facts and arguments:

1.) The Reason for the Taxation
It is clear that the reason for the tax is to decrease the total number of smokers, and thus, improve the overall health of citizens. It has decreased the total sales of tobacco, thus it is irrefutable that the tax has a positive affect on overall health. The revenue from much of the taxation is put toward
state healthcare service providers, and toward preventative services focused on our youth.

2.) Reason for Smoking Ban in Restaraunts
Less than a quarter of all Americans smoke cigarettes. Whereas 97% of all non-smokers support the ban of smoking in restaraunts and other public facilities. The argument is clear. People do not want to inhale the smoke of another's cigarette. Parents support the ban of cigareetes where they bring their children ( A child's risk of cancer is nearly double that of the risk of an adult due to lung capacity and etc.). This ha also seen an increase in support, and clear benefits have been cited.

3.) Most Smokers wish to Quit
The tax clearly supports their efforts.A 1994 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study of teen smokers found that 55% of past month smokers and 45% of daily smokers predict that they probably would not, or definitely would not, be smoking in five years. Yet, in a longitudinal follow-up study five years later, the researchers found that, typically, the teen smokers had maintained or increased their quantity consumed. Studies also show that each 10% tax increase on cigarettes results in a direct 4% decrease in consumption. The justification is clear.

4.) A Vast Majority of the Public supports the Tax
37% of all smokers nationwide support the tobacco tax (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Study) and around 74% of non-smokers support the tax. In fact 30% of members of political parties said they would cross party lines just to support the tax INCREASE.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...

Please read the previous report before continuing.

5.) The Net Benefit is Greater
It is clear that the benefits from these actions are great, and even smokers support the tax increase, so why change this? It is illogical to even attempt to try and pass a proposition to lower the tax, when a majority of 3-1 will vote against it. If the government by-passed the vote, we would be catering to the minority of smokers who don't seek to quit, who don't support the tax, and who find the increase in smoking-banned locations unfair. Even smokers can understand that non-smokers don't want to inhale their smoke. If I need to post the health hazards of second-hand smoke, I will.

6.) Revenues have Increased in states that have Increased their Cigarette Tax
By taxing this habit that is so unpopular (even to smokers) states have been able to use the money to benefit the greater good as I have said before. The tax brings nearly $1 billion forward for the government to redirect toward education, the upkeep of public roads, tobacco education, and other communal services. Whereas studies have proven that it has had nearly no negative recourse for smokers. It will hardly push someone into the depths of povery, and any attepmt to state this would be an exaggeration.

7.) Banning Restaraunt is hardly Justification to increase the Number of Smokers
The Ends justify the means.

Although I wa unable to make a complete case (Time constraints), I have sufficiently proven that it would be illogical to decrease a tax that has nearly no negative recourse, and that even a large proportion of smokers support. I urge all readers to read-on, and vote neg. I will provide sources when I have more time, and I will provide more factual evidence to support my case. Looking forward to your refutations.
-mdb2290
Debate Round No. 1
jordanbs

Pro

As a nonsmoker, I realize that the US Congress' hand was forced to begin the process of banning cigarette smoking by health issues; however, reducing the amount of smoking sections in public places, such as restaurants and the workplace, will not cause smokers to quit. A person may begin to smoke to be considered "cool"; but later in life, they keep smoking to cut down on the stress and anxiety of not having a cigarette. By that time, health concerns for themselves and others go out the window. The smoke ban is turning into a modern-day prohibition. Companies like RJ Reynolds are now having to step in and give ultimatums to chemical companies which produce acetate filters because the workers have to go certain distances away from the buildings. The truth is, the government should not take advantage of cigarette consumers in this way. All I am saying is, if the government is going tag on a high tax onto already high prices, they should at least give the people a place to smoke.
mdb2290

Con

Refutations:

"...reducing the amount of smoking sections in public places, such as restaurants and the workplace, will not cause smokers to quit."

-While I never claimed that reducing the number of smoking sections would cause a reduction in cigarette usage, I did say that it would be more beneficial to the individuals around the smoker who do not wish to inhale smoke. It is unfair to cater to this minority and allow them to put the health of others at risk. "Nearly 50,000 non-smokers die from secondhand smoke each year." (USA Today 6/27/2006)The risks for Heart Disease and Cancer are raised by 30%."Even brief exposure to smoke damages cells, beginning a process that can lead to cancer, and increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause heart attacks and strokes." If the tax is indeed decreased it will benefit the tobacco industry more than the common smoker; because supporting an unhealthy adiction that 77% of all smokers have attempted to quit, is not helpful (Ash.org). R.J. Reynolds Tobacco does not dispute the science in the surgeon general's report, and is no excuse to subject children and adults alike to the harms of second-hand smoke. People should not have to choose whether to stay at a retaraunt or in a room at their workplace when confronted with the obstacle of a smoker. Besides, it's not as if there are limited places to smoke.

"A person may begin to smoke to be considered "cool"; but later in life, they keep smoking to cut down on the stress and anxiety of not having a cigarette. By that time, health concerns for themselves and others go out the window."

-Once again, as I've cited, 77% of smokers have attempted to quit. Why support a habit that the smoker doesn't even wish to support? Just because our health concerns "go out the window" for that smoker we should reduce the tax and limit the areas we ban from smoking? Workplaces and resttaraunt have a responsibility to their employees and customers to provide a safe environment, and limiting smoking to certain places is a part of this duty. Besides these are unwarranted statements, most smokers I've been around have shown enough concern to ask if it bothers anyone, or they simply go to smoke somewhere else regardless of whether they have to or not.

"All I am saying is, if the government is going tag on a high tax onto already high prices, they should at least give the people a place to smoke."

-You said it yourself, these people have a place to smoke! Smoking areas are provided by most restaraunts and workplaces in the first places, it's just that they are away from the places that are meant for the general public or employees. Preventing the harm to others should be worth the minute walk to a smoking area. If a smoker is willing to pay the high price, they will be willing to walk the distance allocated for smokers.

Seeing as all of my arguments and statistics still stand, I urge the readers to consider all the arguments presented, and vote neg.
Debate Round No. 2
jordanbs

Pro

jordanbs forfeited this round.
mdb2290

Con

Thanks for the debate. Please don't vote on opinion alone readers. 100 characters 100 characters 100 characters 100 characters 100 characters 100 characters 100 characters
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TeaandScarves 9 years ago
TeaandScarves
I'm glad you argued this well mdb. I wanted to take it up myself but I unfortunately did not have the time.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
jordanbsmdb2290Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by TeaandScarves 9 years ago
TeaandScarves
jordanbsmdb2290Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
jordanbsmdb2290Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
jordanbsmdb2290Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by stevster 9 years ago
stevster
jordanbsmdb2290Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03